Changes in raw material selection and use at 400,000 Years bp: A novel, symbolic relationship between humans and their world. discussing technological, social and cognitive arguments

7Citations
Citations of this article
43Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Approximately 400,000 years bp, novel technological behaviours appeared in the archaeological record, attested by evidence of the exploitation of previously unused resources and the production of new tools. I have reviewed such innovations, and I discuss them in the frame of the anthropological, palaeoneurological, genetic and behavioural changes that appeared in the Middle Pleistocene. I propose that at this chronology humans started to see the resources as 'other-than-human' sentient co-dwellers. The technological innovations expressed this novel cognitive complexity and the possible new things-things, human-things and environment-things relationships. Artefacts and technologies acquired multiple semiotic meanings that were strongly interconnected with the functional value. Ethnoarchaeological evidence suggested the possible symbolic acting beyond these innovations in material culture. This perspective has relevant implications in the archaeology of the ancient Palaeolithic. It suggests the need for a new view of material culture, one that goes beyond the classical list approach in the definition of modern symbolic mediated behaviour. Further, it allows one to overcome the traditional juxtaposition between ancient cultures and Homo sapiens in terms of complexity. The evidence discussed in this paper suggests that the ontological hypothesis could change our view of Middle Pleistocene hominids and the origin and definition of modern behaviour, and test the archaeological visibility of cognition in prehistory.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Romagnoli, F. (2021). Changes in raw material selection and use at 400,000 Years bp: A novel, symbolic relationship between humans and their world. discussing technological, social and cognitive arguments. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 31(2), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774320000384

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free