7aa54b31-3460-4913-bab0-56690daa753d202610132026567238Depositor Namedepositor_email@address.comRUA Metadata ExporterPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5168The Origins of Human ConnectionPlease note: you can download the full ebook using the above buttons, or download individual chapters using the dropdown menu below.Read online or download: free Purchase price for print volume (including shipping and handling fees): £29.15 Additional local taxes may be added to EU orders at point of delivery. In Hidden Depths, Professor Penny Spikins explores how our emotional connections have shaped human ancestry.  Focusing on three key transitions in human origins, Professor Spikins explains how the emotional capacities of our early ancestors evolved in response to ecological changes, much like similar changes in other social mammals. For each transition, dedicated chapters examine evolutionary pressures, responses in changes in human emotional capacities and the archaeological evidence for human social behaviours. Prof Spikins also discussed her research at an event to mark the publication of Hidden Depths. Starting from our earliest origins, in Part One, Professor Spikins explores how after two million years ago, movement of human ancestors into a new ecological niche drove new types of collaboration, including care for vulnerable members of the group. Emotional adaptations lead to cognitive changes, as new connections based on compassion, generosity, trust and inclusion also changed our relationship to material things. Part Two explores a later key transition in human emotional capacities occurring after 300,000 years ago. At this time changes in social tolerance allowed ancestors of our own species to further reach out beyond their local group and care about distant allies, making human communities resilient to environmental changes. An increasingly close relationship to animals, and even to cherished possessions, appeared at this time, and can be explained through new human vulnerabilities and ways of seeking comfort and belonging. Lastly, Part Three focuses on the contrasts in emotional dispositions arising between ourselves and our close cousins, the Neanderthals. Neanderthals are revealed as equally caring yet emotionally different humans, who might, if things had been different, have been in our place today. This new narrative breaks away from traditional views of human evolution as exceptional or as a linear progression towards a more perfect form. Instead, our evolutionary history is situated within similar processes occurring in other mammals, and explained as one in which emotions, rather than ‘intellect’, were key to our evolutionary journey. Moreover, changes in emotional capacities and dispositions are seen as part of differing pathways each bringing strengths, weaknesses and compromises. These hidden depths provide an explanation for many of the emotional sensitivities and vulnerabilities which continue to influence our world today. Readers may prefer to download and cite from the PDF version of this book. This has a specific DOI and has a fixed structure with page numbers. Guidance on citing from other ebook versions without stable page numbers (Kindle, EPUB etc.) is now usually offered within style guidance (e.g. by the MLA style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style etc.) so please check the information offered on this by the referencing style you use. Further information on the order processIn Hidden Depths, Professor Penny Spikins explores how our emotional connections have shaped human ancestry. She explains how the emotional sensitivities of our earliest ancestors drove them to care for vulnerable members of their group, and how new connections based on generosity, trust and inclusion made early groups of humans resilient to ecological changes. These deep-seated emotional capacities then provided the basis to allow later human ancestors to further reach out beyond their local group and care about distant allies. At each stage emotional capacities to collaborate in new ways also brought with them increasing sensitivities and vulnerabilities which continue to influence our world today. Our close relationships to animals, and even to cherished possessions, as well as our need for a sense of belonging can be explained through new human vulnerabilities and ways of seeking comfort. This new narrative moves away from one in which our evolutionary journey is a simple progress to some better form, and instead demonstrates different evolutionary pathways and key transitions which bring us nearer to, rather than away from, other animals. Our close cousins, the Neanderthals, are revealed as equally caring yet emotionally different humans, and who might, if things had been different, have been in our place today.082320229781912482320978191248234497819124823519781912482337White Rose University PressYorkhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/10.22599/HiddenDepthshttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/m/10.22599/HiddenDepthshttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/86056df8-7c6c-4c1d-bf12-3b257c7a28dd.pdfhttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/86056df8-7c6c-4c1d-bf12-3b257c7a28dd.pdfPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-51680823202210.22599/HiddenDepths.ahttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/chapters/m/10.22599/HiddenDepths.ahttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/31f3d2eb-dfc0-4a21-b5bf-220bfa9ee11b.pdfPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5168How