“Dude, Don’t be a Tool”
The Undeniable Linkage Between Language and Tool Development
By Brett Fowler
Thesis: To provide a cohesive theory that tool manufacture along with new patterns of social organization
coincided with the anatomical reorganization of the brain, paving the way for the early hominin mind to
cohesively adapt to the abstract concepts necessary for the evolution of language development and eventual
behavioral modernity.
Abstract: Tool usage served as a mechanism to concentrate the focus of early primate attention towards
concepts of the abstract-- future planning, temporal sequencing, and most importantly, cooperation amongst
group members which forced individuals to share and eventually place themselves in the position of others in
order to survive. There came a point in human evolution where primates were forced to learn proper
collaboration skills, or else they would not survive (NOVA: 2008). With the advent of increasingly complex
tool manufacture (dating, at least as far back as the fossil record at current can maintain, to around 2.5 million
years ago) came increased collective and collaborative hunting and gathering strategies, strategies of which led
to both the specialization and division of labor as well as to the increased need for shared thinking patterns. It
was this shared mindset, or “shared intentionality” as famed psychologist Michael Tomasello calls it, which has
been theorized led to the development of an early, very primitive language dating perhaps as far back to 2.5
million years ago (Full Interview: 2008).
The primitive forms of communication that eventually evolved into complex syntactical and semantic
languages are what distinguish human kind from all other species. Though several animals, specifically
primates, dolphins, and birds have been known to both manufacture tools and comprehend language, their
knowledge and reproduction of both are rudimentary at best, and their brains lack the ability to grasp the most
distinguishing characteristics of human language—symbolic reference, grammar, open-ended generativity and
combinatorial patterning (Deacon 2006).
Throughout this article, I seek to maintain that several diverse adaptive strategies including, but not
limited to, hunting and foraging patterns, tool manufacture, and genetic/anatomic mutations worked in a
cohesive and cyclical manner to propel early hominins, and perhaps even early hominids, to develop the basic
foundations (most importantly symbolic thought and shared intentionality) necessary to create complex,
symbolic language. I also aim to explain how and why language appears to be a purely human phenomenon and
why other species appear unable to develop complex forms of verbal communication, despite genetic and
anatomical similarities to homo sapiens.
This paper does not seek to conclusively deny that several other complex pressures and factors are at
play when it comes to the field of language evolution. Factors such as, but certainly not limited to
climatological shifts, demographic pressures, and migratory patterns certainly played a role in evolution of
language in both early and late hominids. However, I wish to posit the most critical elements which led to the
earliest, most rudimentary forms of language were strictly anatomical, technological, and behavioral in nature.
There is no question that we homo sapiens have vastly evolved from our ancient ancestors who once
roamed the Eastern hemisphere. As paleoanthropologist Stanley Ambrose once said, “A mere 12,000 years
separate the first bow and arrow from the International Space Station.” (Ambrose: 2001) But can it definitively
be said that we homo sapiens are truly something special because of our ability to cognate complex language?
Do we honestly stand alone as the sole successor to the throne of knowledge throughout the animal kingdom?
Regardless of the correct response, there is one quintessential question that remains yet to be answered: Just
how much farther does human evolution have to go in the coming millenia?
A Brief History of Time… Well okay, of tools:
UNSHAPED TOOLS
The archaeological record is surprisingly lacking when it comes to evidence for tool manufacture prior
to 2.4 million years. However, recent discoveries of a colony of chimpanzees located deep in the forests of
Guinea may provide evidence of what stone tool technology was like long before its appearance in the paleoanthropologic timeline. In the village of Bossou, several chimpanzees carry large rocks to a nut bearing tree.
Then, they collect the nuts from the tree and subsequently place them on top of the larger of the two rocks. They
next use a second, more graspable stone to crack the nuts and then open them by pounding upon the first.
