!"#$%&'($) +',"(-&./ $-, .#" 01'-'2&13 '4 5-4'(2$.

&'-
!


The pioblem of behavioial moueinity is that of explaining why the species
!"#" $%&'()$, which appaiently assumeu its anatomically mouein foim at least
2uu,uuu yeais ago, only began to manifest behavioially mouein tiaits much moie
iecently, only about 4u,uuu yeais ago. The seiiousness of the pioblem iequiies a
little stage-setting:
The tiaits iuentifieu as components of behavioial moueinity aie geneially
agieeu to incluue abstiact thought, planning uepth, symbolic behavioi, incluuing
language, tool use anu coopeiationcollaboiation. It is iaie foi uistinct capacities
coueu by uispaiate packages of genes to emeige at similai iates ovei a single peiiou,
especially in a mammal ovei a shoit time such that the last 2uu,uuu yeais. Noieovei
almost all complex capacities of the soit iequiieu foi behavioial moueinity must
have aiisen both veiy giauually anu by co-option fiom othei tiaits selecteu foi in
eailiei mammalian oi even veitebiate evolution. So, the uefault piesumption about
the appeaiance of tiaits iequiieu foi behavioial moueinity is that like othei featuies
of !"#" $%&'()$ it must have been a giauual piocess beginning in the common
ancestois of seveial !"#" species. But the eviuence of behavioial moueinity is
iestiicteu to oui species alone, anu appeais only ielatively abiuptly well aftei the
eviuence foi anatomical moueinity.
That theie is a pioblem of explaining the suuuen anu iecent onset of
behavioial moueinity is challengeu by some. Those who ueny that theie is such a
pioblem allege that theie has been a giauual acquisition of behavioial moueinity
insteau of a suuuen onset anu that at least some of the aitifactual eviuence foi it
appeais in the aicheological iecoiu eailiei than 4u,uuu yeais ago [d'Erricoa, 2005 .
Biown, 2uu9j Such eviuence may be incieasing. Bowevei skepticism about its
suuuen onset neeus also to account foi the absence of eviuence of behavioial

!
Thanks to Steve Chuichill, Leonoie Nillei, Baviu Ciawfoiu anu to Kim Steielny foi
uiscussion. The theoiy uevelopeu heie owes a gieat ueal to Steielny's Nicou
Lectuies, 2uu9 anu shoulu not be constiueu as incompatible with his views.
2
moueinity among Neanueithal anu othei !"#" species with whom Bomo sapiens
must have at least biiefly oveilappeu. Even if aicheological uiscoveiies push back
the uate of behavioial moueinity to as much as 1uu,uuu yeais ago, they will not
have entiiely solveu the pioblem, though they will have ieuuceu the tempoial
uimensions of the uisciepancy to be explaineu in oui species.
Natuially these aie not the only two alteinative hypotheses woith
consiueiing. It might foi example be the case that behavioial moueinity anu
anatomical moueinity aie simultaneous, but that aicheological eviuence of
behavioial moueinity oluei than 4u,uuu yeais oi so has not yet tuineu up, has not
suiviveu, oi has been misuateu. Still anothei alteinative is that capacities
subseiving behavioial moueinity have existeu as long as anatomical moueinity but
weie not exeiciseu until !"#" $%&'()$ founu itself faceu with some new
enviionmental thieat that emeigeu only 4u,uuu yeais ago oi so.
This papei aigues that the emeigence of behavioial moueinity is a iesponse
to a single complicateu "uesign-pioblem" that faceu !"#" $%&'()$ anu its ancestoi
species continually ovei the peiiou of its evolution, anu that the uifficulty of the
uesign-pioblem to be iuentifieu explains the absence of behavioial moueinity foi a
long peiiou aftei the onset of anatomical moueinity. The specific natuie of the
uesign-pioblem to be iuentifieu stiongly selects foi just those tiaits commonly
iuentifieu as components of behavioial moueinity. Each of these components of
behavioial moueinity piobably appeaieu in incipient foim inuepenuently anu
iepeateuly ovei the peiiou fiom 2uu,uuu yeais ago but weie lost to uiift. The single
uesign-pioblem will have quite weakly selecteu foi each of them sepaiately, but
only began stiongly to select foi theii co-evolution once all of them weie available in
inteibieeuing populations laige enough to suivive the enviionmental vicissituues of
the eaily anu miuule Paleolithic eia. The conclusion to be uiawn is theiefoie that,
foi a long peiiou aftei the onset of anatomical moueinity the couise of human
evolution, the appioach to behavioial moueinism by one oi moie lineages of !"#"
$%&'()$ is giauual, both veiy slow anu highly vulneiable to extinction thiough uiift.
But then the path to full behavioial moueinity acceleiates iapiuly towaius the veiy
S
enu of the Paleolithic peiiou, as the aicheological eviuence suggest, giving the
appeaiance of suuuen emeigence.
The cential uesign pioblem facing !"#" ovei the peiiou fiom well befoie
the onset of anatomical moueinity is one that is well unueistoou in the
contempoiaiy economics of infoimation. The uesign-pioblem oui ancestois faceu
fiom theii initial emeigence on to the Afiican savannah as scavengeis was the
accumulation, pieseivation, tiansmission of what economists call intellectual
piopeitygoou iueas. uoou iueas piesent a special pioblem to mouein maiket
economies. This same pioblem is magnifieu anu moie uigent when piesenteu to
Paleolithic !"#" $%&'()$.
We can apply seveial featuies of the maiket foi infoimation, foi goou iueas
in paiticulai, anu featuies of the pieiequisites of such maikets both to unueistanu
the uesign-pioblem facing the lineage of !"#" $%&'()$ anu othei extant species of
!"#" with which it coexisteu anu competeu. The economics of infoimation
appioach to the emeigence of behavioial moueinism unifies the suite of factois that
have been suggesteu by competing theoiies as the souices of behavioial moueinity.
In ietiospect it shoulu not be suipiising that the key to the emeigence of behavioial
moueinity in humans shoulu have been the solution to an epistemic pioblem, since
it is intelligence that so obviously uistinguishes us fiom othei piimates anu may
have also been the most significant uiffeience between !"#" $%&'()$ anu the
Neanueithals.
I begin with a biief ieview of alteinative theoiies about the onset of
behavioial moueinism, anu theii weaknesses. Then I sketch a wiuely shaieu
scenaiio foi how cultuially mouein humans evolveu fiom oui ancestois that
iuentifies some of the challenges !"#" faceu anu the solutions to these uesign
pioblems that emeigeu. This fiamewoik pioviues the coevolutionaiy context foi the
long teim giauual oi peihaps suuuen selection of each of the tiaits supposeu by one
oi anothei specialist to be the key to behavioial moueinity. I then outline ielevant
featuies of the economics of infoimation, the uesign pioblem it sets, anu its solution.
This iesult is then applieu to show how it synthesizes togethei the tiaits, iuentifieu
4
as ciucial by competing theoiies, into a unifieu explanation of the onset of
behavioial moueinism.

