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, 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 , 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 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 made from and considering further that beads were in ostrich eggshell. These are extremely use for some hundreds of millennia (as we common in the ethnography of southern shall see below), almost certainly in large African people (Woodhouse 1997), and in quantities, it is very much more likely than the archaeological record they are found not that most perforated objects found in an from there to China and Siberia (Bednarik occupation layer were used as beads. The 1993a). The ostrich (Struthio camelus ssp.), fact that we cannot prove that a naturally now extinct in Asia, was widespread in perforated, bead-like object was used as much of Africa and Asia to the end of the a bead should not prompt us simply to Pleistocene, even into the Holocene (at exclude it from consideration. least in Arabia; Bednarik and Khan 2005). Its The outstanding characteristic of eggshell was used widely, as containers and manufactured beads and pendants is that as decorative material. In southern Africa, their archaeological identification is usually such use extends from the present back to unambiguous, which one cannot always say the Middle Stone Age (MSA). Decorated about other classes of symbolism evidence. fragments have been reported from the Small objects, drilled through with stone Howieson’s Poort phase in Apollo 11 , tools, could be either beads or pendants, (Wendt 1974), from the MSA of or they could be small utilitarian objects Dieplkloof Cave in the southwestern Cape such as buckles or pulling handles, or the area (Beaumont 1992), and as beads from quangings (pulling handles used in sealing) Bushman Shelter in Transvaal (Woodhouse of the Inuit (Boas 1888: Figs 15, 17, 121d; 1997), both in , and from White Nelson 1899: Pl. 17; Kroeber 1900: Fig. 8). Paintings Rockshelter in the Hills, Such utilitarian objects are generally of (Morris 2000); and two ostrich- distinctive shape, use-wear, and material; they eggshell beads and several fragments, MSA need to be very robust. Small objects that but undated, presumed between 45 and were drilled through either in the center or 280 ka, are from Loiyangalani River Valley close to one end (e.g. teeth perforated near (Serengeti National Park, ). Some the root), that are too small or too fragile of these may be up to 80 ka old, and many to be utilitarian objects, and that lack the more recent traditions have used such typical wear patterns of such articles, can disc beads. Then there is a broken circular be safely assumed to be beads or pendants. ostrich-eggshell pendant, 3 cm in diameter The evidence that they were drilled with a and with a central perforation, from Bed 9 stone tool is often indicated by a distinctive containing “Late Pietersburg” plus segments bi-conical and ‘”machined” section and at the Cave of Hearths (Mason 1988), sometimes by rotation striae. The wear with an estimated age of 76 ka on the basis

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 289

of dates for comparable Stratum 1 RGBS southern Siberia (Krasnyi Yar, Trans-Baykal). lithics at (Grün and Beaumont Of a significantly greater antiquity are 2001). the more than forty similar ostrich-eggshell In Tunisia and , Capsian occupation beads from El Greifa site E, in Wadi el Adjal, deposits have yielded ostrich-eggshell beads (Bednarik 1997a). They come from a frequently, and these date from the very early substantial sequence of Acheulian occupation Holocene. In , 41 Late Pleistocene sites deposits representing many millennia of have produced ostrich-eggshell fragments, continuous occupation of a littoral site, on and radiocarbon dates derived from such the shore of the huge Fezzan Lake of the fragments range from 39 to 25 ka (Kumar et Pleistocene. This site has exceptionally good al. 1988). At two sites, Patne and Bhimbetka, preservation conditions, with insect remains a few disc beads have been found (Bednarik and seeds found together with bone. The 1993a, 1993b). The two specimens from typical Late Acheulian stone tool forms, Bhimbetka come from the neck region of including “handaxes,” confirm the dating of a human burial, which suggests that they the occupation strata by Th/U analysis to may have formed part of a necklace (Figure about 200 ka. These are the earliest known 1a–c). Similar beads occur in the Gobi desert, secure disc beads in the world, and there where they are found among the occupation can be no reasonable doubt that they are remains of an Epipalaeolithic or even indeed man-made beads, and not some Mesolithic tool tradition usually named after chance product of nature (Figure 1d–f). the site of Shabarak-usu (Bednarik and You Only three specimens were initially found, 1991). Further finds of ostrich-eggshell disc but recent work yielded many more and beads, of roughly similar age (final Pleistocene has demonstrated the greatest accumulation to early Holocene), have also been reported of stone dwellings found from the Lower from Inner (Hutouliang) and Palaeolithic (Ziegert 2007).

Fig 1 Pleistocene ostrich eggshell beads from India (a–c) and Libya (d–f). The three lower specimens are of the Acheulian.

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 290 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

Fig 2 Pendant from the Repolusthöhle in , late Lower or early Middle . Wolf incisor, perforated near its root.

However, the Libyan beads may well be Dr. Rigollot also mentions the occurrence exceeded in age by many other finds, in the gravel of round pieces of hard such as the two pendants from one of the chalk, pierced through with a hole, which occupation layers in the Repolusthöhle, in the he considers were used as beads. The Austrian Alps. A wolf incisor is perforated author found several, and recognized in near its root, and a flaked bone point near them a small fossil sponge, the Coscinopora its corner (Figure 2). These specimens globularis, D’Orb., from the chalk, but does occurred together with a large but non- not feel quite satisfied about their artificial diagnostic stone tool assemblage (Mottl dressing. Some specimens do certainly 1951), variously described as Levalloisian, appear as though the hole had been Tayacian, and Clactonian, three rather vaguely enlarged and completed. defined Lower Palaeolithic industries. There is no radiometric dating available, but the But these finds were soon forgotten, as accompanying faunal remains imply an age implied by Smith (1894) who presented of about 300 ka, especially through the similar specimens from England but made phylogeny of ursine species. The assemblage no mention of the French ones. All these is separated from an overlying “Aurignacian” finds remained largely ignored until 2003 (probably an Olschewian) by substantial (but see Keeley 1980: 164; Roe 1981: 281, stadial clastic deposits. Pl. 38; Marshack 1991), when I examined a The first reports of Palaeolithic stone total of 325 specimens labeled Coscinopora tools, by Boucher de Perthes (1846), already globularis, all collected in Acheulian deposits made mention of the occurrence of centrally in and England before the early perforated fossils together with Lower twentieth century. The most secure Palaeolithic “handaxes” at the type-site of component of this resource is that of the St. Acheul in France. This was confirmed by 59 specimens from the Acheulian of the Prestwich (1859: 52): Biddenham quarry at Bedford. All these

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 291

beads had in fact been misidentified, being with their tunnels permanently aligned to of the species Porosphaera globularis Phillips have become worn that way. Such consistent 1829, a Cretaceous sponge (Bednarik wear patterns cannot be explained as natural 2005). I demonstrated analytically that the phenomena: the beads can only have been specimens had been collected by humans, subjected to this wear through hominin that many of them had been modified, and intervention. Moreover, P. globularis range that many others bore extensive wear from in size from under 1 mm to about 50 mm; having been threaded on a string and worn only about a quarter of them are reasonably for many years (as determined by wear globular in shape; only 14 percent show facets externally around the tunnel orifices any tunneling at all; and only a tiny fraction rather than within the tunnels). The tunnels of these are tunneled right through, or to through these perforated silica fossils are within a couple of millimeters (Nestler largely natural phenomena, but they have 1961). Yet all specimens recovered from often also been modified by human agency Acheulian contexts are near-globular, fully (Figure 3). The wear facets are always of a perforated, and typically ranging from 10 to notably lighter color, and significantly they 18 mm diameter. It is then obvious that on never bear any taphonomic markings as the basis of size, shape, and perforation, the inevitably present on the rest of the surfaces probability that they are anything other than of these fossil casts. It is evident that all worn a deliberately collected sample is almost specimens were worn only in two areas: next zero. If we add to this the clear evidence of to, and surrounding the two tunnel openings. anthropic modification (Bednarik 2005: Fig. Only one type of abrasive wear can account 7) and the common occurrence of wear for such consistently typical wear patterning: facets, it becomes obvious that these fossils the siliceous stones must have been arranged are not only beads, but also that they were

Fig 3 Six Acheulian beads made from Porosphaera globularis fossils. Note the very heavy wear that resulted in a distinct wedge shape on (b), the thin centric wear facets on (a) and (c), and the light-colored, distinctly asymmetric major wear facet on (d). Specimen (e) is fractured, and (f) shows very little use wear.

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 292 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

worn on strings for very long periods of distinctive Middle Palaeolithic roots (the time—certainly for many years in some Streletskian, resembling the Szeletian), has cases, when more than a third of the original yielded more beads from just three graves bead volume had been worn off in this way. than the remaining Pleistocene of the entire Perforated fossils have also been found in world, the extent of taphonomic distortion the Acheulian of , from which Goren- becomes evident. The three burials at Sungir, Inbar et al. (1991) report the occurrence perhaps in the order of 28 ka old, yielded of fossil crinoids, although no wear traces 13,113 tiny ivory beads and more than 250 are reported. This raises the question perforated fox teeth (Bader 1978). This of how widespread the use of beads or should be seen as a preservational fluke, and pendants could have been in the Lower as an indication that the few earlier beads Palaeolithic, and how far back it could have we have from the previous several hundred extended in time. We cannot answer millennia represent all that we have managed this by archaeological observation and to recover from the astronomical numbers reasoning alone, but a credible scenario can of beads made in the Lower and Middle be provided by taphonomic logic (Bednarik Palaeolithic. Taphonomic logic demands this 1994b). If the earliest-found representatives (Bednarik 1994b: Fig. 2). of a class of material evidence are among the most deterioration-resistant types of Beads of the Late Pleistocene that class, then the probability of significantly Misunderstandings and misinterpretations older, less resistant types is very high indeed. have bedeviled not only the beads or Ethnographic beads are often made of pendants of the Middle Pleistocene, but also perishable materials, such as seeds of fish those of the subsequent period. For instance vertebrae, and materials like ostrich eggshell there has recently been a great overemphasis can only survive in high-pH soils. A significant on the forty-one perforated snail shells observation we can make from the available (Nassarius kraussianus) from , finds of Middle Pleistocene beads is that they South Africa, of the MSA and about 75 ka are extremely rare, and that they are widely old. In this it is not only ignored that much separated, both chronologically and spatially. older finds are available, as listed above, but But beads cannot, by definition, occur in also that there are much better made bead isolation. To possess and convey meaning, specimens that need to be attributed to they need to occur in large number in any Robusts rather than Graciles (“Moderns”). society that uses them, because symbolic Here I will attempt to present a more meaning can only be conferred by repeated balanced, if brief, overview. and “structured” use. Therefore we need to The two perforated Conus bairstowi assume that we are dealing with a severely seashells, one with the BC3 burial, from truncated record here, a phenomenon stratum IRGBS, of the MSA (Howieson’s whose taphonomic threshold is much more Poort) in Border Cave (Beaumont et al. recent, certainly within the Holocene. When 1992), are about the same age as the we bear in mind that one single site in , Blombos find (dated by AAR and ESR; Miller of an Early Upper Palaeolithic tradition with et al. 1999; Grün and Beaumont 2001).

