From Tools to Symbols: From Early Hominids to Modern Humans [1 ed.] 1868144119, 1868144348, 9781868146376

Citation preview

From Tools to Symbols From Early Hominids to Modern Humans

Edited by Francesco d’Errico and Lucinda Backwell

From Tools to Symbols From Early Hominids to Modern Humans

From Tools to Symbols From Early Hominids to Modern Humans edited by

Francesco d’Errico and Lucinda Backwell In honour of Professor Phillip V. Tobias

Witwatersrand University Press

Wits University Press 1 Jan Smuts Avenue Johannesburg 2001 South Africa http://witspress.wits.ac.za

Selection, compelation and introduction © 2005 by Francesco D’Errico and Lucinda Backwell Individual articles © 2005 by the authors First published in South Africa 2005 ISBN 1-86814-411-9 (soft cover) ISBN 1-86814-434-8 (hard cover) ISBN 978-1-86814-637-6 (ePDF) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express permission, in writing, of both the author and the publishers.

Designed & produced by Riaan de Villiers & Associates, Johannesburg, South Africa Printed and bound by Creda Communications, Cape Town, South Africa

Contents

Acknowledgements

ix

Profile of Professor Tobias

xi

List of participants

xv

Foreword Justice Edwin Cameron

xxiii

Address Bernard Malauzat

xxvii

Keynote address Phillip V. Tobias

xxxi

Searching for common ground in palaeoanthropology, archaeology and genetics Francesco d’Errico and Lucinda R. Backwell

1

The history of a special relationship: prehistoric terminology and lithic technology between the French and South African research traditions Nathan Schlanger

9

Essential attributes of any technologically competent animal Charles K. Brain

38

Significant tools and signifying monkeys: the question of body techniques and elementary actions on matter among apes and early hominids Frédéric Joulian

52

v

Contents

Tools and brains: which came first? Phillip V. Tobias

82

Environmental changes and hominid evolution: what the vegetation tells us Marion K. Bamford

103

Implications of the presence of African ape-like teeth in the Miocene of Kenya Martin Pickford and Brigitte Senut

121

Dawn of hominids: understanding the ape-hominid dichotomy Brigitte Senut

134

The impact of new excavations from the Cradle of Humankind on our understanding of the evolution of hominins and their cultures Lee R. Berger

152

Stone Age signatures in northernmost South Africa: early archaeology in the Mapungubwe National Park and vicinity Kathleen Kuman, Ryan Gibbon, Helen Kempson, Geeske Langejans, Joel Le Baron, Luca Pollarolo and Morris Sutton

163

Vertebral column, bipedalism and freedom of the hands Dominique Gommery

183

Characterising early Homo: cladistic, morphological and metrical analyses of the original Plio-Pleistocene specimens Sandrine Prat

198

Early Homo, ‘robust’ australopithecines and stone tools at Kromdraai, South Africa Francis Thackeray and José Braga

229

The origin of bone tool technology and the identification of early hominid cultural traditions Lucinda Backwell and Francesco d’Errico

238

vi

Contents

Contribution of genetics to the study of human origins Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins

276

An overview of the patterns of behavioural change in Africa and Eurasia during the Middle and Late Pleistocene Nicholas J. Conard

294

From the tropics to the colder climates: contrasting faunal exploitation adaptations of modern humans and Neanderthals Curtis W. Marean

333

New neighbours: interaction and image-making during the West European Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition David Lewis-Williams

372

Late Mousterian lithic technology: its implications for the pace of the emergence of behavioural modernity and the relationship between behavioural modernity and biological modernity Marie Soressi

389

Exploring and quantifying technological differences between the MSA I, MSA II and Howieson’s Poort at Klasies River Sarah Wurz

418

Stratigraphic integrity of the Middle Stone Age levels at Blombos Cave Christopher Henshilwood

441

Testing and demonstrating the stratigraphic integrity of artefacts from MSA deposits at Blombos Cave, South Africa Zenobia Jacobs

459

From tool to symbol: the behavioural context of intentionally marked ostrich eggshell from Diepkloof, Western Cape John Parkington, Cedric Poggenpoel, Jean-Philippe Rigaud and Pierre-Jean Texier

475

vii

Contents

Chronology of the Howieson’s Poort and Still Bay techno-complexes: assessment and new data from luminescence Chantal Tribolo, Norbert Mercier and Hélène Valladas

493

Subsistence strategies in the Middle Stone Age at Sibudu Cave: the microscopic evidence from stone tool residues Bonny S. Williamson

512

Speaking with beads: the evolutionary significance of personal ornaments Marian Vanhaeren

525

Personal names index

555

Subject index

563

viii

Acknowledgements This book is the tangible outcome of a conference entitled From Tools to Symbols: From Early Hominids to Modern Humans, held at the University of the Witwatersrand, 16–18 March 2003. This event was organised in honour of Professor Phillip Tobias by the editors of this volume, in recognition of his outstanding scientific contributions to the field of palaeoanthropology, his crucial role as mentor, the assistance he has constantly and generously offered to colleagues and students from around the word, his insights into the nature and history of humanity, and the effort he has made to disseminate this knowledge and craft it into an integral aspect of human consciousness. We thank him for contributing a keynote address and stimulating inspiring debate during the meeting. This conference and the publication of the proceedings would not have taken place without the encouragement, assistance and support of numerous individuals and institutions. First and foremost, we thank Bernard Malauzat, Counsellor for Science, Culture and Development at the Embassy of France in South Africa, who was instrumental in developing this initiative. The Trustees of the Palaeoanthropology Scientific Trust (PAST) encouraged this endeavour and their Operations Manager, Andrea Leenen, together with Christine Read, were particularly helpful in final preparations. Jennifer Oppenheimer kindly secured Jan Smuts House, an ideal venue for the conference. Justice Edwin Cameron, Chairperson of Council, University of the Witwatersrand, generously accepted our invitation to give the opening address on behalf of the University, and travelled some distance to do so. Khotso Mokhele, President of the National Research Foundation, kindly agreed to speak on the significance of scientific research in general and palaeoanthropology in particular in the context of the new South Africa. Jean-Marie Hombert, Director of the Department of Humanities, French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), strove to encourage the success of the conference and spoke on the importance of South African/ French scientific collaboration. We thank Loyiso Nongxa and Richard Pienaar, Vice-Chancellor and Deputy ViceChancellor, Paul Dirks, Head of the School of Geosciences, and Bruce Rubidge, Head of the Bernard Price Institute for Palaeontology, University of the Witwatersrand, Patrick Buat-Menard, Vice-Chancellor, and Gerard Blanc, Dean of the Faculty of Geology,

ix

Acknowledgements

University of Bordeaux, and Monique Rivière, Scientific Attaché at the Embassy of France in South Africa, for their encouragement and support. Many friends, colleagues and members of the Wits community actively collaborated in the organisation of the event. Most notably Chrisandra Chetty and Iain Burns, who graciously oversaw the financial aspects of the conference. Lee Berger invited delegates to the Palaeoanthropology Unit for Research and Exploration for a welcome luncheon, provided the vehicles to transport the delegates and allowed students from the Unit to help with the organisation of the conference. In this regard we greatly appreciate the help of Rodrigo Lacruz, Christine Steininger, Barend van Rensburg, Headman Zondo, and Pedro Boshoff. The Rock Art Research Unit and the Department of Archaeology willingly agreed to open their doors and give tours to delegates on their arrival at Wits. The members of these institutions are sincerely thanked for their time and kindness. Our thanks also go to Matt Kitching and the Audiovisual Unit team at Wits for their competence in ensuring that things ran smoothly during the conference. Bob Brain and Kathy Kuman kindly led unforgettable post-conference excursions to Swartkrans and Sterkfontein. We are also grateful to Cathy Snow for creating and maintaining the conference website, and John Gurche for graciously permitting the use of his artwork as the conference logo. The conference was generously sponsored by the Embassy of France in South Africa, the Palaeoanthropology Scientific Trust, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, the University Bordeaux 1, the Johannesburg branch of the Alliance Française, the University of the Witwatersrand, and the Eurocore programme ‘Origin of Man, Language and Languages’. The preparation of this volume was funded by the Embassy of France in South Africa and the Palaeoanthropology Scientific Trust. We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable help provided by Mike Raath in editorially revising some of the manuscripts and Françoise Lagarde for formatting the figures of the manuscripts. In particular we thank the conference participants for the lively exchange of ideas that took place during these memorable days, and for contributing papers to this book.

x

Profile of Phillip Vallentine Tobias Phillip Tobias is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of the Witwatersrand Medical School. He holds the positions of Honorary Professor of Palaeoanthropology, Honorary Professorial Research Associate, and Director of the Sterkfontein Research Unit. He is the Andrew Dickson White Professor-at-Large of Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. He was born in Durban, Natal, in October 1925. At Wits University he obtained five degrees, including a medical degree, PhD in genetics and DSc in Palaeoanthropology. He served Wits University for over fifty years. He was a part-time teacher in the Anatomy Department (1946–1950), a lecturer and senior lecturer under Professor Raymond A. Dart (1951–1958), and Professor of Anatomy for thirty-five years, thirty-two of them as Head of the Department of Anatomy. He was Dean of the Wits Medical Faculty for three years and a Member of the University Council for fourteen years. Although he retired officially at the end of 1993, he continues to be actively involved in academic matters, supervising higher degree (PhD) students and Post-doctoral Fellows; he serves on numerous committees such as the planning committee for the World Heritage Site at Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Kromdraai and the environs; the South African National Commission for UNESCO (Immediate Past Chairman); Institute for the Study of Mankind in Africa (Founder President); on the editorial boards of a number of scientific periodicals, and is an honorary member and member of numerous national and international scientific academies. Phillip Tobias has researched on the chromosomes of mammals, the living peoples of southern Africa, especially Kalahari San (Bushmen), miners on the Witwatersrand gold mines from southern African countries, and the Tonga people of Zambia; the anatomy, growth, physique and secular trends in southern African peoples; the meaning of race in human beings, and the implications of racism; the history and philosophy of anatomy, anthropology and biology. He is a world authority on human evolution and the analysis of early hominid fossils. His work on the evolution of the human brain and the origins of spoken language is internationally recognised. He has examined and in most cases described ancient hominid fossils from South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Libya, Israel, Spain and other parts of Europe, Indonesia and China. His work at Sterkfontein is especially important. He first worked there as an undergraduate student in 1945 and has run a major excavation there continuously

xi

Profile of Phillip V Tobias

Professor Phillip Tobias

since 1966, being responsible for the recovery of some six hundred hominid fossils; these have made Sterkfontein the world’s richest single deposit for ancient hominid remains. He has excavated also at Makapansgat, Cave of Hearths, Rainbow Cave, Mwulu’s Cave, Kromdraai, Gladysvale, Taung, and Rose Cottage Cave, Ladybrand, Free State, and has been a consultant to the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO on the Peking Man site of Zhoukoudian near Beijing, China. Professor Tobias was entrusted

xii

Profile of Phillip V Tobias

by Louis and Mary Leakey with the study of all the fossil hominids they recovered from Tanzania and Kenya, a working partnership that continued for some twenty years and resulted in three large volumes and numerous articles by Tobias. Under his direction, the Wits Anatomy Department became a world centre for research and teaching on fossil hominids and human evolution. It attracted PhD and other research students from Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Portugal, Germany, China, the United States of America and southern Africa. Tobias has published over a thousand works, including approximately forty books and monographs and over ninety chapters in books. Internationally, Tobias is one of the most renowned South African scientists and probably the most highly honoured. He has received sixteen honorary degrees and was a recipient of the Balzan International Prize (the first time it was awarded for accomplishments in physical anthropology); the first to be awarded the L.S.B. Leakey Prize; the Charles Darwin Lifetime Achievement Award; the Anisfield-Wolf Award in Race Relations. He was the first South African living and working in South Africa to be honoured with the Fellowship of the Royal Society (London). He is a Foreign Associate of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) and is the only recipient in South Africa of this highest American honour. Among his many medals are the Huxley Memorial Medal, the Wood Jones Medal, the Ales Hrdlicka Medal, the South Africa Medal and the Rivers Memorial Medal. Various civil honours have been conferred upon him: the Order of Meritorious Service (Gold Class) of South Africa; the Order of the Southern Cross, Class II, of South Africa; Commander, National Order of Merit of France; Commander of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy and the Honorary Cross for Science and Arts, First Class, of Austria. Tobias was active in initiating the anti-apartheid campaign in the universities of South Africa from 1949, in his capacity as President of the non-racial National Union of South African Students. He kept up the fight against apartheid and for academic and human freedom in academia and in society at large, and played a prominent part in the struggle to keep the universities of South Africa open to all students and academic staff, irrespective of race. He was one of a small group of Wits and Cape Town professors who lodged a formal complaint with the South African Medical and Dental Council on the handling of Steve Biko by the ‘Biko doctors’, whose treatment of Biko was a critical factor in the events leading to his untimely death. On failing to gain satisfaction, Tobias and the other professors took the Medical Council to the Supreme Court and won the case. Numerous lectures and articles by Tobias document his sustained campaigning against the apartheid government’s policies, for over forty years. Among many socio-political activities, here are a handful: he negotiated on behalf of the Department of Arts, Culture,

xiii

Profile of Phillip V Tobias

Science and Technology (DACST) for the return to South Africa from France of the remains of Ms Saartjie Baartman; he was Founder of the African Medical Scholarships Trust Fund and Founder Chairman of MESAB – South Africa (Medical Education for South African Blacks); he is a Member of the Advisory Committee on Khoisan Identity and Heritage, DACST; Consultant on World Heritage Sites to the Gauteng and National governments, and President of the Education League of South Africa, a body set up to campaign against apartheid education.

xiv

List of Participants Graham Avery Natural History Division, Cenozoic Studies Iziko Museums of Cape Town Box 61, Cape Town 8000, South Africa. [email protected] Lucinda Backwell Institute for Human Evolution, School of Geosciences University of the Witwatersrand Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. UMR 5808 du CNRS, Institut de Préhistoire et de Géologie du Quaternaire Avenue des Facultés, 33405 Talence, France. [email protected] Marion Bamford Bernard Price Institute for Palaeontological Research University of the Witwatersrand Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected] Lee Berger Institute for Human Evolution School of Geosciences University of the Witwatersrand Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected] José Braga Laboratoire d’Anthropologie, PACEA/UMR 5199 du CNRS, Université Bordeaux 1, Avenue des Facultés, 33405 Talence Cedex, France. [email protected]

xv

List of participants

Bob Brain Transvaal Museum, Northern Flagship Institution, Paul Kruger Street P.O. Box 413, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa. [email protected] Edwin Cameron Supreme Court of Appeal P.O. Box 258, Bloemfontein 9300. School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. Nicholas J. Conard Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters Abteilung Ältere Urgeschichte und Quartärökologie Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Schloss Hohentübingen, 72070 Tübingen, Germany. [email protected] Francesco d’Errico PACEA/UMR 5199 du CNRS Institut de Préhistoire et de Geologie du Quaternaire UFR de Geologie, Bat. B18, Avenue des Facultés, 33405 Talence, France. Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington DC. [email protected] Simon Donnelly Department of Linguistics, University of the Witwatersrand Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected] Dominique Gommery UPR 2147 CNRS 44 rue de l’Amiral Mouchez, 75014 Paris, France. [email protected]

xvi

List of participants

Christopher Henshilwood Centre for Development Studies, University of Bergen Nygårdsgaten 5, N- 5015, Bergen, Norway. African Heritage Research Institute 167 Buitenkant Street Gardens, Cape Town 8001, South Africa. [email protected] Jean-Marie Hombert Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage Institut des Sciences de l’Homme 14, avenue Berthelot 69363 Lyon Cedex 07. Département des Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société du CNRS 3, rue Michel Ange 75794 Paris cedex 16, France. [email protected] Jean-Jacques Hublin Department of Human Evolution Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany. [email protected] Zenobia Jacobs Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) P.O. Box 395, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa. [email protected] Trefor Jenkins MRC/NHLS/Wits Human Genomic Diversity and Disease Research Unit National Health Laboratory Service and the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected] Frederic Joulian Responsable du Programme de Recherches Interdisciplinaires ‘Evolution, Natures et Cultures’, SHADYC, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 2 rue de la Vieille Charité, 13002 Marseille, France. [email protected]

xvii

List of participants

Kathy Kuman School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies University of the Witwatersrand Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected] Kevin Kuykendall Department of Anatomical Sciences University of the Witwatersrand Medical School 7 York Road, Parktown 2193, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected] David Lewis-Williams Rock Art Research Institute University of the Witwatersrand Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected] Bernard Malauzat Service de coopération et d’action culturelle Ambassade de France en Afrique du Sud 250 Melk Street, Nieuw Muckleneuk 0181, Pretoria, South Africa. [email protected] Alan Mann Department of Anthropology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544. [email protected] Curtis Marean Institute of Human Origins Department of Anthropology P.O. Box 872402, Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-2402. [email protected]

xviii

List of participants

Norbert Mercier Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement UMR 1572 Avenue de la Terrasse, F-91198 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France. [email protected] Khotso Mokhele National Research Foundation P.O. Box 2600, Pretoria 0001, South Africa. John Parkington Department of Archaeology University of Cape Town Private Bag, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa. [email protected] Martin Pickford Laboratoire de Paleontologie UMR 8569 du CNRS, 8, rue Buffon, 75005, Paris. College de France, 11, Place Marcellin Berthelot, 75005, Paris, France. [email protected] Cedric Poggenpoel Department of Archaeology University of Cape Town Private Bag, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa. [email protected] Sandrine Prat UPR 2147 du CNRS, 44 rue de l’Amiral Mouchez 75014 Paris, France. [email protected] Jean-Philippe Rigaud UMR 5808 du CNRS, Institut de Préhistoire et de Géologie du Quaternaire Av des Facultés, 33405, Talence, France. [email protected]

xix

List of participants

Nathan Schlanger Archives of European Archaeology (AREA) Institut national d’histoire de l’art, 2, rue Vivienne, 75002 Paris, France. [email protected] Frank Senegas Transvaal Museum, Paul Kruger Street P.O. Box 413, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa. [email protected] Brigitte Senut Département Histoire de la Terre, USM 0203 du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle & UMR 5143, PICS 1048 (CNRS), Case 38, 57, rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France. [email protected] Himla Soodyall MRC/NHLS/Wits Human Genomic Diversity and Disease Research Unit National Health Laboratory Service and the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected] Marie Soressi Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany. PACEA/UMR 5199 du CNRS Institut de Préhistorie et de Géologie du Quartenaire, UFR de Géologie, Bat. B18 Avenue des Facultés, 33405, Talence, France. [email protected] Christopher Stringer Department of Palaeontology The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road London, SW7 5BD, United Kingdom. [email protected]

