Cognitive archaeology without behavioral modernity: An eliminativist attempt

Post-colonialism, human origins and the paradox of modernity

“…The essentialist logic of current approaches towards modern human origins has been criticised in very effective ways (e.g. Ingold 2000; Malafouris 2013; Garofoli 2016). Very little reference has been made, however, to the deep and complex historical connections that also influence this logic.…”

“…This development has shifted the discussion into a disciplinary territory that might be described as ‘cognitive archaeology’, with a heavy emphasis on behavioural aspects and archaeological signifiers at the expense of anatomical and biological-taxonomic aspects. Nowell (2010) has summarised the most important aspects of these discussions, and we will not repeat them here (see also Garofoli 2016). Rather, we will concentrate on a critical analysis of a few interrelated recent examples.…”

On the local Mousterian origin of the Châtelperronian: Integrating typo-technological, chronostratigraphic and contextual data

“…Therefore, much comes down to personal perception of Neanderthals and especially their capacity for symbolic behavior. Recent years have seen a new increase in claims for Neanderthal pendants and art (Zilhão et al, 2010;Morin and Laroulandie, 2012;Peresani et al, 2013;Rodríguez-Vidal et al, 2014;Romandini et al, 2014;Radov ci c et al, 2015), although none of these claimed examples of Neanderthal symbolic behavior are without problems (Chase and Dibble, 1987;Mellars, 2010;Mithen, 2014;Garofoli, 2015). If you accept this Neanderthal symbolism, it is easy to envisage the Châtelperronian as a local, independent development, free of any modern human influence.…”

An Early Instance of Upper Palaeolithic Personal Ornamentation from China: The Freshwater Shell Bead from Shuidonggou 2

“…They represent in all current and historically known human societies a quintessential means of communication to convey coded information on the social and group identity of the wearer [ 7 – 13 ]. They may also signal the emergence of uniquely human cognition and complex language abilities [ 14 – 16 ] although this view remains controversial [ 17 – 20 ]. Although the tempo and mode of the emergence and diversification of personal ornaments is key for understanding changes in our ancestors’ cognition and behavior, such a process remains poorly known in many regions of the world.…”