‘Abstract thought’ -How is it significant and how does it define the basis for modern humanity?
Abstract thought has formed the basis of innovation and creativity throughout human existence, and can therefore be seen as one of humanity’s most characteristic defining features. The ability to think outside our immediate cultural setting and surroundings, beyond basic needs like eating, sleeping and reproducing, is indicative of a higher degree of thought. Without this ability to consider the implications of an abstract idea we would not have developed intricate tool use, complex cultures and unique social behaviour that define humanity to this day. The ability to form hypotheses using abstract thought and test them in physical form characterises scientific thinking; abstract thought also goes hand in hand with the development of technical innovation, language, art and culture, in the progression of human behaviour through time.
Despite the limitations of a relatively small dataset and disputes arising from ambiguities in interpretation, charting the evolution of abstract thought and attempting to plot its first appearance in our ancestors is crucial. However, there are obvious problems in attempting to carry this out through humanity’s origins. Unlike physical skills such as the development of tool use or hunting technique, abstract thought leaves no direct trace in the physical record of the lives of past peoples. It is only the attempts at transferring imagined realms into physical objects that yield any relevant data in archaeology. It would seem helpful therefore, to narrow the scope of this wide term in order to gain some understanding of how abstract thought can manifest itself and how it can be analysed.
We will therefore examine how abstract thinking shaped tool manufacture, and argue that the progression we see in the widening and diversity of later material culture can only have arisen from abstract thought. This thread will be followed through the evidence of abstract thinking among our more recent ancestors, where it seems to become more prevalent and its manifestations more obvious to the archaeologist in the form of symbolism — especially through ornamentation and art. A conclusion will outline how the path of abstract thought has been traced throughout humanity and what that implies about the characteristic features we would define as ‘human’: a sophisticated imagination, experimentation and innovation in object structure and aesthetics.
Handaxe Function
One of the key skills characteristic of our early ancestors and modern humans is the use of tools, specifically the creation of bifacial handaxes that typifies the onset of the Acheulean lithic industry around 1.7ma (Spikins 2012: 378). At first sight these multi-use tools would appear to have been created purely for certain physical tasks — the butchering and slicing of organic foods like meat or plants to aid in the consumption of food for their creators. But what of the actual creation of the tool and the progression in uniformity of aesthetic appearance and symmetry that appears to be apparent in the archaeological record? Approaching this with abstract thinking in mind can help us to understand how planning and forethought may have been crucial in the development of handaxes and the associated behaviours we can infer from their presence.
The creation of handaxes as tools for labour requires a certain amount of forethought, from the beginning of the Chaîne opératoire as the gathering and transportation of large raw materials to the final piece as a finely hafted tool suitable for slicing through skin, plant fibres and sinew (Sellet 1993: 106). What we need to ask is whether a handaxe was made because its creator had an abstract understanding in her/his head of how raw material could be worked and structured, or whether it was formed under a strict cultural conditioning of direct observation. For example, we know that our closest living relatives, Chimpanzees, are capable of producing Oldowan style tools, and wild populations at sites in the Tai Forest in the Ivory Coast and Mahale chimps from Tanzania frequently utilise stone hammer and anvil technology to crack open nuts (Boesch & Tomasello 1998). What archaeologists have sought to answer is whether this shows a degree of fore-thought and planning in Chimpanzee cultures, and what might trigger the divide between their Oldowan-style tools and Acheulean bifaces of the Homo genus. Is there a cognitive boundary between the Oldowan toolmakers and the handaxe creators that characterise the Acheulean? It is undeniable that the archaeological record for bifacial handaxes shows very few changes in form and innovation over a period of over 1.5 ma of its existence (Spikins 2012: 378) (Zutovski & Barkai 2015: 1). We could postulate however, that humans are undergoing cognitive changes at this time, not always apparent in the archaeological record but crucial in the development of abstract thinking.
