Middle Paleolithic Symbolism: A Review of Current Evidence and Interpretations

8/14/2019 Middle Paleolithic Symbolism: A Review of Current Evidence and Interpretations

1/23

JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOOY 6, 263-296 (1987)

Middle Paleolithic Symbolism: A Review of Current Evidence andInterpretations

variability PHILIP G. CHASEThe University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19104

AND

HAROLD L. DIBBLEDepartment of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19104

Received November 4, 1986

Identifying the origins of symbolism and of linguistically structured behavior iscrucial to our understanding of the evolution of modern humanity. A criticalsurvey of the archaeological data indicates that many aspects of modern adapta-tionforesight and planning, affection and mutual assistance, and even a sense ofestheticsare clearly apparent by the Middle Paleolithic. However, currentlyavailable evidence fails to indicate the presence of symbolic thought or symbolic

behavior before the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition, o ii7 Aodemic Preu.inc.-INTRODUCTIONIn 1856 a skull was uncovered from the Neander Valley near Dtissel-dorf, whichsoon after became the holotype forHomo ncanderthalensis. In 1863 Lartet andChristy excavated the rock shelter at Le Moustier, France, finding there evidenceof a stone tool industry that later became known as the Mousterian (1864). Thesetwo events mark the beginning of scientific enquiry into the nature of hominidadaptation during the early Upper Pleistocene and bracket the two principalclasses of evidence that can be applied to that problem. This evidence is either

biological, i.e., the human fossils themselves, or behavioral, reflected in the lithicindustries or other nonperishable aspects of their material culture.Since these early discoveries, the role of early Upper Pleistocene hom-inids in theevolution of modern humans has been a topic of major concern to human

paleontologists. This problem is in part taxonomic and phylogenetic based on theinterpretation of morphological. But there is another aspect of the question that is

perhaps more important than the genetic relationships between modernHomo


2/23

sapiens and specific early Upper Pleistocene populations. This is the question ofwhether or not the earlier 'hominids had already developed an adaptation func-tionally equivalent to that of modern H. sapiens, that is, whether or not theirinteractions with one another and with their environment wire structured inessentially the same manner as those of modern humans, or whether MiddlePaleolithic culture was somehow different in nature.We are not speaking here of differences in sets of beliefs, values, rules, etc., of thesort that exist between one particular ethnic group and another. It is, of course, acharacteristic of modern cultural adaptation that individual cultures are1 extremelyvariable and distinct from one another and that these differences are notgenetically based. However, all modern cultures share an underlying similarity ofnature, in that cultural behavior is largely symbolic, and that individual culturesarc identified and transmitted through the learning of those symbols. Thesesymbols are an integral part of language and'enable people to organize and

categorize their world according to belief, value, and sentiment systems and toprovide them with options of behavior that are seen as acceptable for each partic-ular culture group (Goodenough 1971).Few prehistorians would question that Upper Paleolithic cultures share this sameessential nature; that is, the behavior of Upper Paleolithic peoples as it is revealedin the archaeological record is in no way beyond the limits of behavior that would

be expected of any modern human pop--ulation that found itself in the sameenvironmental and historical circumstances and at a similar level of technologicalsophistication. While specific symbol systems may have differed geographicallyand temporally within this period, the role of symbolism was essentially the sameas it is today.However, there is no such concensus about the interpretation of either MiddlePaleolithic hominids or their behavioral patterns. arly in the century, scholarsthought that Neandertals 'represented a branch ojf stupid, stooped-shoulderedhominids that contributed little to later populations. Later there was a considerablereaction to this view and many suggested that Neandertals were virtuallyindistinguishable from us in terms of anatomy and that their behavioral repertoireincluded most or all of the important aspects of modern behavioral adaptation:language, religion and symbolic thought, and culturally defined social systems.

Others, .however,stilI argue that there are significant differences in biology (e.g.,Trinkaus and Howells 1979; Trinkaus 1983a, 1984, 1986) and behavior (seeBinford 1973; Butzer 1981:178-180; Klein 1973:121-126; Jelinek 1977). As ofthis moment, the question is far from being settled.It should be emphasized that a correct answer to this question is cen


3/23

tral to our understanding of the changes that occur during the Upper Pleistocene.Without a clear understanding of the differences between the Middle and UpperPaleolithic, it will be impossible to find an acceptable explanation of the transition

between them. This is a subject that has seen considerable debate recently(Binford 1968a; Mellars 1973; White 1982; Orquera 1984; Pfeiffer 1982; Oilman1984; see also papers in Trinkaus 1983b). Was the transition merely a change inthe content or manifestation of a basically modern cultural system? If so, then itwould be fundamentallysimilar to (and perhaps less important than) later changessuch as the shift to food production. Conversely, was it a major evolutionarychange in the nature of hominid adaptation brought about by the introduction ofmodern cultural systems based on language and symbols? This would representnot a change in specific adaptation, but a change in the way in which all humanadaptations are structured, leading ultimately to the kinds of behavioral variabilityapparent among modern cultures.

It is not possible to provide a definitive answer to this question given the currentstate of knowledge concerning the nature of Middle Paleolithic behavior. Rather,our goals here are simply to turn the attention of prehistorians and scholars inrelated subdisciplines of anthropology in the direction of this problem concerningthe nature of Middle Paleolithic adaptation. Toward this end, we will make alimited survey of the archaeological evidence from the Middle Paleolithic with aneye toward assessing the degree to which arbitrary categories and symbolsstructured behavior. This will be done by examining the archaeological evidence,

broken down here into four major classes: lithic types and assemblages, burials,rituals other than burials, and art. Our purpose is simply to present anarchaeological perspective on the issue and, as such, our coverage of the

biological evidence is cursory. However, it is hoped that such a review willstimulate a dialogue among researchers with different perspectives which mayultimately lead to a greater integration of these two kinds of evidence.LITHIC TYPES AND ASSEMBLAGESThe most commonly cited evidence for prehistoric hominid behavior is that ofstone tools. The beginnings of stone tool manufacture represent a kind ofthreshold both in terms of actual behavior and, as Isaac (1976:39) points out, ourability to infer that behavior from the archaeological record. That is to say,

prehistoric archaeology begins, de facto, with the first evidence of stone toolmakingsomewhat before 2.0 my ago (Isaac 1984)and not with the deliberatemanufacture of more perishable products.


4/23

Because these early lithics are one of the archaeologist's few sources of evidencefor prehistoric behavior, it is easy to overestimate their importance in the

prehistoric cultural or behavioral context. It is now clear that the rnanufacture oftools in several materials extends to nonhuman primates (Goodall 1964; McGrewet al. 1979; Boesch and Boesch 1981, 1983). This raises the question of whetheror not the presence of an early stone tool assemblage, 'however simple, in itselfreflects the presence of' values and rules that we would ascribe to fully humansocieties? Probably not. What we must determine are those specific aspects oflithic remains that relate to such behavioral structures and then look for thoseaspects in early lithic assemblages.One such aspect may be patterns of form. It is fair to say that most archaeologistsassume that morphological patterning of artifacts often reflects categories definedwithin the culture of the makers. In other words, formal patterns in the artifactsreflect cultural norms or values regarding their manufacture and use, these norms

in turn reflecting linguistically structured categories. Thus, if clear morphologicalpatterning is observed in stone tools, then it may be possible not just to infer thepresence of those aspects that we usually interpret as reflecting cultural choice, but also to reconstruct, to some extent, the parameters affecting those choices.

Documents

Middle Paleolithic Symbolism: A Review of Current Evidence and Interpretations