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 293

The perforated shell from Oued Djebanna, thought to be about 110 ka old (Narr 1951). Algeria, is probably older, being of the “early Marshack (1991) has provided satisfactory Late Pleistocene” (McBrearty and Brooks evidence that the perforation is anthropic. 2000). A similar antiquity is suggested for From the same site comes an artificially the four deliberately drilled quartzite flakes perforated wolf metapodium (Marshack from Debenath, ; as well as for a bone 1991). Following Davidson’s (1990) claim pendant from Grotte Zouhra, that the hole is the product of gnawing, (ibid.). Marshack has again provided convincing Europe, too, offers many perforated small evidence that the perforation is human items likely to have been pendants or beads, made. Then there are the 111 perforated and attributable to Robusts (Neanderthaloid, phalangi of Saiga tatarica from the Micoquian i.e. either of Homo sapiens neanderthalens of Prolom 2, Crimean Peninsula (Stepanchuk or of what I call “Post-Neanderthals:” 1993). Although here proof has not been see below). To begin with those of the provided that the perforations are intentional, Micoquian, we have the artificially perforated it would seem unusual for there to be such wolf vertebra, Bocksteinschmiede, , a large number of identical bones with

Fig 4 Two ivory ring fragments, two perforated animal canines and a fossil shell with an artificial groove for attachment. Châtelperronian, , Arcy-sur-Cure, France. These objects were used, and almost certainly made, by Neanderthals.

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 294 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

Fig 5 Beads and pendants from Kostenki 17, Russia, probably made by Neanderthaloid people.

identical taphonomic marks, particularly as color (belemnite), and three stone objects, the occupation site has also yielded portable including one large, elongated, and well-made engravings. The two perforated canines from pendant (Figure 5). All holes are distinctly the Bachokirian of are considerably conical or bi-conical in section, and the more recent (Marshack 1991), and there is rotation marks are clearly visible, often to the also a spindle-shaped bone pendant, all from naked eye, or at least under the microscope. level 11 of Bacho Kiro. In the hole of the large pendant (object The numerous Châtelperronian palaeoart m), even the wear of the suspending string objects of the Grotte du Renne at Arcy- remains clearly discernible. sur-Cure, France, are well known, and A partly perforated fox canine comes since 1979 it has also been appreciated also from the Mousterian of , that they are presumably the work of France (Martin 1907–10; Marshack 1991), “Neanderthals” (Figure 4). However, it has together with a perforated reindeer escaped the attention of many that the phalanx (Marshack 1976). Bordes (1969) thirteen artificially perforated objects from has reported a further bone pendant the lower occupation layer at Kostenki 17, of the Mousterian from Pech de l’Azé, Russia (Praslov and Rogachev 1982), below a also in France, and Baldeon (1993) notes volcanic deposit of the Campanian ignimbrite the occurrence of drilled phalanges and eruption (Fedele and Giaccio 2007), also a perforated cranial fragment from the derives from a transitional or Early Upper Mousterian of Lezetxiki, . Conversely, Palaeolithic (EUP) tradition, which has early perforated shells have been reported elsewhere yielded both robust and gracile from other sites, even from Australia (at specimens. Stratum 2 of Kostenki 17, a Mandu Mandu Creek rockshelter), where Spitzinian occupation, yielded three polar fox jthe Middle Palaeolithic or mode 3 canine pendants, three perforated gastropod technology continued to the mid-Holocene shells, four fossil objects of translucent amber (Morse 1993).

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 295

If we add to this list of probable beads and much the same can be said about or pendants made either by Robusts or by central and western Europe. A second people of essentially mode 3 technologies major body of beads occurs about the same the many ostrich-eggshell specimens listed time in the west. These are mostly ivory above, we realize that we already have a beads, like the bulk of those at Sungir, and large corpus of such material. But a very White (1993) has described in detail the much greater body of the Late Pleistocene process of mass-producing them. There are still needs to be considered. We have more than 1,000 Aurignacian ivory beads noted that the 13,370 or so beads found from several French sites (Brassempouy, in just three Streletskian interments at Saint-Jean-de-Verges, Isturitz, La Souquette, Sungir, near Moscow, relate to a stone- Castanet, and Blanchard), made from rods, tool technology that is far from mode 4 and similar beads from Spy (), while (pure ‘Upper Palaeolithic’). The Streletskian a different type occurs at Geißenklösterle remains dominated by bifacial artifacts are in Germany. Traditionally the Aurignacian inspired by the still contemporary Eastern has been regarded as an industry of Micoquian or Mousterian in parts of Russia. anatomically modern humans, just as the Indeed, the regions of the Don river, the roughly contemporary Châtelperronian was Crimea, and northern Caucasus experience mistakenly attributed to “Moderns.” With the coexistence of seven accepted tool the recent redating of numerous European traditions between 36 ka and 28 ka BP: human fossils, it has now become evident the Mousterian, Micoquian, Spitzinian, that we have six cases of direct association Streletskian, Gorodtsovian, Eastern Szeletian, between Neanderthaloid remains and and Aurignacian (Krems-Dufour variant). EUP occupations, but not a single one of The introduction of a first fully developed fully modern human remains with any EUP ‘Upper Palaeolithic’ tradition (the Kostenkian) tradition, including the Aurignacian (Bednarik appears only about 24 ka at the Kostenki- 2006, 2007, 2008a). Therefore it appears Borshevo site complex. Clearly there is a that all EUP “cultures” of Europe relate to continuation and very gradual change from Robusts, including “Neanderthals” or “Post- mode 3 technologies that takes at least ten Neanderthals.” millennia, marked by numerous occurrences Until quite recently many commentators of beads and other material interpreted as claimed that the occasional use of “symbolic” body ornaments (White 1993). In Siuren 1 material like pendants by “Neanderthals” (units G, H), “Aurignacians” and “Micoquians” indicated that such objects were “scavenged” occupied the site alternatively (Demidenko from the living sites of “Moderns,” which I 2000). At Buran-Kaya 3, level B, a Micoquian considered to be illogical: what possible use assemblage overlies the “Upper Palaeolithic” could symbolic artifacts have to people who Szeletian industry of level C (Marks 1998). had no comprehension of symbolism? The None of the seven traditions of opposite, now, appears to be more realistic southern Russia can be clearly and or logical: the majority of beads and pendants consistently identified as being the work of of the Late Pleistocene were made by unambiguously anatomically modern humans, Robusts, and the practice declined with the

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 296 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

gracilization of Europeans toward the end of includes the collection of crystals, fossils, the Pleistocene. and red pigment (Bednarik 2003a), besides language use implied by maritime navigation Making Beads (Bednarik 1999). A variety of birds, most In exploring the symbolic significance of notably the Australian bowerbirds, collect beads, archaeologists are likely to mention colorful or shiny objects; some even erect their occurrence in burials, or relate them display structures and paint them with plant to “decoration.” What does it mean that juices. The question arises, was the hominin a particular condition is perceived as behavior qualitatively different from that to “decorative?” Does a nonhuman animal be observed in such birds? We can assume, perceive beads, or cicatrices, body painting, through the evidence that these hominins or tattoos on a human body as “decorative?” navigated the sea, that they had some form Probably not. So this is very likely an of “reflective” language. By 300 or 200 ka anthropocentric perception, and is perhaps ago, at the latest (but probably much earlier), not likely to be shared by either other their symbolic abilities had evolved to the animals or a hypothetical visitor from outer point at which they produced rock art, space. portable art, and beads. Of these forms of Beads, whether sewn on apparel or worn symbolic products, beads seem to tell us the on strings, have symbolic meanings that most. are far removed from simplistic Western First, there are the purely technological empiricism. They, or pendants, may for aspects. To make a bead one has to, in most instance be protective, warding off evil cases, be able to drill through an object, to spirits or spells, or they can be good luck thread a string through the hole, and to charms. They can signify status, and convey fasten the ends of the string, presumably complex social, economic, emblemic, ethnic, by knots. To persist with such a complex or ideological meanings, or any subtle process of manufacture, one must have combinations of them. Their meanings can a mental construct of the end product, be public or private, but they may be difficult and a desire to acquire what is clearly a to convey to an alien researcher, and they nonutilitarian artifact. To be more precise, could never be analyzed archaeologically. the bead is such an artifact, but the string How would an interstellar visitor interpret is not, being utilitarian. The latter is merely the carved ivory figurines of an incomplete a means of permitting the bead to fulfill its chess set? If his anthropology were as nonutilitarian role. So we have here not only simplistic as ours he might well explain a combination of diverse artifacts, but also a its knights as evidence of an equine cult. hierarchy of diverse concepts of relating to It is at this level that most interpreting of them. The primary imperative, presumably, Pleistocene symbolism has occurred, which I is to display the bead to its best advantage; find quite unsatisfactory. the secondary intent is to find a means of At least some symbolic systems must doing so. Now, a piece of ostrich eggshell have been available to hominins by 850 can be worn on a string without first drilling ka ago at the latest. The evidence for this a hole through it, so why bother with this

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 297

additional and very delicate work? This kind ago, even stone materials were perforated of exploration raises a whole swathe of by the Robusts, to be used as pendants. questions, and it is through it that the beads Early examples are the several items from begin to become alive with meaning and Kostenki 17, made from stone, fossil coral, significance. and belemnites (Bednarik 1995a: Fig. 4), and This logic-based interpretation needs to the broken specimen from Shiyu wenhua be underpinned by an intimate knowledge in central China (Figure 6). However, the of the technology involved, and for this sparse record available to us provides no purpose I have conducted extensive indication of an ‘evolution’ in the standard replicative experimentation with ostrich of workmanship. On the contrary, some eggshell (Bednarik 1992a, 1993a, 1993b, of the older examples are much better 1995a, 1997a). The results pertaining to disc produced than the more recent. The Libyan beads manufactured with Lower Palaeolithic Acheulian beads are more carefully made stone tools have been described in some than the Upper Palaeolithic specimens from detail—they are only briefly summarized India (Figure 1a–c). The perforation on the here. I found that the most effective way of Repolusthöhle tooth is significantly finer than producing precise replicas of Acheulian and the clumsily made holes in the two Bacho later Pleistocene ostrich-eggshell beads, using Kiro teeth, which are ‘merely’ 42 ka old such technology, is first to break the shell (Marshack 1991). There can be no doubt into polygonal fragments of 1–2 cm2 area. that even the earliest beads and pendants These are then drilled individually, from one currently available to us have involved a side only. Once the chert drill breaks through, great deal of skill and understanding of the hole is reamed out from the other side. The specimen is then firmly gripped between two fingers, and the excess area trimmed off, either by pressing the protruding part on its convex side against a stone surface, or by using one’s teeth as a vice. Once the excess material is snapped off, the bead blank is abraded on a coarse siliceous rock such as quartzite or silcrete. The beads from the Libyan Acheulian are of about 6 mm diameter, and I found that the average time of producing replicas of them is about 17 minutes, or about 25 minutes if the time of preparing and resharpening stone points is included (Bednarik 1997a: 33–6). An animal tooth, such as the wolf’s incisor from the Repolusthöhle, is much more Fig 6 Broken stone pebble pendant, drilled difficult to perforate. At the time of the through the center, from Shiyu wenhua, China. EUP technologies, between 45 and 30 ka From the Middle/ transition.

