Prehistory: The making of the human mind

by C. Renfrew

This title looks at the gradual discovery only 150 years ago of a remote human past going back tens of thousands of years and the subsequent dramatic growth of the study of prehistory.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Science, Archaeology, Anthropology, Prehistory, Psychology

224 pages, Hardcover

First published November 8, 2007

Reviews

[Sense of History]

Because of the subtitle of this book, I had hoped it would build on Steven Mithen's The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science (1996), which I just read before. In that book Mithen launched a rather bold but very speculative thesis about the development of the modern human mind through the concepts of "cognitive fluidity" and "modular brain". But Renfrew goes into that only partially. In its place he introduces very diverse perspectives.

The first part is just a history of archeology, rather boring like in a textbook. The second part starts off promisingly with the formulation of the "sapiens paradox", namely the question why expressions of human ingenuity and imagination (the rock paintings, for example) emerged so late in human evolution. Here we are on Mithen’s territory. But Renfrew sticks to an essayistic approach of all aspects of and theories about the human mind without making his point. And the last third ends in detailed, but non-systematic, reflections on the Neolithic and Metal Age cultures and the formation of the first states. In doing so, Renfrew places great emphasis on the increasing importance of symbolic behavior, which starts from assigning a certain value to a material object, and which then takes on a life of its own in the form of power structures or class differences, or can nurture cosmological frameworks. What Renfrew writes here reminded me a lot of Harari (Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind), who clearly must have been inspired by him too (but does not mention him in his bibliography). However, unlike Harari, Renfrew doesn't offer an overarching theory, and of course he doesn't have to. Rather, this part consists of a number of general considerations on, for example, the development of concepts such as "weight" or the formation of languages.

I found Renfrew's handling of the "Neolithic Revolution" very interesting (he still clings to that rather old-fashioned notion). According to him sedentarism, the living in permanent places, preceded the real agrarian revolution, the transition from hunting and gathering to the cultivation of domestic crops and animals. He refers to a number of classic archaeological excavations in the Middle East and Central America, and his arguments are certainly valid. But my guess is that this is a very classic "chicken or egg" discussion, and that domestication and sedentarism were interlocking phenomena that are difficult to separate chronologically.

In short, it is not nonsense what Colin Renfrew writes, and its enticing in his combination of theoretical approaches and findings on the terrain, but this book certainly doesn’t offer a comprehensive synthesis. As always with science, - also in archaeology -, this is work in progress!

[Marc Lamot · Rating 3 out of 5]

Colin Renfrew (° 1937) is a well-respected British archaeologist with a long career among others at Cambridge University. I have the impression that this book somewhat is his spiritual testament (written when he was 70), in which he has collected different considerations about his field of expertise. In that sense, the subtitle "The Making of the Human Mind" is a bit misleading. Only the middle part of this book delves deeper into the cognitive evolution of humanity.

Renfrew certainly offers interesting considerations, but you can notice that he belongs to the type of classically trained archeologists, so not at all that energetic in his use of other social sciences, like Steven Mithen or Clive Gamble are. For example, he adheres to the classic distinction between prehistory and real history that starts as soon as there are written sources, and he also continues to use the concept of Neolithic Revolution (coined by Vere Gordon Childe in the 1930s). This book also shows a fairly eurocentric orientation (only Meso-america also comes into the picture). The book contains several interesting views, and certainly is meritorious, but in my opinion it is somewhat dated. More about that in my History account on Goodreads https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
(rating 2.5 stars)

[Matt Tomaso · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommended for students of the human condition - both professional and avocational.

As an archaeologist working in the United States, I have followed Sir Colin Renfrew's writings over the last 26 years or so. I also had the pleasure of meeting him in Liverpool, England, after a presentation I gave there in 1996. He is one of the greatest minds our field has produced and this is his most succinct work yet.

Prehistory: The Making of the Human Mind is intended for a an educated but non-specialist audience, As such, it is an intensely thoughtful, non-polemical summary of the many reasons why archaeology must take a next crucial step in its growth - engagement with the ideational processes of cultural change. Despite the book's intention to appeal to a broad audience, it is remarkably comprehensive in its treatment of the history of archaeological thought and the scope of modern social historical and archaeological theory.

Fellow archaeologsts will find this a refreshingly non-polemic and lucid overview of Sir Renfrew's developing concept of archaeology - grounded in science and culminating in a lucid resolution and synthesis of the last thirty years or so of theoretical debate. Readers without a background in archaeology will, despite the book's brief length and generality, find Prehistory: The Making of the Human Mind at once dense, challenging and, if they can follow through to its conclusions, very compelling.

[paper0r0ss0 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Troppa carne al fuoco in cosi' poco spazio e troppo anglocentrico. Il risultato e' abbastanza irritante: troppo superficiale per chi vuole approfondire, troppo supponente per chi vuole cominciare. Un saggio purtroppo irrisolto.

