This View of Life Honorable Men and Women Flexibility and intelligence have been a hallmark of our species for eons by Stephen Jay Gould Mark Antony claimed, for rhetorical cffect, that he had “come to bury Caesar rot to praise him.” But he then promptly reminded his audience that a man's de- cency often accompanies him tothe grave, hile evil tends to retain life oftsown— “the good is oft interred with their bones.” ‘Mark Antony's words beautifully cape ture both the ekcitement and dilerama of human paleontology. We have bones aplenty, but they speak to us in limited and muted ways. We wish, in our justified prochialism, to learn more. We yearn to know how and when those distinctively human traits of cognitive ability and moral decency entered our history. We wish, in short, to dsinter the “good” that lies with the bones. But goociness doesa't fossilize. (Some caveats before procced- ing: T do not equate cognition and good- ness. I do not believe that kindness first arose with humanity, while murder, hhem, and general nastiness have longer pedigrees. But I would maintain that our ‘vernacular idea of “humanity” resides ina unique combination of our inherited ca pacity for decency with complex social organization only possible in creatures at ‘our cognitive level. This is the distinctly human sense of “goodness” that we seek to understand.) Since decency and cognition make no fossils directly, the challenge for explorers ‘of these most important and elusive as pects of human history lies in developing criteria of inference from the material record. Bones tll us something —particu- larly the size and conformation of the brain as inferred from bones of the skull, but also capacities for tool making ind cated by the ‘mobility and precision of hand mavements deduced from bones of the wrist and fingers. More tenuous infer- ‘ences from social behavior can be enlight- ‘ening: Can we tell what ancient humans ate and how they obtained their food? 16 Narunat History 3/88 ‘What ean we infer of social organization from campsites, hearths, and living floors? Artifacts may add yet another level of inferred complexity: some students of hu- ‘man tools argue that they can determine cognitive abilities of abstraction, and even aesthetic sense, from the character of flakes, axes, and choppers. When we delve into the history of lineages older than our own circumscribed ‘group of modern Homo sapiens, our infer fences become more and more tenuous, for ‘complexity of artifact and culture’ de- ‘creases, and we begin to grasp at straws, ‘Thus, even for Neanderthals, survivors of| the ast glacial age and probably our clos- est cousins, much has been made of very little. Novels have been written, and more ‘than one movie based, onthe claim—sup- ported by little and dubious evidence— ‘that the Neanderthals’ vocal traet dif- fered from ours, and that they could prob- ably uiter but one consistent vowel sound. ‘And the discovery of ower fragments and pollen associated with a Neanderthal burial at Shanidar in Irag oocasioned a flood of commentary on the aesthetic (and even moral) sensibilities of Alley Oop’s people. The discoverer of Shanidar wrote a book on the subject, which was propi tiously published in 1971 as the counter culture reached its apogee. He named it Shanidar: The First Flower People We do not really obtain enough formation for reasonably firm and com plex inferences until we reach our own lineage—modern Homo sapiens, particu- larly from the best-studied sites of Europe and the Near East and beginning withthe CroMagnon peoples some 30,000 years ago. The Cro-Magnons, and thei relatives and descendants from the last glacial pe- Fiod, have therefore provided the classical focus for studies on the carliest expres- sions of higher cognitive and moral think- ing—the inception of “humanity, will For these people are old enough— from before the origin of agriculture and ‘witing—to evoke mystery. yet_ young enough (and sufiienty ike) 10 pro- vide good evidence and inspire empathic understanding. Moreaver, they are ur an- estos oat least pat of our species, not (as the Neanderthal) our cousins on a Close, but collateral, branch ofthe human family tre. The advent of these people heralded a cultural explosion marking. a distinct break with ancestors wih lef tle more than their bones and simple tools of clear and immediate function. (speak here of people usually called Upper Plealithi, or late Oté Stone Age, in popular texts and spanning the period from roughly 30,000 16 10.000 yeats ago, before the origin of ‘agriculture and metalworking.) Consider justthreecategories, the lst ney discov ered and the trigge ofthis essay. ‘These are the peopl, fst ofall, who created the “Ice Age art” that has 0 cap- tured the imagination of tei modern de- seendants—the famous wall paintings in cavesof France, Spain, and elsewhere; the stunning Venus faures of Willendoe and Lespugue; the ivory horse of Vorelerd the remarkable carvings and basrelifso¢ horses, mammoths, reindeer, and. bison carved on bone and ivory. on ft surfaces, and onthe heads of throwing sticks. These ae nat “primitive” scratches or rudimen- tary attempts at literal kenes, but re- matkably wrought and suble designs, of ten invoking abstract or symbolic