The absence of symbolic material cultural objects in the archaeological record is commonly used as an indication of absence of symbolic cognition. As Stibbard-Hawkes convincingly argues, based on the data on modern hunter-gatherers, material culture of symbolic value may be made by perishable materials (e.g., skin) and thus may not be retrievable in the archaeological record. This is an indication that the common reasoning about the origins of symbolic cognition in our species' past is partly flawed.
But is the use of perishable materials common and to what degree can it be a choice? Firstly, there are practical reasons for choice of any material, most notably functionality and availability, as the author puts forth. One should not overlook the fact that a material that functions well and is available will most probably be immediately chosen for use. Later innovations may account for replacement by a more durable material, when the technology to shape it at will becomes available and this is also a matter of the more general context. For example, our idea of the origin of a helmet relates to the ancient Greek and Roman metal helmets (made by bronze or iron), but these helmets have evolved from older versions made by leather or wood (e.g., Coutil, Reference Coutil1915). These helmets have strikingly similar forms as the helmets used for sun protection in Hawaii and Polynesia that are made mostly by fiber or rope (e.g., the Hawaiian “mahiole,” Buck, Reference Buck1957). Still, no matter the material of the helmet's body in Europe or in the Pacific, they all carry many ornamental features made of perishable materials, such as horse hair crests of Roman galeae or feather ridges of mahioles. These additional features have a specific symbolic value, related to rank, genealogy, achievements, and so on. Even today, military insignia, noble family emblems, and various symbolic flags are made by perishable materials, most typically cloth. So, we have good reasons to think that very often the symbolic value and function predates the eventual use of durable materials.
There is an additional explanation why objects of symbolic value might be perishable: That the use of material of perishable nature may not only be a matter of availability, but also a deliberate choice made by a population. There are at least two reasons one might imagine. Firstly, objects of obvious functional value, such as cooking pots, tools, and so on, are prone to be crafted and selected for functionality, and are thus prone to wider use of non-perishable, harder, and heavier materials that enhance functionality, despite their disadvantage when being carrying around. This is not true for objects of symbolic value: For example, ornaments made by perishable materials are typically lighter and easier to carry during migrations, thus they will be preferable for this same reason. On the other hand, and more importantly, ornaments and jewels made by perishable materials need frequent replacement, and this may represent a sign of continuous well-being and care or a sign of, precisely, a temporary state. For example, flower necklaces are very common in India during feasts and celebrations (Thakur, Reference Thakur2018) and the laurel leaf wreaths were a sign of victory in the ancient Olympic games (Kefalidou, Reference Kefalidou and Morel2009). None of these leaves material traces. There is no reason to believe that such practices were absent in human populations of the distant past. The tendency to hoard and preserve is a trademark of more recent, sedentary populations and may also be a cultural element that unconsciously biases our understanding of what is a normal “modern” behavior and our interpretation of the past.
Finally, there are also more broadly cognitive, and not necessarily linguistic, manifestations of the representational and symbolic species that we are (Deacon, Reference Deacon1998), through activities that rely on the choice of preferably perishable materials and these generally are also found in our human society today. Two prominent such activities are play and artisanry. Children at play use materials that have two properties: Availability and malleability. Cloth, wax, pieces of wood and rope, plant leaves and other parts, clay, and so on, together with natural objects, such as little stones and shells, have been preferred such materials by children of all times and places until fabricated toys became commercially available and overtook the toy landscape. For example, figurines or pretend objects have always been common toys and these are shaped by children that are in the process of development and understanding of the world around them. This is especially obvious in the middle stages of cognitive child development before adolescence (informal operational stages from 2 to about 11 years old, according to Piaget, Reference Piaget1962). The children of these ages engage consistently in constructive and symbolic/fantasy play where they adopt roles and perform make-believe tasks with pretend objects that represent real-world counterparts, or practice and learn new skills, explore interests and relationships, and so on. Because the children's play is spontaneous and only a little organized, imagination plays an important role and the children's attention often shifts, so that the use of easily available and malleable materials is preferred. This is why parents of children of these ages are encouraged to provide rich environments to their children to boost their imagination and their development. Most of these would not leave any trace in the archaeological record. Very similar conditions apply to artisanry. Many technological advancements are not outcomes of sudden inspiration but result from persistent experimentation that resembles children's play except that it pursues functional goals. Artisans use soft molds, scales, arbitrary cheap and available objects, and so on. An artisan may experiment with a new type of paddle by binding together a couple of twigs with a piece of rope. Again, all these activities are of symbolic and representational value, no different than what humans of our time are doing, and yet they leave no trace.
As a consequence, all the examples and the arguments exposed before provide additional support in favor of the author's view, although they make inferences about cognitive evolution more speculative.