did we come to care so much for our loved ones, and to respond so readily to those in need? This chapter addresses these questions, considering our shared ancestry with other apes as well as selection pressures pushing our emotional dispositions more towards those of more distantly related primates and even social carnivores. If we look around at the types of empathy and emotional connections in other animals, we can gain some insight into the basic building blocks of our empathy, compassion and generosity. Studies of helping behaviour in other species can provide us with some important insights, for example. If we go back to basic roots as mammals we can see that this evolutionary history has formed the basis for our capacities for empathy, stemming from a need to respond to vulnerable young. However, human empathy, compassion and generosity is certainly more complex. This is where studies of our nearest living relatives, chimpanzees, provide insights into more complex capacities to share and to respond to others distress, as well as a certain social astuteness that is likely to have characterised the emotional capacities of our common ancestor living about 7 to 8 million years ago. What happened after our split with other primates? How our emotional capacities evolved after our lineage split with other apes is a challenging question. Here animal comparisons reveal a certain paradox. Some far more distantly related animals demonstrate a more human-like altruism and compassion than those that are most closely related to us, such as demonstrating a certain willingness to collaboratively care for offspring, or to care for vulnerable injured adults, for example. Understanding what prompted these kinds of changes in human ancestors who came after our split with the ancestors of chimpanzees demands considering how different species find the best ways of adapting to the ecological and social environments, and how this affects their emotional reactions to each other. Explaining the depth and breadth of our emotional connections to others remains a challenge. Building up our understanding of how and why human emotional motivations towards generosity and compassion emerged over the last few million years also depends on archaeological evidence of when helping and compassionate behaviours emerged, and why they became important, which is the focus of Chapter 2.0823202210.22599/HiddenDepths.bhttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/chapters/m/10.22599/HiddenDepths.bhttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/2555fce4-3f8e-41d3-8cf5-98b13069b2eb.pdfPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5168What can archaeological evidence contribute to our understanding of the origins of human empathy, compassion and generosity? We have seen in Chapter 1 that our human capacity for compassion and our tendencies to help others have an important evolved biological basis. Here, we focus on what the preserved material evidence of early humans and their behaviours can contribute to our understanding of how our emotional motivations to help others emerged. We particularly consider often-overlooked archaeological evidence for care for adults made vulnerable by illness or injury. This evidence demonstrates a deep past to human emotional motivations to help those around them. Furthermore, changing emotional motivations are a response to wider context and selective pressures, similar to those also seen in some other social mammals. A critical appraisal of evidence for responses to illness and injury suggest that significant changes in helping behaviour and responses to vulnerability may have taken place around 2 million to 1.5 million years ago – around the time of key ecological changes and a transition to a new hunting niche. Responses to vulnerability and motivations to help may have been a central element to cognitive-emotional changes that set humans on a track that is distinctive and much more interdependent than that of other apes. Considering the archaeological evidence for care allows us to add a time depth and an explanation for the model of changes in cognitive and affective empathy outlined in Chapter 1. An understanding of the potential significance of care prompts further questions, such as around different evolutionary pathways in emotional motivations, the relationship between biology and culture in care for illness and injury, the extent of human dependence on such care, and its significance in terms of extended lifespans. Nonetheless, it is clear that an extension of human empathy, compassion and generosity from at least 2 million years ago played a much more significant role in our evolutionary origins than is usually accepted, prompting us to reconsider the driving factors leading to human evolutionary success. Following on from the significance of interdependence, we consider the formation of relationships based on emotional commitments and trust, and the increasing importance of social reputation, in Chapter 3.0823202210.22599/HiddenDepths.chttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/chapters/m/10.22599/HiddenDepths.chttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/4b64022a-828a-4418-a6e8-4864d3d028c0.pdfPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5168How did our uniquely human commitments to our loved ones develop, and why are we so concerned