prop erties. sill deemed moce aesthetically pleasing thon the natural medel isl. 1 Findsomeot the Ice Age horse heads every bias compelling as those later carved on the metopes of the Parthenon. These o- plisticsted figures only gain in wonder when we realize that they are linked to no known simpler predecesors. They repre sent our first evidence for any form ofrepresentational art. (For preceding Ne anderthals, we have only tenuous infer ences from flowers at burial sites and cher that could have been used to adorn bodies. Could any astonishment i all hu- ‘man history have been greater than that of the fist Neanderthal who meta Cro-Ma- gon and saw that a rock or bone could be ‘wrought in the form ofan animal?) ‘As we earch beyond representation for other cognitive abilities embodied in art facts, we find futher, striking evidence in the use of symbol. (Proper classifications remain a problem. We do not know how Paleolithic people viewed or used their own art. Representations of animals are oftenabstract and may have functioned as symbols. And just because the markings diseused below don't generally strike us sar, we should not assume that our an- cestors allocated their eave paintings and symbol plagues to dierent categories.) ‘Alexander Marsback, our leading stu- dent of Palolthie cognition, has inter preted patterns of incision on flat surfaces ‘Of bone asa form of notation for keeping trackof days and astronomical cycles. The Blanchard plaque, for example, dates from the time of the CroMagnon skele- tons, about 28,000 years ago, It contains sixtjnine small incisions of circular or crescentie form, arranged in a serpentine patter. Marshack argues, convincingly T think, thatthe sequence of marks “repre- sented a nonarithmetic observational in ear notation covering a period of two and ‘onequarter months." “The serpentine turns all ccur at major changes of the ‘moon's phase, with full moons at the lef, new and erescent phases atthe right, and halmoons in the midlines. Marshack fe- minds ws that this notation was developed “Some 20,000 years before the invention of formal record-keeping of writing in the later agricultural eivlizatons ofthe Mid- dle East” Much later, toward the end ofthe lee Age some 10,000 years ago, a plaque of similar concept, but much greater com- plexity, was carved in another part of France at the Grotte éu Tai. Marshack has founda similar system of inesions in horizontal rows connected by serpentine bends. But this time the bends occur at equinoxes and solstice, and the sytem spans thre and a half years. The year had been discovered, and cognitive powers of abstraction were in ull Mower If Marshack is correct, these people must have grasped the more general idea of ‘yelcty if they could wse a common nota tion, but place either lunar phases at the bends to mark months or Key sola pos tions to designate years Marshack writes that for Tee Age peo- 18 Narunat Hesrony 3/88 ple, “art and symbol form the only body of materials in which the full range of higher cortical function is evident.” (All quotes from Marshack may be found in his 1984 James Arthur Lecture on the Evolution of the Human Brain, “Hierarchical Evolu- tion of the Human Capacity: The Paleo- lithic Evidence,” given at the American Museum of Natural History) To art and symbol, however, we should add a third category, for our usual definition of hu- ‘man worthiness includes kindness as well as cognition. What, then, can we learn of compassion from a study of bones and artifacts? ‘A remarkable diseovery has just been reported from this domain of more cir- ccumstanial evidence. The November 5, 1987, issue of Nature (the leading scien tific journal of Britain) announced the finding of an unusual skeleton from Romito, an Italian cave deposit some 11,000 years old (*Dwarfism in an adoles- cent from the Italian late Upper Paleo lithic,” by D. W. Frayer, W. A. Horton, R, Macehiareli, and M, Mussi, pp. 60-62) From skeletal evidence, this male, who died at about age seventeen, was a dwart with a syndrome technically called acro- smesomelic dysplasia. This form of dwarf ism produces a head of approximately nor- ‘mal size, but several shortened limb bones ‘and, particularly, an extreme reduction and bowing of the lower arm bones. The elbow joints cannot be fully extended and, consequently, the motion of the arm i greatly restricted. Such an individual, the authors judge, would have been greatly limited in his ability to participate in the major activities of his group—hunting and gathering. Moreover, given the in- ferred nomadic life style of his people, this smaa’s handicap might have placed a se- vere strain on the mobility of his group, since aeromesomelic dwarfs generally tre after walking even short distances. Other Paleolithic skeletons show ev ence of disability after injury or of deorepitude in old age. But the Romito wart offers our oldest evidence for the nurturing and protection—presumably at some expense to the group—of a handi capped individual who was profound! diferent from his peers and physically disadvantaged from birth. Alother exam- ples of lifelong physical handicaps at thi scale date from the origin of agriculture and complex societies. IT we consider care of the handicapped (particularly at some cost to caretakers) as a Key attribute of humanity, then the Romito people surely practiced compassion at this level Inte estingly, the Romito dvarf was buried ina cave apparently reserved fora few people of high status. Perhaps his social standing ‘engendered his acceptance; but then we sight also conjecture, in direct contrast, that he achieved his high status because his iferenees were valued or because his deeds or inteligence won respect despite his physical handicaps. have, so far, discussed a popula sub- ject ina conventional manner, But Ihave ot presented this account merely to 1e- view Knowledge in a wellplowed fil rather, I want to ask a different kind of ‘question that has lng perplexed me: Why fre we 50 surprised and gratified when ‘ever we finda new example of prehistoric ‘cognition or compassion in early members ‘of ur own species, Homo sapions? Why should we marvel! What else should we expect? The CroMagnon people ae us, tot some primitive plimpsst waiting for ‘the engrafting of humanity. Even Paul Broca, the great French anthropologist who desrited the Cro-Magnon skeletons, and who spent a large part of his carer making invidious distinctions among mod ‘erm human races, noted thatthe five Cro- Magoon skeletons, discovered in 1868, were beter endowed than modern Eur ‘pean in some crucial ways. He wrote in 872: “They were superior in stature to ourselves. “The skulls are large in diameter, curve, “and capacity. and surpass the mean of those "The forehead is wide, hot receding, and. describes beautiful ‘curve. The amplitude of the frontal com: partment denotes @ great development of the anterior cerebral lobes, whieh are the seat ofthe most noble faculties ofthe ind (Of course we expect that earlier species in out lineage would lack modern skills of. ‘cognition, I anticipate no soiloquies from fan australopithecine, no statuary from Homo erectus, and no sonnets (with yor dls either few or numerous) from Near: dorthals. But at some point, modem Homo sapiens split off from an ancestral ‘group and founded ourown species. They were us at the beginning, are us now, and shall be us until we blow ourselves up or genetically engineer ourselves out of cur- feat existence. Homo sapiens, as | argued in my column for June 1987, is an emit, not & tendency. Once we arose a8 a ‘ies —and 100,000 to 250,000 years agoin Arica is our best current assessment of time and place—we were probably pretty ‘much ourselves in terms of mental organi- zation (although not, of course, in techno logical accomplishment). Since the Cro- “Magnon carvers and reckoners representa much later migration of Homo sapiens into Europe, we should be even less sur- prised that they looked and reasoned like us. So why are we astonished by art, sym bol, or care of the disabled so long ago?Our surprise, I think, teaches us more about our hopes, biases, and expectations than about the actual state of our ances- tay, We like to think of ourselves as a pinnacle of predictable evolutionary achievement. We have also been taught to View evolution as a process of continuous change. Put these two notions together — continuity of changeand growthof human ‘superiority —and you arrive, inexorably if unconsciously, at the meliorst notion of progressive betterment. Such an idea im- poses a definite view about the nature of time. Time is no longer only 2 matrix for the passage of events. t becomes almost a force in itself or at least a reliable marker and measuring stick of human advance, ‘Thus we equate passage of time with ‘growth of skill, intelligence, or achieve- ‘ment. And the further back we go, the less wwe had of all these good things. Ancient: ness means primitiveness, and older im- plies less endowed. We gaze upon the pyramids and judge ‘them close enough in time tobe the prod- ucts of people like us. But why should a cave painting only three times as old (13,500 as opposed to 4,500 years) be Adcemed the astonishing accomplishment ‘of a supposedly primitive creature? Do 9,000 short years make such a difference in principle? Similarly, we are deluged year after year by the same expressions of Surprise whenever someone claims that an ‘ancient shrine or monument be it Stone- hhenge or Chaco Canyon of Casa Grande—was realy an astronomical ob- servatory with key features lined up to sunrises af the equinox and solstice. Why not? These later people were us; they shared our cognitive abilities. They were agriculursts; they needed to know. You can't raise com effectively unless you can track the seasons. Prehistoric doesn't ‘mean primitive. Moreover, the equation of ancient with less able is not a necessary inference or a clear empirical truth. This assumption is, itself, a culturally embedded idea of relae tively recent origin, All the classic works on this subject—from J.B. Bury’s The dea of Progress (1920) 10.4.0. Lovejoy’s Great Chain of Being (1936) to R. Nisbet's History of the Idea of Progress (1980)—argue thatthe notion of inherent progress isa relative newcomer in West- em thought, an idea that arose with the scientific revolutions and politcal upheas- als of the late seventeenth century and ‘eained strength with subsequent waves of industralization and imperial expansion, Previous convictions