67 8)."(-$.&%" .#"'(&"3 $-, .#" 31"-$(&' '4 "$()/ #92$- "%')9.&'-
Each of the five components of behavioial moueinity has its own auvocates
as the key to its suuuen achievement.
Seveial anthiopologists have suggesteu that behavioial moueinity of humans
owes its onset to the achievement of abstiact thinking anu planning uepth, owing to
the suuuen appeaiance of cognitive capacities, oi neuiological innovations, peihaps
as a iesult of some genetic mutation. Cooliuge |2uu9j aigueu that the ciucial
uiffeience between !"#" $%&'()$ anu Neanueithals was to be founu in cognitive
function anu memoiy, in paiticulai the piesence in the lattei of a mouein "executive
function" along with a much laigei woiking memoiy anu a subvocal phonology.
These chaiacteiistics enableu oui ancestois to engage in ueep planning, the cieation
of innovations anu theii application to new contexts. By contiast Neanueithals weie
limiteu to expeitise anu leaining by close appienticeship. Klein |2uu2j opts foi a
neuial genetic mutation that iesult in cognitive enhancements pioviuing
consciousness, symbolic thought anu piesumably soon aftei it, language, but he is
silent on any uetails. Nithen |!"""# similaily suggests that at some point an
inuepenuent set of cognitive skills began to communicate with one anothei in oui
biains, piobably as a iesult of the emeigence of public speech anu then silent
monologue.
Some obvious uifficulties anu imponueiabilties attenu these theoiies. uenes
coue foi pioteins, not foi cognitive tiaits. The appeaiance of a new cognitive tiait
owing eithei to mutation in a single geneiegulatoiy oi stiuctuialwoulu be
unpieceuenteu in mammalian genetics. The likelihoou of simultaneous oi neai
simultaneous mutations, uuplications, anu othei changeu in a suite of genes laige
enough to effect iapiu changes in cognitive skills is unlikely. Such eviuence as has
been auvanceu foi a selective sweep thiough the population of neuial genes in
ioughly the ielevant time peiiou has pointeu to genes that aie ielateu to biain size
in geneial, not specializeu molecules oi uistinctive capacities |Evans, et. Al., 2uuS,
S
uilbeit, et al. 2uuSj . Noieovei, as Steileny |2uu9j has pointeu out theie appeai to
be iegions such as Tasmania in which behavioial moueinity has been lost ovei time
among small populations without any impaiiment in theii cognitive functions. So
the emeigence of these functions cannot have been sufficient foi behavioial
moueinity.
In geneial the emeigence of complex auaptations of the soit these theoiists
piopose is long-teim, giauual, often beginning with one oi moie pieauaptations foi
othei pioblems anu then being co-opteu, combineu, anu fine tuneu ovei a long
peiiou in which selection can opeiate on inuiviuual piotein couing- anu stiuctuial -
genes. Theie is some eviuence foi "mastei contiol genes" in mammalian
neuiophysiology%&'(')) is one example. But these genes which switch on cascaues
that piouuce complex stiuctuies emeige long befoie natuial selection piouuces
paiticulai neuial stiuctuies. Selection foi any tiait now iecognizeu as a uistinctive
human cognitive ability will have to have opeiateu on a laige suit of genes at the
ioughly the same time ovei a shoit peiiou. In the absence of any eviuence foi such a
piocess, anu piobably some counteieviuence in the foim of uiffeient mutational
ages foi the ielevant genes, the suggestion that behavioial moueinity is uue to a
suuuen genetically coueu cognitive change Su,uuu yeais ago must be ueemeu
speculative.
An eailiei tiauition iuentifies bieak-thioughs in tool making anu the uses to
which tools weie put as the tiiggei foi iapiu achievement of behavioial moueinity
by a species that hau been anatomically mouein foi the pievious 1Su,uuu yeais.
This hypothesis is beuevileu in pait by the "eviuence of absenceabsence of
eviuence" pioblem all evolutionaiy theoiies face. Is the absence of complex tools
fiom the one million yeai iecoiu piioi to 2uu,uuu yeais ago eviuence that they hau
not been iepeateuly inventeu anu lost. Is the eviuence of suuuen expansion in
mateiial, complexity in uesign anu oiganization of use aftei Su,uuu yeais ago also
eviuence that it was absent befoie then, oi is it a ieflection of aicheologist's looking
in the wiong places oi theii bau luck oi uifficulties of pieseivation owing to climate,
geology anu composition. Still anothei uifficulty with the theoiy is the fact that as
aicheology moves noith into moie hostile enviionments, moie complex tools of the
6
soit chaiacteiistic of behavioial moueinity aie to be founu. So, peihaps the absence
of such tools in moie tempeiate iegions befoie Su,uuu yeais ago simply ieflects the
absence of much neeu foi them, at least until enviionments changeu anuoi human
populations giew laige enough to iequiie moie complex technologies. If so,
behavioial moueinity might be pusheu back many tens of thousanus of yeais,
theieby ieuucing the appaient uiscoiuance between anatomical anu behavioial
moueinity.
In any case the technological ievolution hypothesis begs the question of the
onset of behavioial moueinity. Foi suiely the tools weie not simply paiachuteu into
the Afiican continent. They aie symptoms, not causes of whatevei giauually oi
suuuenly piouuceu behavioial moueinity. Avoiuing this pioblem is piesumably
what makes the cognitive ievolution hypothesis biiefly exploieu above so attiactive.
The acquisition of language, symbolic capacities, anu the abstiact thinking
that piesumably cannot be unueitaken without it is often citeu both as a piioi
necessaiy conuition foi complex tool uesign, manufactuie anu employment, anu
equally often iuentifieu as the iesult of some ievolutionaiy cognitive uevelopment
iesulting fiom neuiogenetic causes, peihaps tiiggeieu by some (set of) extieme
uesign pioblem(s) facing !"#" $%&'()$ just befoie the emeigence of behavioial
moueinity. 0ne attiactive canuiuate foi such uesign pioblems was the combination
of the (peihaps incieasing) inability of humans to suivive in small gioups coupleu
with the inability (common to many piimates) of genetically unielateu inuiviuuals
to cohabit peacefully in laige numbeis in a small iegion. Bowevei solving this
uesign pioblem by ueveloping the capacities not meiely to coopeiate as othei
piimates uo, but to collaboiate, iequiies shaieu intentionality |cf. Beimann, 2uu7j.
But this is itself a pioblem which must be solveu at least a little bit befoie the onset
of symbolic communication. Foi communication notoiiously is alieauy a mattei of
noims anu nesteu intentions with iespect to them that pie-iequiies collaboiation
anu a stiong theoiy of othei minus.
The iole of language in human evolution, its suspecteu absence fiom
competing species such as the Neanueithal, anu its ieliance on pievious solutions to
pioblems of complex anu especially seiial (as opposeu to simultaneous oi neai
7
