from
proximity
Place
Social
landscape
'enhanced'
rhythms
In this thesis, I have attempted to answer the question How can we make a model with which the release from proximity can be shown to be reflected in the evolution of lithic technology in the European Palaeolithic? Answering this question proved somewhat more difficult than I anticipated and I am doubtful about its successfulness. First, it was made clear that in order to study Palaeolithic society from a bottom-up approach, human agency and creativity had to be at the nexus of social performance. The release from proximity is that emergent social phenomenon in which individuals socially act beyond direct face-to-face interaction. In addition, RfP makes society complicated rather than complex and the concomitant transformation of social actions addressing more than one factors at a time, to the possibility to divide and make successions of simple operations. Second, such complication can be accounted for by personal network structures and is resembled mostly by the extended and global networks. In other words, symbolism as a resource of communication was an emergent property of extending networks. Third, the Palaeolithic framework was reconstructed. It featured a broad outline of locales, rhythms and regions describing the intenseness, routinization and scale of social performance on different levels each of which could be corroborated with different segments of the personal network. The fourth part existed of picking up those elements that were most likely indicative of RfP. I described the kinds of data in subchapter 2.4 and ordered them in subchapter 3.1. Most important for the lithic assemblage is data relating to scale, distance and temporality. Fifth, as an important intermezzo, I briefly addressed the question of whether or not Gamble’s social approach implies cognitive features that should be researched and argued that this was not the case. However, I suggested that if an approach studies human sociality in earlier humans through cognition, findings from the RfP-model could be beneficial to its interpretation and vice versa. Finally, in constructing the model I proposed a system of hierarchy that specifically indicates what kind of phenomena are related to what concept and how, if at all it can be sufficiently accounted for by archaeological data.
Whether or not the end result bears any interpretative value will be the result of empirical testing. As indicated before, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to engage in such an enterprise. My prediction is that it will bear resemblance to Gamble’s own assessment of the European Palaeolithic, marking the beginning of
RfP at the arrival of the Early Upper Palaeolithic. The model is able to address subtle questions of human sociality, ranging from local social performance to regional spread of cultures. My intention was to create a model that was able to answer questions in a binary way (yes/no), but even the model itsel suggested that a more nuanced take is more appropriate. The most important question it should answer in such a fashion is: where humans capable of extending themselves beyond their bodies. To be more exact, it is a model that can provide an answer to my initial research question that was later discarded: Is and if so how is Gamble’s ‘release from proximity’ reflected in the long-term evolution of lithic technology. The ‘is’- and ‘how’- elements are both questions to be answered in the empirical domain of archaeology. However, if even one of either question can be answered on the basis of the proposed model, it might prove its viability just yet. If it would prove to be viable, it could assist and highlight important aspects of research in the SBH, by the ability to demarcate between periods before and after extended sociality based on the (European) lithic record. If so, it could perhaps bring some nuancing to the view that what matters to social life is merely a big brain.
Abstract
This thesis focuses on the release from proximity (RfP) as it was originally proposed by Clive Gamble and will attempt to establish a model with which sociality in prehistoric societies can be studied. RfP is a social phenomenon that displays an individual’s capability to carry social life with him or her beyond direct face-to-face interaction. This opens up the possibility to create extended and global networks with other individuals, and importantly, the possibility to maintain, and invest in, social relationships with individuals with whom there is no interaction on a daily basis. As such, RfP indicates a particular human trait. Insofar it is possible to reconstruct the release from proximity through lithic materiality, specifically with respect to its evolution throughout the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic, I will attempt to construct a model to point out RfP in this evolutionary trajectory.
With regards to the theory underpinning the release from proximity, I will 1a) examine Gamble’s earlier and later accounts of the importance of network theory and 1b) revise the older accounts wherever it is deemed necessary, 2) sketch the broader theoretical framework for a bottom-up approach of assessing Palaeolithic societies, 3) point out the lithic indicators that are relevant for studying the release from proximity, specifically focusing on those that can be used to determine the (non-)existence of the social landscape, social occasions/places and ‘enhanced’ rhythms, criticize 4a) the underlying cognitive assumptions about RfP that are implied in earlier literature and explicitly noted in Gamble’s later works, and 4b) examine its relation to other cognitive capabilities.
After this initial, but important theoretical work, an attempt will be made to construct a theoretical model that is viable for empirical assessment, particularly for pointing out whether or not some lithic assemblage is by its own virtue indicative of RfP. In order to limit the scope of the thesis, an actual empirical review by using the model will not be made. Rather, its critical examination will be predictive, with regards to the extent of its usage, and the range of questions it most realistically can provide an answer to. In this regard, what is most important is the question what information lithic material and associated data can optimally provide, in order to determine RfP.
