New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Food for Symbolic Thought

Besides the first seafood dinner, signs of the earliest symbolic thought

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A cave on the southern coast of South Africa contains a bowl’s worth of edible shellfish dating back to about 165,000 years ago. Besides pushing back the earliest known seafood meal by 40,000 years, the discovery also marks the earliest time when people might have engaged in symbolic thought.

Anatomically modern humans probably emerged between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago in eastern Africa. When those humans first developed the potential for symbolic thought, including language, has remained a puzzle.

Looking for early human remains, Curtis W. Marean of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and his colleagues homed in on the caves at South Africa’s Pinnacle Point. In addition to discovering the first known seafood dinner—mostly brown mussels—they found small stone blades and reddish rocks tossed in with the shells. They identified a dozen or so pieces of iron-rich hematite rock with flattened sides bearing parallel grooves, indicating that the shellfish eaters scraped the rocks to make powder. Mixing that powder with sap or another binder yields a reddish or pinkish paint, possibly to adorn the body or the face.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


That people were working with pigments back then “is a pretty good indicator of symbolic thought,” says Marean, who published the findings in the October 18 Nature. A population living on shellfish would have stayed in one place and grown in number, he notes, increasing the need for negotiations between individuals or social groups, which might have led to a system of decorative markings.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe