On the problem of the interpretation of symbols and symbolism in archaeology (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Archaoelogy, 2023
Symbol making involves active agency, as it is, by definition, intentional and aims to deliver messages, worldviews, and social contents to designated audiences. As archaeology can specify only elements of behavior that are expressed as material objects, it must focus on material objects and their contexts. Accordingly, this chapter does not aim to elucidate the symbolic content of objects. Whether the role of objects is perceived as a clear dichotomy between utilitarian and symbolic or as a “mixed bag,” in the practice of prehistoric archaeology it is the context of artifacts that is often enlisted to provide telltale signs about their role in the behavioral system. Employing archaeological tools (material culture, chronology, and context), the chapter addresses (1) the epistemology of understanding prehistoric symbols by reviewing criteria that are prevalent in the research to assess whether an object may have acted as a symbolic manifestation and (2) the diachronic shift from a cognitive capacity to comprehend and make symbolic objects to a broader, evolved, symbolic behavioral system. Its review of the Pleistocene symbolic record of the Levant suggests that the trajectories of change parallel patterns (though not necessarily the same chronology) observed in neighboring regions. The analysis suggests that rather than changes in the neurological infrastructure per se, the coevolution of symbolic behavior and social complexity is driven by changes in social cognition as a major adaptive tool in hominin cultural evolution.
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.
All that Glitters is not Gold: The False-Symbol Problem in Archaeology
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2024
Tennie, C. & Planer, R.J. Comment on: Stibbard-Hawkes, D. N. E. (in press) "Reconsidering the link between past material culture and cognition in light of contemporary hunter-gatherer material use" in Behavioral and Brain Sciences": Stibbard-Hawkes forcefully alerts us to the pitfall of false negative reasoning in symbolic archaeology. We highlight the twin problem of false positive reasoning in what we call the “false- symbol problem.” False symbols are intuitively special entities that, owing to their non-utilitarian nature, invite symbolic interpretation. But they are not symbolic. We link the false symbol problem to work in comparative primate cognition, taking “primate art” as our main example.
The archaeological data traditionally utilized in considering the beginnings of symbol use by humans are described here as inadequate for this purpose. It is contended that Pleistocene finds of several types imply the use of symboling for at least several hundred millennia. Such empirical evidence includes the maritime colonization of various landmasses up to one million years ago, which is thought to demand the use of language and relatively complex technology; and the temporal distribution of first pigment use, beads and pendants, as well as engravings and proto‐figurines during the Middle Pleistocene. The introduction of iconic referrers is chronologically placed into the same period. It is argued that the cognitive evolution of hominins has been neglected in favor of less suitable indicators of humanness, such as cranial shape and perceived stone tool typology. This paper presents an alternative approach to reviewing the evolution of human cognition and symbol use.
Symbolic cognition-the ability to produce and use symbols, including (but not limited to) linguistic symbols-has often been considered a hallmark of human achievement. Given its importance, symbolic cognition has been a major topic of interest in many academic disciplines including anthropology, archeology, and the cognitive sciences. 1-6 Paleolithic rock art holds vast potential for understanding the early roots of symbolically mediated behavior. Specifically, geographic and temporal differences in parietal motifs across sites may provide important evidence about the sociocognitive processes that occurred in the deep past of our lineage, how they varied across groups, and how they changed over time. However, the fragmentary nature of the rock art record often makes direct inferences about past symbolic behaviors difficult to assert. Additionally, because scholars working within different disciplines may differ in their interests, theories, methodologies, epistemologies, and terminology, interdisciplinary dialog can be challenging. If we accept the challenge, however, we believe that interdisciplinary dialogs can increase our understanding of this important topic. Through interdisciplinary approaches we can, for instance, integrate information from dating and materials used, with insights into the particular conditions and sociocultural contexts in which the art could have been made and experienced.
The global evidence of early human symboling behaviour
A model of art origins based on the author’s first-hand studies is presented, which differs significantly from the dominant paradigm of these developments. The earliest known evidence for art, art-like or presumably non-utilitarian activities collectively provide the principal information about human symboling behaviour. These corpora are systematically considered from each continent, including rock art and various surviving forms of portable art. The immense age of some of this evidence is illuminated, and the record’s poor resolution with increasing age is presented as an essentially taphonomic phenomenon. It is shown, nevertheless, that the available record provides a considerably broader basis for hypotheses about symbolism, language and cognitive evolution than is often assumed, and that the evidence favours a model of comparatively early origins of the human capacity of concept-mediated thought and culture. These beginnings may be found in the endeavours of Lower Palaeolithic hominins to create taxonomic systems of physical reality. The available record renders it likely that such capacities existed several hundred thousand years ago.