Researcher Rachel Carvalho suspects that if this pounding leaves a signature damage on the stones, then such
marking could help provide evidence of what early Stone Age tools looked like. This, she believes could be
potential evidence for the primitive behavior and cultural conventions of Stone Age hominids such as early
australopithecines (Bower: 2009). Ambrose agrees with such a hypothesis stating, “…We can infer that the
minimum level of technological capacity of hominids between 5 and 2.5 million years ago was comparable to
that of chimpanzees.” He goes on to claim that our ancestors, like chimpanzees, most likely used decomposable,
organic materials providing an answer as to why there is scant archaeological evidence to be found from this
time period. Furthermore, it is worthy to note that bipedal locomotion developed some time around 4.2 million
years ago, but was mostly an adaptation evolved in response to the shift from forest to savannahs. It was not
accompanied by evidence for tool use according to Ambrose (Ambrose: 2001).
However, it should be said that with bipedalism came a greater freedom to use the primate hands.
Perhaps this freeing of such appendages allowed for greater dexterity and more elaborate gesturing, as well as
greater control over early tool manufacture, increased collaborative communication skills, and higher cognitive
functions involving fine motor control skills. Such motor skills were predominantly necessary for tool
manufacture, and the neural processes involved in such dexterity were theorized to propel processes in the left
brain forward, in an area which later became a crucial center for the cognition of language development.
Therefore, one such as Ambrose should not be so quick to refute the importance of bipedalism as a potential
precursor, or at least a very necessary factor, in the subsequent development of tool manufacture and
rudimentary language development.
OLDOWAN TOOLS
If the age of the australopithecines was considered a time of cognitive stagnation, then the Oldowan
period could be considered a miniature revolution of sorts. During this time, around 2.4 million years ago, deep
within the Gona and Omo Basins in Ethiopia, the first “true” stone tools began to emerge. These tools were
called Oldowan tools and they strove to create sharp stone flakes which were used primarily to strip meat from
animal bones by striking a soft, spherical hammer stone against a single core stone. Originally utilized by the
“tool maker” homo habilis, Oldowan tools proliferated throughout the globe during the time between 2.6 and
1.7 million years ago, eventually appearing in parts of Asia, Europe and the Near East. Habilis was not the only
user of Oldowan tools, in fact several other hominids, predominantly homo erectus, were found to make use of
these tools some 1.7 million years ago (Hominid Tools: 2007). The most important conclusion regarding
Oldowan tools’ ability to restructure human cognitive processes proposes that early hominids had developed an
unprecedented and “…excellent empirical understanding of the mechanical properties of lithic raw materials,
fracture mechanics, and geometry.” (Ambrose: 2001)
Though Oldowan tools may seem rudimentary and primitive at best, the technology used to manufacture
them far exceeds what modern chimpanzees are manually and mentally capable of today. Even the world
renowned bonobo bad boy Kanzi, after careful instruction was unable to produce Oldowan tools (Ambrose:
2001). The development of Oldowan technology may seem insignificant in the grand scheme of human
evolution, but it does suggest that a shift in the way early hominids perceived spatial, temporal, and abstract
thought was beginning to definitively occur.
ACHEULEAN TOOLS
Beginning 1.5 million years ago the Acheulean tool industry first began to appear in East Central Africa.
Associated primarily with homo ergaster and homo erectus, these tools were larger than their predecessors and
required more skill and strength to manufacture. But more significantly, Acheulean tools showed that its makers
possessed a knowledge of symmetry, demonstrated a clear intent to manufacture a specific type of tool (due to
repeated recognizable forms), and also had the capacity for greater innovation and variation (Hominid Tools:
2007).
However, this perceived variation in types of tools Ambrose argues, may be a case of mistaken identity.
That is, reduction and resharpening techniques of the time may have caused inadvertent variation among the
hominid tool arsenal. Therefore, Ambrose argues that the cultural and cognitive capacities of Acheulean
hominids may have greatly been overestimated by anthropologists (Ambrose: 2001). Nevertheless, Acheulean
tools managed to sweep across the globe and into Europe (by homo heidelbergensis) as well as the Near East,
but never to Asia where Asian hominids such as homo erectus continued to rely on Oldowan tools. Regardless,
Acheulean hominids managed to show a higher level of conceptual and cognitive ability than their Oldowan
siblings because of the increasingly complex manufacturing processes involved.