[Dave · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book. It's a subject in which I'm deeply interested. Unfortunately, I found the book to be unenlightening and, frankly, boring. It reads like an Anthropology 101 textbook, focusing way too much on terminology and methodology than on the subject matter, itself. Very dissappointing.

[Richard Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a densely written thought provoking book which repays the effort it takes to read it. It provides an overview of human origins which is convincing and well argued. I consider that the book is an indispensable key to an understanding of prehistory for the non-archaeologist.

[Andrew Hodgson · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you like this subject, look elsewhere. Dry, dry, dry. No style. Dull. Repetitive.

[Nati Korn · Rating 3 out of 5]

בבואי לדון בספרו של הארכיאולוג קולין רנפרו עלי להבהיר את כותרתו של הספר הזה וגם את כותרת המשנה שלו. תחילה ביאור הכותרת "פרה-היסטוריה". הספר הוא ספר מבוא פופולארי (מן הסתם יש לו גם פרסומים מדעיים יותר), אבל מבוא למה? יש כאן, מן הסתם, סקירות רבות של מחקר הפרה-היסטוריה ותיאורים כלליים של אבולוציית האבות הקדומים ותרבויות קדומות מכל קצווי הגלובוס. למרות שמתקבלת איזושהי תמונה כללית, היא כללית למדי ככל הנוגע לאבות אבותינו הקדומים והסקירה שטחית וחפוזה מאוד ככל שמדובר בתרבויות ספציפיות. אלה אינן בהכרח חסרונות:

א. לי באופן אישי לא נחוצים פרטים על כל מאובן שנמצא ואני מעדיף לראות את התמונה בכללותה. הספר עדכני למדי, אבל בשלוש עשר השנים שחלפו מאז פרסומו נתגלו ממצאים רבים, שוכללה הארכיאולוגיה הגנטית והשתנו תיאוריות רבות.

ב. על כל תרבות ספציפית ניתן לפרסם ספרים רבים. יש להודות שקשה לאחוז במקל משני קצותיו – גם לפרסם מבוא כללי שאינו גורם עוול לכל תרבות ותרבות, אך גם לדון בהרחבה בכל תרבות ותרבות. רנפרו דן באפשרות (יתרונות וחסרונות) של ארכיאולוגיה משווה ולכן לא ניתן לוותר על סקירה כללית של תרבויות, גם אם בסך הכל היא אינה תורמת לנו ידע משמעותי.

מצד שני, הספר השאיר אותי עם תחושה של דלות מסוימת בתובנות חדשות לגבי הנושא (גם אם היו כמה). תחושה זו מועצמת בשל סגנון כתיבתו של רנפרו הרווי בחזרות, חוזרות ונשנות, על אותן נקודות תוך שימוש באותן דוגמאות עד זרא. יכול היה לחזור פחות ולהעמיק יותר (או לחלופין לקצר את ספרו). הדלות בתובנות מאכזבת מאוד על רקע ניסיונו של רנפרו, במחצית הספר השנייה, להציג ארכיאולוגיה מסוג חדש. הוא אינו עושה לה שרות טוב או שפשוט מדובר עדיין במדע שאינו מפותח דיו. אך על כך בהמשך.

אם אחזור לכותרת הראשית, הרי שלא מדובר כאן במבוא לפרה-היסטוריה אלא יותר במבוא לארכיאולוגיה פרה-היסטורית, לתולדות המדע עצמו והמושגים שהתעצבו במסגרתו. בעיקר מושם הדגש על מושג הפרה-היסטוריה שנולד, בד בבד עם הארכיאולוגיה, תורתו של דארווין והגיאולוגיה, רק לפני כ-150 שנה. בפרט באירופה עם דחיית הטקסט של ספר בראשית ותיאורי בריאת העולם במסורת היודאו-נוצרית. הפרה-היסטוריה היא תקופה נרחבת המתחילה עם ראשית ההתפתחות האבולוציונית של קופי האדם ומסתיימת עם הופעתה של כתיבה מתעדת במסגרת תרבויות ספציפיות (בכל תרבות הסתיימה תקופה זו בזמנים אחרים ומסיבות שונות – אבולוציה תרבותית, קולוניאליזם ועוד. הגבולות אינן חדים. הופעת כתב עדין אינה בהכרח כתיבה משמעותית ומצד שני היו מסורות סיפוריות גם לפני העלאה על הכתב). רנפרו מציג מספר מהפכות מדעיות ואת השלכותיהן על תיאוריית הפרה-היסטוריה: אבולוציה דרוויניסטית, כרונולוגיה שכבתית משווה, תיאוריות של השפעה תרבותית, תיארוך באמצעות פחמן-14 וכרונולוגיה גנטית.

