Can archaeology tell us about the evolution of cognition and language?

- Simplistic use of Paleolithic stone tools as indicators of cognitive evolution is unwarranted.
- Studies of the Acheulian complex of western Eurasia and Africa provides a false image of cognitive evolution.
- The entire Pleistocene of East and SE Asia is characterized by the simplest way of obtaining flakes.
- Many southern Chinese Upper Paleolithic assemblages demonstrate the making of bone tools, body decorations and flakes.
- Technological lithic studies provide information for identifying social groups and daily activities.

Archaeologists are often tempted to make their own contributions to the study of the evolution of cognition and language. At the same time many more researchers in other fields try to find in the archaeological literature the evidence that would disclose the steps in the evolution of these aspects of human nature. On one issue all scholars agree: The so-called Upper Paleolithic Revolution, since some 45,000 years ago, commonly characterized on the basis of Western European archaeological records, fossils and genetic evidence, is the expression of hominins like us. It is generally agreed, although not accepted by all, that due to gene flow and cultural transmissions modern humans came out of Africa and dispersed around the world. The question, however, is how much earlier were the origins of languages and cognition, and can we identify the material remains that reflect the phases that led to today's expressions, within the sequence from 3.3 or 2.6 Myr ago. This paper examines briefly the common stone tool making techniques that are still considered in the literature as a source for providing information about the evolution of cognition, along with very few comments on the pattern of seasonal/annual mobility of past groups of foragers. It reaches the conclusion that when we study not only the records of Europe, western Asia and Africa from a Western view point but also take into consideration the information from East Asia, we are forced to adopt a cautious attitude to the interpretations concerning the emergence of cognition and languages.