Faunal Handaxes
There are some clues in the tool discoveries of the Palaeolithic archaeological record that abstract thought is developing. One phenomenon in our human ancestry found at numerous sites across three continents (Africa, Europe and Asia) is the construction of the usually highly functional Acheulean handaxes in animal bone. These are first seen in the archaeological record among Homo erectus at sites like Sterkfontain and Swartkrans in South Africa (d’errico & Blackwell 2003: 1560), and at first glance it may seem that this tool construction occurred due to lack of usable stone materials in the vicinity of the population group. However, at the site of Revadim Quarry in Israel alongside almost 2000 worked Acheulean flint stone tools were found at least 3 bone tools made from the limb bones of the extinct species Aurochs (Bos primigenius) and straight-tusked elephant (Palaeoloxodon antiquus)(Figure 1) (Rabinovich et al 2012: 184). We have to question why the Homo population living here around 500–300ka would have made a conscious effort to work fresh elephant bone when they clearly had easy access to more effective flint. The author notes how the discovery of these tools: “imply non-functional usage of the remains of these large animals, reinforcing the significance of elephants in Acheulian contexts” (ibid 2012: 195–196).
Zutovski & Barkai take the point made by Rabinovich even further, suggesting that the past population created the objects as a means of presenting the “cosmological and symbolic meaning of elephants to people” (Zutovski & Barkai 2015: 10). If so, this could be a key feature of abstract thought making a traceable imprint in the archaeological record. Considering the lack of alternative explanations to contradict Zutovski’s statement, we can infer a complex relationship between human and non-human animals at these sites where bone handaxes are found. They are clearly not made to replace or provide an alternative to the lithic industry. They are no more durable or hard-wearing and are not obviously being produced in different sizes from lithics for different purposes (ibid. 2015: 9). Some have suggested the animal bone tools were merely a sign of practising knapping technique, but on a site like Revadim with such an abundance of lithic tools this seems highly unlikely. A symbolic role seems the most likely explanation.
Utilising these animals for some secondary use means that a cognitive boundary has been crossed. The people who created these objects are viewing the animals in a different way from purely as a source of meat for survival. There is some bond or link between hunter and elephant, taken to the extent of producing a comparatively useless item which would seem to hold more of a symbolic than a practical role, this is surely indicative of the presence of abstract thinking and imagination. Furthermore, it could be argued that the elephant tusk tools are some of the first signs of compassion, a means to show appreciation and thankfulness for the butchering and consumption of a great animal. In the same way that recent Homo sapiens hunter-gatherer groups like the Native Americans utilised almost every part of the body from prey buffalo, the elephant handaxes could be being produced as a means of gratitude. We could even infer that through abstract thinking humans are developing signs of religious or spiritual belief at an earlier stage than might be initially thought.
Handaxe form and symmetry
In order to aid our understanding of changes in the forms of tools we should establish a chronological analysis of handaxe forms. One such study concerned the development of Acheulean handaxes over time at three Lower Palaeolithic sites in Israel, Ubeidiya (1.4ma), Gesher Benot Ya’aqov (circa. 780ka) and Ma’ayan Barukh (circa. 130ka) (Saragusti et al 1998: 820–821). The researchers sought to compare the symmetry and variability of design and chart any changes chronologically. They found that over time the symmetry of the handaxes increased (see figure 2) while the variability in the form of the handaxe assemblage decreased, i.e. inter-assemblage standardisation increased (ibid 1998:822). The findings of this study are not unique, with past populations apparently striving towards a ‘golden ratio’ in symmetry (Spikins 2012: 380). This is seemingly indicative of a population who are thinking about the creation of a tool, rather than mindlessly recreating an object which they know will serve its function. This seems to be the first time we see aesthetic preference for the appearance of a shape in the archaeological record, even if that preference is not especially important for the functioning of the tool. It must be acknowledged that the study by Saragusti utilised a small sample size from a single area in the vast assemblage database for early humans (Saragusti et al 1998). Although not all handaxes from all site assemblages are by any means symmetrical, what is undeniable is that symmetry does increase over time, and we can infer that this was due to developing abstract thought processes and so, in turn, marks a precursor to symbolism.
Others have sought to examine this question of why handaxes show such a careful and painstaking process of construction, when less worked or just sharp flakes are “suitable for tasks such as butchery, woodworking and the other activities for which handaxes were used” (Kohn & Mithen 1999: 518). This study proposed that the size and form of a handaxe related to sexual selection and mate choice. They argued that the reason for symmetry and such specific examples as the 300ka Furze-Platt handaxe from Maidenhead in England, which was far larger than was functionally necessary, were evidence of sexual display from males towards females of ‘good genes’, similar to the extravagant plumage of peacocks (ibid. 1999: 521). As an alternative to this hypothesis, it is proposed that what we are seeing is the first signs of aesthetic appreciation of style and form, unrelated to whether it has any effect on functionality or sexual preference but purely for its physical appearance.