כותרת המשנה "היווצרות ה- mind האנושי" מתייחסת לחלקו השני של הספר, והיא דורשת הסבר. כפי שלמדתי בחוג לפילוסופיה המושג mind קשה מאוד לתרגום לעברית. זאת מכיוון שבמרוצת השנים הוא ספח לתוכו משמעויות רבות, ונעשה בו שימוש תוך התייחסות לדברים שונים (לעיתים מנוגדים). גם רנפרו בוחר בו מאחר והוא עמום מספיק ואוצר בתוכו התייחסות לתחומים מגוונים. לא מדובר כאן ב"מוח" ביולוגי (בארכיאולוגיה אין שימוש למוחות מאחר והם אינם משתמרים) אלא בשיקוף של תהליכים קוגניטיביים, חברתיים ותרבותיים הקשורים באדם. רנפרו מנסה להציג ולפתח ארכיאולוגיה פרה-היסטורית של ה-mind. הארכיאולוגיה הפרה היסטורית עוסקת מטבעה בדברים מוחשיים – כלי אבן, מונומנטים, שרידי עצם או חומר ביולוגי ולאחרונה גם בחומרים גנטיים. ה- mind הוא מושג קוגניטיבי-תרבותי-חברתי. ולכן יש כאן פער גדול (אולי בלתי ניתן לגישור) בין ממצאי הארכיאולוגיה לבין מה שניתן ללמוד מהם על ה- mind. אבל בכל זאת מנסים. רנפרו גם מפרט קצת את המתודה שלו, שעיקרה הרעיון של אבולוציה של רעיונות שהתגבשה מתוך (או בד בבד) עם הכרה במהות חומרית – לדוגמה: שימוש במשקולות (הכרה בכובד שלהן) הביא להיווצרות מסחר ומאוחר יותר לשימוש בכסף, בניית מונומנטים גיבשה חברות והובילה בהמשך להתפתחות דתות (אני מרפרף כאן).

דווקא כאן התאכזבתי. רנפרו מציג מעט תיאוריה ומעט דוגמאות. הוא דווקא עומד על הקשיים שבניסיון לגבש ארכיאולוגיה כזו אך אינו בוחן מספיק פתרונות. הבעיה העיקרית היא שהתיאוריות שלו פשטניות למדי (לפעמים עד כדי עיוורון להתפתחות של מושגים – למשל עצם הכובד של משקולת אינו העיקר אלא התפתחות קוגניטיבית מלווה המכירה במשקל בר השוואה) ואינן מורכבות או מתוחכמות דיין. הוא דווקא מציג בקיאות בתיאוריות מתחום הקוגניציה, האבולוציה והאנתרופולוגיה, כולם מדעים אחים החופפים בחלקם את הארכיאולוגיה הפרה-היסטורית אך התיאוריות שהוא מציג דלות לעומת התיאוריות שכבר פותחו במסגרתם וראוי היה אולי לנסות לאמצן אל תוך הארכיאולוגיה של ה- mind. (למשל הוא דוחה את האבולוציה של הממים של ריצ'רד דוקינס, אולי בצדק, אך ללא נימוק מספק).

בקיצור, לא אוכל להכחיש שלמדתי מעט ואכן מדובר במבוא. מצד שני ציפיתי לקבל יותר תובנות ופחות חזרות על אותן אמירות. כך שתחושתי לגבי הספר מעורבת. – מעניין אך לא ממצא, מציג רעיונות חשובים אך בחוסר תחכום.

[Brian Turner · Rating 2 out of 5]

I bought this book thinking it would describe something about how prehistoric belief systems.

Instead, Colin Renfrew simply marvels at how social changes in the past would have required a change in thinking. And that's it.

There is some archaeology in this book, but not much, which is astonishing considering Renfrew is one of the UK's leading archaeologists.

Instead he spends a lot of time in this book marvelling at "tectonic" changes in thought. At times I wasn't sure whether he was addressing a 19th century audience to tell them that ancient people weren't as stupid as they believed - or addressing a 21st century audience to tell them that prehistoric people were more stupid than expected.

On the latter point, he underlines that prehistoric people must have been dumb not to cross from Africa into Britain while it was inhabitable, or painted in caves before around 50,000 BC. Which begs the question of how often Renfrew has walked from Europe to Africa, or how many new artistic mediums he himself has discovered.

Overall, this book isn't about the human mind - it's Renfrew thinking aloud about how cognitive theory might apply to archaeology, and not really coming to any real conclusion.

[Mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not quite what I expected. This is more of an overview of the study of prehistory than an overview of prehistory itself. And perhaps I'm just not clever enough to follow Renfrew's argument, but I didn't see much of an attempt to explain how or why the human mind developed. Renfrew absolutely noted that changes seemed to occur at particular points in particular societies trajectories, but I did not get any sense of why, for example, Renfrew thinks egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups transitioned into class-conscious groups. Was it simply a matter of critical mass - enough people were gathered in one place for existing behaviors to become important? Or did something really change in the human mind at this time?

[Pontus Presents · Rating 3 out of 5]

A challenging read - very dense and dry, but it still managed to capture interest for a majority of the book. I had very little prior anthropological knowledge (or education) and what I knew about archeology I had learned from various podcasts, book introductions and books covering ancient history.