xx

List of participants

Pierre-Jean Texier EP 2058 Préhistoire et Technologie 250 rue Albert Einstein Sophia-Antipolis, 06560 Valbonne, France. [email protected] Francis Thackeray Transvaal Museum P.O. Box 413, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa. [email protected] Phillip Tobias Sterkfontein Research Unit Department of Anatomical Sciences University of the Witwatersrand Medical School 7 York Road, Parktown, 2193, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected] Chantal Tribolo Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement UMR 1572, Avenue de la Terrasse F-91198 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France. [email protected] Helene Valladas Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement UMR 1572, Avenue de la Terrasse F-91198 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France. [email protected] Marian Vanhaeren CNRS UMR 7041 ArScAn, Ethnologie préhistorique 21 allée de l’Université, F-92023 Nanterre, France. [email protected]

xxi

From Tools to Symbols

Lyn Wadley Department of Archaeology University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected] Bonny Williamson School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. [email protected] Sarah Wurz Department of Geography and Environmental Studies University of Stellenbosch Private Bag X1, Stellenbosch, 7602, South Africa. [email protected]

xxii

Foreword Opening address by Justice Edwin Cameron Supreme Court of Appeal Chairperson of Council, University of the Witwatersrand This conference celebrates and explores the origins of technology and the human brain, and the evolution of our species. It is particularly appropriate that it is held in South Africa. For more than a decade, South Africa has been at the centre of dynamic change that has reshaped our world and our ideas about ourselves as Africans and South Africans. We achieved, against all odds, a relatively peaceful transition from a racially oppressive system to a functioning democracy. Every person in our country has guaranteed rights of democracy and freedom of speech under our Constitution. In addition, through our Constitution – one of the most progressive in the world – we as South Africans make a series of promises to each other concerning treating each other with dignity, equality and non-discrimination, as well as providing each other with basic socio-economic rights. From the base premises of apartheid we have joined as South Africans in aspiring to create a non-racial society based upon the fundamentals of civilised conditions and mutual respect. In doing so we have done more than merely refuse to be the prisoners of our degrading racial past. We have in fact demonstrated to the world the innate potential of humanity – the qualities of restraint, coordination and respect that have helped make Homo sapiens such a successful species. Yet, we still struggle. As the scientists assembled here will almost certainly tell us, we are very far from perfect – we have flawed anatomies, we misuse and abuse our technologies, and we have a too-marked propensity for intra-species violence. At this time in history, almost more than at any other time, humankind as a species faces grave issues. Here in Africa and around the world we face a mass epidemic of HIV/AIDS – a disease that probably originated in Africa. Our continent struggles with wars and famine, with racism, ethnicity, tribalism and religious intolerance. Our technologies – the very subject this conference explores – have been a blessing and a burden. We have used them for good: curing diseases, uplifting human lives, and exploring our world around us. In doing so, we utilised the power of the human brain, evolved here in Africa, to its fullest. But we have also used technology for war, the destruction of our

xxiii

Foreword

environment and other actions that threaten every species on this planet. Yet six million years of evolution in Africa has made us a resilient, innovative and even caring species – and it is countries like South Africa that show us the great potential of humankind. South Africa has in the last decade been a persisting source of interest and inspiration to the rest of the world. The hope we have brought to our problems continues to inspire the world, and it is for this reason that we feel pride in welcoming you to our country and our University. As participants in this conference, you carry a surprising burden. Archaeologists, palaeontologists and palaeoanthropologists are the explorers of our species. You are the scientists who examine what attributes define our humanity, what makes us a destructive species – while at the same time also having qualities of caring and altruism. You explore our history as a species, and your research guides us in better understanding ourselves, in order to reach our true potential. So it is most appropriate that a conference such as this is held here in Africa, and more particularly South Africa – where we sit forty-five minutes from what has rightly been dubbed ‘the Cradle of Humankind’. It is also appropriate as a demonstration of human cooperation. This conference was made possible by strong support from the French and South African governments, the private sector in the form of the Palaeoanthropology Scientific Trust (PAST), and from the scientists themselves who have come from all corners of the world to be here. We thank the Embassy of France in South Africa for this wonderful initiative and their very generous sponsorship of this event. Thanks also to the other sponsors – notably PAST – a trust comprising South African men and women of business that for more than a decade has been dedicated to the support of human evolutionary studies in South Africa. Thanks to the University of Bordeaux and to the host, Wits. And if, in thanking Wits, we had to single out one human face, one extraordinary individual – he would not be hard to choose. This conference is of course also a celebration of the life’s work of a very special individual. A great thinker and humanitarian, and an individual who has worked his entire life for a better understanding of our species; Phillip Vallentine Tobias is a child of South Africa and an offspring of this University, but he is really a son of the World. Professor Tobias has obtained five degrees from Wits, including a medical degree, PhD in genetics and DSc in Palaeoanthropology. He has served Wits University for over fifty years, thirty-two of them as Head of the Department of Anatomy. He is the first and only person to hold three professorships at Wits – simultaneously! Internationally, he is one of the most renowned South African scientists and probably the most highly honoured, having received sixteen honorary degrees. Civil honours that have been conferred upon him include: The Order of Meritorious Service (Gold Class) of South Africa, Commander, National Order of Merit of France,

xxiv

Foreword

Commander of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy, The Honorary Cross for Science and Arts, First Class, of Austria. His many accolades include being selected as one out of a maximum of twenty permitted as an Honorary Life Member of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences; the first South African living and working in this country to be honoured with membership as a Fellow of the Royal Society of London; the only South African invited to become a Foreign Member of The American Philosophical Society; and the only South African ever to receive the Charles Darwin Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Phillip Tobias has made an enormous – and probably incalculable – contribution to our understanding of the human species. To call his work multidisciplinary or multifaceted is only to begin to understand its impact. His work has not only been confined to the study of bones, nor has it been confined to the study of human anatomy, nor even to the more difficult study of the processes of evolution or the process of human thought itself. Reading any one of his numerous papers illustrates the depth and breadth of his knowledge and his unique ability to combine many different aspects of science and life into a cogent and lucid argument. Professor Tobias has published over a thousand works, including forty books and monographs and over ninety chapters in books. But at the end of last year he ventured into a new field, that of star of the small screen. He hosted a successful television series entitled Tobias’s Bodies. This looked at what it means to be human in the twenty-first century in the light of what we know about our distant past. Its flighting on national television was highly successful – not least because of the inimitably engaging presence of the narrator and steward of the series – and is currently being considered for syndication and translation worldwide. To his intellectual and academic achievements I want to add that, as a person, his qualities of warmth, the ambition of his intellect, the liberality of his spirit and his social politics have served as an inspiration not just to his own students, but to successive generations of executive and academic leaders at Wits. And so, it is particularly important that the title of this conference is so allencompassing: From Tools to Symbols – From Early Hominids to Modern Humans. This could well be a summary of the life achievement of Phillip Tobias. At this time in history, the exploration of our heritage is important to South Africa and, I believe, to the human species. The exchange of cultural and scientific ideas amongst nations builds awareness of others, and in this awareness-building is the key to making the world a better place for humankind. It is my hope that this conference will contribute in a substantial way to making us more aware of ourselves as humans, and in doing so make this world a better place for humankind and all of the remainder of life that shares this planet with us. I

