The Lion Man and the evolution of the human mind (original) (raw)
Related papers
Camera Praehistorica, 2020
In 1939, excavators uncovered in Hohlenstein-StadelCave nearly 200 mammoth ivory fragments that were refitted as a therianthrope figurine with the head and upper body of a cave lion and the lower body and legs of a human being. It was named the Lion Man. During recent excavations (2008 to 2013) in the StadelCave , a stratigraphic sequence extending from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Aurignacian was discovered. It became clear that the location of the Lion Man during the excavations of 1939 corresponded to the layer Au of the recent 2008–2013 excavations. During the recent work a part of the excavation backdirt from 1939 was also uncovered. Inside this backdirt, 575 fragments of mammoth ivory were found, some belonging to the Lion Man figurine, which was carved from a complete tusk. In 2012–2013 the Lion Man was newly restored and completed to the greatest possible extent. It became apparent that the Lion Man represents a male. Its snout, back, and right side were refitted, and the Lion Man also gained in volume from the added pieces. New insights point towards an intentional deposition of the formerly complete figurine during the Aurignacian.
Camera Praehistorica
In 1939, excavators uncovered in Hohlenstein-StadelCave nearly 200 mammoth ivory fragments that were refitted as a therianthrope figurine with the head and upper body of a cave lion and the lower body and legs of a human being. It was named the Lion Man. During recent excavations (2008 to 2013) in the StadelCave , a stratigraphic sequence extending from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Aurignacian was discovered. It became clear that the location of the Lion Man during the excavations of 1939 corresponded to the layer Au of the recent 2008–2013 excavations. During the recent work a part of the excavation backdirt from 1939 was also uncovered. Inside this backdirt, 575 fragments of mammoth ivory were found, some belonging to the Lion Man figurine, which was carved from a complete tusk. In 2012–2013 the Lion Man was newly restored and completed to the greatest possible extent. It became apparent that the Lion Man represents a male. Its snout, back, and right side were refitted, and the ...
Rock Art Research, 2006
The organisation and evolution of the brain is beginning to provide clues as to how, why and when certain crucial behaviours may have arisen in hominins. As palaeoart constitutes evidence of such behaviour, it can therefore be understood within the broader context of hominin evolution as part of a series of connected biopsychosocial events that eventually led to the Upper Palaeolithic representations of animals. Iconic representation is accordingly shown to be linked in complex ways to how ‘representation’ occurred in the evolving brain in relation to the demands and dynamics of the evolutionary niche occupied by hominins.
In four caves located in south-western Germany, figurines carved from mammoth ivory were discovered in find horizons dating to the Aurignacian. In one of the cave sites, the Stadel Cave in Hohlenstein, excavators in 1939 uncovered a therianthrope figurine, with the head and front legs of a cave lion but with the lower body and legs of a human being. It was thus named the Lion Man. During recent excavations in the Stadel Cave between 2008 and 2013, a stratigraphic sequence was discovered that extended from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Aurignacian. It became clear that the location of the Lion Man during the excavations of 1939 corresponded to layer Au of the recent 2008-2013 excavations. This lowest Aurignacian layer yielded a radiocarbon date of 39-41 ka calBP. The Lion Man therefore belongs to the oldest known figurative artworks in the world. During the recent excavations, part of the back dirt from the 1939 excavation was also uncovered. Here, surprisingly 575 fragments of mammoth ivory were found that were partially worked and thus probably belonged to the Lion Man figurine. In 2012 and 2013 the Lion Man was therefore newly restored. During this work, critical areas of the figurine were at times fully reconstructed. It became apparent that the Lion Man did not represent a female, as sometimes earlier presumed, but in fact a male.
Animal Artefacts Challenge Archaeological Standards for Tracing Human Symbolic Cognition
2024
Stibbard-Hawkes challenges the link between symbolic material evidence and behavioural modernity. Extending this to nonhuman species, we find that personal adornment, decoration, figurative art, and musical instruments may not uniquely distinguish human cognition. These common criteria may ineffectively distinguish symbolic from non-symbolic cognition or symbolic cognition is not uniquely human. It highlights the need for broader comparative perspectives.
In "Proceedings of the NeanderART2018 Conference". Ed. Marcovalerio, Turin, 2020
ii. The terminal Pleistocene is marked by the sudden reversal of several million years of continuous encephalization, when the cranial volume of humans abruptly began to plummet. The Upper Paleolithic (UP) witnesses the cessation of biological evolution and the onset of an evolutionary mode centered exclusively on culture. By adapting to their calibrated models of reality, archaic populations underwent rapid physiological/psychological transformations. It is contended that the UP ‘creative explosion’ illustrates the attempt to counter cognitive losses inherent in cumulative cultural evolution and incipient self-domestication.
The treatment of animals and their representation in systems of personal ornamentation and figurative art in the Early Upper Palaeolithic are traditionally seen as sources of ecological information or as a general expression of symbolic cognition and social identity. Here, we suggest that a non-Cartesian and effectively relational account of human-animal interactions in glacial landscapes opens up interpretive avenues that provide fresh and even more persuasive perspectives on the issue. While discussing the case of the Swabian Aurignacian, we argue that mammoths and cave lions are not only the most frequently represented beings in the material culture repertoire, but also that their encounters with humans have probably been highly significant, on both cognitive and eco-behavioural grounds. We therefore propose that the treatment of both animals in the Swabian Aurignacian mirrors their social relevance and thereby reflects a mode of policing the animal-human interface that assigns them a crucial place in regional and deeply animistic ontologies. At the same time, differences in the eco-behavioural matrix of both animals can account for differences in cultural practices that relate to them. We conclude that behaviourally and ecologically salient keystone species are also cultural keystone species in the Swabian Aurignacian which, in turn, points to the importance of naturally inherent interaction dynamics in constructing the animal-human interface in this period.