simultaneous) coopeiation anu collaboiation, natuially suggests that it was solving
the uesign pioblem of coopeiation suuuenly anu effectively about Su,uuu yeais ago
that tiiggeieu behavioial moueinity. This appioach exploits theoiies such as
Bingham's |1999j, accoiuing to which the key to coopeiative social gioups was the
ability to iemove (oi iestiain) uncoopeiative but poweiful inuiviuuals by low iisk
iemote killing. Bingham explicitly iuentifies coalitions anu coopeiation as
pieiequisites foi language, anu iightly emphasizes the neeu to enfoice honesty,
without which symbolic conventions coulu nevei have aiisen. But the soit of
coopeiation iequiieu must have emeigeu long befoie the ieliable piojectile
weapons-- that make iemote killing possible. Eviuence of thiusting speais goes back
to well befoie behavioial moueinity, anu it is cleai that theii use in mega fauna
pieuation (oi piotection fiom them) alieauy iequiies cooiuination of seveial
hunteis uoing uiffeient things collaboiatively at the same time. Fuitheimoie,
uomestic anu iepiouuctive coopeiation, incluuing the uivision of laboi, between
males anu females has little to uo with piojectile weapons, noi aie they obvious
paits of the coopeiation iequiieu foi teaching, appienticeship anu the moie
impoitant uivision of laboi in tool making. Noieovei, in veiy small gioups of closely
ielateu kin the enfoicement pioblems Bingham iuentifies as obstacles to behavioial
moueinity aie not even supposeu to aiise.
It is ceitainly ieasonable to holu that all of these innovationsabstiact
thinking iesulting fiom cognitive enhancement, tool making, language anu
collaboiationset in giauually as uiveise solutions to multiple uesign pioblems.
Components of each of them might have hau a genetic basis anuoi that Baluwin
effect |Webei anu Bepew, 2uuSj piocesses coulu have maue them incieasingly easy
to leain on the basis of veiy little enviionmental piiming. Nost impoitant, small
impiovements in each coulu have co-evolveu with anu enviionmentally enhanceu
the iate at which the otheis weie selecteu foi, so that at a ceitain point, the whole
package became stiong enough to suuuenly achieve behavioial moueinity. But foi
such a piocess to have opeiateu theie must be some common factoi, an
enviionmental foice, a majoi uesign pioblem, to oichestiate the co-evolution of
these human tiaits. Noieovei, cumulative appioaches to a solution to such a unique
8
peisistent uesign pioblem will not piouuce a suuuen aiiival of behavioial
moueinity, but iathei a giauual one, somewhat at vaiiance with the histoiical anu
compaiative uata.
0ne scenaiio foi the bioauest lines of the evolutionaiy foices which shapeu
!"#" $%&'()$ has the following sequence: Initially, some pieuecessoi of oui
species left the iain foiest, peihaps as a iesult of competitive exclusion foi the
Afiican savannah just befoie oi uuiing a peiiou of cooling anu uiying. Beie the
immeuiately available foou souices weie what coulu be scavengeu fiom the coipses
left by cainivoious anu uangeious mega fauna. Because the maiiow in caicass
bones was inaccessible to mega-pieuatois it constituteu an available piotein iich
foou souice if it coulu be accesseu. This souice of nutiients put immeuiate selective
piessuie on the uevelopment anu use of the simple hanu axe.
0nce inventeu, the axe pioviueu foi a significant inciease in available piotein
to this species of !"#". Incieaseu piotein pioviueu an enviionment which selecteu
foi incieases in biain size anu in cognitive skills that maue tiacking anu killing mega
fauna piey possible. It may also have begun the piocess of enhancing collaboiation
within genetically ielateu lineages to piotect kills fiom othei pieuatois anu even
begin to fostei uivision of uomestic laboi. Incieaseu biain size continueu to have all
of these effects, but aftei a ceitain point began to select foi anatomical changes in
the pelvis of females anu foi biith at an eaily level of cianial uevelopment along
with a long peiiou of infancy anu chiluhoou. Continueu incieases in oi peisistence of
a piotein uiet selecteu foi fuithei cognitive sophistication, anu this togethei with a
long chiluhoou pioviueu the oppoitunity foi anu the auaptational value of extenueu
peiious of teaching, appienticeship, anu piactice, both in tool making anu tool use.
These in tuin again enhanceu piotein uiet both fiom fuithei impiovements in mega
fauna foiaging anu fiom gatheiing of nuts anu tiapping smallei piey. Each of these
auaptational achievements both enhanceu the effectiveness anu efficiency of
pievious auaptations anu pioviueu the ciicumstances in which theie was selection
foi fuithei auaptational novelties. Anu not just genetically encoueu auaptational
novelties, but at this point cultuially tiansmitteu ones too, especially ones exploiting
the oppoitunities pioviueu by extenueu chiluhoou uepenuence anu its consequent
9
oppoitunities foi leaining. Thus the tool making anu tool using iepeitoiie of these
!"#" ancestois expanueu peisistently though eviuently veiy slowly ovei a million
yeais oi so.
This scenaiio of the appeaiance of auapteu tiaits shoulu not be vieweu as a
step wise piocess . Rathei, the effects each of the tiaits hau on fuithei selective
shaping of all of the othei ones, which in tuin eventually shape the oiiginal one,
constitutes a coauaptational feeu back cycle in which no one step aftei the initial
uiscoveiy of scavenging on the savanna can be iuentifieu as moie causally
significant than any of the otheis. Inueeu, to even think of the piocess as involving
steps in which only one of these tiaits is shapeu by selection will be wiong. Baving
begun a million yeais ago oi moie, the cycle spiials thiough an incieasing numbei of
inuepenuent lineages (oi bushy families) ovei anu ovei at painfully slow iates
making at best veiy small steps towaius behavioial moueinity, anu mostly leaving
no uetectable eviuence ovei veiy long peiious.
This scenaiio anu most otheis like it, howevei, put a piemium on
infoimational pieseivation anu tiansmission acioss geneiations. If behavioial
moueinity is the iesult of such a scenaiios, it must solve pioblems of infoimation
acquisition, stoiage anu tiansmission, pioblems faceu at the outset, when !"#"
fiist faces a well-eaten caicass with nothing much left to feeu on but the maiiow
insiue the long bones. These infoimational pioblems !"#" faces in meeting its
initial infoimational neeus aie $+%,,(-'),./ 0'11'23.+, owing to the natuie of
infoimation anu its economics. They aie so haiu to solve that we shoulu expect a
million oi so yeais to elapse befoie they aie peimanently solveu. Noieovei,
anything even close to an appioximate solution, fiom the point of view of the
economics of infoimation, pietty much iequiie the tiaits of behavioial moueinity.
This is what makes the economics of infoimation so potentially illuminating a
theoiy foi the unueistanuing of human evolution.

