Upper Paleolithic Symbol Systems of the Russian Plain: Cognitive and Comparative Analysis [and Comments and Reply]

Marshack, Alexander; Christensen, Jesper; Gallus, Alexander; Gunn, Joel D.; Johansen, Arne; Kobyliński, Zbigniew; Kobylińska, Urszula; Murray, William Breen; Odak, Osaga

doi:10.1086/202268

Cited by 58 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Soffer (19851, for instance, notes that on the Russian plain the early Upper Paleolithic burials at Kostenki and Sungir are rich in grave goods including personal decorations, but that the later Upper Paleolithic burials of the region lack such items. The later cultures apparently played out their symbolic behaviors in other modes (Marshack, 1979, not in the burial of grave goods, The argument concerning the "poverty" of the Neanderthal burials was initiated when anatomically modern skeletons were discovered in the burial at Cro-Magnon in 1868, in conjunction with large numbers of shell beads, while comparable grave goods were not found in the Neanderthal burials that began to be discovered somewhat later, early in the 20th century. Upper Paleolithic burials continued to provided examples rich in personal decoration and other types of grave goods.…”

Section: Of the Mousterian Symbol Systems Occasionally Discussed In Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the human capacity: The symbolic evidence

Marshack

1989

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rare instances of symboling and problem-solving in the archaeological record of the European Acheulian and Mousterian suggest highly evolved potentially variable hominid capacities. These are aspects of capacity not evidenced in the lithic industries and habitation site complexes, and they cannot be determined from studies of comparative morphology or genetic distance. This sparse artifactual evidence cannot be quantified and is, in fact, statistically insignificant. Nevertheless, the internal cognitive contents and complexity evident in these unique materials reveal the presence of highly evolved skills and conceptual capacities involving the evaluation and use of diverse materials and processes. They also reveal a capacity for planning and mapping or modeling the territory and culture in time and space. Significantly, the evidence for these behaviors is richer in Europe during these early periods than in other areas of late hominid presence, including the Middle East and Africa where forms of anatomically modern humans were developing. It is possible that these early European efforts represent incipient and preparatory innovations that in some measure led to the regional "creative explosion" of the following European Upper Paleolithic. It is suggested that hominization selected for certain types and classes of problem-solving and symboling capacity and that the Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans each represent progressive advances over the evolved erectus capacity and its cultural manifests. It is also suggested that these late hominid capacities ultimately and evolutionarily derive from still earlier potential and variable problemsolving and conceptual capacities comparable to those found among the great apes.

show abstract

Section: Of the Mousterian Symbol Systems Occasionally Discussed In Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the human capacity: The symbolic evidence

Marshack

1989

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They are seen as a hallmark of cognition and symbolism, and even as evidence for language [4][5][6]. Growing numbers of engraved bones, ochre, ostrich eggshells and stone artifacts are reported from South Africa, Europe and the Levant, and even North Asia palaeolithic sites [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. However, in East Asia, the frequencies of engraved objects in the Pleistocene are argued to be rather low [14][15][16][17].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An engraved artifact from Shuidonggou, an Early Late Paleolithic Site in Northwest China

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognition and symbolic thinking are viewed as important features of modern human behavior. Engraved objects are seen as a hallmark of cognition and symbolism, and even as evidence for language. Accumulated evidences including engraved bones, ochre, ostrich eggshells and stone artifacts were unearthed from Africa, Europe, Levant even Siberia Paleolithic sites. But the archaeological evidence for this, including beads, ornaments, burials, performed objects and engraved objects, is rarely discovered in the Pleistocene of East Asia. The present paper reports an engraved stone object unearthed in the Early Late Paleolithic levels about 30 ka BP at the Shuidonggou site (SDG) in northwestern China. It was unearthed in the 1980's excavation from Lower culture unit of SDG1 but was identified in 2011 when the first author of this article observed the collection from the 1980's excavations stored in the Institute of Archaeology of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region for further detailed lithic analysis. This lithic artifact is the first engraved non-organic object of the Paleolithic period found in China. In order to clarify the details of the incisions and to document the human intentional modifications, we used a KEYENCE VHX-600 Digital Microscope to measure and observe all the incisions in 3-dimensional perspective. Comparing the natural cracks and analyzing many details of the incisions, we argue that incisions on this stone artifact are the result of intentional behaviors by ancient humans. Also, we exclude the possible other causes including animal-induced damages, post-depositional phenomenon and unintentional by-products. Combining all these features, we suggest that the incisions were made by an intentional behavior and were probably of a non-utilitarian character. Because the nature of most other engraved objects in China is debate, we cannot get a clear scenario of the emergence and progress of modern human behavior in North China. But we infer the possible existence of a counting or recording system, or other symbolic behaviors, which reflect considerably evolved cognitive capacities or modern human behavior in the Early Late Paleolithic of East Asia. modern human behavior, engraved artifact, cognition and symbolism, Shuidonggou, Early Late Paleolithic

show abstract

“…For instance, since the 1970s, a number of authors developed the 'art-as-information' approach (e.g. Conkey 1978Conkey , 1980Conkey , 1984Conkey , 1985Marshack 1976Marshack , 1979Wobst 1977). Under the influence of structuralism and semiotics, they interpreted prehistoric images as systems of communication that "have a range of meaning and uses […] but that derive more specific meaning from the context of action or use" (Conkey 1980, p. 244).…”

Section: Recent Conceptualizations Of Palaeolithic Personal Ornamentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Palaeolithic Personal Ornaments: Historical Development and Epistemological Challenges

Abadía

Nowell

2014

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1990s, archaeological publications concerned with Palaeolithic personal ornaments have diversified. This proliferation has resulted in an intense exploration of the multiple roles, whether symbolic, cultural or social, that these items might have played in prehistoric groups. As a result of this process, there is now a broad consensus that these body adornments are important for exploring the origins of cognitive, artistic and symbolic behavior from an evolutionary perspective. This view contrasts with the conceptualization of Palaeolithic ornaments prevalent during the greater part of the twentieth century. At that time, these objects were rarely considered in debates concerning human evolution, art and symbolism. To explain this shift in the understanding of beads, pendants and other similar artifacts, we explore in this paper the history and the epistemology of the concept of 'ornament' in the field of Palaeolithic archaeology. In particular, we analyse the factors underlying why the same kinds of objects have been historically described in very diverse ways. We conclude by pointing out some of the epistemological challenges posed by the current revalorization of personal ornaments.

show abstract

Upper Paleolithic Symbol Systems of the Russian Plain: Cognitive and Comparative Analysis [and Comments and Reply]

Cited by 58 publications

References 0 publications

Evolution of the human capacity: The symbolic evidence

Evolution of the human capacity: The symbolic evidence

An engraved artifact from Shuidonggou, an Early Late Paleolithic Site in Northwest China

Palaeolithic Personal Ornaments: Historical Development and Epistemological Challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About