xxv

Foreword

trust that your conference will be a success and that your discourses prove productive, and I remind you of the auspicious grounds that you conduct your business upon – the very ground that moulded the evolution of our species. Johannesburg, 16 March 2003

xxvi

Address

Address by Bernard Malauzat Counsellor for Science, Culture and Development Embassy of France in South Africa Our Embassy is deeply committed to the continuing development of a sound co-operation between France and South Africa in the fields of palaeontology and palaeoanthropology. There are several reasons for this. Subsidising the discovery of the past, our origins and our ancestors has been a well-established, almost centennial tradition of our department ever since we began archaeological missions to the Middle East. This tradition continues today and is fitting for a country where cultural research is a vital part of its transition to democracy. The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs devotes around one third of its budget to ‘cultural cooperation’, which is considered an important component of our diplomacy. By supporting our quest for the past through various missions throughout Africa, France reinforces her well-known commitment to the promotion of cultural diversity throughout the world and her respect for diversified forms of human fulfilment. In this regard, we share President Thabo Mbeki’s homage to the work of Phillip Tobias and Francis Thackeray at the inauguration of the Freedom Park Museum in Pretoria. Here he stressed how important for the new South Africa the work of these two eminent scholars and their colleagues are, because when investigating the past three million years of human evolution, they see beyond the divisions of race, colour and creed and stress instead the unifying aspects of our common ancestry. We share that belief and this homage to Professor Tobias, our guest of honour today. Another reason for our sustained efforts in this field lies in the already established research cooperation between France and South Africa, as the number of speakers in this seminar attests. Public funds to the tune of €1 500 000 per year are made available for the development of scientific cooperation between our two countries. We wish to maintain and if possible increase this level, particularly through support for the training of students, researchers or technical agents from historically disadvantaged communities. This cooperation is based on both a common respect for and interest in the exceptionally rich heritage of our two countries. The discovery of the Chauvet

xxvii

Address

and Cosquer Caves in the last decade dramatically increased the cultural heritage of the world, and in reply to Abbé Breuil’s visits to your country, the French government invited Professor David Lewis-Williams from Wits University to assess these discoveries in France. An interesting book resulted from the cooperation between Professor LewisWilliams and Professor Jean Clottes. By the same token, several French experts have been invited to study the palaeontological treasures of South Africa. The rich material in both countries and well-developed networks of laboratories and research naturally encourages the establishment of long-term partnerships. Having lived many years in Jordan, Egypt and Turkey, I know from experience that documenting our past also has many political and economic dimensions. Firstly, it contributes to consolidating the identity of the country concerned. Secondly, by attracting the sustained interest of the media, it is one of the few scientific pursuits that gains the widespread interest of the public at large. For now, in wishing success to this seminar, I would like to extend our warmest thanks to our main hosts, the people and the government of South Africa; to the University of the Witwatersrand and the South African Institute for International Affairs; to Jennifer Oppenheimer for her generous involvement; the Palaeoanthropology Scientific Trust for co-funding this event; Professor Hombert, Director of the CNRS Department of Humanities, and last but not least, to Lucinda Backwell and the students of her unit, who together with Francesco d’Errico, have mustered a lot of energy and work in making this moment possible. To all, thank you. Johannesburg, 16 March 2003 Notre Ambassade est profondément attachée au développement d’une coopération solide entre la France et l’Afrique du Sud dans les domaines de la paléontologie et de la paléo-anthropologie. Il y a à cela plusieurs raisons. Subventionner la découverte du passé, de nos origines et de nos ancêtres est une tradition bien établie, presque centenaire, de notre ministère depuis le temps où commencèrent nos missions archéologiques au Moyen Orient. Cette tradition continue aujourd’hui et convient particulièrement dans un pays, l’Afrique du Sud, où la recherche ‘culturelle’ est partie intégrante de la transition vers la démocratie. Le Ministère des Affaires Etrangères en France consacre près du tiers de son budget à ‘la coopération culturelle’, que nous considérons comme une composante importante de notre diplomatie. En soutenant la quête du passé au travers de diverses missions en Afrique, la France réaffirme son engagement bien connu pour la promotion de la diversité culturelle dans le monde et son respect pour diverses formes d’accomplissement

xxviii

Address

humain. A cet égard, nous partageons l’hommage du Président Mbeki à l’œuvre de Phillip Tobias et de Francis Thackeray lors de l’inauguration du ‘Freedom Park Museum’ à Pretoria. Il mit alors l’accent sur l’importance pour la nouvelle Afrique du Sud des travaux de ces deux éminents savants et de leurs collègues, car, en faisant des recherches sur les trois derniers millions d’années de l’évolution humaine, ils regardent par delà les divisions de races, de couleurs, de croyances, et mettent plutôt l’accent sur les aspects unificateurs de notre passé commun. Nous partageons cette conviction et cet hommage au Professeur Tobias, notre hôte d’honneur aujourd’hui. Une autre raison de nos efforts soutenus dans ce domaine réside dans le fait que la coopération entre la France et l’Afrique du Sud dans ce domaine de recherche est déjà bien établie comme en témoigne le nombre de intervenants à ce séminaire. Chaque année, des fonds publics de l’ordre de 1 500 000 Euros sont mis à la disposition de la coopération scientifique entre nos deux pays. Nous souhaitons maintenir, et si possible, accroître ce niveau, en particulier par le soutien à la formation d’étudiants, de chercheurs ou de techniciens issus des communautés historiquement désavantagées. Cette coopération est fondée à la fois sur un respect commun et sur un intérêt pour le patrimoine exceptionnellement riche de nos deux pays. La découverte de la grotte Chauvet, et de la grotte Cosquer durant ces dix dernières années a accru de façon spectaculaire l’héritage culturel du monde, et en écho aux visites de l’Abbé Breuil dans votre pays, le Gouvernement Français a invité le Professeur David LewisWilliams de l’Université Wits à évaluer ces découvertes en France. Il en est résulté un livre intéressant, fruit de la coopération entre le Professeur Lewis-Williams et le Professeur Jean Clottes. Dans le même esprit, plusieurs experts français ont été invités à participer à l’étude des trésors paléontologiques de l’Afrique du Sud. Le matériau très riche dans les deux pays, et des réseaux très développés de laboratoires ou de chercheurs encouragent naturellement l’établissement de partenariats à long terme. Ayant vécu de nombreuses années en Jordanie, en Egypte et en Turquie, je sais par expérience que le fait de documenter notre passé a aussi de nombreuses dimensions politiques ou économiques. Cela contribue d’abord à consolider l’identité du pays concerné. De plus, en attirant l’intérêt soutenu des médias, c’est l’une des rares aventures scientifiques qui mobilise largement l’intérêt du grand public. Pour le moment, en souhaitant beaucoup de succès à ce séminaire, je voudrais exprimer nos remerciements les plus chaleureux à nos hôtes, le peuple et le Gouvernement de l’Afrique du SUD ; à l’Université de Witwatersrand et à l’Institut sud africain des relations Internationales; à Jennifer Oppenheimer, par sa participation généreuse; à PAST, la Fondation scientifique pour la Paléo-anthropologie qui a co-

xxix

Address

financé cet événement; au Professeur Hombert, Directeur du Département des Sciences Humaines du CNRS, et, ‘last but not least’, à Lucinda Backwell et aux étudiants de son unité, qui avec Francesco d’Errico, ont mobilisé une énergie et un travail considérables afin que ce moment devienne possible. A tous, merci. Johannesburg, le 16 mars 2005

xxx

Keynote Address Phillip V Tobias This Round Table is a celebration of Franco–South African collaboration in the fields of palaeoanthropology and archaeology. In this cooperative endeavour, we who pursue our lives and researches in South Africa have been at the receiving end of extraordinary largesse from France, mediated with sagacity and imagination by the Embassy of France in South Africa and the CNRS. This conference is the latest manifestation of this fruitful inter-hemispheric interaction. It is our hope that the research opportunities and facilities which South Africa is able to offer in abundance and the ‘Open House’ policy towards visiting researchers and students which we have pursued for nearly half a century may effect a certain symmetry in this relationship. It is symbolic of this cross-pollination that this symposium has been organised by a French scientist, Francesco d’Errico, and a South African one, Lucinda Backwell. For their combined efforts, coupled with their manifest organisational skills, we who participated in the meeting are deeply indebted. To them and their helpers, a sincere expression of thanks is due. Personally, I convey my gratitude to the organisers for their very kind thought in dedicating the Round Table to myself, a most touching and generous gesture which I deeply appreciate. A fitting time was chosen for the holding of this conference: worthy of celebration is the fact that fifty years ago Francis Crick and James Watson published their historic paper announcing the double helix model for the structure of DNA; another cause of rejoicing is the award of a Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine for 2002 to Sydney Brenner, who obtained his first four degrees at the University of the Witwatersrand and is also a Doctor of Science honoris causa of this University. In part commemoration of both these historic events, a meeting is to be held next week, in tandem with this one, on the Human Genome in Africa, organised by Dr Wilmot James of the South African Human Sciences Research Council.

xxxi

Keynote address

Cette Table Ronde est une célébration de la collaboration franco-sud-africaine dans les domaines de la paléoanthropologie et de l’archéologie. Dans cet effort de coopération, nous avons, pour ceux qui vivent et font des recherches en Afrique du Sud, bénéficié d’une générosité extraordinaire de la part de la France, par l’intermédiaire de l’Ambassade de France en Afrique du Sud et du CNRS. La présente Table Ronde est la manifestation la plus récente de cet échange fructueux entre les deux hémisphères. Nous espérons que les opportunités de recherche et les installations que l’Afrique du Sud est à même d’offrir, ainsi que la politique de ‘Portes ouvertes’ aux chercheurs et aux étudiants de passage que nous menons depuis presque cinquante ans, puisse apporter une certaine symétrie dans cette relation. Notre collaboration scientifique est symbolisée e par le fait que deux universitaires et chercheurs d’Afrique du Sud, Lucinda Backwell, et de France, Francesco d’Errico, ont organisé la Table Ronde. Grâce à leurs aptitudes à l’organisation et à leurs efforts de collaboration, nous avons donc le plaisir de prendre part à cette réunion et nous les remercions de vive voix. Merci encore à Lucinda Backwell et à Francesco d’Errico. Pour ma part, j’aimerais exprimer ma gratitude aux organisateurs pour m’avoir dédié cette Table Ronde, un geste touchant et généreux que j’apprécie grandement. La tenue de cette Table Ronde n’est pas sans raison. En effet, nous célébrons aujourd’hui les cinquante ans de la publication de la communication historique de Francis Crick et James Watson qui annonçaient la structure en double hélice de l’ADN; nous célébrons aussi le Prix Nobel de Physiologie et de Médecine 2002 qu’a reçu Sydney Brenner, qui a obtenu ses quatre premiers diplômes de l’Université du Witwatersrand et qui est Docteur en Science honoris causa de la même Université. En commémoration de ces deux événements historiques, une réunion se tiendra la semaine prochaine sur le génome humain en Afrique, organisé par le Dr Wilmot James du HSRC. Johannesburg, 16 March 2003

xxxii

Searching for common ground in palaeoanthropology, archaeology and genetics Francesco d’Errico and Lucinda Backwell Sub-Saharan Africa provides an archaeological and palaeontological record that is crucial to understanding hominid anatomical and behavioural evolution. This cradle of humanity has attracted a number of international interdisciplinary research teams in search of answers as to what made us human. Collaboration with African scientists has been particularly fruitful, producing in the last few decades some of the most significant contributions to these fields of study. Since the 1920s French archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists have collaborated with South African colleagues to unearth and highlight this unique heritage. The primary aim of the symposium was to synthesise and debate results of current research on the origin of humankind and share thoughts on the future of this endeavour. More specifically, it provided the opportunity to highlight results of collaborative French–South African research projects in the framework of international research programmes conducted in southern Africa, and envision paths for future collaboration. Scholars interested in the human past are living in an exciting era, in which crossfertilisation between disciplines such as palaeoanthropology, primatology, genetics, archaeology, palaeoecology, climatology, linguistics, ethnography, evolutionary psychology and the neurosciences is producing novel integrated attempts at modelling biological–cultural interactions. The challenge is how to promote this dialogue in a manner that stimulates better comprehension of the human adventure without creating dogmatic paradigms or mainstream scenarios. In the past the concept of ‘culture’ played a crucial role in creating a conceptual barrier between humans and other primates. We now accept that chimpanzees possess rather complex cultural traditions that are independent of ecological constraints (Whiten et al., 1999). Partly as a consequence of this, it has become commonplace