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 298 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

material properties in their production. The not just a well-developed sense of symmetry, hominins who made them were outstanding but a clearly defined concept of the perfect craftsmen. geometric form they aspired to. Of much greater significance, however, are This leads to several observations. Even the findings concerning the symbolic qualities if it is preferred to have a perforated bead, of the beads. In making many replicas of the this does not necessarily call for a central Acheulian ostrich-eggshell beads I discovered perforation. The rational explanation for that the smallest size to which such a bead the maker’s going to such lengths to abrade can realistically be ground down is about 6 the bead equidistantly is his or her sense of mm diameter. There are two reasons for perfection. This proposition is confirmed by this. First, as the size approaches this order the size of the beads. It seems self-defeating of magnitude, the disc becomes increasingly to make beads so small. If the purpose of difficult to hold between fingers, and as the a bead is to be seen, a large bead would finger tips are beginning to rub against the fulfill that role much better. Yet the labor grindstone as the bead becomes smaller, investment of making a very small bead is their skin is also abraded and the process significantly greater than that required for a becomes quite painful when making many large bead. Perhaps the most telling aspect beads, and my fingertips began bleeding of the production process is that the (the heishi technique was unknown in the Acheulian beads are, as noted already, of Acheulian; cf. Francis 1982a, 1982b, 1989). the smallest possible size in which these Second, since the diameter of the central objects can realistically be made. There hole can be no smaller than 1.4 to 2.0 mm, is a palpable impression that the primary it follows that the bead’s fragility increases objective was to push the available exponentially as the outside diameter of 6 technology to its very limits. It is from this mm is approached. This diameter represents perspective that we need to examine these the smallest size at which the bead remains symbolic objects, and the nature of their structurally strong enough to withstand semiotic function. some rough handling. I have established this Lower Palaeolithic hominins have few quantitatively, through controlled-destruction models of the form-concept that would experiments. underpin the mental template of a disc The next observation is even more bead. To our thinking, used to the idea of meaningful. The Acheulian beads are very the wheel, this is a great deal more familiar well made, with a near-perfect circular outer than it would have been to early humans. margin and an equally perfect rim thickness Of course they may have collected circular all around. In my replication work I found fossils such as those reported above, and that these precise forms can be achieved used them as beads. Perhaps this is how only intentionally, by constant checking of the the very concept came into being, and shape during the final abrading phase. It is the human-made disc beads were merely practically impossible to obtain such a perfect substitutes, in place of the fossils that were round shape and centrality of the perforation in short supply. Whatever the process by accident. This means that the makers had was, these hominins did possess a clear

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 299

concept, applied no doubt many thousands behavior patterns to hominins of the late of times, of a perfect geometric form that Lower Palaeolithic. had no practical value at all. It may sound To produce this purely symbolic object, provocative to say this, but they had in fact methods were required that may have developed the wheel without discovering its become available for nonutilitarian purpose, practical application. As one reams out the and to display it effectively, nonutilitarian perforation it is easiest to hold the reamer technology had to be engaged. Cordage still and rotate the disc around it, like a wheel. of some form was almost certainly used Similarly, the finished bead can be turned for a variety of other purposes (e.g. to around the string, or one can run it along construct rafts, which had been necessary a surface like a wheel by holding the string for the colonization of Wallacea almost a tautly. million years ago; Bednarik 1999), and a Naturally the hominins had no use string was threaded through the bead’s for wheels (or means of making large- perforation, and in some way fastened. So scale versions), but they may well have a whole interplay of different materials and been fascinated by their properties. They production tools came together, different certainly went to a great deal of effort to methods of technology, forms of procuration produce not just disc beads, but perfectly and maintenance, and all with one ultimate proportioned, “aesthetic” masterworks. Even purpose in mind: to lead to the display of as nonutilitarian objects, the beads did not a perfect, and perfectly useless, tiny object, need to be so well made. There is some probably together with many similar objects. special significance in this perfection, this If the beads were used in this way, which self-conscious display of ability. The seems highly probable, then their number perfection itself expresses it, it is itself a would invoke yet another message and symbol. Not only does the product no become another symbol. It would underline doubt have one or more cultural meanings the message of perfection, and add one of of a kind that will remain inaccessible to surplus energy. This is a far cry from the us, one meaning is not: the bead expresses bleak picture of a subsistence-level existence perfection, technological confidence, and archaeologists have always painted for early competence. Its perfection has become a hominins. symbol of achievement, and it is displayed to the beholder at least partly for this very Reviewing the African Eve Model reason. As an experienced maker of such The idea that symbolism was the exclusive beads I can see no other reason for wanting preserve of “Moderns,” that in fact the to create perfectly proportioned specimens faculties derived from symboling abilities of a demonstrably smallest possible size. were the principal factor in the evolutionary Occam’s Razor demands that there must success of “Moderns,” is in my view a have been a justification for this considerable major fallacy in Pleistocene archaeology. labor investment in artifacts that are of no According to this school of thought, all practical use or survival value. All of this earlier hominins lacked these abilities, and tends to attribute essentially modern human- consequently effective communication and

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 300 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

social structures that were so useful in the This scenario does not resemble effective colonization of the world through a realistic model of phylogenetic the progeny of Africa’s Eve. evolution or demographic population It is therefore essential to consider the dynamics. Illustrating what happens to a African Eve model before one can realistically noncompetitive population, it extols the reexamine the advent of human symboling virtues of competition, it explains and justifies abilities. It is, however, not the only relevant colonization as a historical phenomenon and issue. The second topic to be considered genocide as an inevitable process. It is thus here is the question of the type of evidence not just a simplistic and naive but harmless one needs to review to arrive at a realistic mythology: it can be used to underpin and perspective. Here, the two opposing schools legitimize quite insidious ideologies, by agree on some points, while disagreeing on appealing to “common sense” and prejudice. others. For instance, it seems to be widely Moreover, this model has dominated agreed that the ability to cross the ocean by archaeological thought for two decades, and means of a vessel is adequate evidence to has determined dogma and dictated research demonstrate the existence of an effective directions and priorities. communication system—particularly Yet the Eve or replacement model’s when the ocean crossing is followed by genetic justification is far from impeccable. the successful establishment of a new Different research teams have produced population. On the other hand, there is much different genetic distances in nuclear disagreement about the function or purpose DNA—i.e., the distances created by allele of many archaeological finds that have been frequencies that differ between populations suggested to indicate the use of art or (e.g. Vigilant et al. 1991; Barinaga 1992; symbolism. Ayala 1996; Brookfield 1997). Some The most obvious deductions to be geneticists concede that the model rests made from the Eve model are that our on untested assumptions; others even victorious ancestors first conquered the oppose it (cf. Barinaga 1992; Templeton world during the Final Pleistocene, that they 1996; Brookfield 1997). The various genetic were genetically so different from all their hypotheses about the origins of “Moderns” contemporaries that they were a separate that have appeared like mushrooms over species, unable to interbreed with any the past two decades place the hypothetical other humans. Therefore all extant human split between “Moderns” and other humans populations originate from a small, isolated at times ranging from 17 to 889 ka bp. population from some small part of Africa. They all depend upon preferred models of Indeed, ultimately they are all related to human demography, for which no sound one single female, dubbed Eve. They were data at all are available. This applies to the the only humans who ever succeeded claims concerning mitochondrial DNA in crossing that Rubicon between the (“African Eve”) as much as to those citing subhuman and the human, between instinct Y-chromosomes (“African Adam”). The and intelligence, between absence and divergence times projected from the presence of culture. diversity found in nuclear DNA, mtDNA,