It's as much an overview of the study of prehistory itself as it is an overview of prehistory.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important marker of maturing archaeology is the transition from a unilinear approach (one thing gives way to the next) to a historical approach (in which region and time periods are considered on their own terms). If done right, "prehistory" becomes an extension of history itself, going further back into time and incorporating preliterate societies into human history. Yes, literacy and written records are a major milestone in human cultural development, but there are many other important markers as well. Drawing a sharp distinction between prehistory and history is artificial and ultimately egocentric.

Renfrew's book provides a nice overview not only of increasing archaeological knowledge, but the development of archaeology itself. It began as a collecting of antiquities by the wealthy and powerful. Then came those who began to dig more systematically and provide careful descriptions of what they found. That led to archaeologists being able to categorize and classify. Then they began to develop narratives-- at first, whiggish histories in which events led inexorably to the present, in which the archaeologist's own culture represented the peak of civilization. But as archaeology continued, the growing complexity and diversity of discoveries caused simplistic narratives to crack. That's when archaeology became really interesting.

I did not fully appreciate how important radiometric dating was to the entire archaeological discipline. Before WWII, scholars could not really compare sites across the globe because they only had relative dates of regional sites. But once they could calculate absolute dates, archaeologists could make great leaps forward in integrating their knowledge. Some of their previous estimates of the age of their sites were off by as much as 1000 years, so they had to rewrite much of their previous narratives.

Having read this book, I'm now more familiar with the technical terminology, time periods, regions, and the types of research that I'm most interested in--Renfrew calls it "cognitive archaeology". What were these people thinking that led them to build settlements and shrines? Anatomically modern human had been hunters and gatherers for a very, very long time before any settlements were constructed. The standard response, something usually referring to climate change and population pressures, is very unsatisfying (or at least incomplete). The climate has never been static-- populations undoubtedly grew during times of plenty and suffered hardships and setbacks under unfavorable conditions. Perhaps there is some element of randomness in terms of when and where permanent settlement happened. Perhaps it was attempted before and didn't take hold because certain elements were missing. But with just the right circumstances, some settlements became juggernauts, and the world changed inexorably. A full account would include not only climate change, population demographics, technological innovation, plant and animal domestication, but also unique social and cultural factors that made the Neolithic period different from the previous 40,000 years of human society. What was the secret sauce that enabled enough social cohesion and diversification to create complex societies capable of explosive growth and the ability to change the environment to suit their needs and desires?

[Harald · Rating 5 out of 5]

The history of man before writing came into being
I just learned that it was not until the 1820s that Christian Thomsen came to divide Prehistory into the Stone, Bronze and Iron Age on the basis of Danish ancient finds. Renfrew first considers how recently the development of the study of prehistory has progressed. The biggest breakthroughs have come through carbon testing in the 1930s and recent genetic tests. Modern archaeologists have found many answers, but there is much we do not yet know. When did people start talking? Why did it take over 40,000 years before Homo sapiens left behind learned cultural traces? Permanent settlements are a prerequisite for agriculture, but what came first? Several early settlements appear to be based on religion or fishing.

In part 2, Renfrew gives a good presentation of the main features of global prehistory. From egalitarian Stone Age societies to tightly organized state societies with clear hierarchies. At the same time, we are constantly reminded of how many questions are still being unanswered. The book is markedly professional in the choice of terminology, but the concepts are largely well explained. We are also told that some words and phrases such as "race" and even "civilization" are outdated. This may be good to know because Renfrew already stated at the beginning that the subject has earlier been politically abused from left and right.

The book is well illustrated, yet I could have wished for more.

[Erik B.K.K. · Rating 1 out of 5]

So, so, dull, and so, so dry. A book on the scientific approach of prehistoric archeology, not on prehistory itself. Perfect if you want to abstain from sex, forever: this book reads like a chemical castration.

[Conor Sullivan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book begins documenting the development of the discipline of prehistory by looking at the evolution of archaeology, its pioneers and the scientific advancements that refined its efficacity. Renfrew starts off by establishing what is to be understood by the term ‘prehistory’ - although he goes on to question the utility of this term later in the book - stating that, as a field of study, it is only around 150 years old, partly as a result of religious orthodoxy but mostly due to the fact archaeology had hitherto not been a scientific discipline with a clearly defined objective or approach. Of course, we are familiar with the beginning of recorded Western history, as documented in Herodotus’ ‘The Histories’, but the history of pre-Roman and Greek societies was only able to be accurately disinterred and understood with the revelatory nature of geological and archaeological study.

The book details how formerly descriptive disciplines formed the basis of prehistory up until World War II before going on to reveal the myriad of ways in which the discovery of atomic physics and the invention of radiometric dating methods would uncover a previously unknown human history. In Part II, he introduces what he calls ‘cognitive archaeology’ which he uses to try and show the human mind has remained largely unchanged since at least Neolithic times and, perhaps, even since our appearance as a new species some 150,000 years ago. Renfrew presents this idea in such a way that it can be used as both a methodology to demonstrate, and an explanation of, similarities found in disparate cultures all over the world.