MOUSTERIAN TOOLS
Mousterian tools were the next step in tool evolution. Occurring around the time of the Neanderthals and
homo sapiens (200,000 to 40,000 years ago), these tools displayed a wide variety of specialized shapes which
required pre-planning in order to first shape a stone core and then to strike a blade from off of it. This required
complex problem solving skills and knowledge of abstract concepts such as linear sequences of cause and
effect. Assembling tools for different functions as well as manufacturing small parts of a tool into a bigger
whole is analogous to the development of grammatical language which Ambrose says, requires sequential
assemblage of sounds into meaningful phrases and hierarchal, ordered structures (Ambrose: 2001).
Language, he theorizes, quite possibly arose during this time due to increased technological
complexities reflected in tool manufacture. The dexterity needed to make such tools utilizes the same areas of
the brain as does language. Tools from this period also include evidence of regional and stylistic differences, as
well as possible artifacts used for ritual processes (a controversial theory among scholars) that suggest not only
were these hominids capable of symbolic thought, but also that “true” culture began during this time (Hominid
Tools: 2007).
UPPER PALEOLITHIC TOOLS
Last, but not least, the Upper Paleolithic era (40,000 to 12,000 years ago), also known as the time when
society took a “Great Leap Forward,” saw the development of a vastly greater selection of tool styles which
were inherently more complex than their Mousterian counterparts. These tools had stylistic differences
distinguished by geographic regions and reflected hominin adaptation to different habitats, food sources, and
increased cognitive function. Alas, it was also during this time period when symbolic thought is undisputedly
thought to have occurred. Innovations such as art, ornamentation, symbolism, burial, ritual, architecture,
resource exploitation and division of labor (and subsequently social status) burst onto the scene, or at least burst
onto the archaeological record (Ambrose 2001).
It’s Tool Time! How tools caused a shift in behavioral adaptations and primitive language: Oldowan tools
during the Oldowan period were simply not made to hunt or kill other animals. Rather, indentations on animal
bone fragments suggest that these tools were used instead for scraping, probing, and extracting meat and/or
marrow (Ambrose: 2001). This suggests that our primitive Oldowan ancestors were most likely complex
foragers who occasionally hunted and scavenged for meat. Hunting and scavenging, without complex
weaponry, was risky and met with only occasional success. Therefore, new behavioral adaptations, which
would forever shape modern human social structure, began to develop new strategies in order to survive (Owen:
2009).
These new behavioral strategies of several late australopithecines and the quickly emerging homo genus
initially began during the Oldowan period and included primarily two things: The first was specialization in
tasks and division of skilled labor. Because hominid life spans were continuing to expand, this also increased
the cost and development periods for raising infants into adulthood. Ergo, despite anatomical decreases in
sexual dimorphism that were beginning to occur in hominids, females with infants could not hunt as effectively
as males and were thus relegated to foraging. Males, lacking the costs of reproduction and relishing in a
prolonged life span, were free to accumulate greater skill sets in the realm of hunting and/or scavenging. This
form of specialized food-getting required many years to master, and subsequently necessitated a greater demand
for more sophisticated modes of communication and tools to evolve. Such innovation in these two fields were
needed in order to both pass down increasingly complex knowledge to future generations and in order to create
more effective hunting strategies which relied heavily upon collaboration and more advanced tool crafting
(Owen: 2009). The second behavioral strategy included the concept of sharing. Such a complex foraging
lifestyle such as the early Oldowan hominids were believed to have only succeeded if both males and females
shared the fruits (and meats) of their labor. In order for their population to survive, sharing had to have occurred
across all age divisions, including infants and juveniles who were too young to have developed the ability to
contribute to labor (Owen: 2009). Such concepts of sharing, Michael Tomasello says, could only result from the
increased cognitive ability to understand the psychological states of others. This concept of shared intentionality
is a key linchpin in the evolution of language because it allowed early hominids to begin to share goals. Sharing
goals, as we will see below, allowed for subsequent lineages such as homo erectus to partake in more extensive
joint collaborative activities such as hunting.
Another convincing case of how the restructuring of social patterns led to language cognition involves
the study of homo erectus. Recently, paleoanthropologists have discovered several sites which point to evidence
that homo erectus, as early as 1.5 million years ago was utilizing fire. However, such sites are hotly debated
within the anthropological community, and several scholars tend to agree that homo erectus did not control fire
until around approximately 500,000 years ago. Nevertheless, the usage of fire created a revolution in the social
and behavioral patterns of homo erectus, patterns which had seldom to be seen in previous hominid ancestors.