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 301

and DNA on the nonrecombining part provides the only basis for the replacement of the Y-chromosome differ so much scenario is rejected when applied to other that a time regression of any type is now species. extremely problematic. Contamination Instead of unambiguously showing that of mtDNA with paternal DNA has been these “Moderns” originate conclusively in one demonstrated (Gyllensten et al. 1991), and region, Africa, all the available genetic data Kidd et al. (1996) have shown that, outside suggest that gene flow occurred in the Old Africa, the elements of which the haplotypes World hominins throughout recent human are composed largely remain linked in a evolution (Templeton 1996). Homo sapiens limited set of them. The genetic picture in sapiens has evolved as a single unit across Africa as well as outside of Africa has been much or most of the region then occupied found to be far more complicated than the by hominins, from southern Africa to eastern replacement proponents ever envisaged. Asia. Some of the most recent studies have Assumptions about a neutral mutation resulted in radically different views than rate are often unwarranted, and a constant those of the replacement protagonists, e.g. effective population size is extremely unlikely; that modern humans evolved from two and yet these variables determine the discrete populations, one resulting in modern outcomes of all the calculations. For instance, African, the other in non-Africans (Pennisi if the same divergence rate as one such 1999). This is confirmed by a comprehensive model assumes (2%–4% base substitutions study of teeth, which are considered per million years) is applied to the human- a reliable indicator of genetic distance chimpanzee genetic distance, it yields a (Martinón-Torres et al. 2007). In the absence divergence point of 2.1 to 2.7 million years, of any reliability of the proposed rates of which we consider to be unambiguously nucleotide changes and the many variables wrong. Nei (1987) suggests a much slower still to be accounted for effectively, the claims rate, 0.71% per million years, according to by the replacement advocates are premature, which the human-chimpanzee separation and nucleotide recombination renders their would have occurred 6.6 million years ago, views fundamentally redundant (Strauss which is close to the estimate from nuclear 1999). Moreover, the recent finding that DNA hybridization data, of 6.3 million DNA deteriorates rapidly after excavation, years. This would produce a divergence of and that most genetic material is lost through Moderns at 850 ka bp, over four times as treatment and storage, suggests that over- long ago as the favored models, but Nei reliance of museum specimens (such as has since abandoned his prediction. the Neanderthal remains) is misplaced Interestingly, when the same “genetic (Pruvost et al. 2007). Gutiérrez et al. (2002) clock” is applied to dogs, and suggests that have shown how much the Neanderthals the split between wolves and dogs occurred overlap genetically with anatomically modern 135 ka ago, archaeologists reject it on populations, and genetic studies of living the basis that there is no palaeontological populations, which are much more reliable, evidence for dogs prior to about 14 ka bp. have demonstrated that both Europeans In other words, the weak theory that and Africans retained significant alleles from

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 302 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

multiple robust populations (Hardy et al. 2005; “demise” of the Neanderthals significantly Garrigan et al. 2005; cf. Templeton 2005). (Cabrera Valdés and Bischoff 1989; Bischoff The archaeological evidence is even et al. 1994). From Senftenberg in Austria more unambiguous (Duff et al 1992; we have even earlier carbon dates from Bednarik 1995b). If there had been a mass an Aurignacoid occupation (Felgenhauer migration out of Africa, by a technologically, et al. 1959: 60). The Châtelperronian of cognitively, and intellectually superior human France, an Upper Palaeolithic culture, was a species, one would expect to find their tradition of “Neanderthals,” and it included arrival marked by a new technology, new the production of complex symbolic tools, new types of subsistence extraction artifacts, such as beads and pendants, as we methods, and so forth. There is not one have seen. The same applies to the superb iota of evidence, anywhere in the world, that beads and pendants of the Spitzinian. The would suggest the arrival of any innovation Robusts used dwellings similar to those coinciding with the arrival of Eve’s supposed of Upper Palaeolithic peoples in Russia progeny. On the contrary, there is ample and the Ukraine (such as the mammoth- evidence that, wherever the supposedly bone huts), and there is ample evidence, Moderns appeared and coexisted, often in eastern as well as central and southern for long time spans, with archaic Homo Europe, for a continuous technological as sapiens (such as Neanderthaloids and well as phylogenetic evolution of humans other Robusts), they invariably adopted from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic times the lifestyle and technology of the resident (Bednarik 1995c). There are numerous finds archaic populations. This applies at least of intermediate hominins, displaying both in the Levant and southwestern Europe, archaic sapienoid and anatomically modern central Europe, eastern Europe, and characteristics, including those from Mladecˇ eastern Asia, as well as in various regions Cave, Krapina, , Hahnöfersand, of Africa and in Australia. Moreover, there Lagar Velho, Crete, Starosel’e, Rozhok, is no indication that Upper Palaeolithic Akhshtyr’, Romankovo, Samara, Sungir’, technology could have been imported Podkumok, Khvalynsk, Skhodnya, Narmada, through northern Africa. On the contrary, Jinniushan, and other sites. These range in the MSA of sub-Saharan Africa, where age from the late Middle Pleistocene to Eve’s “tribe” is supposed to have evolved the Holocene (Hahnöfersand, Drigge) in total genetic isolation, continues right up and show either that there is no genetic to 20 ka, and there is certainly no trace of separation of Robusts (or Archaics) and a superior technology moving northward. Graciles (or Moderns); or that Robusts Upper Palaeolithic traditions first appear (including Neanderthaloids) have contributed between 50 and 40 ka ago in southern to the subsequent human populations Siberia, at sites such as Makarovo 4/6 and (Roginsky et al. 1954; Yakimov 1980; Kara Bom, and seem to be a technological Gutiérrez et al. 2002). The sapienization response to relatively cold environments. (gracilization) process in human evolution Their advent in Spain between 45 and 40 ka occurred not in one region, or in one closed ago (El Castillo, Abric Romani) predates the population, but probably widely across the

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 303

Old World, even in relatively isolated regions Upper Palaeolithic occupations is limited to a such as Australia. few western European sites, whereas in Precisely the same can be observed most of Eurasia, there is a gradual with the development of technology, technological evolution (Bednarik 1995c), wherever populations were not isolated and nothing to indicate the sudden by barriers such as high sea levels, deserts, appearance of a new strain of people, least mountains, or glaciers. For instance, in central of all one from Africa. Europe, technological traditions such as the The discovery of what has been Bohunician (intermediate between a Levallois claimed to be a common ancestor of both Mousterian and an Aurignacian; Svoboda Neanderthals and Moderns at Atapuerca in 1993), the Szeletian (an EUP industry Spain (Arsuaga et al. 1993) only confirms with distinct features of the Micoquian; the close relationship between the two Allsworth-Jones 1986) and Olschewian hypothetical groups. I say “hypothetical” (an archaic Aurignacian found mostly in because we lack any real proof that cave bear lairs; Bayer 1929) show through Neanderthals differed from Moderns in their intermediate characteristics that the any way other than some skeletal features, Upper Palaeolithic was not imported, but and they were certainly a form of Homo that it developed locally and gradually. More sapiens. The most probable explanation importantly, no anatomically fully modern for their archaic features is that at certain human remains have ever been found with times, determined by the periodic times any of the more than dozen EUP traditions of cold climate, European populations of Europe, including the Aurignacian, but became isolated from the main body of these cultures have yielded at least six Old World hominins. The type fossils Neanderthaloid specimens (Bednarik 1995b, of the Neanderthals, the late “classical 2006, 2007). Therefore a key postulate of Neanderthals,” are far from being typical the replacement advocates in Europe, that specimens. They probably represent the Aurignacian is of “Moderns,” lacks any regressive marginal and inland populations sound evidence. In eastern Europe, the (since we have no evidence whatsoever of corresponding Streletskian and Spitzinian the coastal half of the world’s Pleistocene exhibit similar technological patterns, human population, be it skeletal, cultural with the former especially showing a long or technological), and to use their very persistence of distinctive Mousterian traits fragmentary DNA data, as has been (these intermediate industries, in general, attempted, to explore the evolutionary being between 40 and 32 ka old, even history of the human mainstream population younger in the east), while at the same time of Africa and Asia is futile (cf. Pruvost et al. yielding vast numbers of beads as we have 2007). The DNA of the original specimen seen. A similar pattern still persists in eastern from the of the Asia, for instance in the two substantial Neander valley probably tells us nothing intermediate occupation layers of Shiyu in about the origins of extant humans. China (Bednarik and You 1991). Thus the To survive, the replacement model picture of a sudden change from Middle to has to deny any knowledge of evidence

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 304 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

suggestive of complex technologies and, the use of nonlithic materials, but also the most particularly, of symboling abilities prior questions of procuring all materials used, to, in Europe, 40 ka ago. It has done this their transport, curation, storage, processing, by several strategies, all of which are now preparation, manufacture, and maintenance. becoming undone. First, most reports of The very significant underrepresentation advanced hominin abilities predating the of artifacts from relatively perishable advent of “Moderns” have been rejected out materials has prompted distorted of hand, either as being unreliable or as being technological characterizations of Lower susceptible to alternative explanations. Those Palaeolithic traditions. For instance, bone, finds that could not be swept under the ivory, fiber, leather, or wood are poorly carpet were grudgingly accepted as flukes, represented, if at all—although there are in as the work of unusually gifted individuals, fact far more wooden finds from the Lower even as evidence of “running ahead of time” Palaeolithic than from the Upper Palaeolithic. in human development (Vishnyatsky 1994). The technology of Lower Palaeolithic Their claimed small number was often cited woodworking has never been examined as being enough reason to ignore them in a consistent and comprehensive fashion, (Chase and Dibble 1987; Davidson and even though we know that the period’s Noble 1989). When in response it was stone tools were primarily used to work pointed out that their number was actually wood (Keeley 1977). The same applies to very much greater than assumed (Bednarik the Middle Palaeolithic (Beyries 1988). For 1992b), the response was that this still made instance, microwear studies by Anderson- no difference to interpretation. Gerfaud (1980, 1990) of lithics from Pech de l’Azé, Corbiac, and other sites showed Technologies before Eve that only about 10 percent were used for A balanced model of human cultural working hides, while the majority served to evolution can only be gained from an fashion wooden objects. There can be no unbiased study of the technology and doubt that astronomical numbers of wooden symbolic evidence of hominins. As soon tools and weapons were made before the as we consider the technological evidence Upper Palaeolithic, but almost none survived of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic from the Middle Palaeolithic. From the periods, we encounter a significant bias Lower Palaeolithic, we have a minute sample, of preservation—but not of preservation but even this has not been considered in alone. Practically all publications about a collective technological perspective. An very early technology deal primarily with example of sophisticated woodworking stone implements, which is a result of from the Lower Palaeolithic is the Acheulian taphonomically imposed limitations. This plank of willow wood, shaped and bearing limits our knowledge of technology very anthropic polish, at least 240 ka old, from significantly, because in reality, stone tools Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel (Belitzky et al. were always a numerically minor component 1991; Bednarik 1991). The probably older of early material cultures. Considerations yew spear point from Clacton-on-Sea, of technology should include not only England, and the complete spear found