When we study Acheulean handaxe form and shape we lack knowledge of the context of the social group in which they were created, so any hypothesis put forward is theoretically just as viable as the next. Davidson & Noble (1993: 365) have even pointed out the “finished artefact fallacy”, which challenged archaeologists assumption that all handaxes are in their intended end-product form, and not part of a re-use and reduction process that would see its shape and structure altered over a lifetime of use (McPherron 2000: 662). With this in mind, we can, however, propose that the developing symmetry and inter-assemblage standardisation was instigated by a growing ability to think in an abstract manner, considering the appearance of the object being formed as an embodiment of the creator’s skill and preferences, i.e. not merely a sharp tool but a product of considerable forethought. Spikins has pointed out that the imposition of precise forms onto stone handaxes is an indication of regulating emotions through self-control and patience, a trait that could be seen to correlate with forming better relationships (2012: 385). It seems that a growing abstract mind (in this case the ability to imagine the tool before its construction) was enabling the formation of complex emotions and in turn the appearance of more complex social relationships.
Even outliers to this pattern like the previously mentioned non-functional Furze Platt ‘giant handaxes’ can be explained as manifestations of abstract thought. A characteristic of human thinking is the ability to form hypotheses in the mind and test them in the physical environment. What we could be seeing in the archaeological record is the result of human experiment and innovation which they have first created as imagined objects in their mind. The resulting object has no functional outcome but it is crucial evidence in a limited archaeological record that hominins are beginning to implement trial and error and experimentation.
This idea of abstract thought enabling appreciation of visual aesthetics and wider recognition of others’ viewpoints has been much discussed in debates over human evolutionary history. One term that has been coined which is particularly relevant is ‘Theory of Mind’ (ToM), that is, having an awareness of what is happening in other people’s minds and an ability to interpret others viewpoints (Firth & Firth 2005: 644). The ToM hypothesis has in turn led to wider debates about the development of language and associated traits like the ability to persuade, deceive and communicate ideas (Baron-Cohen 1999: 262–265), which are obviously linked to abstract thought in their interpretation of another’s mind-set. What we can take from these debates is Dunbar’s assertion that “The starting point of ToM was probably our ability to reflect back on the contents of our own minds. Understanding our own feelings is crucial to understanding those of other people” (Dunbar 1996: 101). The ability to hold the idea of an object’s form in one’s mind, prior to its material creation, could be closely linked with the emergence of a characteristically human ToM. Therefore, by charting the progression of handaxe form and symmetry in the archaeological record we can gain an insight into a developing ability to think in an abstract manner and explore our own minds.
Developing symbolism and non-functionality
One of the first indicators that humanity’s ancestors may have had an ability to imagine things in an abstract manner is the Makapansgat pebble from South Africa. This was discovered in the same late Pliocene deposit as several osteological remains of Australopithecus africanus, dating from around 3ma BP (Bednarik 1998: 6). Through natural erosion and wear the object seems to depict a characteristically humanoid face (see Figure 3). It appears to be the first example of a manuport — an unmodified natural object transported by human agency — in this case carried over 32km from the nearest Jesperite rock source (ibid. 1998: 6). It is difficult to draw any concrete conclusions from the Makapansgat pebble. It remains a solitary discovery, so distinct in its seemingly symbolic form from any other reported Pliocene objects. However, this example of ‘Palaeoart’ could be the key to telling us that our earliest ancestors had the ability to use their imagination to recreate and recognise distinctly humanoid features in inanimate objects, a feature which characterises the much more recent production of abstract ‘art’, which is explored below.
Figure 3 — The Makapansgat Pebble dating from 3ma seems to show a recognition of the hominin face in a natural rock.
A later example of a developing use of symbolism can be seen in the Acheulean cultures of the lower Palaeolithic. Unlike the Makapansgat artefact, these are the first signs of intentionally created non-functional items (apart from the contested uses of the elephant bone handaxes). The example in figure 4 above is the Late Acheulean carved figurine from Berekhat Ram in Israel. The layer in which the anthropomorphic red tufa pebble was found has been dated to 250–280 ka (d’Errico & Nowell 2000 :125). From the intentionally stone-cut lines signifying the ‘neck’ and ‘breasts’ it seems the creator was artificially emphasising the anthropomorphic figure which he or she saw in the rock (Bednarik 2003: 409–410).