Hearths were usually constructed around fireplaces and suggest that there was now a consensual spot where
people could come together to eat. More likely than not, such gathering places, along with markedly close
proximity sleeping quarters, led to increased social interaction among group members, paving the road toward
the need for language development (in fact, some even argue that homo erectus was fully capable of developing
a rudimentary form of pre-language) (Kemmer: 2008).
Though they were not considerably notable hunters, homo erectus did participate in what is referred to
as “persistence hunting.” This type of hunting was a relatively new adaptive strategy used to acquire meat and
was rarely seen within erectus’ australopithecine ancestors who depended primarily upon scavenging and
foraging techniques. Such hunting behavior, ethnologist Rodney Frey argues, was made possible due to
increased brain sizes which facilitated homo erectus’ conceptual ability to remember past animal behaviors and
previously traveled territories. Increased cognition, he says, was analogous to increasingly complex hunting
strategies as can be seen in erectus’ goal-oriented behavior which involved the concept of a goal (i.e. the prey),
the means to achieve it, and extensive periods of pursuit (other predatory animals such as wolf or tigers will
stalk their prey, but usually give up after their first failed attempt) (Frey:2010). Goal oriented behavior, joint
goals, and collaboration, Tomasello says, are the primary ingredients in the first stage of language evolution
The second stage of Tomasello’s theory involves offering help or information to others, tracking the reputation
of fellow group members (i.e. people who are more helpful are more likely to receive help back), and using
iconic gestures to refer to things displaced in space and time. At the beginning of the third and final stage, he
argues that hominins were still not using language to share emotions. Conventional, modern language emerged
when social norms evolved, helping to maximize conformity within groups and point out differences with
outside groups.
So what does tool use have to do with language? Philosopher Ingar Brinck posits that language directly
correlates to the development of tool usage because both are goal directed activities which are used to
manipulate a particular property to attain a means to an end. She says that the re-combination of sequences and
seeing things as parts of a whole, whether those “things” be words or stones, is essential to manufacture both
tools and create basic syntax. Tool use, she goes on to claim, manifests two characteristics that seem to be
necessary for language use: one is generality, or in other words understanding the reasons which go behind
imitation; the second is, “the ability to externalize one’s representations and use them as tools in the same way
humans use language as a tool,” in other words, using and manipulating an object to achieve a specific goal.
Similarly, she goes on to suggest that the capacity to focus one’s attention is central to forming intentional
communication. Attention focusing, she maintains, was a crucial component in tool manufacture as well the
development of mutual communication (Brinck: 1998). Furthermore, neuroscientist Dr. Aldo Faisal claims tool
use and language evolved hand-in-hand,
“The advance from crude stone tools to elegant handheld axes was a massive technological leap
for our early human ancestors. Handheld axes were a more useful tool for defence, hunting and
routine work. Our study reinforces the idea that toolmaking and language evolved together as
both required more complex thought, making the end of the lower paleolithic a pivotal time in
our history. After this period, early humans left Africa and began to colonise other parts of the
world.” (Mikolajczyk:2010)
“So, like, what’s the deal with those finger paintings on caves in France or something?” How Increased
Socialization Led to Primitive Forms of Symbolism: Some scientists such as geneticist Spencer Wells believe
that around 50,000 years ago a genetic shift occurred within homo sapiens and permitted inherently superior
levels of abstract thought, cognition, and innovation to balloon into a revolution of the human mind. Others
such as paleoanthropologist Curtis Marean, however, believe such a change in human thought did not occur
overnight, but instead was an accumulation of acquired knowledge over time. Cultural innovation, according to
proponents (such as Marean) of what is referred to as Continuity Theory, believe that the sudden surge of
symbolic and abstract thought which occurred in the Upper Paleolithic era around 50,000 years ago, had already
been occurring for an exceptionally long period of time in early hominids. This so called revolution in the
Upper Paleolithic era was not the result of a genetic mutation, but instead was the result of an increasing
emphasis on more intensive interaction between the mechanisms underlying technological innovation, cognitive
thought processes, and social/food-gathering methods. Though Continuity theorists do not deny that a genetic
mutation which accelerated the human creative drive was possible, they do believe that such a mutation
certainly did not cause a sudden reorganization in human thought processes during a swift and sudden event
beginning in the Upper Paleolithic. Rather, this reorganization, they believe, had already been occurring for
several millions of years.
