Department of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark;
Interacting Minds Centre, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Mar 3;117(9):4578-4584. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1910880117. Epub 2020 Feb 18.
How did human symbolic behavior evolve? Dating up to about 100,000 y ago, the engraved ochre and ostrich eggshell fragments from the South African Blombos Cave and Diepkloof Rock Shelter provide a unique window into presumed early symbolic traditions of and how they evolved over a period of more than 30,000 y. Using the engravings as stimuli, we report five experiments which suggest that the engravings evolved adaptively, becoming better-suited for human perception and cognition. More specifically, they became more salient, memorable, reproducible, and expressive of style and human intent. However, they did not become more discriminable over time between or within the two archeological sites. Our observations provide support for an account of the Blombos and Diepkloof engravings as decorations and as socially transmitted cultural traditions. By contrast, there was no clear indication that they served as denotational symbolic signs. Our findings have broad implications for our understanding of early symbolic communication and cognition in .
人类的象征性行为是如何演变的？可追溯到大约 10 万年前，南非布隆伯斯洞和迪埃普克洛夫石窟遗址出土的有雕刻图案的赤铁矿和鸵鸟蛋壳碎片，为推测的早期象征传统及其在超过 3 万年的时间里如何演变提供了一个独特的窗口。利用这些雕刻作为刺激物，我们报告了五项实验，这些实验表明，这些雕刻是适应性进化的，更适合人类的感知和认知。更具体地说，它们变得更加突出、更易记忆、更具可复制性、更能表现风格和人类意图。然而，它们在两个考古遗址之间或内部并没有随着时间的推移变得更具可辨别性。我们的观察结果支持了布隆伯斯和迪埃普克洛夫雕刻是作为装饰和作为社会传播的文化传统的说法。相比之下，没有明显的迹象表明它们是作为指称性的象征性符号。我们的发现对我们理解早期的象征性交流和认知在人类中的作用具有广泛的影响。