often placed just as much confidence in the opposite interpre- tation of decline from a former golden age, Barly historians and scientists often 20. Navurat History 3/88 viewed the history of both human lifeand the earth’s surface as a continuous degen- eration from original perfection repre sented by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Some 500 years ago, scholars and artists ealed their movement the Renais- sane (or rebirth) because they strived 10 ure the ancient glorics of Greece and Rome, a time of achievement that, in their judgment, might be rediscovered, ‘but never exceeded. We might be tempted to argue that these views only indicate past ignorance and that Darwin's demonstration of evalu- tion established continuous change for the better as a fact of life. Not so, Darin proved that evolution had occurred —that allorganisms are the products of historical change, and that all ae liked in a genea- logical nexus. His theory did not establish a characteristic rate oF directionality for evolutionary change. The comfortable ‘idea that time alone ean make us better is 8 psychological hope or cultural bias im- posed, by our own weakness, upon un- vyielding nature, In the large scale of geological time, substantial change will occur. In the full span of human history—some sx t ight million years since the split of our lineage from common ancestry with the forebears of chimpanzees—we can trace a trend 19 larger brains and greater cognitive ability Bul ifeis nota fractal. The patternsof one sealedo not apply toall other amounts and times, We may nate a wend across the hal? dozen oF more species that ink modera ‘humans to the first australopithecins. But each species isan entity, a package if you will. Species may develop their dis Tinctive features as they arise in a geologi- ceal moment and thea remain stable fr all ‘oF most of their long subsequent history The norm for a widespread, successful, ‘and populous species is stability, not con- stant change. Evolution occurs largely by rapid origin and replacement of species, not by gradual progress within the long history of a species, ‘This last paragraph epitomizes the the- ‘ory of punctuated equilibrium that Niles Eldredge and first proposed in 1972. Our theory clearly implies that Upper Paleo- lithic and modern hurmans are putt of the same entity, and that we should not be surprised when we discover the products ‘of modern intelligence among our lee Age ancestors, But even an evolutionist who Iejects punctuated equilibrium, and who believes that most change accumulates gradually within species, may be equally ‘unsurprised that the passage of 30,000 ‘years has yielded no pereeptible change in ‘human cognition. This geological moment is but a very small segment, by anyone's standard, in the life of most species. Perhaps this message is finally getting across. At the awesome exhibit of lee Age tart mounted atthe American Museum of Natural History in 1986, 1 was please to note the beginnings of a new age in eap- tions. (1 may not be surprised that Paleo- lithie people could produce such art, but awe isa diferent matter—and the beauty ofthese objects is awesome, in the literal meaning of that word, befor its recent ebasement by kiddie culture) 1 can arantee that twenty-five years ago, the thrust ofthe signs would have proclaimed: “See what primitive man could do.” But thistime, the exhibit stated with devastat- ing accuracy: “Sce what we did in our infancy” Time isa matrix for all forms of change or for stabilits. Timeis not 2 motor af progress. Old doss not mean less ad- vanced 1 speak, of eourse, about the human ‘mind, not about ou technological accom- plshments, Technology advances and progresses whether toward a better life for its inventors or toward destruction, I ddo_ not know—because each new step builds upon te last, But thesubstratum of technology—the human mind—as not altered since the origin of art, of agricul ture or of eties. We may discover better ‘media to manufacture and distribute our paintings and sculptures, but a Cro-Ma- ‘gnon eave painter may shake hands with Ficasso aerass the centuries. We have de- veloped a technology to aid the hand. capped, but our compassion may span the ages, Twould reverse our usual perspective on surprise. We are stunned by what our lee ‘Age ancestors could do. I think that we Should look the other way, onward from the origin of our species sit not remarke ble that allo what we call evilization al of agriculture, ofthe arts and sciences, of technology. of life in complex cites, could be built by the unchanged power resident in the mind of a creature who evolved @ large brain for reasons obviously unre- lated to this future potential? The watch- word of our evolution is flexibility, and the many uses of a complexity not designed for ils current accomplishments. Mark ‘Antony was Fightin his final eulogy over Brutus, although he might have been de- soribing the unrealized potential of the first Cro-Magnonartist: “and the elements 0 mixed in him that Nature might stand up and say to all the world, “This was a man?” And so, as a result, are we all today, all honorable men and worn, ‘Stephen Jay Gould teaches biology, geol- og, aid the history of science at Harvard University