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 305

among the ribs of an elephant skeleton at with imprints of both wooden haft and Lehringen, Germany (Jacob-Friesen 1956), stone tool, as well as the complete hafted have long been known. The hunting spears tool (Mania and Toepfer 1973). Middle from Schöningen were carefully fashioned Palaeolithic hafting resin was also found in from spruce wood. They are aerodynamically the Bocksteinschmiede, Germany (Bosinski designed, sophisticated hunting weapons, 1985), and at Umm el Tlel, Syria (bitumen on and they are about 400 ka old. Schöningen two tools; Boëda et al. 1996). Hayden (1993) has also produced other wooden artifacts describes the indirect evidence of hafting on (Thieme 1995), among them two notched Levallois and Mousterian points as “copious,” staffs that are thought to have been hafts and the tanged Aterian tools of northern for stone flakes—the earliest evidence of Africa were apparently designed specifically hafting in the world. There was also a flat for hafting. wooden artifact found embedded among A further misapprehension among some the remains of a butchered animal, which archaeologists, that bone points, and the is thought to be from a lance. Another skilled use of bone, ivory, and antler generally, apparent wooden lance comes from the do not appear before the Aurignacian, is also travertine deposit of Bad Cannstatt (Wagner incorrect. Salzgitter-Lebenstedt, a German 1990). A fragment of a Lower Palaeolithic Micoquian site, alone provides ten bone wooden lance or spear was found at yet points, mostly on mammoth ribs, besides one more German site, Bilzingsleben, a site the delicate and complex “winged point” that yielded also other wooden fragments. and an antler implement (Tode 1953). The Possible wooden lances (Howell 1966: 139) polished Bilzingsleben ivory point is not just were found among the many elephant Lower Palaeolithic, but even seems to bear remains of Torralba, Spain. The Kalambo Falls an engraving (Bednarik 1995b). Ivory points site in , of the late Acheulian, yielded occur also in the Acheulian, for instance a number of wooden tools and weapons. possibly at Ambrona, where Howell and Wooden remains are less common from the Freeman (1982) suggested that they may subsequent Middle Palaeolithic, but we have have been hafted. Even “handaxes” have been a thin, worked, and stone-tool-shaped plank made from bone, e.g. the specimen from of mulberry wood from Nishiyagi, Rhede, Germany (Tromnau 1983). During (Bahn 1987); a curved wooden implement the Mousterian, bone was used widely, with parallel markings on the end from including for the building of dwellings (at Florisbad, South Africa (Volman 1984), and Starosel’e), a use some archaeologists think several shallow wooden dishes from the was restricted to the Upper Palaeolithic. Mousterian in Abri Romani in Catalonia, Despite the dramatically distorted record Spain. from the Lower Palaeolithic, there can be no German archaeologists have also found doubt that these hominins as well as those the earliest solid evidence of resin use of the subsequent Middle Palaeolithic had for stone-tool hafting. The Mousterian a technology that cannot be defined from of Königsaue and Kärlich has provided stone tools alone, the only type commonly not only resin fragments, but also resin found. We also know that underground

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 306 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

mining was conducted in the Middle at least 850 ka ago, there are still a few Palaeolithic/MSA (Bednarik 1995d), but other technological points to consider. The perhaps the most dramatic evidence we have construction of rafts is contingent upon the of very early technology is that Homo erectus, use of cordage of some type, in the form the species before H. sapiens appeared, of vines, sinews, fibers, or whatever similar had seafaring capability (Bednarik 1997b, material. This demands further complexities 1997c). We know that hominins reached the in the available technology. Cordage of any island of Flores, in the Lesser Sunda Islands type can only be employed usefully by means of . These islands were never of knotting. Strings, ropes, and thongs were connected to the Asian mainland, at any past no doubt used for much of the Palaeolithic, sea level, and the only way the hominins but we have no physical evidence of knots could have reached and settled them is and almost none of cordage, except from by means of seagoing vessels, presumably the Upper Palaeolithic (Leroi-Gourhan 1982; bamboo rafts. Although we have no skeletal Nadel et al. 1994). The use of hunting nets remains of the descendants of these first has been suggested for the Gravettian of seafarers, we do have large numbers of stone Pavlov, , after the impressions tools from a series of sites on Flores, and also of weaved plant fibers were observed a find on Timor, further east (Bednarik 1999; on burnt clay surfaces of 26–25 ka age Bednarik and Kuckenburg 1999), excavated (Pringle 1997). together with extinct fauna, and dated to 850 Warner and Bednarik (1996), in or 750 ka at Flores. This is well before the reviewing the issue, traced the assumed first archaic Homo sapiens forms appeared. use of cordage back through its depiction Even the most determined opponents of the in Upper Palaeolithic art and the much long-range model of symbolic development earlier occurrence of drilled objects such as and language, Davidson and Noble, have beads and pendants, and via other indirect always accepted that seafaring ability proves evidence. This indicates that some form language use, but unfortunately they were of strings must already have been in use unaware that such an ability was available during Lower Palaeolithic times. Artificial to hominins over three quarters of a million perforation of small objects suitable as beads years ago. The evidence for this is by no or pendants appears a few hundred millennia means new, since it has been available for ago, according to current knowledge. The almost half a century, but until recently only kind of technology used in their production in German (Verhoeven 1958; Maringer and seems to provide a realistic means of gauging Verhoeven 1970; Sondaar et al. 1994). the true technological capability of the While the navigational prowess of Homo earliest period in the history of humans, the erectus, the greatest colonizer in the two Lower Palaeolithic. or three million years of human history (Bednarik 1997d, 1999), is by itself sufficient The Origins of Symbolism evidence to show that the capacity of One form of symbolism, language, thus reflective communication, presumably by probably began its development some time verbal means (i.e. language), was available between the appearance of Homo erectus

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 307

(about 1.8 million years ago, at which time the increasing skill in the use of symbolisms the species is found in eastern Africa, in the became a necessity. The short-range Caucasus and on Java, and its tools in several model of cognitive evolution, epitomized in other places) and his first known crossing of the African Eve hypothesis, perceives this the open sea (perhaps 0.9 million years ago, development as having occurred during from Bali to Lombok and then to Flores). the Upper Pleistocene, concurrent with Verbal language is a form of communication the assumed migration of Moderns out of that involves the use of conventionalized Africa. All earlier hominins were incapable vocal sounds in meaningful patterns. Any of symbolism, including language. In the most form of complex communication requires extreme form of this hypothesis, language the use of symbolisms, and in order to is only possible as a result of figurative develop beyond simple action and response depiction, of which we have no frequent patterns (which apply, in various complexities, evidence older than 32 ka (Davidson and throughout the animal world), culturally Noble 1989), and earlier hominins belong to determined meanings need to be attached the apes rather than the humans (Davidson to the “signs.” In other words, such meanings and Noble 1990). are not genetically passed on, but are According to the long-range model, this acquired during the life trajectory of each was a slow and gradual process that was individual; they are learned. Culture is of already in progress at the time of the first course not limited to humans, it is available humans. The marked encephalization in the to many other animals, albeit in considerably earliest humans, be it in the habilines or H. less complex forms. In humans culture has ergaster, which led to massive increase in reached extraordinary levels of complexity, cranial capacity among early hominins, is seen which are only possible through the use of as being related to cognitive development. an unusually large brain. The oldest archaeological find known in The question is therefore not really the world that has been suggested to when did culture begin, but rather it should indicate a hominin ability to recognize be asked: when did culture (individually iconic resemblance (the visual similarity of acquired systems of “understanding”) begin two otherwise unrelated objects) is the to become such a dominating determinant of cobble from South Africa. It selection that it began to rival environmental cannot occur naturally in the dolomite cave, factors in determining the course of so it must have been carried almost 3 million evolution, especially cognitive evolution, for years ago into the site, which contained hominins? In other words, when did our numerous remains of Australopithecus ancestors begin to exercise sufficient control africanus. However, it may have been a over environmental variables that a neural relative of Kenyanthropus platyops rather feedback system emerged which led to than an australopithecine who deposited the consciousness, and thus to what we regard as object in the cave. The unmodified cobble conscious modulation of response patterns? (Figure 7) is of a conspicuously reddish Such a development made the proliferation jasperite and has the appearance of a head, of cultural systems almost inevitable, and with distinctive “staring eyes” and a “mouth”

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 308 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

But when could we expect such an ability to have developed sufficiently to have a major impact on the behavior of hominins? By 1.5 million years ago, Homo erectus began to produce formalized tools suggestive of mental templates, “handaxes.” By that time, that species had successfully occupied vast areas of the Old World, apparently within a geological instant, adapting no doubt to many environments and climates in the process. If there were a hominin predisposition to achieve this, it would have been attempted earlier, so the evidence suggests the availability to this tropical creature of conceptual tools not being available 2 million years ago. By about 850 ka ago, H. erectus had acquired seafaring ability and he also used manuports that seem to have no utilitarian significance. He collected two types of minerals and we find them deposited in Fig 7 Jasperite cobble from Makapansgat, South his occupation sites. Clear quartz crystals Africa, deposited in an australopithecine-bearing occur first in South Africa, soon after in cave sediment almost three million years ago; India, and then elsewhere (Bednarik 1994c). scale in cm. Sometimes these are so tiny that they could not possibly have been used as tool material, and they bear no traces of wear. It seems that they were collected for their exotic (Bednarik 1998). “Staring eyes” motifs can visual properties, and hominins of the period lead to visually determined reactions even are also thought to have taken a special in insects and birds—responses to them interest in fossil casts (Oakley 1981). At appear to be deeply embedded in neural about the same time, perhaps 800 ka ago, systems of mammals—and apes as well as we have the first evidence that hominins humans have a clear preference for the color collected red mineral pigments (hematite or red (Oakley 1981). While the curation and ochre), again in South Africa (Wonderwork transport of the stone does not necessarily Cave) and India (Hunsgi), followed much demand full symboling ability, it does suggest later by several sites in France, Spain, Czech the existence of incipient neural structures Republic, and several more areas of Africa. that would make it possible to recognize We cannot know what the coloring material the relationship between signifier and the was used for, except that one of the Hunsgi signified in a more systematic pattern—i.e., specimens bears traces of having been used symbolism as we define it. as a crayon on a rock surface (Bednarik

