Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

Time and Mind: The Journal of Beads and Cognitive Archaeology, Evolution Consciousness and Culture Robert G. Bednarik Volume I—Issue III November 2008 pp. 285–318 Robert G. Bednarik specializes in the origins of human DOI constructs of reality, cognitive archaeology, rock art dating, 10.2752/175169708X329354 and microscopic studies, and he has conducted extensive Reprints available directly fieldwork in all continents except Antarctica. He is the Editor from the publishers and Permanent Convener of the International Federation of Rock Art Organizations (IFRAO), and the founder, Editor, and Photocopying permitted by Secretary of the Australian Rock Art Research Association licence only (AURA). He edits three scientific journals and three series of © Berg 2008 monographs. His over 1,000 articles and books include over 450 works in refereed scientific journals, and have appeared in 32 languages. [email protected] Abstract The study of human evolution has largely focused on skeletal developments and on the stone tools of successive technological traditions. The cultural and cognitive evolution of hominins has been comparatively neglected. Here it is proposed that beads and pendants provide some of the most reliable evidence for our non- physical (cognitive) evolution. The available corpus of such finds from the Middle and Late Pleistocene periods is presented and reviewed. It is shown to demonstrate not only the use of complex symbolisms several hundred millennia ago, but also the application of concepts of perfection and self-awareness. This finding agrees with other indicators of hominin cognition, but it clashes with the dominant notion that “modern” human faculties appeared with a hypothetical replacement of Europeans by Africans just 40,000 years ago. This notion is reviewed and shown to be based on fake datings and misidentifications of numerous human fossils, on questionable genetic contentions, and on inadequate consideration of the available empirical evidence. Keywords: Bead, human evolution, cognition, replacement model, symbolism, human modernity Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 286 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik Introduction The long-range model, while favored There is a tendency in palaeoanthropology by most linguists who have considered to overemphasize empirical data at the this topic (Bickerton 1990, 1996; Aitchison expense of theory building. What are 1996; Dunbar 1996), enjoys little support perceived to be facts are considered a from archaeologists. It postulates a very better source of knowledge than “theories.” significantly longer use of symbolism by Despite a powerful, overarching conceptual hominins, at the very minimum in the order framework (i.e., evolutionary biology), much of several hundred millennia, but more research on the origins of “anatomically probably one million years or more. Thus modern humans” is “undertheorized,” there is a significant difference between and fails to appreciate or understand that these two incompatible paradigms. The “facts” are theory laden, and theories are short-range model attributes symbolism, typically underdetermined. These essentially and all it entails, solely to what has often epistemological issues underlie much of been described as “anatomically modern the controversy surrounding our cognitive humans,” or Homo sapiens sapiens, or simply as well as physical origins. Yet there is no “Moderns” (Gamble 1994). It declares consensus in contemporary archaeology categorically that earlier hominins possessed of how, where and, especially, when key neither language, art-like products, social developments such as symboling began. This systems, self-awareness, nor even proper has led to the emergence of two mutually culture. These certainties are not based exclusive schools of thought, which are best on what is often called the “archaeological described as a short-range and a long-range record”, but on the very strong postulates of model. Few if any researchers occupy the the “African Eve” model (also called “Garden middle ground between them. According of Eden,” “replacement,” or “punctuated to the currently dominant short-range equilibrium” model), and several variants model, the earliest evidence we possess of called “Afro-European sapiens hypothesis,” human symbolism is in the forms of art and “wave theory,” and “assimilation theory;” indications of language ability. No art-like the latter are really just variations of the productions are recognized by the model’s multiregional theory (see Relethford 2001; advocates of an age exceeding 32,000 Relethford and Jorde 1999). Accordingly, or 35,000 years, and the earliest available “Moderns” evolved in genetic isolation in language evidence is contended to be the sub-Saharan Africa, some time between 200 first successful colonization of Australia, and 100 ka ago. They then began a migration thought to have occurred perhaps 60,000 across Africa and out of Africa, reaching years (60 ka) ago. This school of thought is the Levant by 100 ka ago, and colonizing probably most coherently articulated in the Asia and Australia by 60 ka bp (before the work of Davidson and Noble (1989, 1990, present time), and Europe some 25 ka later. 1992; Noble and Davidson 1996; Davidson In the process, they either out-competed or 1997). It categorically denies the possibility exterminated all resident human populations, of human symboling abilities beyond, say, 80 wherever they went, and always without ka ago. interbreeding with them. By about 28 ka bp, Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 287 all other human populations had become often the case. Natural surface markings of extinct, by one means or another, and the portable objects of various types have been genetically pure, victorious “Moderns” had misinterpreted as meaningful engravings taken over the world. in literally thousands of cases worldwide. I Here I will consider one of the most have examined and rejected hundreds of important empirical sources concerning instances (600 in China alone). By far the the cognitive evolution of hominins—beads most common examples are objects of bone, and pendants. A cardinal error of the limestone, ivory, and ostrich eggshell, which supporters of replacement and indeed of I have shown to bear mycorrhizal grooves the remaining “out of Africa” hypotheses, that may resemble engravings (Bednarik is that it is assumed that beads, like other 1992a). Bone fragments often bear markings forms of palaeoart, are entirely limited to made by animal canines, by gastric acids “anatomically modern humans.” (e.g. of hyenas), or by other taphonomic The importance of beads is that, first, agents of various types (trampling, sediment their use demonstrates self-consciousness movement, solifluction, cryoturbation, etc.). with all its implications, itself an important Another very common example is that of factor in cognitive evolution. But they also perforated bone fragments and shells, which demand the existence and communication some archaeologists have interpreted as of complex symbolic meanings, without anthropic products—intentionally made by which beads are of no use. Whatever their humans. Bones can be perforated by animal practical purpose may have been (decorative, teeth and corrosive agents; gastropod shells communicative, emblemic, economic, are commonly bored through by parasitic protective, commemorative, ideological, etc.), organisms. Similarly, natural surface markings their function was always deeply symbolic; on rock have often been archaeologically they demonstrate essentially modern misinterpreted, and again I have corrected cognition, irrespective of considerations of more such instances than anyone, in which physical evolution or technology. Therefore, either natural markings were identified as in gaining an initial access to a benchmark rock art, or rock art as natural markings in our cognitive evolution—and thus in (Bednarik 1994a). deciding which of the two basic models must Some commentators on the issue of be false—few classes of evidence can be as whether perforations of Pleistocene objects crucial as beads. This should prompt us to were natural or artificial apparently make look for the earliest evidence of bead use. a fundamental error of logic (d’Errico and Villa 1997). They seem to believe that, in Beads of the Middle Pleistocene order to be considered to have been used Fortunately, the secure identification of beads as a bead, a perforated object must have and pendants is largely uncontroversial. been made by humans. Any consideration One of the principal arguments leveled of the kinds of objects used as ethnographic against evidence suggestive of very early beads will readily show this to be false. The symbolism is that there are perfectly valid correct logic is that one may be able to alternative explanations. This is indeed demonstrate the use of a bead in some cases Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 288 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik from microscopic evidence (Bednarik 1997a, of pendants can often be observed on 2005), but one can never demonstrate that archaeological specimens, including those any perforated small object found in an made of stone (Bednarik 1997a), and is also occupation layer was not used as a bead. In quite typical. view of the widespread use of beads today, An example of such complete lack of and the frequency with which they are lost, ambiguity is that of disc beads

Load more