Such reorganization of the brain to account for abstract thought had been gradually occurring over vast
amounts of time, they insisted (Marean: 2008). Opponents like Wells continued to argue that without a specific
genetic mutation, hominids and archaic humans lacked the cognitive faculties to develop any sort of language.
However, Marean found, through his discovery of Site PP5-6 in South Africa, that hominids as far back as
164,000 years ago were already experimenting with pigments (a prime indicator that the capacity for symbolic
thought was fast developing), sophisticatedly exploiting coastal resources, and, “using carefully controlled
hearths in a complex process to heat stone and change its properties, the process known as heat treatment.”
(Marean:2008) Furthermore, archaeological evidence is quickly sprouting up across the globe which undeniably
refutes theorists such as Wells and Richard Klein. Controversial evidence discovered in 2004 by French
researchers in Kozarnika claims that exceptionally precise, parallel incisions engraved in an animal bone that
had been dated as far back as 1.4 million years, is proof of early symbolism, perhaps even a mark meant to
convey a message to others (Rincon:2004). Similarly, in 2002, Marean’s colleague Christopher Henshilwood
discovered solid evidence, designs etched on two pieces of ochre (found in a South African cave), proving that
humans as far back as 70,000 year ago were capable of producing abstract representations of mutually
understood concepts. This stands in vivid contrast to discoveries prior to Henshilwood’s which dated the oldest
abstract representations to 35,000 years ago in France. "These finds demonstrate that… the transmission and
sharing of the meaning of the engravings relied on fully syntactical language," Henshilwood said (NSF: 2002).
Likewise, Marean and Henshilwood’s findings go hand-in-hand with Continuity Theory, providing
evidence that the initial, primitive, chimpanzee-like thought processes, dominant mainly among hominids prior
to the manufacture of documented stone tools, were inherently forced to evolve due to four main adaptive
pressures. These pressures included new food collection strategies (which were propelled by hominids who had
larger brain capacities which in turn caused a higher demand for a meat-based diet), behavioral reorganization
of social structures, tool manufacturing, and the beginnings of collaborative communication, all of which were
intricately linked and influenced by each other in a highly cyclical, interconnected cycle. Together, these four
factors began to take a slow dive into the land of higher cognitive abilities, most avidly mirrored by the advent
of stone tools in the Oldowan period and the increase in brain size from australopithecines to the genus homo.
Most important of all, however, these four factors set in a motion a series of adaptations which became
increasingly conducive to the development and proliferation of complex language.
“Bro, I’m totally gonna nurture the %$!@ out of this puppy:” The Correlation Between Tool Making,
Brain Anatomy, and Cognitive Function: When it comes to the linkage between cranial anatomy and
cognitive processes, the science there can get a little bit fuzzy. The brain itself is a vast sea of uncharted
scientific knowledge, and very little surefire information can be provided in regards to its linguistic evolutionary
path. Since endocasts of fossilized skulls are all that remain of ancient hominid brains, much has been,
hypothesized, asserted, refuted, and disputed about what such artifacts can really tell us about the origins of
language. More recently added into this mix has been the scientific search for a specific gene long thought to
distinguish us from everything else in the animal kingdom—a gene which permits the formation of a complex
language. Below are a few anatomical explanations for a change in cerebral organization in response to the
development of language and tool usage… and also, how the brain managed to miraculously evolve faculties
not originally intended for language or tool use, but faculties which eventually became intricately linked to
both.
SIZE MATTERS
Without delving too much into this rather self-explanatory category, it must be said that the size of the human
brain has evolved and increased substantially over the course of time. Clearly, there seems to be a direct
correlation not with brain size itself, but with brain to body mass ratios. In this ratio, otherwise known as the
encephalization quotient, we homo sapiens dominate the field. In a distant second is the bottlenose dolphin,
followed closely by the elephant, the orca, and then the chimpanzee… (Brain and Body Size: 2003) Wait-- say
what? You mean chimps, the second most intelligent animal in all the land, come in fifth place in a system
designed to rank creatures by intelligence?
