Lone Survivors (21 page)

The concept of a Human Revolution in the arrival of behavioral modernity during the last 50,000 years, as argued by Klein, or between 60,000 and 80,000 years, as argued by Mellars, has been strongly challenged by archaeologists like Sally McBrearty and Alison Brooks, who consider that such views display a Eurocentric bias, even if the original Human Revolution model has now been transferred to Africa. This is because by focusing on changes that occurred at the Middle Paleolithic/Upper Paleolithic or Middle Stone Age/Later Stone Age transitions (in Europe and Africa, respectively), there is a failure to appreciate the depth and breadth of the African Middle Stone Age record that preceded the time of the supposed revolution by at least 100,000 years. In their view, “modern” features such as advanced technologies, increased geographic range, specialized hunting, fishing, and shell-fishing, long-distance trade, and the symbolic use of pigments had already developed in a broad range of Middle Stone Age industries right across Africa between 100,000 and 250,000 years ago. This suggested to them that an early assembly of the package of modern human behaviors occurred in Africa, followed by much later export to the rest of the world.

Thus the origin of our species, both behaviorally and morphologically, was linked to early developments in Middle Stone Age technology, and not to changes that occurred much later, toward the end of the Middle Stone Age. McBrearty and Brooks also pointed out that by placing the most important changes close to the time of the exodus of modern humans from Africa, there might be an inference that those changes were the necessary ones to enable humans to exit from Africa and thrive beyond there, further implying that those who were left behind in Africa were in something of a cultural backwater. And as for the whole “revolution” concept, McBrearty said that “this quest for this ‘eureka moment' reveals a great deal about the needs, desires, and aspirations of archaeologists, but obscures rather than illuminates events in the past. It continues to put Europe on centre stage, casting it either as the arena where the actual events of human origins were enacted, or as the yardstick by which human accomplishments elsewhere must be measured.”

We do need to find the earliest evidence for symbolic behavior in the archaeological record—a key factor in resolving this debate—and whether it ever extended beyond our species. This brings us to the critical question of how to recognize symbolism, when we cannot mind-read the intentionality of people in the distant past. I regularly receive correspondence, pictures, and e-mails from people who are convinced that stones they discovered had been shaped by ancient humans into depictions of animals or human faces, and yet these are almost certainly natural objects, shaped by geology rather than a premodern human species. Our brains and eyes have evolved to recognize patterns, so a pebble with two round grooves and one straight one may look like a face to us, even if the holes are entirely natural and the stone came from deposits that are millions of years old. Some people consider that handaxes a million years old are symbolic objects, since they are generally shaped to look symmetrical and seem overdesigned for their function, if this was primarily to butcher animal carcasses; thus they may have had a social as well as a functional purpose. A famous paleoanthropologist reportedly said to the archaeologist Desmond Clark that handaxes were so sophisticated they indicated that
Homo erectus
must have had language. But Clark, noting that handaxes had hardly changed shape through a million years of the Lower Paleolithic (Lower Old Stone Age) and across three continents, answered that if that were so, these ancient people were saying the same thing to each other, over and over and over again!

As we move on in time to about 300,000 years ago, the more complex technologies that are associated with the Middle Paleolithic, made both by Neanderthals and by the lineage of
Homo sapiens
in Africa, start to appear. Techniques that required more distinct steps in the manufacture of tools became widespread across Africa and western Eurasia, and the first truly composite tools appeared. Even before this, the Schöningen spears showed ancient human preplanning that must have happened in several stages over more than one day, and by 260,000 years ago, early humans at Twin Rivers (Zambia) were apparently manufacturing stone segments and points designed to be mounted on wooden handles. They also left behind lumps of natural pigments in many colors, some locally derived and others collected from a distance. Hematite (red iron oxide) could have had functional as well as symbolic uses, such as treating animal skins, as part of adhesives for composite tools and even as an insect repellent. But it is possible, although unsupported by other evidence, that the pigments were being used for body painting at this early date, before there is any fossil evidence of modern humans. This could have been symbolic, or perhaps at this stage it was only to increase the visual impact of the body as a display, as I discuss in chapter 8.

About sixty pieces of hematite were excavated by Curtis Marean and his colleagues from cave PP13B on the southern South African coast at Pinnacle Point, dating from about 160,000 years ago—within the time range of the first early modern fossils from the other end of the continent, at Herto and Omo Kibish in Ethiopia. The pigments were found along with possible evidence of composite tools and indications of the exploitation of marine resources in the form of shellfish—the earliest definitely known. Again there is the possibility that the hematite had a functional rather than symbolic purpose, but consistent selection of the most brilliant reds suggests that its use was symbolic. Even stronger evidence of symbolic behavior comes from later sites with definite evidence of modern humans. At about 115,000 years, Skhul Cave in Israel has the oldest known symbolic burial, an early modern man interred clasping the lower jaw of a massive wild boar, and this site also has some of the oldest evidence of shell beads, as well as further natural pigments, including ones that have been heated to change either their color or their chemical properties. The 100,000-year-old occupation of Qafzeh Cave near Nazareth also has pierced shells and red ocher, potentially associated with a number of modern human burials, one of which was a child whose body was covered by huge deer antlers. The earliest burials, both modern human and Neanderthal, seem generally to have been of single individuals, although a woman and a child may have been buried together at Qafzeh, while there are claims for a Neanderthal family cemetery at La Ferrassie Cave in France.

