Cognition, iconography, and graphic communication systems on portable objects in the Near Eastern Neolithic

Systems of communication in preliterate societies are diverse and difficult to tracein the archaeological record. While oral communication, gestures, and body lan-guage are common methods of information transfer not only with regard to thespecies Homo sapiens but also for hominids and primates (Botha and Knight2009; Benítez-Burraco and Progovac 2021), it has been argued that, especiallysince the Upper Palaeolithic, human communities have come to rely more onvisual systems of knowledge transmission involving geometric signs and depic-tions of realistic images (Bahn 2016; von Petzinger 2016; Braun 2018; Dutkiewiczet al. 2020). The production of these images and signs, which can be identifiedas  symbols in the broader sense, occurs consistently in the Epipalaeolithic andNeolithic archaeological record (approximately from the twentieth to the fifthmillennium bce) through paintings, incised portable objects, 3D representations,and personal adornments (Roset 1984; Bailey 2005; Major 2018; Vasić 2020). Thereliance on visuo-graphic productions and symbolic forms is one of the charac-teristics that distinguish our species (Deacon 1997). Although there is no agreementamong researchers on what can be considered a symbolic or artistic representa-tion in prehistoric objects (Hodder 1982; Wynn and Coolidge 2009), the fact thatindividuals continue to produce icons, schematic representations, and geometricincisions over millennia suggests a behavioural tendency to convey information,by imbuing images and objects with constructed cultural meaning (Sinclair 1995;Henshilwood and d’Errico 2011).This chapter aims to highlight the importance of symbolic practices within thecommunication systems of preliterate societies through an analysis of portableobjects. In the first section, it presents the social context of the Neolithic periodin  south-west Asia, in which a substantial production of visuo-graphic formsemerges. Neolithic communities grow and develop, establishing a solid system of networks and collaborative actions that manifests itself in the emergence of thefirst large villages and the construction of multifunctional public buildings inwhich shared cultural practices and exchange of objects take place. The new andintense group relationships and communicative efforts manifested by these com-munities indicate that communication strategies were also subjected to radicalchanges. In this regard, the second part of the chapter outlines a study of the rep-resentations on portable objects. The recurrences and associations of certaingeometric and figurative forms indicate that mobiliary representations were notmade only for decorative purposes. The data illustrated here are discussed in thelast section of the chapter by considering important contributions on humancognition. It is argued that Neolithic marks on portable objects were part of ashared system of symbols that sustained and developed communication betweendifferent social entities.