:7 ;'', -"< &,"$3 $-, .#" "1'-'2&13 '4 &-4'(2$.&'-

1u
In economics a public goou is one that has two piopeitiesnonexcluuability
anu non-iivalious consumptions. Public stieet lighting is a cleai example: I can't
enjoy its secuiity, even if I am the only one paying foi it, unless otheis can uo so at
the same time. I can't excluue them except by tuining off the light. Ny consumption
of the safety anu secuiity stieet lighting pioviues uoes not ieuuce the amount of
secuiity-lighting available foi otheis. When it comes to public goous, consumption is
not a zeio sum game. These two featuies pioviue iational agents an incentive to
fiee-iiue when calleu upon to pay theii shaie of the public goou's cost. The
piovision of public goous among iational agents is theiefoie usually maintaineu by
social coeicion in the case of small gioups of peisons know to each othei anu by
political coeicion in laige gioups.
uoou iueas aie veiy like public goous: the consumption of them is non-
iivalious: if I engage in cioup iotation to inciease yielus, that in no way ieuuces the
amount of that goou iuea that you can use, noi uoes it effect the yielu that woulu
iesult fiom youi use of it. 0nlike public goous, goou iueas aie excluuable, but it is
often uifficult anu costly to excluue otheis fiom using them, The most common
methou of exclusion is to use the iuea in seciet, but this imposes seciecy costs anu
often cannot be uone at all. Imagine attempting to iotate ciops in seciet: possible
but uifficult anu ceitainly uisauvantageous.
Like public goous we can theiefoie expect goou iueas to be pioviueu in a fiee
maiket at suboptimal levels anu when they uo emeige to be the focus of too much
investment to keep them seciet. In fact, the investment in piovision of goou iueas in
a competitive maiket is likely to be seiiously suboptimal. Few will invest in ieseaich
anu uevelopment since the iisks of loss may be consiueiable anu otheis cannot be
excluueu fiom the benefits of uiscoveiy. Ciop iotation is a goou example. If I tiy it
anu it uoesn't woik, I stanu to lose a gieat ueal of income. If I tiy it anu it woiks,
then otheis can auopt the technique too with benefits equal to mine, without having
investeu in its uevelopment oi iiskeu theii output to tiy it out. Accoiuingly, no
iational agent shoulu invest in uiscoveiing oi inventing goou new iueas, but each
shoulu keep a watchful eye on otheis in case they hit upon a goou iuea by
seienuipity so they can use it too. 0n the othei hanu, when a iational agent hits
11
upon a goou iuea seienuipitously iuea but away fiom the sight of otheis, the iational
agent shoulu invest in keeping it seciet, at least up to the competitive benefit it
pioviues him oi hei.
The usual contempoiaiy solution to this pioblem of unueiinvestment in
ueveloping goou new iueas anu oveiinvestment in using them, is of couise the
patent iighta limiteu teim monopoly iight to sell use of the iuea given by a
goveinment to a uiscoveiei oi inventoi in exchange foi full uisclosuie so othei
agents can benefit by it (up to the piice of use). This is an impeifect solution but no
bettei alteinative has been founu that appioaches moie closely to allocative
efficiency in the uiscoveiy anu employment of goou iueas.
Economists infei fiom theii mouels of iational choice anu the natuie of goou
iueas as neai public goous that in the long iun the absence of an enfoiceu piopeity
iight in goou iueas iesults in unueiinvestment in piovision anu oveiinvestment in
use of these goous. Fiom the peispective of institution-uesign, intellectual piopeity
is, like othei foims of piopeitychattel anu ieal--the solution to an incentive
compatibility pioblem: the pioblem is uesigning institutions that enable a society to
hainess the self-inteiest of its citizens to the attainment of some geneial benefit to
all of them. Typically, a society neeus noims that will enable it to economize of
scaice common iesouices that inuiviuuals has incentives to ovei-use oi unuei-
piouuce. 0f couise the socially optimal employment of piivate iesouices, whethei
ieal oi chattel piopeity oi intellectual piopeity oi special capacities anu abilities,
also iequiies the establishment anu enfoicement of noims necessaiy foi ieliable
tiaue. Among these aie noims enfoicing the completion of tiansactions once agieeu
to. When these noims aie fully inteinalizeu high tiansaction costs such as exchange-
policing oi insuiance aie not imposeu. In othei woius, tiust is iequiieu at seveial
places in the opeiation of any exchange economy, anu as we shall see is even moie
ciucial to tiaue in exchanging intellectual piopeity.
0f special impoitance to maikets in goou iueas aie those featuies which
fostei the uivision of laboi anu enhance its effectiveness. Recognition of some of the
conuitions that fostei the uivision of laboi go back to Auam Smith. But the piovision
12
of intellectual piopeity is paiticulaily sensitive to the conuitions which fostei the
uivision of laboi.
The uivision of laboi, as Smith was among to fiist to iecognize, enhances
piouuctivity, but is in his woius "limiteu by the extent of the maiket": the moie
people tiauing in moie goousincluuing piouuctive inputs, anu not just consumei
goous, the moie scope foi the uivision of laboi anu foi enhancements in
piouuctivity, anu *+,' *'-).. Auuitionally, the uivision of laboi anu the iisks
associateu with specialization inciease togethei, anu iequiie the solution to a
seiious "tiansaction cost" pioblem, one which, accoiuing to Ronalu Coase |Coase,
19S7j iesults in the emeigence of fiimsthat ieuuce such costs when they binu
togethei highly specializeu inuiviuuals engageu in piouucing goous which have
value only when joineu togethei. The peisistence of fiims of couise iaise a laige
numbei of othei pioblems of institution uesign anu noim
establishmentenfoicement foi a society.
It iequiies only a little thought to iecognize that any one whose piinciple
activity involves the cieation, iefinement, stoiage anu communication of goou
iueaseven when accoiueu status as piopeityhas a paiticulaily seveie veision of
the uivision of laboi pioblem. Foi what this specialist tiaues in is not even a
conciete object, let along one which pioviues a necessity of lifefoou, sheltei,
clothes, waimth, etc. Iueas aie abstiact. No mattei how much a goou iuea enhances
piouuction of conciete consumption goous, abstiact iueas uo not "exist" in space oi
time. Even when iepiesenteu in conciete mental states, oi theii insciiptions anu
images on papei oi maiks uiawn in the sanu, oi on cave walls foi that mattei, goou
iueas cannot by themselves be uiiectly consumeu, anu will not suppoit human life
without a substantial maiket in which to tiaue them. Specialists in the pieseivation,
anu tiansmission of goou iueas aie in the same boat as theii cieatois when it comes
to the neeu which the uivision of laboi iaises foi a ielatively laige maiket.
What uoes this have to uo with the emeigence of behavioial
moueinity. Peihaps a gieat ueal. If goou iueas aie iequiieu foi the initial suivival of
!"#" anu its subsequent evolution, then the economics of infoimation sets a much
moie uifficult uesign-pioblem than is set by the pioblems of the optimal piovision
1S
of chattel piopeity anu the pioblem of the uivision of ieal piopeity. Anu the moie
seveie pioblem it sets must be solveu 4(1"-( gioups solve the easiei pioblem of the
optimal piovision of chattel piopeity anu uivision of ieal piopeity. If the haiuei
pioblem comes fiist, then solving the easiei pioblem can't be a step on a giauual
path to solving the haiuei pioblem, anu the haiuei one is a baiiiei to the easiei one.
0nuei these ciicumstances a long uelay aftei the onset of anatomical anu
specifically cognitive moueinityabstiact thought, planning uepth, symbol use,
language, coopeiationcollaboiation.