You have
Access
The absence of symbolic material cultural objects in the archaeological record is commonly used as an indication of absence of symbolic cognition. As Stibbard-Hawkes convincingly argues, based on the data on modern hunter-gatherers, material culture of symbolic value may be made by perishable materials (e.g., skin) and thus may not be retrievable in the archaeological record. This is an indication that the common reasoning about the origins of symbolic cognition in our species' past is partly flawed.
But is the use of perishable materials common and to what degree can it be a choice? Firstly, there are practical reasons for choice of any material, most notably functionality and availability, as the author puts forth. One should not overlook the fact that a material that functions well and is available will most probably be immediately chosen for use. Later innovations may account for replacement by a more durable material, when the technology to shape it at will becomes available and this is also a matter of the more general context. For example, our idea of the origin of a helmet relates to the ancient Greek and Roman metal helmets (made by bronze or iron), but these helmets have evolved from older versions made by leather or wood (e.g., Coutil, Reference Coutil1915). These helmets have strikingly similar forms as the helmets used for sun protection in Hawaii and Polynesia that are made mostly by fiber or rope (e.g., the Hawaiian “mahiole,” Buck, Reference Buck1957). Still, no matter the material of the helmet's body in Europe or in the Pacific, they all carry many ornamental features made of perishable materials, such as horse hair crests of Roman galeae or feather ridges of mahioles. These additional features have a specific symbolic value, related to rank, genealogy, achievements, and so on. Even today, military insignia, noble family emblems, and various symbolic flags are made by perishable materials, most typically cloth. So, we have good reasons to think that very often the symbolic value and function predates the eventual use of durable materials.
There is an additional explanation why objects of symbolic value might be perishable: That the use of material of perishable nature may not only be a matter of availability, but also a deliberate choice made by a population. There are at least two reasons one might imagine. Firstly, objects of obvious functional value, such as cooking pots, tools, and so on, are prone to be crafted and selected for functionality, and are thus prone to wider use of non-perishable, harder, and heavier materials that enhance functionality, despite their disadvantage when being carrying around. This is not true for objects of symbolic value: For example, ornaments made by perishable materials are typically lighter and easier to carry during migrations, thus they will be preferable for this same reason. On the other hand, and more importantly, ornaments and jewels made by perishable materials need frequent replacement, and this may represent a sign of continuous well-being and care or a sign of, precisely, a temporary state. For example, flower necklaces are very common in India during feasts and celebrations (Thakur, Reference Thakur2018) and the laurel leaf wreaths were a sign of victory in the ancient Olympic games (Kefalidou, Reference Kefalidou and Morel2009). None of these leaves material traces. There is no reason to believe that such practices were absent in human populations of the distant past. The tendency to hoard and preserve is a trademark of more recent, sedentary populations and may also be a cultural element that unconsciously biases our understanding of what is a normal “modern” behavior and our interpretation of the past.
Finally, there are also more broadly cognitive, and not necessarily linguistic, manifestations of the representational and symbolic species that we are (Deacon, Reference Deacon1998), through activities that rely on the choice of preferably perishable materials and these generally are also found in our human society today. Two prominent such activities are play and artisanry. Children at play use materials that have two properties: Availability and malleability. Cloth, wax, pieces of wood and rope, plant leaves and other parts, clay, and so on, together with natural objects, such as little stones and shells, have been preferred such materials by children of all times and places until fabricated toys became commercially available and overtook the toy landscape. For example, figurines or pretend objects have always been common toys and these are shaped by children that are in the process of development and understanding of the world around them. This is especially obvious in the middle stages of cognitive child development before adolescence (informal operational stages from 2 to about 11 years old, according to Piaget, Reference Piaget1962). The children of these ages engage consistently in constructive and symbolic/fantasy play where they adopt roles and perform make-believe tasks with pretend objects that represent real-world counterparts, or practice and learn new skills, explore interests and relationships, and so on. Because the children's play is spontaneous and only a little organized, imagination plays an important role and the children's attention often shifts, so that the use of easily available and malleable materials is preferred. This is why parents of children of these ages are encouraged to provide rich environments to their children to boost their imagination and their development. Most of these would not leave any trace in the archaeological record. Very similar conditions apply to artisanry. Many technological advancements are not outcomes of sudden inspiration but result from persistent experimentation that resembles children's play except that it pursues functional goals. Artisans use soft molds, scales, arbitrary cheap and available objects, and so on. An artisan may experiment with a new type of paddle by binding together a couple of twigs with a piece of rope. Again, all these activities are of symbolic and representational value, no different than what humans of our time are doing, and yet they leave no trace.
As a consequence, all the examples and the arguments exposed before provide additional support in favor of the author's view, although they make inferences about cognitive evolution more speculative.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interest
None.