text:
Stop and identify statutes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
States (colored red) in which Stop and Identify statutes were in effect as of February 20, 2013.
"Stop and identify" statutes are statutory laws in the United States that authorize police[1] to legally obtain the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect of having committed a crime. If there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to provide identification, even in "Stop and ID" states.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on an articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a patdown for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel case also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[2] The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness.[3]
Contents
1 Police–citizen encounters
1.1 Consensual
1.2 Reasonable suspicion
1.3 Arrest
2 Obligation to identify
2.1 Variations in "stop and identify" laws
2.2 Interaction with other laws
2.3 Interpretation by courts
2.4 Recommendations of legal-aid organizations
3 Other countries
4 See also
5 Notes
6 External links
Police–citizen encounters[edit]
In the United States, interactions between police and citizens fall into three general categories: consensual ("contact" or "conversation"), detention (often called a Terry stop, after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)), or arrest. "Stop and identify" laws pertain to detentions.
Different obligations apply to drivers of motor vehicles, who generally are required by state vehicle codes to present a driver's license to police upon request.
Consensual[edit]
At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack "specific and articulable facts"[4] that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time.[5] Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business;[6] however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, "Am I free to go?"[7][8]
Reasonable suspicion[edit]
A person is detained when circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe he is not free to leave.[9]
Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Many state laws explicitly grant this authority. In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court established that police may conduct a limited search for weapons (known as a "frisk") if they reasonably suspect that the person to be detained may be armed and dangerous.
Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[10] However, many states have "stop and identify" laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information.
Before Hiibel, it was unresolved whether a detainee could be arrested and prosecuted for refusing to disclose his name. Authority on this issue was split among the federal circuit courts of appeal,[11] and the U.S. Supreme Court twice expressly refused to address the question.[12] In Hiibel, the Court held, in a 5–4 decision, that a Nevada "stop and identify" law did not violate the United States Constitution. The Court opinion implied that a detainee was not required to produce written identification, but could satisfy the requirement merely by stating his name. Some "stop and identify" laws do not require that a detainee identify himself, but allow refusal to do so to be considered along with other factors in determining whether there is probable cause to arrest. In some states, providing a false name is an offense.[13]
As of February 2011, the Supreme Court has not addressed the validity of requirements that a detainee provide information other than his name, however some states such as Arizona have specifically codified that a detained person is not required to provide any information aside from their full name.
Arrest[edit]
Main article: Arrest
A detention requires only that police have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity. However, to make an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Some states require police to inform the person of the intent to make the arrest and the cause for the arrest.[14] But it is not always obvious when a detention becomes an arrest. After making an arrest, police may search a person, his or her belongings, and his or her immediate surroundings.
Whether an arrested person must identify himself may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs. If a person is under arrest and police wish to question him, they are required to inform the person of his Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by giving a Miranda warning. However, Miranda does not apply to biographical data necessary to complete booking.[15][16] It is not clear whether a "stop and identify" law could compel giving one's name after being arrested, although some states have laws that specifically require an arrested person to give his name and other biographical information,[17] and some state courts[18][19] have held that refusal to give one's name constitutes obstructing a public officer. As a practical matter, an arrested person who refused to give his name would have little chance of obtaining a prompt release.
Obligation to identify[edit]
[2]
States with "stop and identify" laws
Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005) & Tit. 28, §1595
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. [1]§ 5-71-213 - Loitering
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §901.151 (Stop and Frisk Law); §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A); La. Rev. Stat. 14:108(B)(1)(c)
Missouri (Kansas City Only) Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6
New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §140.50
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24
States not listed do not have a requirement to show Identification to law enforcement officers. Some states listed have "Stop and ID" laws which may or may not require someone to identify themselves during an investigative detention.