…Okay, so maybe it’s safer to say that while not exactly the best indicator of a species’ cognitive
abilities, brain size can serve, in most instances (just ignore those pesky robust australopithecines), as a decent
predictor of a particular species’ intelligence. It’s also safe to say that the distinct pattern of increasing hominin
brain size over the course of evolutionary history is indicative of a subsequent increase in hominin intelligence
(though there are a few exceptions to this rule).
DREAM ON, SOUTHPAW
Chimpanzees, unlike humans, show very little propensity towards handedness. Humans, however, are
predominantly right-handed, making life just a little more difficult for lefties to cope with menial tasks like
cutting paper with right-handed scissors or to attempt to not smudge fresh ink all over the bottom of their hand
while vigorously writing (it’s hilarious, really, it is). This preference for handedness among humans is a clear
indication of a lateralized brain.
The famous French surgeon Paul Broca was the first to document that damage to the left side of the
brain is far more debilitating to linguistic development than damage to right hemisphere. However, Broca’s
claims of a strong preference toward language in the left hemisphere has since been debunked. In fact, language
is thought to persist in both hemispheres of the brain, with only a very small percentage of the population
exhibiting complete right-sided language bias (Deacon: 2006). Those who have undergone the surgical
amputation of one side of the brain, referred to as a hemispherectomy, usually go on to lead normal lives.
Despite the loss of vision on the amputated side, and more perplexingly the loss of function of the hand opposite
the amputated side, few other impacts are seen. Though the amputation of the left hemisphere can cause patients
to have trouble with their speech, it is typically only problematic when done later in life.
Despite the fact that speech shows more propensity to develop in the left hemisphere of the brain, it still
avidly persists and functions in the right side as well. However, scientists have been unable to determine exactly
where on the right hemisphere speech is transferred to, but whatever the case, the important fact is that language
is asymmetrically distributed across both hemispheres of the brain (Choi: 2007).
Most important of the explanations which seek to explain such asymmetrical language organization in
the brain, is one which proposes handedness developed as a result of manufacturing tools because banging
rocks and stuff required specialization (as well as an incredibly sad alternative to watching TV). In turn, motor
control functions associated with tool manufacture, whose makers were predominantly right-handed, often
required lateralization from the opposite, left-hemisphere to complete such tasks. Because tool making is
thought to predate the ability to form complex language, it is theorized by some that tool use served as a preadaptation for the eventual appearance of language in the left side of the brain, specifically because of the
specialization right-handed tool-makers required by their utilization of the left side of the brain (Deacon: 2006).
BROCA’S AREA
Broca’s area is a region linked to the hominid brain and is controversially considered to have played a
role in the evolution of language. MRI studies have consistently shown this area is activated and plays some
sort of role in the production of speech. The extent of this role, however, is hotly debated. Early comparative
anatomists speculated about how a chimpanzee-like frontal lobe in human ancestors could have evolved into
Broca’s area.
Broca’s area is primarily activated by movements of the mouth and hands, furthering speculation it was a
region of the brain which was essential to possess in order to develop speech. Furthermore, these activated
neurons, otherwise known as “mirror neurons” are triggered when similar actions are observed in others. Such
neurons are theorized to progress comprehension of action-perception concepts. They are also thought to have
facilitated gestural communication and later verbal communication in early hominids (Deacon:2006). However,
Yosef Grodzinsky, one of many dissenters to this theory, makes claims that Broca’s area did not serve as
precursor to the development of language, stating that,
“The experimental record indicates that most human linguistic abilities are not localized in this
region. In particular, most of syntax (long thought to be there) is not located in Broca's area and
its vicinity (operculum, insula, and subjacent white matter). This cerebral region, implicated in
Broca's aphasia, does have a role in syntactic processing, but a highly specific one; basic
combinatorial capacities necessary for language processing--for example, structure-building
operations, lexical insertion--are not supported by the neural tissue of this cerebral region, nor is
lexical or combinatorial semantics.” (Grodzinsky: 2000)
NICE GENES!
