Early Man and Communication

Man is classified as a primate, that is, he has a number of features which put him in the same group with, among others, the apes. As well as this classificatory relationship there exists an evolutionary one as well. The two relationships are not, in fact, separable; one presupposes the other. Man shares a common ancestor with the apes, but is certainly not descended from them, as many suppose. Estimates of the date by which we could talk of two separate families having evolved from the common stock varies between forty and sixteen million years ago. Since then, of course, the two families have continued to evolve independently.

Man's primate ancestors were tree-dwelling animals living primarily on the fruit and nuts that were to be found in the forests they inhabited. In these conditions much reliance would be put on eye and hand for swinging from branch to branch through the trees. The eyes, being set forward in the head, had overlapping visual fields. As a consequence man had developed the ability to see well three-dimensionally and to judge distances. The hand evolved in conjunction with the eye, for grasping, swinging and picking. Both hand and eye have played an important part in the evolution of man, as we shall see.

Our ancestors, like the other primates, lived in small groups, socially. Communication is a necessary part of social cohesion at whatever evolutionary level it occurs, and it would appear that these small groups were ideal for the evolution of communication systems. The communication systems depend both on a means of signaling and a means of perceiving the signals. Add to this the social conditions for communicating and also the wherewithal to interpret signals correctly and we have the four ingredients without which the systems could not operate.

What was needed on the receptor side was, first of all, keen enough vision to register the differences between the various signals. Man had developed binocular vision which was    admirably suited for such a use. One final ingredient remained to complete the system: the ability to make use of the signals and to act upon them suitably. Our ancestor's capacity for intelligent use of the information was vital. Brain and communicative abilities were evolving together.

A number of modes of signaling were available to early man. Vocal calls, facial expressions, gestures and postures all combined to act as part of the group communication system. It is said that the vocal signaling was particularly effective in the forest environment. Often these signals were used to draw attention to the gesture or expression of the individual making the call.

Of the pre-language systems, visual signaling started to become particularly important. Very complex facial musculature had evolved, which enabled a wide range of expressions to convey emotions. Facial signals evolved as a useful means of communicating and they had the added benefit of increasing social cohesion. This was because communication was dependent on at least two individuals getting, and remaining, in close contact.

Without the social conditions and the face-to-face contact the system could not have operated. Such signaling still plays a large part in our communications today. When we have difficulty in interpreting remarks on the telephone, we suddenly realize just how much our verbal conversations depend on non-verbal, visual communication.

As we have seen, each part of the total communication system, such as the visual signaling, was dependent on a number of factors. Anyone factor could place a limitation on the whole system or, by improving, could put selection pressures on the other parts to improve. This applied, of course, not only to communication but to all the characteristics involved in man's evolution.

At this point we can, as it were, step back and take a look at the selection pressures on man's ancestors thus far. He was, in some senses, a rather unspecialised animal since he had developed no special powers of offence or defence. He couldn't run fast and his teeth, hands and nails were not designed in the great carnivore tradition. These matters were not crucial, since he was living in reasonably comfortable circumstances. Fruit and nuts could be gathered in quantities within the forests, where predators could be avoided easily by using the trees for escape. In addition, his large brain and intelligent behaviour were a decided advantage, not to say a necessity, in coping with the situation. Man's, ancestors would have gained obvious selective advantages from social and communicative behaviours.

Together, the selection pressures were obviously pushing our ancestors in the direction of modern man, but at a normal evolutionary pace, that is, very slowly. What occurred to precipitate him into our modern world with such unseemly haste? Many alternative hypotheses have been put forward, stressing one aspect or other of the situation. Sociological evidence stresses social skills and co-operation; psychological evidence implicates intelligence, language and visual skills. Archaeologists point to the manufacture and use of tools as instrumental in the evolution of modern man. In fact Russian psychologists speak of language, by analogy, as a social tool. Lorenz has suggested that the domesticating effects of socialisation should be considered. In his view this process loosens the hold which instincts have on behavioural responses. In their place learning is substituted, thereby increasing the variety and adaptability of the responses.

The reader may be forgiven for becoming somewhat confused over the multiplicity of theories. The crux of the matter is that a number of structures and factors would seem to have been jointly responsible for the rapid changes that occurred. The importance of anyone factor, say language, at a given time would depend on its effect on the other factors in limiting or encouraging their improvement.

What would appear to have happened to our ancestors was that, having adapted efficiently to their forest environment without any narrow specialisation, they were capable of readapting to new conditions by elaborating on those capabilities they had already developed. In other words, such factors as intelligence, visual perception, hand -eye co-ordination, communication and social grouping all interacted to allow our opportunist forebears to lay the foundations of modern society. Language, technology, agriculture, culture can all be seen as developments of existing trends.

While this is so, we still have not attempted to explain the initial impetus, the fateful shove, which started our ape-like ancestors along this path. After all, they were reasonably well off in the forest. Why did they take to the more open steppe or savannah-like country with all its dangers? A partial answer is that a change in climate was reducing their forest habitat. Whether this forced them out into the open or whether they moved out to take advantage of new skills is problematical. Probably both factors helped.

The change to the open habitat produced fresh selection pressures in its wake. Our ancestors had to cope with great dangers from the large efficient carnivores that roamed their new habitat. They had to adapt to a new diet, containing meat, and a new way of life, hunting. They had to 'change structurally and socially to cope with life permanently on the ground.

One of the most important changes was the adoption of a bipedal gait in favour of the old quadrupedal, tree-adapted one. In more senses than one man had to learn to stand on his own two feet. With it he learned to run and hunt. Now that his arms were freed from locomotory involvement they could be used for throwing, fighting and carrying. Previously his teeth and jaws had been used for some of these purposes. Teeth and jaws could now alter to accommodate for other changes, such as the mobility required of the mouth for speech.

Standing upright gave man a greater field of vision and hence advanced warning of food and danger. Together with the freeing of the arms and hands and the ability to balance, three-dimensional vision allowed him the delicate abilities to make and use tools.

The change to a hunting life would have laid stress upon social co-operation and communicative abilities. At some point language evolved and large increases in brain size took place. It would seem that the increases in. brain volume followed rather than preceded many of the other changes; they were not dependent on it. With the emergence of language the abilities underlying it became the focus for intense selection pressures resulting in greater communicative competence. For those possessing it the faculty of language was of great survival value. Hunting and the other social activities could then be carried on much more effectively, thus enabling the community to support more individuals and to diversify its activities. (R. Gurney: Language, Brain and Interactive Processes, Edward Arnold.).