The problem with symbolic behaviour

Abstract

In recent years there have been multiple high impact publications operating the term ‘Symbolic Behaviour’, particularly in relation to the Neanderthals. The term is often regarded as one of the hallmarks of cognitive modern behaviour in human evolution. Yet is often unclear why researchers label certain artefacts as ‘symbols’. This paper explores the generalised inferential chain that leads from an ‘archaeological artefact’ to a ‘symbol’. An influential paper by d’Errico et al. (2005) will be used as a case study to form the basis of this generalised inferential chain. In many cases there is assumed that ornaments or engravings are symbols. However, symbols as semiotic devices function on the highest level of abstraction; symbols are arbitrary and completely dependent on social context and have no relation to physical reality. Reconstructing social context is impossible for the Palaeolithic, which makes the term ‘Symbolic Behaviour’ inoperable in human cognitive evolutionary research. Some attention is also paid to the research history out of which the term emerged, laying bare some structural problems in palaeoanthropology.