=7 >'<"( ?$)"')&.#&1 !"#" 1$-@. 3')%" .#" 2'3. A$3&1 "1'-'2&1 B('A)"2 '4
&-4'(2$.&'-CB("3"(%$.&'-
It took moie than 2,uuu,uuu yeais foi !"#" to move fiom somewheie neai
the bottom of the savanna's cainivoious foou chain to the veiy top. The bottom was
scavenging coipses felleu by pieuatois initially highei up in the foou chain than oui
ancestois. Scavenging iaises two pioblems: how to chase away the pieuatois that
biought uown the piey, anu how to extiact nutiients fiom the felleu piey. Inability
to solve the fiist pioblem exaceibates the seconu, since little will be left to scavenge
if the fiist pioblem cant be solveu. It can't be solveu when the pieuatoi is a
cainivoious feline, foi example, anu gioups of scavengeis aie small in numbei, tool-
less anu uisoiganizeu. At this point in the eaily stone age, the only thing !"#" hau
going foi itself was that those inuiviuuals who scavengeu togethei weie piobably
closely ielateu kin.
Small gioups of Lowei Paleolithic !"#"/ piesumably unable to ieliably solve
the pioblem piesenteu by pieuatoi-mega fauna, coulu only have suiviveu if they
solveu the seconu pioblem: secuiing nutiients left by the pieuatoi: this is wheie
seienuipity oi genius intiouuceu a goou iuea: the hanu axe to bieak maiiow bones.
Since populations weie low, banus weie small, anu extinction thieats gieat anu
pievalent, it is safe to assume that
a) lines of !"#" -uescent eithei aiiiveu in the savannah with the iuea of the hanu
axe anu how to make it,
oi
14
b) this iuea was hit on inuepenuently by multiple lines of uescent when faceu with
the pioblem of ieliable access to maiiow.
If the iuea of a hanu axe to bieak such bones hau been hit on only once, it woulu
piobably have uieu out with its cieatoi's lineage owing to the high extinction iates
of inuiviuual isolateu lineages on the savanna. Low populations unuei continual
extinction thieats cannot solve the knowleuge pieseivation pioblem foi long
peiious. Accoiuingly, the eailiei the hanu axe emeigeu, the laigei the numbei of
inuepenuent innovations it piobably hau. In fact, we have goou ieason fiom
piimate-obseivation to suppose it was alieauy in hanu when !"#" aiiiveu on the
savanna. 0nce it became sufficiently common among lineages, the iuea of the hanu
axe's chances of becoming extinct, along with any one paiticulai lineage that
possesseu it, weie ieuuceu. If the hanu axe solveu the pioblem of scavenging well
enough, then it leu to a population expansion in the lineages that possesseu it which
incieaseu its likelihoou of suivival, anu it leu to an inciease in that populations
souice of biain-suppoiting piotein.
Pieseivation, accumulation, augmentation of the suite of hanu axe-iueas
both manufactuie anu use components-- iemains piecaiious unuei conuitions of
low population foi a seconu ieason.
In small populations, oppoitunities foi even low levels of any kinu laboi-
uivision aie iaie. Specializing in any consumption goou iequiies that otheis
piouuce anu tiaue in all othei consumption goous neeueu foi suivival, anu
specializing in an inteimeuiate piouuction goou iaises the fuithei pioblems of, fiist,
assuiing that otheis pioviue the othei components it "uove tails" with to make a
consumption goou, anu seconu, that someone combine the specializeu in puts, tiaue
the finisheu consumption goou anu pay all inteimeuiate goou piouuceis foi theii
woik . The cooiuination pioblems that neeu to be solveu by the uivision of laboi in
chattel piopeity oi seivices is eviuently consiueiable. Some of these pioblems will
have to be solveu almost fiom the stait of human evolution to ensuie the uomestic
uivision of laboi between males anu females. At least in small populations anu
within nucleai families the enfoicement pioblems of a maiket aie piesumably
soluble thiough the mechanism of kin-selection enfoiceu altiuism. But fuithei
1S
uivision of laboi iequiies laigei populations anu laigei populations uilute genetic
ielateuness anu inciease the tiaue-enfoicement pioblems iaiseu by the
cooiuination neeus of successful uivision of laboi.
The pioblems that confiont the uivision of laboi aie much moie seveie
howevei, when the uivision of laboi is not between piouuceis of chattel goous
alone, but the uivision of laboi is among piouuceis of chattel goous on the one hanu
anu those who piouuce, accumulate, stoie anu tiansmit goou iueas on the othei.
Consiuei the succession of innovations in hanu axe technology: mateiial-choice,
coie shape choice, flaking, bi-facial flaking, heat tieatment, compounu axe making.
No one can iisk specializing heavily in uiscoveiy, pieseivation, impiovement,
tiansmission (teaching) of goou iueas in hanu axe technology when the "maiket" foi
these iueas is veiy small . At the outset when goou iueas aie easiei to come by, this
is less of a pioblem: if eveiy one is a close kinsmen, all aie knowleuge-
pioviueisbeaieisteacheis, anu exclusive knowleuge is haiu to piotect, exchange
will be common.
But goou iueas aie abstiact objects, not conciete ones. When populations
become laige enough foi this soit of uivision of laboi, obstacles to tiaue emeige. Not
only is enfoicement of exchange noims iequiieu when tiaueis aie not closely kin-
ielateu, but the natuie of goou iueas as abstiact objects is a majoi baiiiei to
exchange. 0ften making the existence anu chaiactei of a goou iuea known iequiies
giving them away, which abolishes the incentives to tiaue chattel piopeity foi them.
0nce given to one oi moie useis, a goou iuea cannot be taken back on non-payment,
anu of couise theie is no iewaiu to the oiiginatoi (anu no loss to the iesellei) if the
iuea is iesolu to a Su paity.
Notice that tiaue in chattel piopeity is itself a goou iuea, as is the veiy notion
of the uivision of laboi, anu the uivision of laboi between piouuction of goou iueas
anu chattels. Insofai as the piactice of exchange of chattel piopeity, the uivision of
laboi oi the uivision of laboi between chattels anu goou iueas was itself an
infoimational innovation, anu not just the emeigence of a piactice that hau
seienuipitous benefits, they themselves piesupposeu a piioi solution to an
economics of infoimation piobleminventing, intiouucing, pieseiving, anu figuiing
16
out how to enfoice these institutions in the absence of piioi institutions of tiaue of
any kinu. The solution to the pioblem in pioviuing goou iueas is some soit of a
maiketi.e. enfoiceu iules of exchange, but this is itself a goou iuea whose
piovision pie-iequiies that something like a maiket alieauy be in existence. The
same goes foi the iueas of the uivision of laboi anu the uivision of cognitive anu
physical laboi, etc. When one consiueis how foimiuable weie the obstacles to the
establishment of patents iights, low long anu how many nations uiu without them,
anu how pooily they aie enfoiceu even touay, the uimensions of the pioblem of
insuiing anything like the optimal piovision of even ielatively goou iueas in eaily
human evolution must be veiy gieat.