Indeed, on the topic of cognitive development as shown in the archaeological record, I found the societal changes Renfrew chronicles as occurring following the Neolithic revolution and the Bronze Age – particularly in Europe – especially interesting. That a group-oriented egalitarian society based on the social relationships of friendship and exchange partnership - not unlike those of the (matriarchal) pre-Indo-European cultures Marija Gimbutas argued existed - could do a complete flip in a comparatively short period of time to become a society where the institutional facts of debt and credit ruled was incredibly well explained. The ‘conspicuous consumption‘ that Renfrew argues archaeology proves was used to signify higher social standing and to demonstrate an individuals munificence can be tracked from as far back as the fifth millennium B.C., in the late Neolithic. The fact, British historian, David Cannadine noted this very feature of high society could be blamed as contributing towards the decline and fall of the British aristocracy, in his similarly named book, goes to show just how far back elements of modern human cognition extend. Both this and the many other examples of how cognitive archaeology can be used to effectively disinter the prehistoric past add to how fantastic and robust a work this is, at least from a purely archaeological standpoint.

Renfrew does acknowledge, albeit tacitly, the nexus between his ‘cognitive archaeology’ and the postmodernist critique of scientific archaeology that emerged in the ‘80s, following the advent of radiocarbon dating methods, which emphasised the need for a more hermeneutic approach. I was shocked to read the extent to which ‘cognitive archaeology’ has incorporated the efforts of postmodern critique to establish the ‘symbolic aspects of human culture, looking, for instance, at questions of gender and identity in the past’ because I thought such investigations were more recent phenomena that attempted to distort genuine scientific inquiry, not something that had existed for almost half a century and was both plausible and devoid of ideological bias. In fact, whilst he acknowledges the postmodern approach lacks the scientific foundation required to be authoritative, his exposition of how such theoretical explorations helped broaden the scope of the field was illuminating.

One issue I had was with Renfrew’s repeated assertion that ‘behavioural differences between [population] groups are not genetically determined’. This is no doubt an attempt to navigate a controversial topic and assuage the potential vitriol of readers who lean more towards social constructionism, if not to overtly appease them. However, this position does not reflect the biological reality as we understand it now; this book was published over a decade prior to ‘Blueprint’, the seminal work of Robert Plomin, a psychologist and geneticist who is a research professor in behavioural genetics at Kings College London. In this he records his findings that behavioural traits can be accounted for directly by genetics around 50% of the time, irrespective of environment. Sadly, given the sheer number of times Renfrew states and re-states this position - that ‘the human genome, cannot account for the changes in human behaviour that have occurred over the past 60,000 years, since the out of Africa dispersal’ - it suggests that the fundamental premise on which his argument is founded is wrong.

On a more personal point: I found the way he used linking verbs in sentence construction made them needlessly more difficult to read - e.g. ‘have stressed how different is the picture reconstructed from the material finds when compared with that obtained from finds of the preceding Moustarian culture’. I believe it is worth noting, though, that Colin Renfrew does, in fact, speak like this during lecture presentations as well as in his writing.

On the whole, I believe this to be a very sophisticated book, especially regarding the discussion around the development of what we would call the modern mind, how it relates to the concept of mind more broadly and its dependence on human engagement in the material world. It is a book of variegated complexity demonstrating the sheer extent to which Renfrew’s knowledge and expertise spans. Whilst I think everybody understands the progression and advancements that followed sedentism, Renfrew describes it in such a way that elucidates the genuine magic of the process. He is evidently a consummate and learned professional; the archaeological examples he provides from all across the world and the way he is able to synthesise these with the relevant literature is impressive.

[Michał Hołda · Rating 5 out of 5]

When prehistory ended written word happened and history started.

Oscar Montelius divided the Neolithic in Scandinavia into four numbered periods, I-IV, and the Nordic Bronze Age into six I-VI. He was the first to establish that the numerous Swedish petroglyphs were from the Nordic Bronze Age, by comparing axes portrayed in the petroglyphs with archaeological finds.

He has worked on Bronze age phazes
Specifically: Age I, 1800–1500 BCE; Age II, 1500–1300 BCE; Age III, 1300–1100 BCE; Age IV, 1100–900 BCE; Age V, 900–600 BCE; and Age VI, 600–500 BCE

His main works include Om tidsbestämming inom Bronsåldern (1885; “On Determining the Periods Within the Bronze Age”), The Civilization of Sweden in Heathen Times (1888), and Die älteren Kulturperioden in Orient und in Europa (1903–23; “The Older Cultural Periods in the Orient and Europe”).

Montelius's greatest achievement was in his work on the prehistoric chronology of northern Europe. In this he divided European prehistory into a series of numbered periods, three relating to the Neolithic, and six to the Bronze Age. Initially his analysis was done on the basis of artefact typology.
------
Paul Mellars in 1991 listed some of the behavioral changes that characterise the traditions for middle to upper prehistoric, which in France took place around 40.000 years ago.
....
1. A shift in the production of stone tools, from a "flake" technology to one that gives more regular standard and sandarisede form of "Blade" manufacture.