about what feelings lie underneath what other people do? In this chapter, we consider the origins of our long-term emotional connections based on trust, and how they lead to uniquely human sensitivities to what motivates other people and how they feel about us. As we have seen in Chapters 1 and 2, new types of emotional connections, and new ways of collaborating to survive, emerged in early humans after 2 million years ago. This was a time when changes in emotional dispositions led to a greater willingness to share with, and care for, a wider set of individuals. Archaeological evidence demonstrates care for vulnerable adults, within the contexts of both food sharing and of collaborative care for increasingly dependent offspring. The emergence of strong emotional bonds based on high levels of give and take at this time laid the basis for human trust, emotional commitments and love. Yet these long-term emotional connections also seem to have come at a price. The importance of knowing who to trust brought with it pressures to be acutely focused on displaying our genuine intentions (or hiding our less genuine ones), and on identifying the genuine emotional motivations of others. Considering the importance of relationships based on trust, and with this emotional astuteness about who could be trusted, may yield important insights into many debates about our origins. These include the cultural transmission of ideas, the explanations for an increasing concern with symmetry and the aesthetics of form in stone tools after 2 million years ago, and the mechanisms behind how people who thought differently may have been integrated into human populations. Long-term relationships based on trust and a sensitivity to the emotional connections underlying people’s words or actions may have been much more important in our distant past than we have previously recognised.0823202210.22599/HiddenDepths.dhttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/chapters/m/10.22599/HiddenDepths.dhttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/fa7031aa-e0bb-405b-b15a-31617b7590eb.pdfPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5168For most animals, unfamiliar members of other groups present more of a threat than an opportunity, and are best avoided or even attacked. In contrast, our attitudes are markedly different. There is no denying that we are capable of being hostile to people we do not know, particularly if we feel anxious or threatened. However, compared to other animals, we are unusually open to new relationships, and form strong bonds with individuals outside our family group. Although we tend to focus on the ‘thinking’ part of our minds, or our cognitive appraisal of social situations, our physiological responses and emotional reactions play a central role in how we build and maintain relationships. Subtle changes in ‘gut feelings’ can have an important influence on our attitudes to people around us, particularly to unfamiliar outsiders or people we have not seen for some time. An understanding of how different hormones affect social behaviour in other species, as well as in humans, provides insights into the type of changes that led to increasing human ‘friendliness’. Genetic and anatomical evidence documents subtle changes in neuroendocrine function in recent human evolution after 300,000 years ago that appear to have played an important role in increasing tolerance of unfamiliarity, and abilities to forge new external bonds. Being able to make external connections, and form new relationships based on give and take despite lengthy periods apart, seems to have been important to our success as a species. Friends in distant communities may often have been important to survival by providing resources or help that could buffer the effects of crises and resource shortfalls. We find that it is genuine emotional commitments to distant friends, rather than strategic alliances, that allow modern hunter-gatherers to survive in times of crisis. Changes in emotional dispositions towards being less aggressive and more tolerant of unfamiliar individuals might seem to be progress, but we should be cautious in thinking in these terms. Increased ‘friendliness’ is not without its disadvantages. It also brings downsides in terms of social sensitivities and emotional vulnerabilities that influence much of human behaviour.0823202210.22599/HiddenDepths.ehttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/chapters/m/10.22599/HiddenDepths.ehttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/69116695-c38d-48bc-a67c-d685815f6236.pdfPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5168The idea that humans could be ‘self-domesticated’ is certainly rather strange and unlikely sounding, perhaps not entirely out of keeping with something we might expect to find in a science fiction novel. However, there is good evidence that changes in emotional tendencies and capacities in recent human evolution (after 300,000 years ago) followed some similar pathways to those seen in domesticated species. Furthermore, these changes are not necessarily limited to animals that have been deliberately domesticated by humans, with some of these developments also seen in bonobos, which, alongside chimpanzees, are our nearest living relatives. Though questions and debates remain about why and how these changes might have occurred, genetic and anatomical evidence, alongside changes in the archaeological record, support the notion that changes