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 309

1990). However, it is not very important culturally motivated mate selection. whether the hematite was used to color Humans “domesticated” themselves, albeit rock surfaces, artifacts, animal hides, or unintentionally, over the last 40 or 50 ka. The human bodies: in all cases such use would gracilization was clearly led by the females, imply distinctive cultural behavior. Since the in Europe especially around 30 ka ago, but first use of such materials coincides with the by 20 ka ago the males began to catch first clear evidence of advanced language up. The most parsimonious explanation is use, through seafaring, it seems reasonable that a preference for neotenous females to propose that by 850 ka ago, hominins had began in the last quarter of the Late developed numerous distinctive forms of Pleistocene, leading to the rapid replacement cultural behavior, various forms of symbolism, of robust features. The process has and technologies that would not be continued throughout the Holocene and significantly improved until the advent of the can be assumed to remain the main factor Holocene, a mere 10.5 ka ago. At that stage, in present hominin development. This human society had come to depend so much development is almost entirely controlled by on culture that we can assume fully modern culture nowadays. behavior patterns to have emerged. It therefore appears that the most likely One more strand of relevant evidence time frame for the crucial developments is provided by the rapid gracilization of all in establishing the role of symbolism in human populations in four continents during human culture is that these developments the second half of the Late Pleistocene, commenced with the rapid expansion of especially after 50 ka ago. This involved Homo erectus, perhaps 1.8 million years significant reduction of evolutionary fitness ago, and resulted in structured societies (reduction in brain size, skeletal robusticity, with complex technology, modes of symbol and muscle bulk, i.e. physical strength) use and effective language about a million in a very short time, and a distinctive years later. From there on, the cognitive and process of developing neotenous features intellectual evolution of hominins merely (Bednarik 2006, 2007, 2008a). Anatomically followed an established trajectory demanding modern humans are a foetalized form accelerating refinement. There are home of ape; they share most of the physical bases with established activity zones, features distinguishing them from mature increasing use of fire, specialized hunting of chimpanzees with foetal chimpanzees very large animals (especially elephants and (Bednarik 2008a). As these deleterious rhinos), refinement of weapons and artifacts, changes occurred uniformly among all and increasing use of pigments. populations, a universal explanation seems The next major step seems to occur required, and I have proposed that natural somewhat later, but still in the Acheulian, evolutionary processes were suspended the perhaps most widespread technological and replaced by selective breeding—i.e., tradition of the Lower Palaeolithic. domestication. Cultural imperatives were “Palaeoart” is now being produced in becoming so dominant that they began several world regions, and in various forms. to control breeding patterns through Engravings on portable objects of bone,

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 310 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

ivory, and stone appear on the available the entire record of human evolution, marks record about 300 ka ago, with the sites the origins of modern behavior and culture, Bilzingsleben (Mania and Mania 1988; and thus of modern humans. Therefore, as Bednarik 1995b), Stránská skála (Valoch well as for other reasons, the obsession 1987) and Sainte Anne I (Crémades 1996) with finding the origins of anatomically being some of the early representatives. modern humans emerges as a rather The earliest ‘protosculpture’ is the Tan-Tan vacuous issue; in a scientific sense it is as quartzite object from the Middle Acheulian relevant as the origins of the anatomically of Morocco, with its engraved grooves and modern fruit fly. hematite coating (Bednarik 2003b). It is As the Lower Palaeolithic period gradually followed by the Late Acheulian scoria pebble makes way for the Middle Palaeolithic in from Berekhat Ram, Israel, also a natural form the last part of the Middle Pleistocene, the altered by human hand (Goren-Inbar 1986; Levallois technique and the use of “handaxes” Marshack 1997). appear first in continues, but greater differentiation the Lower Palaeolithic of India, in the form becomes evident in lithic traditions. Symbolic of about 540 cupules and a few engraved evidence, such as palaeoart (Bednarik lines (Bednarik 1993a; Bednarik et al. 2005). 1994c; for a comprehensive summary see The cupules are particularly noteworthy, 2003a), occurs widely in the Micoquian and because they represent the earliest form of Mousterian of Europe, in the MSA of sub- rock art in all continents except Antarctica Saharan Africa, and the Middle Palaeolithic (Bednarik 2008b). For instance, the oldest (mode 3) industries of Asia and Australia known rock art of Europe are the 18 cupules (which in the latter continent continue to on the underside of a block placed over the the middle of the Holocene, and in Tasmania grave of a Neanderthal child in , to European occupation). Middle Palaeolithic France (Peyrony 1934), but these are far seafarers achieved incredible ocean more recent than those of the chopping-tool crossings in the region to the north and period of India, predating the Acheulian at northeast of Australia (Bednarik 1997d), and least in Daraki-Chattan Cave, but probably underground mining (of ochre and chert) also in Auditorium Cave at Bhimbetka. occurs in Europe, two regions of Africa, and It is against this background of other in Australia (Bednarik 1995d). None of these presumed symbolic production that we developments is attributable to the supposed need to see the first appearance of beads descendants of Africa’s Eve—in fact, there and pendants. If compared to these many is not a single technological, cognitive, or other developments, they are no longer symbolic innovation that can be traced to unexpected or “unexplainable.” By the middle their presumed appearance. If that tribe or part of the Middle Pleistocene, hominins race ever did exist as a genetically discrete had mastered many uses of symbols—they entity, for which there is no evidence other had in effect acquired the art of storing than the claims of some geneticists, then information outside their own brains that “race” contributed little to the human (Gregory (1970: 148; Donald 1991: 124–61). ascent. All fundamental innovations and This development, more than anything else in achievements predate them, and the greatest

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 311

or most important are squarely attributable version of the Eve model could possibly to Homo erectus, the predecessor of the accommodate. The use of symbolic systems various forms of Homo sapiens. demonstrated by seafaring and palaeoart extends certainly several hundred millennia Conclusion into the past, which deprives the Eve model It has now become obvious that the of all plausibility. The same is demanded hominins who first engaged in symboling by applications of taphonomic logic, to any practice not only had a great deal of class of relevant evidence, and I regard this technology at their disposal, they applied as particularly strong evidence that the and retrieved a variety of symbolic meanings, African Eve advocates are severely mistaken. which could be attached to objects at will, Taphonomic logic should have precedence through complex cultural conventions. over any other form of archaeological The practice of wearing such objects as reasoning (Bednarik 1994b). beads and pendants obviously requires a Finally, the use of such sophisticated comprehension of the self, of the existence objects as beads and pendants in the Lower of the individual. Individuality is a central Palaeolithic demonstrates, beyond reasonable factor in all “decoration,” necessarily, and that doubt, that its hominins possessed well- applies also to the pretense of perfection: established semiotic systems of various there seems to be no reason to wish to types. In examining the origins of symbolism project the concept of perfection in the we would be well advised to abandon the absence of a concept of the self. Self- traditional focus on the art of the Upper consciousness with all its implications is an Palaeolithic of southwestern Europe. It played important factor in cognitive evolution, and no decisive role in the advent of human can be assumed to have been available to symboling capacities, and it is probably select for, probably well before the advent not even relevant to the topic of symbolic of beads. origins. What is relevant to this topic are the products of symbolism that have survived In this paper I have argued that the African from the earliest phase of human culture, Eve model, which emphasizes the differences the Lower Palaeolithic. This evidence has between the “Moderns,” the “chosen people” so far hardly been considered, but has been of evolution, and all other hominins, has neglected widely since its first tenuous no archaeological justification whatsoever. mention over 160 years ago. It is especially From a biological perspective, particularly through this neglect, and through the ethologically, humans are so closely related frequent neglect of evidence not published to other primates that incipient forms of in the English language, that the precarious even their most distinctive cognitive abilities models of recent years have been able to can be observed in other species. Human flourish as they did. technological ascent and encephalization over the past three million years demand Acknowledgements a much earlier appearance of language, I express my gratitude to the three culture, and modern cognition than any anonymous referees of Time & Mind who

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 312 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

have significantly contributed to the better Beaumont, P., 1992. “The Time Depth of Aesthetic focus of this paper. Naturally, I alone bear and Symbolic Behaviour in Southern Africa.” Paper presented to the Biennial Conference of the the responsibility for any remaining Southern African Association of Archaeologists, shortcomings Johannesburg. Beaumont, P.B., Miller, G.H., and Vogel, J.C., 1992. References “Contemplating Old Clues to the Impact of Future Aitchison, J., 1996. The Seeds of Speech: Language Greenhouse Climates in South Africa.” South African Origin and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge Journal of Science 88: 490–8. University Press. Bednarik, R.G., 1990. “An Acheulian Haematite Allsworth-Jones, P.L., 1986. “The Szeletian: Main Pebble with Striations.” Rock Art Research 7: 75. Trends, Recent Results, and Problems for Resolution,” Bednarik, R.G., 1991. “An Acheulian Cricket Bat?” The in M. Day, R. Foley and Wu Rukang (eds), The Artefact 14: 38. Pleistocene Perspective. World Archaeological Congress, Southampton 1986. London: Allen & Bednarik, R.G., 1992a. “Natural Line Markings on Unwin, pp. 1–25. Palaeolithic Objects.” Anthropologie 30(3): 233–40.

Anderson-Gerfaud, P., 1980. “A Microwear Analysis Bednarik, R.G., 1992b. “Palaeoart and Archaeological of Selected Flint Artifacts from the Mousterian of Myths.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1): 27–43. Southwest France (abstract). Lithic Technology 9(2): 33. Bednarik, R.G., 1993a. “About Palaeolithic Ostrich Anderson-Gerfaud, P., 1990. “Aspects of Behaviour in Eggshell in India.” Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association the Middle Palaeolithic: Functional Analysis of Stone Bulletin 13: 34–43. Tools from Southwest France,” in P. Mellars (ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Bednarik, R.G., 1993b. “Palaeolithic art in India.” Man University Press, pp. 389–418. and Environment 18(2): 33–40.

Arsuaga, J.-L., Martínez, I., Garcia, A., Carretero, J.-M., Bednarik, R.G., 1994a. “The Discrimination of Rock and Carbonell, E., 1993. “Three New Human Skulls Markings.” Rock Art Research 11: 23–44. from the Sima de los Huesos Middle Pleistocene Site Bednarik, R.G., 1994b. “A Taphonomy of Palaeoart.” in Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain.” Nature 362: 534–7. Antiquity 68(258): 68–74. Ayala, F.J., 1996. “Response to Templeton.” Science Bednarik, R.G., 1994c. “Art origins.” Anthropos 89: 272: 1363–4. 169–80. Bader, O.N., 1978. Sungir: Verhnepalaeoliticˇeskaja Bednarik, R.G., 1995a. “Towards a Better stojanka. Moscow: Nauka. Understanding of the Origins of Body Decoration.” Bahn, P.G., 1987. “Excavation of a Palaeolithic Plank Anthropologie 33: 201–12. from Japan.” Nature 329: 110. Bednarik, R.G., 1995b. “Concept-mediated Marking Baldeon, A., 1993. “El yacimiento de Lezetxiki in the Lower Palaeolithic.” Current Anthropology 36(4): (Gipuzkoa, País Vasco). Los niveles musterienses.” 605–34. Munibe 45: 3–97. Bednarik, R.G., 1995c. “Traces of Cultural Continuity Barinaga, M., 1992. “‘African Eve’ Backers Beat a in Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Material Evidence.” Retreat.” Science 255: 686–7. Origini 18: 47–67.