2. An incrse in the variety and complexity of the stone tools produced, with more obvius standarsiation of production.

3. The apperance for the first time of artifacts made out of bone, antler and ivory, which had been extensively shaped.

4. An incresed tempo of technological change, with an incresed degree of regional diversificatin.

5. The apperance for the first itme of a wide range of beads, pendants and personal adormanets.

6. The apperance for the first time of representational or "naturalistic" art, seen both in smalll carvings, mainly on bone, antler or ivoryy, and in the remarkable painedd animals seen in the painted caves such as Lascaux or Altamira or elier at the Grotte Chauvet.

7. Significat change in both the economic and social orgaincatio of human groups.
------
Kossinna was an outstanding German archaeologist who specialized in prehistoric archaeology and was the founder of the 'residence or settlement school of archaeology' (Siedlungsärchaologie). He was a contradictory figure.

Kossinna built an unarguably immense knowledge of archaeological material, in part by painstakingly documenting prehistoric artifacts in museums in several European countries. His most famous work was 1921's German Prehistory: A Pre-Eminently.

German linguist, professor of archeology at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Berlin and creator of the "ethnic method". He mainly dealt with the issues of the origin and spread of the Germanic people.

Hitler unfortunately took his results of ethnicity to consideration and total believe. It was believed that although there is many ethnic groups, Germans are superior,bliving so due to some tiny details, in this branch of knowledge.
----
With neolithic tech people started to plow.And before happening of civilized man, this has defended outcome. Since we have gentlemen and ladies, reticulations, that are so eager to grasp from these ideas of Artificial tech growth(Human tech growth[as in renaissance meaning]). We are going to have to work again for scratch on high resolution behaviors that keeps us keepers of knowledge of how to behave as gentlemen and ladies. Like for year 1 A.D (That is basically risk of losing 2000 years after birth of Christ).

And yes this Neolithic Revolution took place in place of Paradise on earth, although is spiritual place of the past, Communistic propaganda has been telling (while existing) that they will make paradise on earth.

It's like all the people will be involved in agriculture , like taking people from office, with glasses that they have earned. And then killing for being unusef.

Impoverishment of society on grand scale.

There would not be people reading or people of grand wealth of knowledge, faith or scholars would suffer.

World would turn away eyes for what is familiar to us , to contemplate as we do for 2000 years at least in unchanged form and all the knowledge would have to be on how to plow.

All the history and all the the civilization would perish.

The British archeologist Steven Mithen has found evidence in archeology that "cognitive fluidity" caused the modern mind to arise. ... In order to explain these breakthroughs, Mithen resorts to Jerry Fodor's modular model of the mind. Initially, human minds were dominated by a general-purpose form of intelligence.

Modularity of mind is theory that describes that there are certain process in mind and in the prehistoric humans had brain wired so that to speak,to socially interact act, to make tools, he recognize plants and animal species, one has to use different parts of brain. And that neolithic revolution took out this skill and replaced it with whole brain operating on any task.

It's as if you go to work and you don't remember your home life and vice versa.

[Henry Sturcke · Rating 2 out of 5]