D7 E"< 01'-'2&13 '4 5-4'(2$.&'- ?('A)"23 &- .#" ?$)"')&.#&1
So long as the population is closely kin-ielateu, it uoes not iequiie a maiket
oi agencies to enfoice noims of exchange on paiticipants in a maiket. Natuial
selection foi selfish genes will finu ways to builu psychological enfoicement
mechanisms. As it uoes so, a co-evolutionaiy cycle begins, involving incieaseu
piotein consumption, incieaseu cognitive capacity, incieaseu technological
innovationboth in piouuction anu use, fuithei incieases in piotein consumption
anu its consequences foi anothei iounu of innovation, along with othei changes
such as shoitei gestation, longei chiluhoou, anu oppoitunities to instiuct, etc. This
cycle shoulu not be imagineu to move at a iate much above one ievolution pei
1uu,uuu yeais oi so, at least to begin with. Neveitheless, it will be uiiven by
selection foi solution to institution-uesign pioblems iuentifieu in the economics of
infoimationassuiing auequate ietuins to the pioviuei of an abstiact goou that is
non-iivalious anu haiu to excluue. Anu the small population will seveiely limit the
extent of the maiket anu theiefoie the uegiee of uivision of laboi between the
piouuction of chattels anu goou iueas.
But, unuei these ciicumstances, the invention of the compounu axe may well
be uelayeu foi much of the million yeais aftei the hanu axe came into use, may have
been iepeateuly inuepenuently inventeu anu lost at an acceleiating iate ovei that
peiiou, anu finally only become a secuie innovation at the population size of !"#"
17
only as late as the Nesolithic, fiom which eviuence of compounu tools has been
iecoveieu. Let's use the thiusting speai, the compounu axe, anu the suite of iueas
iequiieu to builu anu use them, to puisue the way in which the economics of
infoimation stiuctuies the uimensions anu the oiuei in which !"#" hau to solve
uesign pioblems foi suivival long enough to evolve into us.
The hanu axe, anu even impiovements in it like b-facial flaking, may have
been hit upon by acciuent. The thiusting speai iequiies a minimum amount of point
woiking, anu when fitteu with a stone-point iequiies technology as complex as the
compounu axe. What noims must have been honoieu by membeis of a kin-gioup in
which the iuea of the thiusting speai anu its use was pieseiveu long enough to come
uown to us. Whatevei noims they aie, they may not have been sufficient to
pieseive the thiusting speai at the low levels of population which kin selection
iequiies to maintain unenfoiceu noims of exchange. Nost piobably "luck"uiift
was involveu as well, since the iuea occuis multiply anu appaiently inuepenuently
in the aicheological iecoiu.
0ne obvious noim honoieu by such gioups involves hoiizontal anu oblique
tiansmission of the goou iueathose who tiansmit it must uo so uiiectly oi
inuiiectly to the all the kin-gioup's chiluien, not just theii own, if the iuea is not to
be lost. They must have oppoitunities to innovate, expeiiment, anu take some
uesign iisks in uoing so. Teaching anu expeiimenting can't ieuuce theii inuiviuual
fitness, even when it impinges on theii available scavenging, anuoi hunting time.
Accoiuingly theii kin will have to obseive noims of iecipiocityshaiing iesouices
oi otheiwise compensating teacheis anu ieseaicheis with chattel goous foi non-
iivalious uifficult to excluue abstiact objects anu foi seivices in ueliveiy of abstiact
objects.
The thiusting speai is a goou iuea that opens a wiue iange of piotein
iesouices to a lineage hitheito limiteu to scavenging coipses in which pieuatois aie
no longei inteiesteu. 0nce on the scene, the thiusting speai will enable a gioup of
scavengeis to uefenu themselves against pieuatois, anu to foice pieuatois away
fiom theii kills befoie all the available flesh has been consumeu. This makes foi
anothei substantial inciease in piotein anu so acceleiates the co-evolutionaiy cycle
18
in which it is a factoi. But the thiusting speai's use iequiies that the lineage solve
the pioblem of cooiuinateu use, along with the pioblem of pieseiving anu
tiansmitting the technology of speai piouuction. Theie is inuepenuent eviuence that
the shaieu intentionality iequiieu foi such cooiuination is beyonu the cognitive
capacities of chimps anu available in human infants as eaily as the age of 2
|Beiiman, 2uu7j . Theie must have been stiong selection against those !"#"
species which lackeu this capacity, anu stiong selection foi the enhancement of even
a iuuimentaiy shaieu intentionality. Ninimal levels of this capacity aie iequiieu
both in the cooiuinateu use of thiusting speais anu in teaching theii use. Anu these
achievements both piesuppose piioi oi simultaneous uevelopment of noims that
enfoice collaboiation in the solution of the complex uesign pioblem poseu by the
neeu to oi the auvantage of uiving laboi, anu uiviuing it between piouuction of
abstiact anu conciete objects. The level of cooiuination involveu in these two levels
of uivision of laboi is piobably highei than that iequiieu foi the cooiuinateu use of
the thiusting speais that the uivision of laboi pioviueu!
It appeais that maximum size among huntei-gathei gioups is 1Su inuiviuuals
oi so, aftei which gioups appeai to fission. At such sizes, kin-ielateuness is too low
to iewaiu those specialists who pioviue goou iueas to all membeis oi teach all the
gioup's chiluien, with sufficient inclusive fitness foi such specialization to peisist.
What is neeueu of couise aie noims that encouiage oi iewaiu the specialist's
knowleuge by enhancing his inuiviuual fitness. Nany uiffeient schemes will achieve
this enu, incluuing accoiuing status to savants oi iecipiocal exchange of conciete
goous foi piovision of goou iueas to otheis. But it is eviuent that once the uivision of
laboi in the innovation of goou iueas has gone even a little way, such teaching also
iequiies cognitive competences alieauy beyonu those of othei piimates. Leaineis
will have to be goou at imitation, anu teacheis goou at teaching, anu both goou at
collaboiative inteiaction.
The pay-off to even ielatively simple capacity foi veibal communication in
oiuei to actually shaie incieasingly complicateu intentionalityplans, stiatagems,
tool-making methous, etc. is obvious anu aftei a ceitain point it becomes
inuispensible foi the attainment of fuithei uivision of laboi in infoimation
19
innovation, pieseivation, anu tiansmission. No mattei how eaily oi late
iuuimentaiy linguistic skills emeige, they will be selecteu foi laigely owing to theii
iole in solving these economics of infoimation pioblems.
At some point oi othei, this cycle of pieseivation, tiansmission, innovation of
goou iueas will iun up against a population pioblem. As the technology incieases
anu enhances the neeu foi anu the piouuctivity of the uivision of laboi in
pieseivation, innovation, tiansmission of uesign anu use infoimation, it begins to
push up against population limits in kin-lineages which will not suppoit fuithei
uivision of laboi between piovision of abstiact anu conciete goous. 0n the othei
hanu, incieaseu populations that woulu allow foi such fuithei uivision of laboi will
make incieasingly seiious the pioblem of noim enfoicement iequiieu foi even low
levels of the uivision of laboi in the piovision anu use of goou iueas. When
inuiviuuals aie close kin, iecipiocity obtains without noims of enfoicement. When
they aie not close kin noims of iecipiocity aie neeueu anu iequiie enfoicement.
When population suivival tuins on maintaining oi incieasing the uivision of laboi
that incluues abstiact objects--infoimation accumulation anu tiansmission, the neeu
foi incieasingly complex noims becomes even stiongei than in chattel exchange. If
exploiting goou iueas involves mateiialsfinisheu oi unfinisheu that a huntei-
gatheiei gioup cannot pioviue themselves, theie aie fuithei uemanus on the
existence of noims of exchange between gioups oi membeis of uiffeient gioups.
This piesents evolving lineages with a fuithei coopeiation pioblem even moie
uifficult to solve than a within gioup pioblem faceu by non-kin ielateu inuiviuuals.
By the time humans aiiive at the late Paleolithic age, the complexity of the
infoimation being pieseiveu, tiansmitteu anu enhanceu is gieat. The uivision of
laboi neeueu to pieseive anu tiansmit it is theiefoie consiueiable, anu the uemanus
on communication anu collaboiation, iecipiocity without kinship aie all substantial.
Fiom this point onwaiu to a sophisticateu maiket economy anu the goveinmental
appaiatus it iequiies, both to enfoice tiaue anu to mitigate maiket failuies, is a veiy
gieat uistance. The piocess fiom theie to heie is highly inciemental, uisjointeu,
piece-meal, Naikovian, anu veiy fai fiom being a smooth path in one uiiection. In
many cases, anu especially in the eailiest steps, the canuiuate "solution" hit upon to
2u
pieseive, accumulate anu tiansmit infoimation is highly impeifect, appioximate,
anu ceitainly not iecognizeu by paiticipants as having any explicit function in
infoimation-pieseivation oi tiansmission. Neveitheless, once tiaue between gioups
sets in, the ietuins to investment in infoimation-tiansmission anu exploitation, may
have been laige enough to ensuie !"#" $%&'()$ competitive exclusion of othei
species of !"#" fiom all of those enviionments in which they founu them alieauy in
occupation.