Can language acquisition be traced back to a tiny, infinitesimal mutation in the human genome? Some
scientists believe so, and even more, they believe to be on the brink of isolating that gene. That gene, FOXP2,
identified recently by genetic scientists shows that when it is damaged it can lead to inherited deficits that affect
syntactic and speech processes.
The gene’s origins have been traced back before the dawn of the dinosaurs and is still found in several
species today, suggesting that speech and language did not suddenly and rapidly appear from nothing; instead it
suggests speech and language are built on very specific evolutionary pathways, pathways of which had to have
contained an important evolutionary advantage for humans, otherwise the human version of the FOXP2 gene,
which is merely two mutations away from chimpanzees, would not have spread so quickly throughout the
human population. Other indications this gene may be inherently rooted in linguistics comes from songbirds,
whose vocalizations, learned through imitation and practice, are similar to human language in that both build
complex sequences from basic parts of a whole (i.e. syllables or tunes). When the gene was removed from
songbird offspring, those without it had trouble recreating or developing vocalizations (Highfield: 2009).
Most importantly, consensus in the academic community is beginning to agree that FOXP2 probably
plays a more fundamental role in the brain than we are currently aware of. Its presence is rooted in parts of the
brain which are connected to fine motor coordination skills and it is hypothesized that it helps translate
information from motor commands which are sent from various parts of the brain (Highfield: 2009). Though
research as to its evolutionary roots are limited and hypothetical at best, could it not be too soon to hypothesize
that the fine motor control demanded by the development of tool usage also coincided with the proposed
linguistic mutations seen in the human form of this gene?
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe: Are we truly alone? An
Inconclusive Conclusion. A subsequent chain of evolutionary events occurring some odd 5 million years ago
ultimately led to a restructured brain which was inherently designed and fully eager to process complex,
symbolic thought long before any proposed genetic mutation in the Upper Paleolithic would have occurred. The
first and most important causal element in this evolutionary chain of events was the development of
anatomically larger brain sizes in hominids. Larger brain size, however, meant the body required vastly greater
amounts of metabolic energy intake. This need for higher energy foods, mainly meat, caused patterns of food
collection to shift from very early hominid patterns of intensive foraging (mainly seen in the primarily
vegetarian australopithecines), intermediately into the gathering-scavenging strategies of the early homo genus,
and eventually into the hunter-gathering strategies of the later hominids such as homo sapiens and even homo
erectus (Whipps: 2009). Each successive food collection strategy required substantially greater amounts of
group specialization and cooperation, creating a social environment in which fluid communication between
members became a growing boon. And lest it be said, without the innovation of tools and the more efficient
designs which followed, scavenging/hunting for meat would have required substantially more energy output
than metabolic intake could afford. In other words, collecting meat simply wouldn’t have been worth the cost.
Finally, in this evolutionary chain of cause and effect, the cognitive requirements necessary to make tools (goaldirection, re-combination of sequences, seeing objects as part of a larger whole) just happened to share the same
basic faculties as rudimentary language, which presumably led both to evolve in unison and direct correlation
with the other (Brinck: 1998).
Language evolved, not overnight, but over millions and millions of years. Was there one, easy
explanation as to why it evolved? No, because if there’s one thing I’ve learned in the six year course of earning
my anthropology degree, it’s that nothing in the field of primate evolution is ever basic in nature. So why would
the acquisition of language, the most complicated system of communication on earth, have a one-size-fits-all
solution? The most fitting analogy is that language appeared after the end of a long, elaborate Rube Goldberg
contraption—or moreover, a series of happenstance events and various selective pressures eventually, and
inadvertently led to the development of a complex, abstract, linguistically capable way of thinking. Along the
way, three specific adaptations were responsible for pushing us along and into eventual behavioral modernity:
this included changes in functional brain morphology, the reorganization of social structures and food-collection
strategies (which led to collaborative, goal-oriented thought processes), and the development of tool
manufacturing which not only caused a reorganization of the brain which soon became fully equipped to
process the complexities of language as an abstract, symbolic thought processes, but also eventually became the
crux in forming and creating rudimentary styles and glimpses into the very first forms of culture.
