The Archaeology of Perception: Traces of Depiction and Language [and Comments and Reply]

It is argued that depiction can only have emerged prehistorically in communities with shared systems of meaning &, on the basis of several anthropological, linguistic, & cognitive theories, that depiction transforms communication into language. The rapid change in numerous practices observable at the end of the Upper Pleistocene becomes understandable when it is seen that communication was turning into language during that period. In Comments, David F. Armstrong (Gallaudet U, Washington, DC) points out some problems with this theory, including the authors' vagueness regarding the precursor of depiction & their lack of evidence supporting the universality of depiction in the Upper Pleistocene. L. T. Black (U of Alaska, Fairbanks) argues that the paper represents "unfounded speculation." William H. Calvin (U of Washington, Seattle) discusses the connection between depiction & the development of ballistic motor skills. Whitney Davis (Northwestern U, Evanston, Ill) disputes the claim that depiction requires a shared system of meanings. Dean Falk (State U of New York, Albany) discusses the nature of cerebral lateralization as it relates to language & suggests that language or its precursor may have been present much earlier than Davidson & Noble suggest. Mary Le Cron Foster (U of California, Berkeley) refutes the notion that language is essentially object naming. Paul Graves (U of Southampton, England) disagrees with the idea that there is a unitary origin for "modern man" & that this origin can be identified with the emergence of depiction. John Halverson (U of California, Santa Cruz) suggests that there is no logical evidence to support the causal relationship proposed by Davidson & Nobel. Gordon W. Hewes (U of Colorado, Boulder) discusses analogues to depiction, eg, biological mimicry. In Reply, Davidson & Noble address issues raised by the commentators. 2 Tables, 224 References. B. Annesser Murray