Colin Renfrew’s particular interest in this book is revealed by the subtitle: the making of the human mind. The first third of the book is a prelude that offers an overview of how humans became aware of the long stretches of time before history kicks in. Until the mid-nineteenth century, the dominant picture — at least in the west — had been centered on the Bible and dates extracted from its narrative. Everyone “knew” that the first humans came into existence in 4004 BC. All other evidence was subordinated to that framework.
Since then, archaeology, supplemented by radiocarbon and tree-ring dating, has made enormous strides in constructing a worldwide picture of the preliterate past. The story of how repeated disconfirmations led to the concept of prehistory is a fascinating one, competently recounted here. But knowing what happened when hasn’t yet explained how or why. These questions occupy the second part of the book.
Renfrew begins part two by addressing what he calls the sapient paradox. To compare the results of dating artifacts with DNA analysis reveals a surprising dissonance. On the one hand, “speciation,” the appearance of Homo sapiens in Africa, seems to have occurred as much as 150,000 years ago. On the other, characteristically “human” advances, such as the agricultural revolution, seem no older than 10,000 years. A model based solely on biological evolution can’t explain the lag. Clearly, new inherent genetic capacity doesn’t make itself immediately evident in technological progress.
So how did our species, which apparently dispersed out of Africa roughly 60,000 years ago, come to use symbols, develop writing, and introduce agriculture? Renfrew stresses that the earliest symbols have material referents. This is evident in cave paintings, but Renfrew argues that this is true of other notions as well. The discovery of a set of artifacts, of ascending size, all made from the same material and having the same shape, tells a story -- particularly since their relationship to each other is based on a standard unit. This demonstrates the notion of weight used not only to measure these objects but as a standard against which to measure quantities of other objects. The notion didn’t arise in the abstract but in physical experience.
Further, this type of development did not have to originate in one locality and spread from there; it could have arisen separately in various locations (and probably did). The notion of the alphabet is a case in point. The early Semitic alphabet, which became the basis for Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, and Latin scripts, arose roughly at the same time as the ideographic system developed in China and adapted in Japan and Korea. One concept, at least two origins.
Continuing in the search for how and why, Renfrew identifies sedentism, the practice of a group remaining for an extended time in one place, as “the decisive turn in prehistory” (p. 135). This preceded the invention of agriculture, which was just one way in which staying put led to generations of interaction with the material world. Pottery, as a particular application of the domestication of fire, was a related development. Metallurgy, in turn, grew out of that skill.
As I set these ideas down, I feel afresh how exciting investigations such as prehistoric cognition and archaeogenetics are — the same excitement I felt when I first opened this book. That no doubt explains my frustration as I read it. This book is simply not well-written. In structure, it resembles the same author’s earlier Before Civilization (1973). Whereas the earlier book seemed clearly aimed at an imagined reader (an undergraduate embarking on archaeology as a possible career field), this book can’t seem to make up its mind. It appears to be written for the interested layman. Still, in some passages, the speed of his overview is overwhelming (case in point, the section “Toward a comparative archaeology?”, which closes chapter four). At other times, Renfrew repeats himself. For example, he writes: “Chinese writing, which is mainly ideographic in character (although some signs have phonetic values). . . .” (Pp. 209-10), then “These Chinese texts were all, of course, written using the Chinese script with its thousands of signs. This was an ideographic script, with each sign representing an idea as well as a word, although, as with most ideographic scripts, some signs could also be used phonetically” (p. 213).
Renfrew not only assumes that his imagined reader doesn’t know that Chinese is an ideographic script, but is so inattentive that he or she forgets that in the course of three pages. Such a reader, I imagine, wouldn’t have made it this far in the book. Nor, I fear, some better informed, attentive readers.
Sadly, this is not an isolated lapse, but typical for the book, particularly in part two. Another indication of Renfrew’s difficulty marshaling his material is the frequent use of the phrases “as we shall see” and “as we have seen.” Comparing this book to Before Civilization could lead one to conclude that Renfrew has decayed as a writer. Of course, the fault may not be solely his. In 1973, publishers still employed book editors who worked closely with authors. Thirty-five years later, authors were on their own.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a decent introduction, firstly to the history of the study of prehistory and the various, developing techniques which those who have studied it have utilized, then secondly to what these techniques tell us about the development of human beings and their societies.

Renfraw talks the reader through ideas around the so-called "sapient paradox" and categorization of these developments into the speciation and tectonic phases; then through developments through hunter-gatherer through the beginnings of sedentism in tribal societies, chiefdoms and early state societies (all the while challenging easy generalizations and universalization of this trajectory). He usefully talks through concepts of material engagement and institutional facts. Developments in husbandry, farming, cooperation lead to the discussion of large-scale building projects (i.e. Stonehenge) as constitutive of a process of building larger communities.

There's a useful section around the development of large early civic developments as mirroring ideologies around an ordered cosmos, and the linkage of rulers and kings to religion and cosmology. The mention that the Indus Valley Harappan state society seems to have organised itself on a grand social scale without the need for self-aggrandising monarchs is intriguing.

Renfrew is not a stylist and his writing is a bit plodding, even though often informative.

[Ryan Schaller · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came to this book with little knowledge of the subject area, so I've offering this review as a general history reader and defer to the expertise of the other reviewers as to how accurate or current Renfrew's conclusions are. I recently read David Reich's "Who We Are and How We Got Here" which cited Renfrew very favorably and somewhat serendipitously saw a used version of the Folio Society edition of the book, and so here we are.

As someone new to the field, I found the opening chapters with their survey of changing practices and theories in the field to be informative. They flowed quickly for me and I did not feel lost or overwhelmed.

The chapters on the "making of the human mind" were intriguing. As an example, he tries to illustrate what constitute "thoughts" or "concepts" must be established to participate in something like a commodity exchange. You must understand concepts like "number", "unit [of measure]", "value", and a mechanism for comparing the value of two different commodities. Again, I'll defer to the more experienced reviewers as to whether Renfrew's ideas are that unique or groundbreaking, but I did think they were easy enough to follow and they have had the effect of making me interesting in reading more on the subject. The book does contain an appendix for further reading as well as a full bibliography.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not what I was expecting it to be, and then I found it so interesting I could not put it down.
The first third of the book is more on theory and methodology.
The rest - variance and transition.
Every profession and discipline has a vocabulary all its own. While not an easy read, I found Redfrew to stay away from terminology that would have given the non-professional the need to stop for a second and recall what a certain word means or refers to. Still, I have not read Anthropolgy in over 45 years - it was not easy then, it was not easy now.
But I did appreciate his reminder that there are numerous cultures in the world, and not all transitioned in the same way, at the same speed - and they should not be judged by what we refer to as "Western Civilization". After all, some cultures we consider "primitive" were advancing learning and skills back when our ancestors were still picking bugs off one another.
Not easy, but worth a read if Prehistory, and the development of the state and learning, is your bag.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author gives a very dry text book like presentation of the topic. The book is really mostly about the archeology of the mind. A topic I find exciting. The book is not for everyone except for those with an interest in early man out of Africa and his mental development. If your not bothered by statements like understanding symbols make us human and 'X signifies Y in the context of C', you'll probably find the book interesting too.