Bayer, J., 1929. “Die Olschewakultur.” Eiszeit und Bednarik, R.G., 1995d. “Untertag-Bergbau im Urgeschichte 6: 83–100. Pleistozän.” Quartär 45/46: 161–75.

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 313

Bednarik, R.G., 1997a. “The Role of Pleistocene Bednarik, R.G. and You Yuzhu, 1991. “Palaeolithic Art Beads in Documenting Hominid Cognition.” Rock Art from China.” Rock Art Research 8: 119–23. Research 14: 27–41. Belitzky, S., Goren-Inbar, N., and Werker, E., 1991. “A Bednarik, R.G., 1997b. “The Initial Peopling of Middle Pleistocene Wooden Plank with Man-made Wallacea and Sahul.” Anthropos 92: 355–67. Polish.” Journal of Human Evolution 20: 349–53. Bednarik, R.G., 1997c. “The Earliest Evidence of Beyries, S., 1988. “Functional Variability of Lithic Sets Ocean Navigation.” International Journal of Nautical in the Middle Palaeolithic,” in H.L. Dibble and A. Archaeology 26(3): 183–91. Montet-White (eds), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, 213–23. Monograph 54, University Bednarik, R.G., 1997d. “The Origins of Navigation Museum, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. and Language.” The Artefact 20: 16–56. Bednarik, R.G., 1998. “The Australopithecine Cobble Bickerton, D., 1990. Language and Species. Chicago: from Makapansgat, South Africa.” South African University of Chicago Press. Archaeological Bulletin 53: 4–8. Bickerton, D. 1996. Language and Human Behaviour. Bednarik, R.G., 1999. “Maritime Navigation in the London: UCL Press. Lower and Middle Palaeolithic.” Comptes Rendus de Bischoff, J.L., Ludwig, K.R., Garcia, J.F., Carbonell, E., l’Académie des Sciences Paris, Earth and Planetary Vaquero, M., Stafford, T.W., and Jull, A.J.T., 1994. Sciences 328: 559–63. “Dating of the Basal Aurignacian Sandwich at Abric Bednarik, R.G., 2003a. “The Earliest Evidence of Romani (Catalunya, Spain) by Radiocarbon and Palaeoart. Rock Art Research 20: 89–135. Uranium Series.” Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 541–51. Bednarik, R.G., 2003b. “A Figurine from the African Acheulian.” Current Anthropology 44(3): 405–13. Boas, F., 1964 [1888]. The Central Eskimo. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press (reprint). Bednarik, R.G., 2005. “Middle Pleistocene Beads and Symbolism.” Anthropos 100(2): 537–52. Boëda, E., Connan, J., Dessort, D., Muhesen, S., Mercier, N., Valladas, H., and Tisnérat, N., 1996. Bednarik, R.G., 2006. “Short-range versus Long-range “Bitumen as a Hafting Material on Middle Palaeolithic Theories.” Lecture 2, Cognition and Symbolism in Artefacts.” Nature 380: 336–8. Human Evolution, http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/ srb/cyber/rbednarik2.pdf Bordes, F., 1969. “Os percé mousterién et os gravé acheuléen du Pech de l’Azé II.” Quaternaria 11: Bednarik, R.G., 2007. “The Late Pleistocene cultural 1–5. shift in Europe.” Anthropos 102(2): 347–70. Bednarik, R.G., 2008a. “The Mythical Moderns.” Bosinski, G., 1985. Der Neanderthaler und seine Zeit. Journal of World Prehistory (in press). Cologne: Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Bednarik, R.G., 2008b. “Cupules.” Rock Art Research Boucher de Perthes, J., 1846. Antiquités celtiques et 25: 61–100. antédiluviennes, 3 vols. Paris: Treuttel et Wurtz. Bednarik, R.G. and Khan, M., 2005. “Scientific Studies Brookfield, J.F.Y., 1997. “Importance of Ancestral of Saudi Arabian Rock Art.” Rock Art Research 22: DNA Ages.” Nature 388: 134. 49–81. Cabrera Valdés, V. and Bischoff, J., 1989. “Accelerator Bednarik, R.G. and Kuckenburg, M., 1999. Nale Tasih: 14C Dates for Early Upper Palaeolithic (Basal eine Floßfahrt in die Steinzeit. Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke. Aurignacian) at El Castillo Cave (Spain).)”. Journal of Archaeological Science 16: 577–84. Bednarik, R.G., Kumar, G., Watchman, A., and Roberts, R.G., 2005. “Preliminary Results of the EIP Project.” Chase, P.G. and Dibble, H.L.,1987. “Middle Palaeolithic Rock Art Research 22: 147–97. Symbolism: A Review of Current Evidence and

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 314 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

Interpretations.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Dunbar, R., 1996. Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution 6: 263–96. of Language. London: Faber & Faber. Crémades, M., 1996. “L’expression graphique au Fedele, F.G. and Giaccio, B., 2007. “Palaeolithic paléolithique inférieur et moyen: l’exemple de l’Abri Cultural Change in Western Eurasia Across the Suard (La Chaise-de-Vouthon, Charente.” Bulletin de 40,000 BP Timeline: Continuities and Environmental la Société Préhistorique Française 93(4): 494–501. Forcing,” in P. Chenna Reddy (ed.), Exploring the Mind of Ancient Man: Festschrift to Robert G. Bednarik. New Davidson, I., 1990. “Bilzingsleben and early Marking.” Delhi: Research India Press, pp. 292–316. Rock Art Research 7: 52–6. Felgenhauer, F. 1959. “Das Paläolithikum von Davidson, I., 1997. “The Power of Pictures,” in M.W. Willendorf in der Wachau, Niederösterreich: Conkey, O. Soffer, D. Stratman and N.G. Jablonski Vorbericht über die monographische Bearbeitung.” (eds), Beyond Art: Plesitocene Image and Symbol, Forschungen und Fortschritte 33(3): 152–5. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences, pp. 125–59. Francis, P., 1982a. “The Ostrich, Ostrich Eggshells, and Ostrich Eggshell Beads.” Man and Environment 7: Davidson, I. and Noble, W., 1989. “The Archaeology 142–6. of Perception: Traces of Depiction and Language.” Current Anthropology 30: 125–55. Francis, P., 1982b. “Experiments with Early Techniques Davidson, I. and Noble, W., 1990. “Tools, Humans and for Making Whole Shells into Beads.” Current Evolution: The Relevance of the Upper Palaeolithic.” Anthropology 23: 713–14. Paper presented to the symposium “Tools, language Francis, P., 1989. “The Manufacture of Beads from and intelligence: evolutionary implications,” Cascais, Shell”, in C.F. Hayes III (ed.), Proceedings of the 1986 . Shell Bead Conference: Selected Papers. Research Davidson, I. and Noble, W., 1992. “Why the First Records 20, Rochester Museum and Science Center, Colonisation of the Australian Region is the Earliest Rochester, pp. 25–36. Evidence of Modern Human Behaviour.” Archaeology Gamble, C. 1994. Timewalkers: The Prehistory of in Oceania 27: 113–19. Global Colonization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Demidenko, Y.E., 2000. “‘The Crimean Enigma’— University Press. Middle Palaeolithic Artifacts within early Aurignacian Garrigan, D., Mobasher, Z., Severson, T., Wilder, J.A., of Krems-Dufour Type Complexes at Siuren- and Hammer, M.F., 2005. “Evidence for Archaic Asian I: Alternative Hypothesis for Solution of the Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome.” Molecular Problem,” in L. Vishnyatsky (ed.), The Time of the Biological Evolution 22: 189–92. last Neanderthals. St. Petersburg-Kishinev-Odessa- Bucarest, pp. 97–124 (in Russian). Goren-Inbar, N., 1986. “A Figurine from the Acheulian Site of Berekhat Ram.” Mi’Tekufat Ha’Even d’Errico, F. and Villa, P., 1997. “Holes and Grooves: The 19: 7–12. Contribution of Microscopy and Taphonomy to the Problem of Art Origins.” Journal of Human Evolution Goren-Inbar, N., Lewy, Z., and Kislev, M.E., 1991. “The 33: 1–31. Taphonomy of a Bead-like Fossil from the Acheulian of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel.” Rock Art Research 8: Donald, M., 1991. Origins of the Modern Mind: Three 83–7. Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gregory, R.L. 1970. The Intelligent Eye. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Duff, A.I., Clark, G.A., and Chadderdon, T.J., 1992. “Symbolism in the Early Palaeolithic: A Conceptual Grün, R. and Beaumont, P., 2001. “Border Cave Odyssey.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2: Revisited: A Revised ESR Chronology.” Journal of 211–29. Human Evolution 40: 467–82.