1

From Tools to Symbols

to use the notion of ‘behavioural modernity’ rather than that of culture to indicate the range of ‘advanced’ traits that distinguish us and our recent ancestors from living primates and a fluctuating number of fossil hominid populations (Bar-Yosef, 2002; Klein, 1999; McBrearty & Brooks, 2000). However, it is argued that the definitions of ‘behavioural modernity’ proposed thus far are ambiguous and often represent ad hoc accommodative arguments to provide a theoretically grounded basis for the interpretation of archaeological evidence (d’Errico, 2003; d’Errico et al., 2003; Henshilwood & Marean, 2003). Can archaeology, palaeoanthropology and genetics tell us how and when human cultures developed the traits that make our societies different, in some respect, from those of our closest living relatives? In which cases are these differences substantial, and when do they simply reflect our definition of culture, of species (Holliday, 2003), the image we have of their evolution, and in the final analysis, of ourselves? When we address the question of the origin of behavioural modernity by relying exclusively on the archaeological and palaeontological record, the acquisition of these ‘modern’ traits appears to be the result of a long process that has affected different groups and hominid types, and not a sudden explosion coincidental with one or two momentary biological changes. The quest of archaeology and palaeoanthropology is to propose models that best fit the hard evidence. Many researchers have tried to characterise the anatomy and the behavioural systems of early hominids and early modern populations in an attempt to understand how we became who and what we are. This book records some of these endeavours and attempts to chronicle them in a coherent form. Cross-pollination between disciplines and research traditions has a long history, the narrative of which often sheds light on current epistemological approaches and allows us to look at future collaborations through the wise eyes of the past. Schlanger’s essay in this volume is an elegant illustration of how revisiting the history of archaeology may reveal unexpected turns of events and ideas. Terminological innovations in early South African archaeology are shown to have been the result of strategic scientific self-affirmation on both international and domestic levels. European archaeological traditions were instrumental in this endeavour as they provided an essential term of reference and ground for confrontation. Schlanger’s research resurrects another largely forgotten page of Franco–South African scientific dialogue. He shows that the interest of South African archaeological pioneers in lithic technology and raw material left its mark on eminent French prehistorians, leading to the development of the well-known French chaîne opératoire approach to the study of lithics. It is significant that this approach, to the emergence of which South African scholars seminally contributed, is becoming central to present-day collaboration between these two scientific communities, as demonstrated by a number of papers in this book.

2

Searching for common ground in palaeoanthropology, archaeology and genetics

Brain’s paper takes us to the heart of the matter that constitutes the focus of this book. He explores the significance of some of the more striking attributes that make us human (brain size, appendages, social organisation, complex communication, suitable birth canal), and speculates why other animals, which possess some of these traits, have not followed the same course. Building on his findings at Swartkrans, he elaborates on the mechanisms that may have stimulated the emergence of these features and their eventual evolutionary success. Joulian cautions us from the outset that human abilities and behaviours we are now ready to accept as shared with chimpanzees, including tool making, creation and transmission of distinct cultural traditions, and carnivory, might well be only the tip of an iceberg that researchers have thus far tackled using a clumsy anthropocentric approach. When analysed from the perspective of the elementary actions recorded in wild chimpanzees, or inferred from the archaeological record left by Plio-Pleistocene hominids, no significant differences appear between the two material cultures. The only exception is the use of sharp-edged tools by hominids, not found among chimpanzees. The implications of these observations for the emergence and definition of modern behaviour are certainly many and need to be explored in future research. Tobias recalls that chimpanzees, and to some extent baboon communities, are able to create and transmit a number of cultural behaviours that some archaeologists would consider suggestive of modern cognition. Also, a review of the archaeological record does not support an abrupt genetically driven transition to behavioural modernity. This evidence tells us that the story of human cognition was a gradual one; but how does one identify steps, if any, in this process? Tobias turns to comparative anatomy for an answer. Homo habilis unequivocally stands out as the first hominid exhibiting a disproportionate enlargement of the brain, a critical hallmark of humankind. Complex culture may be seen as the innovation, driven by increased encephalisation, which allowed our ancestors to overcome Mather’s paradox – that is, to simultaneously increase adaptability and adaptedness. Tobias argues that endocranial casts demonstrate that H. habilis was the first to manifest a human-like brain structure, and to display clear signs of Broca’s and Wernicke’s caps, features associated with language competence in modern humans. Has the time to accept this evidence finally arrived? One may wonder, in light of the thirtyyear saga surrounding this discovery that Tobias so eloquently relates in his paper. Environmental changes certainly played a role in this process. Their documentation has become an integral part of any scenario attempting to model early hominid evolution. Bamford’s contribution aims at synthesising the available South and East African botanical evidence, exploring how palaeobotanical data may be used for palaeoenvironmental reconstructions, and discusses the potential of this record for understanding the influence of the environment on hominid adaptation.