I didn't like the narration and would suggest to speed it up to 1.25. Also, I didn't like the dry presentation of the topic.

I did like the topic and feel comfortable giving it a higher overall rating than the weighted average of the sum of its parts. I would only recommend this book for people who really like the topic.

[Richard Barnes · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book of two halves. The first part, presenting a history of prehistoric research and archaeology gets a bit dry. It’s necessary to get the foundations in place for the more interesting second part which delves into a history of the human mind – how did we get from the earliest hunter-gatherer hominids that could only really think about survival to the art-producing, machine building, record-creating homo-sapiens that we are today?

It’s fascinating stuff but, to be honest about me and to be fair to the author, I think I need to do a bit more reading around this exciting topic before I can get judgemental about whether I think Renfrew is right or not.

Still, a book that makes you want to go and discover more about its topic must be doing something right.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is not really about the making of the human mind.

The first part sets out the story of how our knowledge of prehistory developed from biblical origins up to carbon dating.

The second part looks at things like the mystery of the delay between the appearance of genetic homo sapiens and the development of society, the development of symbolism, physical goods and the development of rulers, evidence of religion affecting development and writing. It's a little repetitive and dull in places.

It's a good starting point for further exploration of the issues touched upon in it. It satisfies the blurb but not the title.

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

This could have been a riveting read, but unfortunately the academic style tends to alienate the non professional. However, even the non professional can see how Mr Renfrew's blank statement that the Homo Sapien Sapien's genome hasn't changed in 60,000 years and is the exact same globally is patently false. Its well known that Europeans have substantial Neanderthal DNA. After this I breezed through and lost interest.

[David Withun · Rating 4 out of 5]

-

[Dale · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a terrific book if you're interested in the very early history of mankind and the disciplines of archeology and anthropology

[Doreen Petersen · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was okay but I think this is just the start into delving into prehistory. Think there's so much more to learn and find out. Nevertheless I would recommend checking this book out.

[Aziz LeAziz · Rating 3 out of 5]

قبل آدم ألف آدم

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is the beginning of a journey Im taking through the beginning of the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens up until our present day. I have found that there is seemingly no end to subjects that fascinate me, but in my random readings I lack a coherence that brings everything together. Like knowing many great restaurants in a city, but not realizing where they all are in relation to each other in the city. Some are the same cuisine, others part of a chain, some run by the same people, and others still, standing side by side. That Renfrew even went into what prehistory is, how it came to be, and what ideas are its foundation I found to be a great beginning. Nothing like beginning a topic by questioning the topic itself. Renfrew goes on show the progression of our early ancestors on to the beginnings of agriculture and city states remarking on the huge gap of time between them. Questioning, if we are the same physiologically then what took so long to go from stone tools to agriculture? This is when he delves into the main topic of this book, "The Making of The Human Mind." I don't know enough to say either way about the validity of Renfrew's suggestions, but I can attest to the excitement I had while reading it. I am a collector of ideas, and his on the topic of the early phases of man I found very interesting. I have had a long history of fascination with psychology and philosophy and I feel like those were the qualities that stood out to me and had me enjoy the work so much. With all that being said id suggest the book to anyone, but only those that have the patience for a more in depth look into life and can understand what a book like this is. This book isn't meant to be, nor do I think any history book should be, a grand narrative soaking with the characters of history and the trials and tribulations they went through up to our modern day. Its a serious conversation about who we are and what are place is in the world is. If your looking for some new ideas on that subject dive in. If your looking for just a great story, look elsewhere.

[Dylan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Colin Renfrew's brief overview of human prehistory does the man's intelligence and wide breadth of knowledge justice; it is succinct, dense, and well constructed. Unfortunately, the topic itself is the downfall of the book. Human prehistory is immensely interesting, but also massive as it spans millions of years. Renfrew obviously did the best he could, and he did quite an impressive job. But the topic is far too large to cover in such a short volume without resorting to the dry tone that Renfrew adopts for the majority of the prose. Unlike other anthropological books, there is very little in terms of style to grip the reader; Renfrew appears to have left that for other writers, and sticks to facts and his interpretations of them. This both enhances the text-prehistory is tackled quite well for a slim volume- but makes the thick paragraphs difficult to read over extended periods of time, and I found myself taking multiple days to finish the text. Overall, it is an enjoyable text, and my advanced knowledge of the topic helped greatly in expediting the long reading process. Just be prepared to soldier through this book a bit.