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 315

Gutiérrez, G., Sánchez, D., and Marín, A., 2002. “A McBrearty, S. and Brooks, A.S., 2000. “The Revolution Reanalysis of the Ancient Mitochondrial DNA that wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin Sequences Recovered from Neandertal Bones.” of Modern Human Behaviour.” Journal of Human Molecular Biological Evolution 19(8): 1359–66. Evolution 39: 453–563. Gyllensten, U., Wharton, D., Josefsson, A., and Wilson, Mania, D. and Mania, U., 1988. “Deliberate Engravings A.C., 1991. “Paternal Inheritance of Mitochondrial on Bone Artefacts of Homo Erectus.” Rock Art DNA in Mice.” Nature 352: 255–7. Research 5: 91–107. Hardy, J., Pittman, A., Myers, A., Gwinn-Hardy, K., Fung, Mania, D. and Toepfer, V., 1973. Königsaue: Gliederung, H.C., de Silva, R., Hutton, M., and Duckworth, J., 2005. Ökologie und mittelpaläolithische Funde der “Evidence Suggesting that Homo Neanderthalensis Letzten Eiszeit. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Contributed the H2 MAPT Haplotype to Homo Wissenschaften. Sapiens.” Biochemical Society Transactions 33: 582–5. Maringer, J. and Verhoeven, T., 1970. “Die Hayden, B., 1993. “The Cultural Capacities of Steinartefakte aus der Stegodon-Fossilschicht von Neandertals: A Review and Re-evaluation.” Journal of Mengeruda auf Flores, Indonesien.” Anthropos 65: Human Evolution 24: 113–46. 229–47. Howell, F.C., 1966. “Observations on the Earlier Marks, A.E., 1998. “A New Middle to Upper Phases of the European Lower Palaeolithic.” Palaeolithic ‘Transitional’ Assemblage from Buran- American Anthropologist 68: 88–201. Kaya-III, Level C,” in M. Otte (ed.), Préhistoire d’Anatolie. Genèse de deux mondes. Actes du colloque Howell, F.C. and Freeman, L.G., 1982. “Ambrona, international de Liège (28 avril—3 mai 1997), Liège: an Early Stone Age Site in the Spanish Meseta.” Université (Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de Anthroquest - L.S.B. Leakey Foundation News 22: l’Université de Liège; 85), vol. 1., pp. 353–66. 11–13. Marshack, A., 1976. “Some Implications of the Jacob-Friesen, K.H., 1956. “Eiszeitliche Elefantenjäger Palaeolithic Symbolic Evidence for the Origin of in der Lüneburger Heide.” Jahrbuch des Römisch- Language.” Current Anthropology 17(2): 274–82. Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 3: 1–22. Keeley, L.H., 1977. “The Function of Palaeolithic Flint Marshack, A., 1991. “A Reply to Davidson on Mania Tools.” Scientific American 237(5): 108–26. and Mania.” Rock Art Research 8: 47–58. Marshack, A., 1997. “The Berekhat Ram Figurine: Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of a Late Acheulian Carving from the Middle East.” Stone Tool Uses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Antiquity 71: 327–37. Kidd, K.K., Kidd, J.R., Pakstis, S.A., Tishkoff, C.M., Martin, H., 1907–10. Recherches sur l’évolution du Castiglione, C.M., and Strugo, G., 1996. “Use of Moustérien dans le gisement de la Quina (Charente): Linkage Disequilibrium to nfer Population Histories.” Industrie osseuse, Vol. 1. Paris: Schleicher Frères. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Supplement 22: 138. Martinón-Torres, M., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Gómez-Robles, A., Arsuaga, J.L., Carbonell, E., Kroeber, A.L., 1900. “The Eskimo of Smith Sound.” Lordkipanidze, D., Manzi, G, and Margvelashvili, A., Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2007. “Dental Evidence on the Hominin Dispersals 12: 265–327. during the Pleistocene.” Proceedings of the National Kumar, G., Narvare, G., and Pancholi, R.K., 1988. Academy of Sciences of the of “Engraved Ostrich Eggshell Objects: New Evidence America 104(33): 13279–82. of Upper Palaeolithic Art in India.” Rock Art Research Mason, R., 1988. “Cave of Hearths, Makapansgat, 5: 43–53. Transvaal.” University of the Witwatersrand, Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1982. “The Archaeology of Archaeological Research Unit, Occasional Papers No. Cave.” Scientific American 246(6): 80–8. 21: 1–713.

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 316 Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik

Miller, G.H., Beaumont, P.B., Brooks, A.S., Deacon, Don, 1879–1979: Results of the Field Investigations. H.J., Hare, P.E., and Jull, A.J.T., 1999. “Earliest Modern Leningrad: Nauka (in Russian). Humans in South Africa dated by Isoleucine Prestwich, J., 1859. “On the Occurrence of Flint- Epimerization in Ostrich Eggshell.” Quaternary Science implements, Associated with the Remains of Extinct Reviews 18: 1537–48. Mammalia, in Undisturbed Beds of a Late Geological Morris, D., 2000. “Tsodilo—Worked Ostrich Eggshell Period.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 10: Dated.” Digging Stick 17(2): 10. 50–59. Morse, K., 1993. “Shell Beads from Mandu Mandu Pringle, H., 1997. “Ice Age Communities may be Creek Rockshelter, Cape Range Peninsula, Western Earliest Known Net Hunters.” Science 277: 1203–4. Australia, dated before 30,000 b.p.” Antiquity 67: Pruvost, M., Schwarz, R., Bessa Correia, V., Champlot, 877–83. S., Braguier, S., Morel, N., Fernandez-Jalvo, Y., Grange, Mottl, M., 1951. “Die Repolust-Höhle bei Peggau T., and Geigl, E.-M., 2007. “Freshly Excavated Fossil (Steiermark) und ihre eiszeitlichen Bewohner. Bones are best for Amplification of Ancient DNA.” Archaeologica Austriaca 8: 1–78. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 104(3): 739–44. Nadel, D., Danin, A., Werker, E., Schick ,T., Kislev, M.E., and Stewart, K., 1994. “19,000-year-old Twisted Fibers Relethford, J.H., 2002. “Absence of Regional Affinities from Ohalo II.” Current Anthropology 35: 451–7. of Neandertal DNA with Living Humans does not Reject Multiregional Evolution.” American Journal of Narr, K.J., 1951. “Alt- und mittelpaläolithische Funde Physical Anthropology 115(1): 95–8. aus rheinischen Freilandstationen. Bonner Jahrbuch 151: 5–47. Relethford, J.H. and Jorde, L.B., 1999. “Genetic Evidence for Larger African Population Size during Nei, M., 1987. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. New Recent Human Evolution.” Journal of Physical York: Columbia University Press. Anthropology 108(3): 251–60. Nelson, E.W., 1899. “The Eskimo about Bering Roe, D.A., 1981. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Strait.” In Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Periods in Britain. London: Routledge & Kegan American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Paul. Institution, 1896-97, Part I, 19–526. Roginsky, Y.Y., Gerasimov, M.M., Zamyatnin, S.N., and Nestler, H., 1961. “Spongien aus der weißen Formozov, A.A., 1954. “Zaklyuchenie po nakhodke Schreibkreide (Unt. Maastricht) der Insel Rügen iskopaemogo cheloveka v peshchernoi stoyanke (Ostsee).” Paläontologische Abhandlungen 1(1): 1–70. Starosel’e bliz g. Bakhchisary.” Sovetskaya Etnografiya 1954: 39–41. Noble, W. and Davidson, I., 1996. Human Evolution, Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge Smith, W.G., 1894. Man the Primeval Savage. London. University Press. Sondaar, P.Y., van den Bergh, G.D., Mubroto, B., Aziz, Oakley, K.P., 1981. “Emergence of Higher Thought, F., de Vos, J., and Batu, U.L., 1994. “Middle Pleistocene 3.0–0.2 ma B.P.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Faunal Turnover and Colonization of Flores Society of London B 292: 205–11. (Indonesia) by Homo Erectus.” Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences Paris 319: 1255–62. Pennisi, E., 1999. “Genetic Study Shakes up Out of Africa Theory.” Science 283: 1828. Stepanchuk, V.N., 1993. “Prolom II, a Middle Palaeolithic Cave Site in the Eastern Crimea with Peyrony, D., 1934. “La Ferrassie. Moustérien, Non-utilitarian Bone Artefacts.” Proceedings of the Périgordien, Aurignacien.” Préhistoire 3: 1–92. Prehistoric Society 59: 17–37. Praslov, N.D. and Rogachev, A.N. (eds), 1982. Strauss, E., 1999. “Can Mitochondrial Clocks Keep Palaeolithic of the Kostenki-Borschevo Area on the River Time?” Science 283: 1435–8.

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318 Robert Bednarik Beads and Cognitive Evolution 317

Svoboda, J., 1993. “The Complex Origin of the Vishnyatsky, L.B., 1994. “‘Running ahead of time’ in Upper Palaeolithic in the Czech and Slovak the development of Palaeolithic industries.” Antiquity Republics,” in H. Knecht, A. Pike-Tay, and R. White 68: 134–40. (eds), Before Lascaux: the Complete Record of the Volman, T., 1984. “Early Prehistory of Southern Early Upper Palaeolithic. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Africa,” in R. Klein (ed.), Southern African Prehistory pp. 23–36. and Palaeoenvironments. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. Templeton, A.R., 1996. “Gene Lineages and Human 169–220. Evolution.” Science 272: 1363. Wagner, E., 1990. “Ökonomie und Ökologie in den altpaläolithischen Travertinfundstellen von Bad Templeton, A.R., 2005. “Haplotype Trees and Modern Cannstatt.” Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 15: Human Origins.” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 48: 1–15. 33–59. Warner, C. and Bednarik, R.G., 1996. “Pleistocene Thieme, H., 1995. “Die altpaläolithischen Knotting,” in J.C. Turner and P. van de Griend (eds), Fundschichten Schöningen 12 (Reinsdorf- History and Science of Knots. Singapore: World Interglazial),” in H. Thieme and R. Maier (eds), Scientific, pp. 3–18. Archäologische Ausgrabungen im Braunkohlentagebau Schöningen, Landkreis Helmstedt, Hanover: Verlag Wendt, W.E., 1974. “Art mobilier aus der Apollo Hahnsche Buchhandlung, pp. 62–72. 11 Grotte in Südwest-Afrika.” Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 5: 1–42. Tode, A., 1953. “Einige archäologische Erkenntnisse White, R., 1993. “Technological and Social aus der paläolithischen Freilandstation von Salzgitter- Dimensions of ‘Aurignacian-age’ Body Ornaments Lebenstedt.” Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 3: 192–215. across Europe,” in H. Knecht, A. Pike-Tay and R. Tromnau, G., 1983. “Ein Mammutknochen- White (eds), Before Lascaux: the Complete Record Faustkeil aus Rhede, Kreis Borken (Westfalen).” of the Early Upper Palaeolithic. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 13: 287–9. Press, pp. 277–99. Woodhouse, H.C., 1997. “Ostrich Eggshell Beads in Valoch, K., 1987. “The Early Palaeolithic Site Stránská Southern Africa.” Rock Art Research 14: 41–3. skála I near Brno (Czechoslovakia).” Anthropologie 25: 125–42. Yakimov, V.P., 1980. “New Materials of Skeletal Remains of Ancient Peoples in the Territory of the Verhoeven, T., 1958. “Pleistozäne Funde in Flores.” Soviet Union,” in Current Argument on Early Man: Anthropos 53: 264–5. Report from a Nobel Symposium. Oxford: Pergamon Vigilant, L., Stoneking, M., Harpending, H., Hawkes, K., Press, pp. 152–169. and Wilson, A.C., 1991. “African Populations and the Ziegert, H., 2007. “A New Dawn for Humanity: Evolution of Human Mitochondrial DNA.” Science Lower Palaeolithic Village Life in Libya and Ethiopia.” 253: 1503–7. Minerva 18(4): 8–9.

Time and Mind Volume 1—Issue I1I—November 2008, pp. 285–318