similar to domestication were occurring in humans. The concept that the evolution of human emotional tendencies and capacities may have followed similar changes in increasing tolerance seen in domestic animals is a challenging one. Rather than elevating modern humans above other animals, it would imply that some of the most crucial adaptations in our recent evolutionary past are shared with many other species. Moreover, with many traits changing under simple and single selection pressures, it contradicts any notion that human capacities are necessarily ‘adaptive’. Many of our social traits may simply be emerging alongside key changes but have no adaptive role, or even be a disadvantage. There are also added complexities. Increasing tolerance associated with self-domestication has largely been viewed as an entirely progressive development in the recent human past, opening up possibilities for more tolerant and connected communities to emerge and, in turn, enabling communities to become more resilient to resource shortfalls. However, there are costs and disadvantages to these changes in emotions, particularly at the individual level, which are rarely considered. Heightened sensitivities to social and cultural context, and hypersociability, bring increased vulnerabilities to disrupted emotional well-being in unsupportive contexts, as well as the types of challenges we associate with a certain eagerness to please. The emotional challenges that self-domestication brought may have been part of processes leading to compensatory mechanisms, such as attachment fluidity and tendencies to be driven to find additional emotional support and comfort outside of human relationships (discussed in Chapters 6 and 7).0823202210.22599/HiddenDepths.fhttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/chapters/m/10.22599/HiddenDepths.fhttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/51d908d2-cd62-4f55-9ebf-8f93112487bc.pdfPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5168All around us, almost all the time, we see objects with no obvious function that seem to play an important role in our lives. This apparently bizarre obsession with non-functional objects is one of the most obvious differences between ourselves and other animals. Our lives are filled with all kinds of objects, not just those with a practical function but a whole range of mementos such as photographs, or treasured childhood toys, or necklaces or bracelets whose special place in our hearts has little to do with physical appearance. Although many non-industrialised societies are far less materialistic, even constantly mobile hunting and gathering populations create and attach meaning to objects such as beads, figurines or amulets, which do not have any immediate practical function. Here, we consider the extent to which new emotional vulnerabilities may explain our apparently bizarre emotional attachment to certain treasured things and provide an explanation for the creation, significance and movement of many non-functional things in the archaeological record. We draw together evidence for an often-overlooked characteristic of cherished possessions – their capacity to provide comfort and a sense of connection and counteract loneliness. We then consider the characteristics of those kinds of objects that particularly inspire a sense of comfort and security in our own societies and the extent to which these characteristics can also be found in archaeological artefacts from the Upper Palaeolithic. There will have been many other aspects of meaning that are important in the creation and use of non-functional things by Palaeolithic societies. Nonetheless, the significance of new emotional vulnerabilities, and compensatory attachments to objects, appears to provide important insights. By moving away from the concept that our own species – modern humans – must have had a superior mind to other humans, we can begin to better understand how new vulnerabilities may have been integral to community resilience. Understanding how we came to rely on cherished objects to bring us a sense of emotional security also leads to a better understanding of our human vulnerabilities and our need for warmth and social connection.0823202210.22599/HiddenDepths.ghttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/chapters/m/10.22599/HiddenDepths.ghttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/86321d4c-8785-4ebd-9d44-a3dff2860073.pdfPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5168Why are we able to form such an intense emotional bond with other animals, such as dogs, despite them being so different from ourselves in so many ways? In this chapter, we consider the human emotional vulnerabilities that drove our close relationships with canids. We explore how an understanding of compensatory attachments can provide a new perspective on the inclusion of wolves into human societies, and the significance of their dog descendants to our emotional wellbeing today. We first explore the roles of dogs in present hunting and gathering societies, and the potential significance of bringing wolf companions into our emotional lives. We find that, whilst there are considerable cultural differences, dogs and people have a capacity to form remarkably strong bonds, and dogs can take up a sometimes-uncomfortable position as almost human. We then ask whether the domestication of wolves may have been more influenced by human emotional needs than we may have currently assumed. Whilst