List of References
Abramiuk, M.A., 2012. The Foundations of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
Corbey, R., 2000. On Becoming Human: Mauss, the Gift and Social Origins, in A. Vandevelde (ed.), Gifts and interests. Leuven: Peeters, 157-74.
Dunbar, R. I. M., 2009. The Social Brain Hypothesis and Its Implications for Social Evolution. Annals of Human Biology 36 (5), 562–72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460902960289
French, J.C., 2016. Demography and the Palaeolithic Archaeological Record. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23 (1), 150–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-014-9237-4
Gamble, C., 1993. Timewalkers: The Prehistory of Global Colonization. Stroud: Alan Sutton.
Gamble, C., 1996. Making Tracks, in J. Steele and S. Shennan (eds), The
Archaeology of Human Ancestry: Power, Sex and Tradition. New York
(NY): Routledge, 253–75.
Gamble, C., 1998. Palaeolithic Society and the Release from Proximity: A Network Approach to Intimate Relations. World Archaeology 29 (3), 426– 49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1998.9980389
Gamble, C., 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gamble, C., 2007. Origins and Revolutions: Human Identity in Earliest
Prehistory. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.
Gamble, C., J. Gowlett, and R.I.M. Dunbar, 2011. The Social Brain and the Shape of the Palaeolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21 (1), 115–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774311000072
Gamble, C., J. Gowlett, and R.I.M. Dunbar, 2014. Thinking Big: How the Evolution of Social Life Shaped the Human Mind. London: Thames & Hudson.
Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.
Ingold, T., 1993. The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25 (2), 152-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1993.9980235
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1993. Gesture and Speech. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Lewis-Williams, D. and D. Pearce, 2005. Inside the Neolithic Mind. London:
Thames & Hudson.
Mithen, S., 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind: A Search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science. London: Thames & Hudson.
Quiatt, D. and V. Reynolds, 1993. Primate Behaviour: Information, Social Knowledge and the Evolution of Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, S.G.B., 2010. Constraints on Social Networks, in R.I.M. Dunbar, C. Gamble and J.A.J. Gowlett (eds), Social Brain and Distributed Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 115-34.
Rodseth, L., R.W. Wrangham, A. Harringan and B.B. Smuts, 1991. The Human Community as a Primate Society. Current Anthropology 32 (3), 221–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/203952
Sleutels, J., 2013. The Flintstones Fallacy. Dialogue and Universalism 1, 1-11. Strum, S. S. and B. Latour, 1987. Redefining the Social Link: From Baboons to
Humans. Social Science Information 26 (4), 783–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901887026004004
Suddendorf, T., 2013. The Gap: The Science of What Separates Us from Other
Animals. New York (NY): Basic Books.
Wezenbeek, M., 2018. Fallacious minds: Locating the Flintstones Fallacy within the Archaeological Literature of Cognition. Leiden (unpublished BA thesis University of Leiden).
Wynn, T. and F. L. Coolidge, 2009. Implications of a Strict Standard for Recognizing Modern Cognition, in S. Beaune, F. L. Coolidge, and T. Wynn (eds), Cognitive archaeology and Human Evolution, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 117-27.
Zhou, W.-X., D. Sornette, R.A. Hill, and R.I.M. Dunbar, 2005. Discrete Hierarchical Organization of Social Group Sizes. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London 272 (1561), 439–44.
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: complexity versus complication: the trade-off (Strum and Latour, 792).
Figure 2.2: Successive layers of the personal network with an inclusive hierarchical structure (after Gamble et al. 2014, table 2.1):
Figure 2.3: Predicted group sizes based on cranial capacity per species. (Gamble et al., 2014, 75)
Figure 2.4: Various raw-material transfer networks (Gamble 1999, 359) Figure 2.5: All-channel network patterns (Gamble 1999, 45)
Figure 3.1: Three systems for places, social landscapes and ‘enhanced ‘ rhythms represented as hubs.
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Resources and networks (Gamble 2007, 216)
Table 2.2: A framework for studying Palaeolithic society (after Gamble 1999, 65) Table 2.3: A comparison between three regions of the average maximum distance
in each locale/level over which lithic material has been transferred. (after Gamble 1999, 314)
Table 2.4: The eight modes of lithic exploitation. (Gamble 1999, 243)
Table 2.5: The use and correspondence of terms in Palaeolithic archaeology. (Gamble 1999, 367)