It has striking similarities to the much later depictions of ‘Venus figurines’ from the Gravettian period beginning around 30 ka, found at sites across Europe and western Asia (Nelson 1990 :11). The act of a Homo erectus using abstract thought and intention to manipulate materials to form their own non-functional object is surely another step along the path that the evolution of handaxe form and symmetry had already begun.
As we chart the development of abstract thought through the archaeological record the signs become more obvious and more frequent. After 50ka symbolism and non-functionality among artefacts appear no longer as one-off discoveries like that of the Berekhat Ram ‘Venus’, but often indicate group participation in an activity suggestive of abstract thought with multiple finds. During the Upper Palaeolithic period we start to see the first appearances of mortuary practice. For example, a cave site at Shanidar in modern day Iraq shows signs of use exclusively by Homo neanderthalensis from 65 000–35 000 BP (Edwards 2010). Excavations in the 1950s uncovered ten MNI (minimum number of individuals), seemingly intentionally interred in pits (ibid 2010). The body named Shanidar IV laid on a bed of woven horsetail with significant ‘clumps’ of pollen in the samples on either side and behind the skeleton, possibly indicative of symbolism attached to flowers laid at the grave (Leroi-Gourhan, 1975, 563). Species of the Homo genus are no longer confining their creativity to handaxe forms but developing a wider material basis to non-functional objects. We can infer from intentional burials and deposition of grave goods that Homo neanderthalensis was grasping abstract concepts like life, death and an afterlife.
This trend towards intentional burial and grave goods increases throughout the Quaternary period, accompanied by much more evidence of a developing symbolic culture. Coolidge and Wynn describe the ‘explosion’ of culture that seems to occur around 50 ka with more frequent appearances in the archaeological record of a variety of different media, through personal ornamentation and sculpture, particularly among Homo sapiens populations (Coolidge & Wynn 2005: 12). Some have suggested that this relatively sudden trend towards a symbolic culture is an evolutionary adaptation to allow inter-group alliances to form and information to flow between regions (Barton et al 1994: 189–190). While it is acknowledged that inter-group communication may be key to the spread of new forms of cultural innovation, we can also postulate that this was originally facilitated by a sophisticated ability to imagine and appreciate concepts outside of the everyday, physical lives of past human populations. To take just one example of this we can look to the cave paintings which proliferate in sapiens groups in Southern and Western Europe across the Upper Palaeolithic, beginning at around 30 ka but continuing for the next 15–20k years. Perhaps the best-known example of these are the paintings at the Magdalanian cave site at Lascaux in south-western France, which are thought to date from around 17 300 BP (Bahn 2007: 81). The depictions seem to fit with this trend of past population’s attempts at dealing with uncontrollable, non-physical aspects of human lives, possibly using trance-like dancing or hallucinogens to enter altered states of consciousness. Although some paintings from the Lascaux cave site can be clearly identified as animals and humanoid figures, there are a number of unidentifiable abstract dots and lines (ibid 2007) This had led to ethnographic comparisons between the Palaeolithic cave art and the symbolic creations of modern San Bushmen of Southern Africa, which also have strong associations with altered states of consciousness through shamanism and entoptic imagery (Figure 5) (Lewis-Williams et al 1988: 204). Though there are obvious temporal limitations in comparing Upper Palaeolithic groups with modern hunter gatherers, we could be seeing the presence in all modern Homo sapiens of a desire to investigate and explain non-physical and uncontrollable subjects like birth, death and fertility.
Conclusion
The outcomes discussed after 50ka, which undeniably characterise modern humans, are the end result of the gradual development of abstract thinking. Beginning with the first creations of Acheulean technology around 1.7ma there is an increasing trend towards an appreciation for form and symmetry over functionality, which seemingly implies an understanding and appreciation of an object in the mind of its creator. We also see the emergence of entirely non-functional objects like the elephant-bone handaxes and the later creation of sculpture and figurines like the Berekhat Ram figurine. In the recent 50k year period there has been an incredibly rapid rate of innovation in material culture and decoration all of which, it is argued, are due to the developed nature of abstract thought structuring human minds. We see these Upper Palaeolithic populations exploring their existence, in what seem to be the origins of the characteristically human trait, religious belief. It is acknowledged that a significant interplay of factors contribute to the development of modern humanity, and that the timeline for abstract thought has notable chronological lacunae. Language, tool use, group co-operation and developing exchange networks, along with the ability to consider and question viewpoints outside our own are crucial characteristics which define humanity, but the common factor that seems to trigger their progression is abstract thought.