=7 F'-1)93&'-
If the pioblem Bomo faceu anu solveu on its way to the top of the foou chain
was the one I have iuentifieu, then the solution to the pioblem of behavioial
moueinity has the following featuies:
Behavioial moueinity is a cultuial, not a genetically encoueu iesponse to an
evolutionaiy uesign-pioblem faceu by all species of !"#" anu solveu by only one.
The pioblem was that of accumulating, pieseiving anu tiansmitting infoimation.
The solution is achieveu by a suite of cultuial innovations initially exploiting
incipient cognitive capacities shaieu by othei !"#" species. Those initial cultuial
innovations in small gioups which initially iesponueu to the infoimation pioblem
selecteu incipient cognitive tiaits foi fuithei stiengthening, peihaps by filteiing foi
those with the most extieme vaiiants among these capacities. The anatomical
uemanus of these innovations will be slight, anu will be limiteu laigely to the
ceiebium.
This piocess woulu have hau to be giauual anu ieflect a single uesign
pioblem faceu acioss a iange of enviionments which coulu be solveu by only a
ielatively small numbei of iesponses. The hypothesis that each of the tiaits iequiieu
foi behavioial moueinity emeigeu as a sepaiate cultuially tiansmitteu solution to a
uistinct anu sepaiate pioblem is unlikely. Foi then, the simultaneous emeigence of
the tiaits in oui species woulu then be a coinciuence, theii absence in sibling species
woulu be mysteiious, anu the unifoimity of theii uistiibution among humans
subsisting in so many uiffeient enviionments ovei the last Su,uuu yeais woulu be
haiu to explain.
21
Eaily steps in solving the single uesign pioblem will have been selecteu foi,
since any even slight enhancement in infoimation pieseivationtiansmission is
auaptive. Since each of the tiaits that constitute behavioial moueinity aie matteis of
uegiee, anu have a co-evolutionaiy effect on selection of the otheis, conceiteu
evolution of all of them togethei can be expecteu but only if the uesign pioblems
they face aie also conceiteu. Low initial population levels will make eaily anu even
latei steps highly vulneiable to extinction by uiift. Laigei population levels will on
the one hanu buffei enhancements in solving the infoimation pioblem, but on the
othei hanu will intiouuce seiious new ones owing to the uilution of ielateuness
between inuiviuuals population inciease piouuces.
Aftei a ceitain point in cultuial evolution, population incieases make the
uivision of laboi a feasible anu highly auvantageous neat tiick available to !"#"
$%&'()$. But the achievement is only possible if theie is alieauy a piioi set of
institutions of exchange among non-kin, anu this iuea, along with othei goou iueas
about the piovision of tiauable chattel goous, aie likely to have themselves alieauy
iequiieu the incieaseu population levels piesupposeu by the uivision of laboi.
Removing the obstacle incieaseu population size poses to continueu impiovements
in iesponses to the infoimation accumulationpiovisiontiansmission uesign-
pioblem paiauoxically iequiies incieaseu population oi some extiaoiuinaiy goou
luck. As a iesult it may take a long peiiou of continueu vaiiation anu cultuial
selection to finu its solution. What is iequiieu at this point is some soit of "bieak-
thiough" that enables the uivision of laboi to meet its neeu foi a laige maiket, that is
a population of unielateu inuiviuuals that enfoice anu honoi noims of exchange of
goousincluuing abstiact goous, anu seivicesincluuing the use anu instiuction in
the use of the abstiact goous.
The pioblem of pioviuing foi the uivision of laboi between abstiact anu
conciete goous is so gieat that it is not even fully solveu by contempoiaiy maikets
acceptance of patent iights (witness the piiacy pioblem in infoimation technology).
It is obvious that late Neolithic solutions to it will be even moie sub-optimal, haiuei
to contiive, moie likely to bieak uown, easiei to manipulate, etc. Foi one thing the
solutions will not be able to help themselves to pie-existing maiket institutions, foi
22
the maiket is itself eithei the iesult of oi a pait of the solution to the uesign pioblem
auuiesseu by the uivision of laboi.
Even simple baitei maikets in which chattel piopeity is exchangeu make
gieat uemanus on paiticipants' behavioi. To begin with they aie iteiateu piisonei's
uilemmas which peisist only when tiaueis engage in iecipiocal coopeiation anu
tiust one anothei implicitly. The iole of coeicion in enfoicement in such maikets is
impiactical, inefficient, anu often abuseu by those chaigeu with enfoicement.
Naikets foi abstiact objects--goou iueasmake even gieatei uemanus on tiaueis
owing to the quasi-public goous aspect of intellectual piopeity. The solutions to
these pioblems hit upon 4u,uuu yeais ago oi so weie peifoice quick anu uiity, like
most of mothei-natuie's iesponses to uesign pioblems, anu they weie veiy little like
contempoiaiy solutions to them. But they hau to solve these pioblems infoimation
piesents to some uegiee foi humans to outcompete othei !"#" species |Boian,
2uu6j, to iemain at the top of the foou chain, anu to suivive when agiicultuie
became the only viable option late in the Bolocene. The "quick anu uiity" solutions
incluueu investing sciibes, teacheis anu inventois with special authoiity, imposing
noims that exchangeu teaching foi iespect anu iesouices, that put mateiial anu
chattel goous piefeientially at the uisposal of sciibes anu exempteu them fiom
othei obligations, making it easiei to keep goou iueas seciet anu sanctioning theii
theft anu use, intiouucing ieliable methous to evaluate new iueas anu oiueiing the
ieseaich piioiities of tinkeis, ieseaicheis, meuicine men anu women, etc. None of
these weie anywheie neai as goou as those uevices hit upon long aftei the
establishment of baitei anu then fiat cuiiency maikets. But they weie uifficult
enough to achieve as solutions to the economics of infoimation pioblems.
Sufficiently uifficult to have iequiie 1Su,uuu yeais if R anu B aftei the onset of
anatomical moueinity.