3

From Tools to Symbols

Early hominid and primate bones remain the primary source of information to estimate the timing and mechanisms of our evolution. Pickford and Senut’s contribution takes us to a crucial yet poorly understood part of history, that of the dichotomy between the chimpanzee and hominid lineage. Even if sparse, the palaeontological record is providing clear evidence, they argue, for a considerably earlier split between the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominid clades, thereby challenging the timing that most molecular biologists propose for this process. This observation, and the broader review of the evidence that Senut provides in her paper, stress the importance of looking further back in time for answers to the origin of hominids. The Miocene hominoid record certainly represents the new frontier in palaeoanthropological enquiry, and once decisive inferences are made, will constitute the ideal climate in which to establish a constructive dialogue with genetics. Gommery concentrates on a critical and long-debated aspect of human adaptation, the emergence of bipedalism and its possible link with the handling, transport and production of stone tools. His research shows that Plio-Pleistocene and perhaps even Upper Miocene hominids experimented with different modes of bipedalism, none of which prevented them from transporting or deliberately modifying stone tools. Contrary to the popular belief that views development of complex technology, hand dexterity, and bipedalism as closely related, Gommery makes the point, mostly relying on the South African palaeontological record, that technology and highly developed cognitive abilities probably had more to do with changes in the brain than in mode of locomotion. A detailed reappraisal of the taxonomic affiliation of twenty-three key hominid cranial specimens variably designated as ‘early Homo’ from East and South Africa leads Prat to identify two species of the same genus (Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis) and to challenge their inclusion in the genera Australopithecus or Kenyanthropus. These interesting results confirm the original diagnosis proposed by Hughes and Tobias more than thirty years ago. Thackeray and Braga are also concerned with distinguishing Homo from australopithecine remains, albeit in the context of two close deposits, Kromdraai A and B. After discussing the dating of these deposits, they make a case, based on dental morphology, for the presence of Homo at Kromdraai B. The occurrence of very few stone tools in this deposit is attributed to the fact that the site may have functioned as a death trap. The relative abundance of stone tools, most of which are polyhedral in shape at Kromdraai A, a site with no hominid remains, is instead interpreted as an accumulation of large felid prey, occasionally scavenged by either Homo or Australopithecus. Berger’s contribution is also concerned with the acquisition of new data as a way to test hypotheses on early hominin evolution, adaptation and cultural behaviour. In the past decade, the Cradle of Humankind has been the object of numerous field

4

Searching for common ground in palaeoanthropology, archaeology and genetics

operations (e.g. Coopers, Gladysvale, Plover’s Lake) that are significantly increasing our knowledge of the nature and potential of sites preserved in this area. Berger correctly points out that this unique heritage requires the application of precise recording techniques. This is crucial to understanding site formation processes, the context of palaeontological/archaeological remains, and creating site databases that may be compared. Kuman and colleagues report on a similar endeavour, namely the systematic survey and excavation of open-air Early, Middle and Later Stone Age sites from the northernmost border of South Africa. This is a key area to relate technological changes to occupation of the landscape, and explore the geographic extent of Early Stone Age industries named after national traditions, but which in reality may well represent the same cultural phenomenon. The pioneering studies conducted by Brain have shown that stone tools are not the only archaeological expression of South African early hominid material culture. Bone tools in the form of elongated shaft fragments used in digging activities, so far found at three sites, reflect subsistence strategies that would have seemed beyond the grasp of science until a few years ago. Reappraisal of the South African evidence leads Backwell and d’Errico to identify a number of new bone tools from the key site of Swartkrans, explore the implications of their occurrence through members for the identification of the user (Homo vs Australopithecus), and propose a new functional interpretation based on wear pattern quantification. Contrasting this record with the result of their first-hand analysis of the Olduvai purported bone tools, they recognise the presence of two different bone tool industries, suggestive of distinct cultural traditions. Soodyall and Jenkins’s elegant review of the contribution of genetics to the study of human origins highlights the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to tracing our recent and distant past. The Out of Africa model for the emergence of modern humans, grounded on mtDNA variation, proposed twenty years ago by Cann and collaborators, has since been strengthened and refined, and undoubtedly represents one of the major scientific achievements to shed light on human history. While genetic variation among living peoples and analysis of ancient DNA are often seen as complementary means by which to trace genetic lineage, Jenkins and Soodyall caution that extraction of ancient DNA is a recent technique and not a trivial procedure. Accordingly, obtaining reliable results depends on the application of a strict protocol. Genetics is becoming a necessary friend of palaeontology, archaeology and linguistics. A number of syntheses contrasting the African and Eurasian archaeological records and documenting the emergence of behavioural modernity have recently been advanced. The synthesis offered here by Conard comes from a scholar who has extensive knowledge of both the European and the southern African evidence. He is

5

From Tools to Symbols

furthermore involved in excavation of sites such as Geissenklosterle, which are crucial for the understanding of the Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe. He concludes that the emergence of modern behaviour is gradual and heterogeneous in space and time. The appearance of personal ornaments, figurative art and other classes of artefacts, including musical instruments, points to a punctuated development of fully modern behaviour during the middle of the Upper Pleistocene, and certainly no later than forty thousand years ago. This leads him to reject a strict monogenetic model in favour of a pattern of highly variable polygenetic development. Marean complements this picture by providing a model that resolves the apparent paradox of a successful species adapted to temperate/cold climate, the Neanderthals, replaced by another, ourselves, having evolved in the tropics. In his view the answer lies in substantially different subsistence strategies employed by each, one dependent on high-risk confrontational hunting, the other relying on more technically flexible hunting practices requiring complex cultural transmission. A second model for this contact is provided by Lewis-Williams’s intriguing contribution. This essay represents a precise and reasoned formalisation of the image that most researchers from outside of Europe, not primarily concerned with the archaeological evidence, have of Neanderthal cognition. This gives the freedom to explore the more recessed aspects of ancient minds and offers ground for discussion and future empirical testing. The interest of this perspective is that it comes from a scholar with a vast knowledge of the symbolic material culture produced by African traditional societies, and the way symbolic systems shape human behaviour. Resolutely engaged in a hypothesis-testing approach, Soressi reaches similar conclusions to those of Conard, and contradictory to those of Lewis-Williams. From her study of lithic technology produced by Neanderthal communities before the arrival of Modern Human in Europe (oxygen isotope stage 3), she identifies patterns of innovation, geographic variations indicative of regional identity, and longterm planning strategies that support the hypothesis of a gradual evolution toward behavioural modernity of Neanderthals at much the same time as similar changes are observed in the African Middle Stone Age. Documenting these technological changes is the main concern of Wurz, who recognises and quantifies at Klasies River technological differences between MSA I and MSA II lithics. These assemblages were previously considered indistinguishable, or part of a continuum, and interpreted as demonstrating pre-modern behaviour. Wurz appropriately points out that this is more a function of a lack of detailed studies than a real stasis in technological evolution, and that new analyses of multi-layered sequences and inter-site comparisons will be crucial to understand, if not interpret, this record in terms of the emergence of modernity.

6

Searching for common ground in palaeoanthropology, archaeology and genetics

Henshilwood’s contribution focuses on Blombos Cave, a Middle Stone Age site that has arguably provided one of the most important records for the origin of behavioural modernity in the last ten years. Questioned by some authors, the stratigraphic integrity of the Blombos sequence is discussed in detail, and the most outstanding recent finds described. The symbolic meaning of Blombos MSA material culture indicates modern cognition not previously associated with Middle Stone Age people. Jacobs’s results on the optically stimul