we tend to view the domestication of wolves as a process engineered by humans, and indicative of our particular elevated capabilities or intelligence, our emotional vulnerability and capacity to make compensatory attachment may have had a key role to play. A closer consideration of our shared evolutionary history reveals that wolves and humans share a deep past of becoming incrementally closer to each other in terms of social emotional motivations. As we have seen in Part 1, selection pressures over the last 2 million years moved human emotional motivations closer to those of highly collaborative social carnivores such as wolves, whilst, as we have seen in Chapters 4 and 5, the period 300,000 to 30,000 years ago brought new capacities to make novel relationships, and new emotional vulnerabilities. During this period, the emotional motivations of wolves seem to have moved closer to those of humans through living in close proximity. Wolf domestication is, perhaps, best seen as a two-way process in which each species moved to fill an emotional gap in each other’s lives.0823202210.22599/HiddenDepths.hhttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/chapters/m/10.22599/HiddenDepths.hhttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/add328cc-bf6c-42b9-81cd-009d9086f92f.pdfPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5168All too often, we see our evolutionary past as some inevitable ladder of progression. In considering our emotional connections, it is easy to imagine that the increased external friendliness and sensitivity seen in ‘modern’ humans represents some progressive or superior development from a more aggressive past. However, a close consideration of how external friendliness changes in closely related species reveals a far more complex picture, with advantages and disadvantages to different evolutionary pathways, each displaying a different type of prosocial or collaborative behaviour. There are always many possible evolutionary pathways, affecting brains, bodies and behaviours. Here, however, we focus on simple contrasts in the adaptive routes followed within our nearest living relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, and those within our closest friends, wolves and dogs. This brings some insights into how an increased openness, and the capacities to develop new external bonds, may have evolved. We reveal that each evolutionary pathway brought both advantages and disadvantages, depending on context, rather than any specific pathway being a progression. Our similar physiological and behavioural adaptations under pressures to be more tolerant (discussed in Part 2) suggest that the same processes that occurred in these species also affected humans. An understanding of our evolutionary past as one of different alternative trajectories, and of possibilities and constraints along these, helps to frame our understanding of the process of human evolution, and the story of our origins.0823202210.22599/HiddenDepths.ihttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/chapters/m/10.22599/HiddenDepths.ihttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/a89eb3b6-1339-48cb-a6b6-886a00a35725.pdfPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5168Neanderthals have occupied a rather problematic position in our evolutionary history for many years. Neanderthals and modern humans share fundamental features of humanity, such as care for the vulnerable, yet differences in their use of symbolism, adoption of innovations and intergroup relationships have been hard to explain. Evidence suggests that Neanderthals lived in small living groups with only rare connections to outsiders and high levels of inbreeding, whilst modern human populations from their first arrival in Europe were highly interconnected and maintained connections between communities stretching over large regions. It has been tempting to interpret these differences in terms of an inferior social or intellectual cognition in Neanderthals. Subtle differences in emotional dispositions may, however, be a better explanation. A more inwardly focused or close-knit nature of Neanderthal communities, and a more outwardly focused or approachable nature of modern humans, can explain previously enigmatic elements of their archaeological record without recourse to ideas of progression or advancement. Our understanding of Neanderthals as displaying subtly different emotional dispositions gives us an opportunity to think about human evolution differently. Rather than a ladder, or even a braided stream, here we argue that our evolutionary past is better conceptualised as a series of branching pathways which sometimes rejoin and sometimes follow different directions. Allowing past hominins to be different but equal opens up new lines of interpretation, as well as challenging us to understand that there is more than one way to be human.0823202210.22599/HiddenDepths.jhttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/chapters/m/10.22599/HiddenDepths.jhttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/52fc1be5-171d-4a84-b3a9-206e06d8e85a.pdfPennySpikinsUniversity of Yorkhttps://ror.org/04m01e293Department of Archaeologyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-51680823202210.22599/HiddenDepths.khttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/chapters/m/10.22599/HiddenDepths.khttps://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/books/11/files/559840ef-2b1a-415e-809a-912db3b00be1.pdf