Bibliography
Bahn.P,2007. Cave Art: A Guide to the Decorated Ice Age Caves of Europe, Frances Lincoln, London
Baron-Cohen.S, 1999,. The evolution of a theory of mind, In: The Descent of Mind, Corballis.M &
Lea.S (eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford, (p261–277)
Barton.C , Clark.G & Cohen.A, 1994, Art as information: Explaining Upper Palaeolithic art in western Europe, World Archaeology, 26:2, (p185–207)
Bednarik.R, 1998, The Australophithecine Pebble from Makapansgat, South Africa, South African Archaeological Journal Bulletin 53 (p4–8)
Bednarik.R, 2003, A Figurine from the African Acheulian, Current Anthropology, Vol. 44, №3 (p405–413)
Boesch.C & Tomasello.M, 1998, Chimpanzee and Human Cultures Current Anthropology 39.5, (p591–604)
Coolidge.F & Wynn.T, 2005, Working Memory, its Executive Functions, and the Emergence of Modern Thinking, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15:1, (p5–26)
Davidson.I. & Noble.W, 1993. Tools and language in human evolution. In Gibson.K & Ingold.T,(Eds) Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (p. 363–388)
d’Errico.F & Nowell.A, 2000, A New Look at the Berekhat Ram Figurine: Implications for the Origins of Symbolism, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10:1, (p123–167)
d’Errico.F & Backwell.L, 2003, Journal of Archaeological Science 30, (p1559–1576)
Dunbar.R, 1996, Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language, Faber & Faber, London
Edwards.O, 2010, The Skeletons of Shanidar Cave, Smithsonian Magazine, March 2010, (online article) available at: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-skeletons-of-shanidar-cave-7028477/?no-ist=&page=1 (accessed on 17/11/15)
Firth.C & Firth.U, 2005, Theory of mind, Current Biology Volume 15, Issue 17, (p644–645)
Kohn.M & Mithen.S, 1999, Handaxes: Products of Sexual Selection? Antiquity 73, 1999 (p518- 26)
Lewis-Williams.J, Dowson.T, P.Bahn, H.Bandi, R.Bednarik, J.Clegg, M.Consens, W.Davis, B.Delluc, Delluc.G, Faulstich.P, Halverson.J, Layton.R, Martindale.C, Mirimanov.V, Turner.C, Vastokas.J, Winkelman.M, Wylie.A, 1988, The Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena in Upper Palaeolithic Art, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, №2 (p. 201–245)
McPherron.S, 2000, Handaxes as a Measure of the Mental Capabilities of Early Hominids, Journal of Archaeological Science 27, (p655–663)
Nelson.S, 1990, Diversity of the Upper Palaeolithic “Venus Figurines and Archaeological Mythology, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Volume 2, Issue 1, (p11–22)
Rabinovich.R, Ackermann.O, Aladjem.C, Barkai.R, Biton.R, Milevski.I Solodenko.N & Marder.O, 2012, Elephants at the Middle Pleistocene Acheulian open-air site of Revadim Quarry,Israel, Quaternary International 276–277 (p183–197)
Saragusti.I, Sharon.I Katzenelson.O & Avnir.D, 1998, Quantitative Analysis of the Symmetry of Artefacts: Lower Paleolithic Handaxes, Journal of Archaeological Science 25, (p817–825)
Sellet.F, 1993, Chaine Operatoire: The concept and its applications, Lithic Technology Vol. 18, №1/2 (p106–112)
Spikins.P, 2012, Goodwill hunting? Debates over the ‘meaning’ of Lower Palaeolithic handaxe form revisited, World Archaeology, 44:3, (p378–392)
Zutovski.K & Barkai.R, 2015, The use of elephant bones for making Acheulian handaxes: A fresh look at old bones, Quaternary International (forthcoming) (p1–12)
Image References
Figure 1 — Elephant Bone handaxe: Zutovski & Barkai 2015: 4
Figure 2 — Handaxe symmetry comparison: Saragusti et al 1998: 821
Figure 3- Makapansgat pebble: http://www.donsmaps.com/images28/pebble.jpg
Figure 4- Berekhat Ram figurine: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/sculpture/sculptures/berekhat.jpg
Figure 5- Entoptic Images: Lewis-Williams et al 1988: 206–207