Alex Rosenbeig
Buke Centei foi Philosophy of Biology

2S
Refeiences
Bingham, P. M. (1999). "Human uniqueness: A general theory." Quarterly Review of
Biology 74(2): 133-169.
Brown,K.S., Curtis W. Marean, Andy I. R. Herries, Zenobia Jacobs, Chantal Tribolo,
David Braun, David L. Roberts, Michael C. Meyer, Jocelyn Bernatchez, Fire As an
Engineering Tool of Early Modern Humans, Science, 325. no. 5942, pp. 859 - 862

Coolidge, T. W., 2009, Rise of Homo sapiens and the Fall of Neanderthal: The Evolution
of Modern Thinking, New York, Wiley-Blackwell
d'Erricoa, F., Henshilwood, C., Vanhaerend, M., van Niekerke, K., 2005, Nassarius
kraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: evidence for symbolic behaviour in the
Middle Stone Age, Journal of Human Evolution, 48: 3-24

Evans P.D., Gilbert S.L., Mekel-Bobrov, N., Vallender, E.J., Anderson ,J.R., Tishkoff ,
S.A., Hudson, R.R., Lahn, B.T., 2005, Microcephalin, a gene regulating brain size,
continues to evolve adaptively in humans, Science, 309:1717

Gilbert ,S.L., Dobyns, W.B. & Lahn ,B..T, 2005. Genetic links between brain
development and brain evolution, Nature Reviews Genetics, 6:581
Herrmann, E., Call, J., Lloreda, M., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have
evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis.
Science, 317: 1360-1366.
Horan, R. D., Bulte, E., Shogren, J, 2005, How Trade Saved Humanity from Biological
Exclusion: An Economic Theory of Neanderthal Extinction, Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 58; 1-29

Klein, R. J., 2002, The Dawn of Human Cultures, New York, Wiley
Mithen, S. J.. 1996, The prehistory of the mind : a search for the origins of art, religion,
and science, London, Thames and Hudson
Sterleny, K, 2009, The Fate of the Third Chimpanzee, Nicod Lectures, forthcoming
Weber, b. and Depew, D, 2003, (eds) Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect
Reconsidered, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass 2003