Works Cited
Ambrose, Stanley. "Paleolithic Technology and Human Evolution." Web Wits. Science Mag, 21
Mar. 2001. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <web.wits.ac.za/NR/rdonlyres/C2AA0994-F05E-4235B70A-9D2C3ED6F660/0/Ambrose.pdf>.
Bower, Bruce . "Aping the stone age: chimp chasers join artifact extractors to probe the roots of
stone tools. - Free Online Library." Free News, Magazines, Newspapers, Journals,
Reference Articles and Classic Books - Free Online Library. The Free Library, 9 Dec.
2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Aping+the+stone+age%3A+chimp+chasers+join+artifa
ct+extractors+to+probe...-a0212915745>.
"Brain and Body Size... and Intelligence." Serendip Home | Serendip's Exchange. N.p., 7 Mar.
2003. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int3.html>.
Brinck, Ingar. "Attention and tool-use in the evolution of language." Lund University Cognitive
Science. N.p., 29 Nov. 2010. Web. 12 June 1998.
<www.lucs.lu.se/spinning/categories/language/brinck/Brinck.pdf>.
Choi, Charles. "Strange but True: When Half a Brain Is Better than a Whole One: Scientific
American." Science News, Articles and Information | Scientific American. N.p., 24 May
2007. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strangebut-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole>.
Deacon, Terrence. "The Evolution of Language Systems in the Human Brain." Telodynamics.
N.p., 10 Mar. 2006. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <www.teleodynamics.com/wpcontent/PDF/Evolutionlanguagesystems.pdf>.
Frey, Rodney. "Home erectus, “persistent hunting― and Evolution." University of Idaho.
N.p., 10 Sept. 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
<www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~rfrey/PDF/220/220%20persistent%20hunting.pdf>.
"Full interview Michael Tomasello on 3Sat." Google Videos. Max Planck Institute, 8 Oct. 2008.
Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8933367116959974563#>.
Grodzinsky, Yosef. "The neurology of syntax: language use without Broc... [Behav Brain Sci.
2000] - PubMed result." National Center for Biotechnology Information. N.p., 23 Feb.
2000. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11303337>.
Highfield, Roger. "Revisiting FOXP2 and the origins of language : Not Exactly Rocket
Science." ScienceBlogs. N.p., 29 Nov. 2009. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.
<http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/revisiting_foxp2_and_the_origins_o
f_language.php>.
"Hominid Tools." Handprint: Ancestral Tools. N.p., 20 Mar. 2007. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
<www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/stones.html>.
Kemmer, Suzanne . "Origins and Evolution of Human Language: Homo habilis and Homo
erectus." Rice University Web Calendar. N.p., 11 Mar. 2008. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Evol/habiliserectus.html>.
Marean, Curtis. " - Curtis Marean | Nobel Conference - 2008." Gustavus Adolphus College. N.p.,
29 Jan. 2008. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
<http://gustavus.edu/events/nobelconference/2008/marean.php>.
Mikolajczyk , Caroline. "Ancient Humans May Have Developed Language Capabilities From
Tool Use." Language Translation Services - K International. N.p., 8 Nov. 2010. Web.
29 Nov. 2010. <http://www.k-international.com/blog/language-development-with-tool-
use/>.
"NSF - OLPA - PR 02-02: ABSTRACT ENGRAVINGS SHOW MODERN BEHAVIOR
EMERGED EARLIER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT." nsf.gov - National Science
Foundation - US National Science Foundation (NSF). N.p., 10 Jan. 2002. Web. 30 Nov.
2010. <http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0202.htm>.
Owen, Bruce . "Lifestyles of the toolmaking Oldowan hominins." Professor Bruce Owen.
Sonoma State University, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
<bruceowen.com/introbiological/a201-09s-20-LifestylesOfOldowanHominins.pdf>.
Rincon, Paul. "Early Human Marks are 'Symbols'." BBC News. N.p., 16 Mar. 2004. Web. 29
Nov. 2010. <news.bb.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3512470.stm>.
Whipps, Heather. "Re: Were Your Ancestors Brave Hunters or Timid Scavengers?."
newsgroups.derkeiler.com: The source for newsgroups news. N.p., 29 Oct. 2009. Web.
30 Nov. 2010. <http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.retirement/200910/msg03410.html>.
MLA formatting by BibMe.org.