The most impressive single site for early evidence of symbolism, however, is Blombos Cave in South Africa, with a record stretching well beyond 70,000 years ago. Blombos is a relatively small cave in sandstone cliffs on South Africa's southern coast, discovered by the archaeologist Chris Henshilwood on his family's land, and excavated by him over the last twenty years. Although many initially doubted the evidence from the site and the claims for its great antiquity, most experts recognize its significance now. As well as a clear stratigraphy, four dating methods, including luminescence applied to quartz grains and heated stone tools, were employed to make this one of the best-dated Middle Stone Age sites in Africa. The stone tools in these levels include Still Bay points, beautifully shaped thin lanceolate spear points, flaked on both sides. They also show the earliest application of a refined stone toolmaking technique known as
pressure flaking
, some 55,000 years before its best-known manifestation in the Solutrean industry of Europe. Slabs of red ocher were excavated from various levels, including the deepest ones, with wavy, fan, or mesh-shaped patterns carefully engraved on them, and the patterns seem purposeful rather than accidental or random. Although the ocher colors faded somewhat after long periods of burial in the cave sediments, experiments show that the engraved lines would originally have been a vivid bloodred color. Whether this was part of their symbolic importance to the people of Blombos Cave is unknown, but the cognitive archaeologist David Lewis-Williams compared the patterns with those made by people today in trance states or under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs.

Alongside the tools and ocher were objects that are easier to interpret in terms of their symbolic nonpractical significance: beads made from seashells of the tick (
Nassarius
). Hundreds have now been excavated from Blombos, and most show signs of piercing, with many of the holes also displaying signs of wear, where they must have been suspended from a string or thong. The shells have a natural shiny luster, but the color seems to have been modified by rubbing with hematite in some cases and by heating to darken the shells in other cases, so they may have been strung in different-colored patterns.

The use of tick shells was seemingly widespread across the geographic range of modern humans at this time, over a distance of more than 5,000 kilometers. I mentioned the shell beads from Skhul and Qafzeh in Israel earlier, and there are at least five sites in Morocco and Algeria where tick shell beads are present in Middle Paleolithic levels, in several cases dated by luminescence or uranium series to between 80,000 and 100,000 years. A different species of
Nassarius
is present on the Mediterranean coasts, but it may be significant that this same genus was selected to make the beads, and in some cases the shells were transported or exchanged over distances of 190 kilometers from the coast. This tradition of using tick shells seemingly continued into the Upper Paleolithic at sites in Lebanon, Turkey, and southern Europe, but there are changes in the style and the materials used, which might reflect how they were being employed socially.

An exterior view of Blombos Cave, South Africa.

Looking out to the sea from Blombos Cave.

As the archaeologists Francesco d'Errico and Marian Vanhaeran suggested, in the earliest periods with tick shells, and then ostrich eggshell beads, something attractive but readily available—and manufactured without a huge investment of time and skill—was being employed. Although there is evidence that some shells were treated with red ocher and others were heated to darken them, perhaps to create strings of different colors, the perforation in many shell beads was just punched with a stone tool or was even present naturally from when they were collected on the beach. This suggests the beads primarily had a role in reinforcing social networks as items of exchange within groups, perhaps in gift-giving ceremonies, without large differences in social status.

But by 40,000 years ago, in the Later Stone Age of Africa and the Upper Paleolithic of western Eurasia, distinct kinds of beads made of rarer materials began to proliferate, and these often required far more time to manufacture. For example, as the archaeologist Randall White showed, each Aurignacian ivory bead would have taken hours to make, and the skills required were probably not widespread in the group, suggesting specialist artisans. In the case of amber, lignite, fossil, or mother-of-pearl beads, these would have been rare items, traded or transported over long distances across Europe. Even when pierced animal teeth were used as pendants or as grave goods, rarer carnivore rather than the common herbivore species used for food were preferred, and the rarity value at times extended to wearing human teeth as pendants—whether these were from members of the group or taken from enemies as trophies is unknown. By this time many different styles and kinds of beads were in use, even in adjoining regions, suggesting that the beads now served to reflect differential status within the groups (role specialization/wealth/power), and group identity and solidarity in comparison with other groups. During the Aurignacian those other groups could even have included Neanderthals, and there is controversial evidence that the Neanderthals themselves developed pendant and bead use, perhaps for their own social reasons or because of the impact of modern humans, as I will discuss in the next chapter.

For modern humans, if not Neanderthals as well, it seems likely that pigments, beads, art, and music formed part of the signaling used during Paleolithic rituals. Rituals of some kind are present in all known human societies today, and they generally consist of a stylized sequence of events governed by strict rules, where the activity concerned is the focus of attention by the group, whether we are talking about a circumcision ritual, an initiation rite, a wedding, holy communion, an award ceremony, or a funeral. Simple rituals, instinctive or learned, are widespread in the animal kingdom, often to ease tension or encourage social bonding, whether it is male baboons gingerly and gently fondling each other's scrotums as a sign of friendship and trust, or a defeated chimpanzee making submissive noises and holding out a hand to the victor (if the gesture is accepted, the dominant chimp will embrace and kiss the supplicant, rather than bite the proffered hand). So humans inherited a ritual base from their primate ancestors, and rituals are so widespread in our species that we can assume they continued to develop for important social reasons. They mark significant events in the life of individuals and of the group, and as groups became ever larger they must have aided symbolic communication and bonding in bigger assemblies, as well as within select subgroups. In order to maximize the impact, and imprint the event on the memory of all concerned, human rituals seem to have become ever more complex and sometimes even risky for the participants, involving deprivation, danger, and fear.