The Rise of the Modern: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Evolution of Humanness (Part 1)

During the past 150 years archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists have been prepared to include artefactual assemblages, and the hominids that produced them, within the boundary of 'modernity' or 'modern humanness', whilst excluding synchronic, often sympatric, populations from this designation. The case of Homo neanderthalensis versus 'anatomically modern' Homo sapiens is a prime example. All too often the reasons for this inclusive and exclusive labelling are unclear and poorly defined.

Today it remains a valid question, that, when viewing the hominid bio-cultural record, just what constitutes 'modernity'? In order for prehistoric populations to qualify for membership of humanity, should we adopt historical notions of modernity such as the production of cave art, blade technology, evidence for spoken language, or 'anatomically modern' morphology? The refined chronostratigraphy of the Middle and Upper Pleistocene record indicates that these criteria are not constant through time, often disappearing from the record for tens of thousands of years. Did humans stop being human as a result?

Or, should we view modernity in a different light, encompassing criteria such as the use and control of fire, the ability to plan and structure economic time, the realisation of mortality and of the self, the construction of physical habitation structures, the ability to colonise and culturally adapt to a wide range of environments, or the loss of the australopithecine-like body plan? Should we view modernity as beginning in the Upper Pleistocene or the Upper Pliocene? Can modernity be applied to pre-Holocene hominids in a biologically and culturally meaningful way? Should we view the adoption of modern behaviours as a gradual transformation, or as a saltation event? Can we, or should we even try to, define what it is to be 'modern'? This session will address these ideas.

Contingency, Convergence and the Status of Anatomical Modernity

'Anatomical modernity' is a concept that has, at least superficially, a specific biological meaning - to be an anatomically modern is to be a member of the taxon Homo Sapiens. However, in recent years, both the definition and constitution of the fossil hypodigm of our species has been shown to be less clear, vis-à-vis the on-going 'Out-of-Africa' versus 'Multi-regionalism' debate. This paper discusses the roles of historical contingency and convergent evolutionary processes in determining the pattern of phylogenetic trajectories and taxonomic diversity observed in the hominid fossil record during the Middle and Upper Pleistocene; specifically, how these processes have been undervalued in attempts to pigeon-hole hominid fossils into the rigid constraints of the biological species concept (BSC). I suggest that whilst late-Middle and Upper Pleistocene Homo Sapiens are reproductively isolated from their synchronic congeners, H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus, they cannot be viewed as species in the strict sense of the BSC, and as 'modern' humans in any biologically meaningful way. Instead, they are the result of a unique series of environmental and bio-cultural selection pressures which have no ontogenetic counterpart in today's post-glacial world. In the light of this, the status of biological 'modernity' and implications for hominid taxonomic diversity will be discussed.

Conflict and Continuity in Hominid Phylogeny: Implications for the Definition of 'Modernity'

Over a century of research into hominid systematics has produced a rich and varied set of phylogenetic hypotheses. Within this field the concept of 'modernity' is very specific in meaning. This meaning may be challenged if reticulate evolutionary processes, such as convergence, hybridization or introgression, are taken into account. To investigate this suggestion, a phylogenetic analysis of 14 hominid taxa is demonstrated in which reticulate relationships may be accounted for. The method employed is continuous track analysis (CTA), which searches for graphs with the minimal number of connections and where most character states have distributions or tracks across taxa that are continuous. The results show that reticulate relationships are important in human evolution, and that our concept of phylogenetic 'modernity' should take account of this.

Anatomical Modernity as a Cultural Product

The 'modern' aspects of present-day humankind are the result of a phenomenon of convergence which has acted on all primitive humanities by highlighting their cultural components as evolutionary factors. The progressive replacement of anatomical functions by behavioural functions acts as an evolutionary trend which manifests itself through common and correlative features: cerebral development, facial reduction, aptitude for manipulation, running, throwing, etc. Operating in every place and at every time, this 'cultural selection' produced morphological analogies (present-day races) on an already unified anatomical substratum, more than a million years ago in a single biological species. The process is still underway. The Illusion of a 'modern' stage is a result of three non-scientific conditions: 1) A late migration of populations from outside Europe; 2) The history of sciences founded in Europe has been given this circumstance a universal value, and ; 3) This opposition between primitive animality and accomplished humanity satisfies and reinforces our contemporaneous mentality, just as the Bible did in earlier times.

A Wide Range of Human Humans: Against the Notion of Humanness as a Phylogenetic Criteria

The intriguing thing about Neanderthals is that they are so tantalisingly similar to extant humans (20th-century ones and their Upper Palaeolithic ancestors), yet there are notable differences which prevent the two types being as classed as one species. In the context of this session, I propose, using Neanderthals as a case study, that we should not attempt to define or even conceptualise modernity or humanness. I shall demonstrate that Neanderthals fulfil the behavioural and neuro-anatomical (brainsize) qualifications that might be laid down for humanness, yet they are clearly behaviourally and genetically different to H. Sapiens. I shall further discuss the notion that current humans have no experience of humanness outside of realm of H. Sapiens, as we are currently in the phylogenetically atypical situation of being the lone extant hominid. I will argue that in our limited experience, humanness is something diagnostic of H. Sapiens, so it is impossible for us to comment on something as intuitive as humanness in other species of hominid. I will conclude that the inclusion of some hominid species and exclusion of others in the group with which we ally H. Sapiens is detrimental to our understanding of human evolution and primatology, and that such "species-ist" approaches should be discouraged.

Picasso in the Palaeolithic? Art, Humanity and Modernity

In a recent review of the book Chauvet Cave, which documents the paintings produced at the site by Cro-Magnon people some 31,000 years ago, Stephen Jay Gould argues that while we are right to admire the artistic excellence of the paintings, we should not be surprised that art of such sophistication appeared at so early a date. Our surprise, he maintains, is an index of our lingering commitment to an outmoded evolutionism which insists that our culturally 'primitive' forbears could have managed only the most rudimentary kinds of artistic expression. Yet the people who painted at Chauvet were 'modern humans'; they were 'fully us, with all our foibles and potentialities'. We should therefore expect art of fully human sophistication. In this paper, I show that the attempt to populate the past with people like ourselves, equipped with the same capacities and dispositions, betrays a form of presentism that is deeply rooted in modern Western thought. Against Gould, I argue that the people of Chauvet were not like us at all. Far from revealing a universal, innate competence - a capacity for art - that marks its possessors as fully human, their paintings called for embodied skills and sensibilities generated within the context of a form of life unlike anything known to us today. The 'modern human', I conclude, is a creature of the modernist imagination, and its characterisation does more to legitimate the present than to illuminate the past.

In Search of Palaeo-Shamanism

Shamanic beliefs are widespread amongst contemporary hunter-gatherers, especially in Siberia and America. They imply that the cosmos is structured in different layers, inhabited by ordinary people and beings, as well as spirits. Special people learn how to gain access to different and non-ordinary levels, travelling there to negotiate with spirits the killing of animals, to rescue the souls of endangered or sick people, and the like. We will examine the Palaeolithic record, including burial customs, portable and parietal art, and other evidence, to assess if a shamanic perspective to life can be taken as already established during the Pleistocene, and, in case, if it underwent discernible changes through time. We will also discuss the impact of a structured system of beliefs on the life of hunter-gatherers, and its relevance in the definition of humanness.

Boxgrove and Schöningen: Examples of Modern Human Behaviour in the Middle Pleistocene?

The site at Boxgrove in the south of England has revealed evidence for the hunting and butchery of large size-class mammals, such as rhinoceros and horse. There is also evidence for making bone and antler tools, and co-operative behaviour. The site at Schöningen has yielded wooden artefacts, including spears and hafts for stone tools. This paper examines whether these finds are really indicators of 'modern' behaviour, or if they form part of the normal behavioural repertoire of Middle Pleistocene hominids.

Want to Make a Hand-axe? Well, Just Say the Word!

The relationship between the evolution of Palaeolithic technology, cognition and language is a matter of considerable debate. One particularly question concerns the cognitive/linguistic implications (if any) of the appearance of technically demanding, symmetrical bifaces inthe archaeological record. Are these a reflection of modernity in thought and behaviour? A trend during the last decade has been to think not to think that the Acheulean is a reflection of a very different, and probably non-linguistic, mentality and behaviour to modern humans. This question is explored by drawing on recent research in evolutionary and developmental psychology. I consider whether proto-language involving the naming of physical entities in the world was indeed essential for manufacturing handaxes. Perhaps it was literally by saying the word that the separate mental modules which together constituted technical intelligence could be adequately fused together.