While Wisconsin statutes allow law enforcement officers to "demand" ID, there is no statutory requirement to provide them ID nor is there a penalty for refusing to, hence Wisconsin is not a must ID state. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis.2d 338, 353-54 (1995). Annotations for Wisconsin §968.24, however, state "The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so", citing Hiibel as authority. Hiibel held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Henes v. Morrissey that "A crime is made up of two parts: proscribed conduct and a prescribed penalty. "The former without the latter is no crime. ... In this case no statute penalizes a refusal to identify oneself to a law enforcement officer, and no penalty is set forth in the statute for refusing to identify oneself. This statute is part of Chapter 968 entitled "Commencement of Criminal Proceedings. By its very terms sec. 968.24 empowers a law enforcement officer to stop and question "in the vicinity where the person was stopped." The statute does not authorize a law enforcement officer to make an arrest." Additionally Henes v. Morrissey held that a detained person not providing their name isn't on its own a violation of 946.41 Resisting or obstructing officer as the act of not identifying ones self isn't a false statement with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duty.
Neither is Illinois, since the Illinois Second District Appellate Court Decision in People v. Fernandez, 2011 IL App (2d) 100473, which specifically states that section 107-14 is found in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, not the Criminal Code of 1961, and governs the conduct of police officers. The fact remains that there is no corresponding duty in the Criminal Code of 1961 for a suspect to identify himself or herself.[20]
By contrast, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 181 (2004), a Nevada statute (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123 (2003)) specifically required that a person subjected to a Terry stop "shall identify himself." The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional.
As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement,[21] and 24 states have done so.[22] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with constitutional[23] "stop and identify" laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[24] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[25] The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons:
The wording of "stop and identify" laws varies considerably from state to state.
Noncompliance with a "stop and identify" law that does not explicitly impose a penalty may constitute violation of another law, such as one to the effect of "resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer".
State courts have made varying interpretations of both "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws.
Variations in "stop and identify" laws[edit]
Four states' laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, and Nevada) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
Fifteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:
In Montana, police "may request" identifying information;
In Ohio, identifying information may be required "when requested"; an obligation exists only when the police suspect a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense, is witness to a violent felony offense, or is witness to an attempt or conspiracy to commit a violent felony offense;
In 12 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police "may demand" identifying information. Of note, though, in New Hampshire for example (RSA 594:2), statutory language authorizing a 'demand' for identity does not establish a legal requirement to provide documentation of identity (ID), or even a requirement to respond in the first place. Further, a law enforcement officer is authorized to make such 'demand' only of individuals for "whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime."
Identifying information varies, but typically includes
Name, address, and an explanation of the person's actions;
In some cases it also includes the person's intended destination, the person's date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado). Ohio does not require the person's intended destination. Ohio requires only name, address, or date of birth. Date of birth is NOT required if the age of the person is an element to the crime (such as underage drinking, curfew violation, etc...) that the person is reasonably suspected of.[26] Indiana requires either name, address, and date of birth, or driver's license, if on the person's possession, and only applies if the person was stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation.[27]
Arizona law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person's "true full name".
Nevada law, which requires a person to "identify himself or herself", apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.
Texas law requires a person to provide their name, residence address and date of birth if lawfully arrested and asked by police. (A detained person or witness of a crime is not required to provide any identifying information, however it is a crime for a detained person or witness to give a false name.)
In four states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.
Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.
As of February 2011, the validity of a law requiring that a person detained provide anything more than stating his or her name has not come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Interaction with other laws[edit]
In states whose "stop and identify laws" do not directly impose penalties, a lawful arrest must be for violation of some other law, such as one to the effect of "resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer". For example, the Nevada "stop and identify" law challenged in Hiibel did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibels refusal to identify himself[28] constituted a violation of Nevada "obstructing" law.[29] A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws was reached in Oliver v. Woods (10th Cir. 2000).
Interpretation by courts[edit]
"Stop and identify" laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, California "stop and identify" law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording[30][31] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity. Using this construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be void for vagueness in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).[32]
Some courts have recognized a distinction authorizing police to demand identifying information and specifically imposing an obligation of a suspect to respond.[33] Other courts have apparently interpreted demand to impose an obligation on the detainee to comply.[34][35]
Wording and interpretation by state courts of "obstructing" laws also varies; for example, New York "obstructing" law[36] apparently requires physical rather than simply verbal obstruction;[37][38] likewise, a violation of the Colorado "obstructing" law appears to require use or threat of use of physical force. However, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Dempsey v. People, No. 04SC362 (2005) (PDF) that refusing to provide identification was an element in the "totality of the circumstances" that could constitute obstructing an officer, even when actual physical interference was not employed.[39] Utah "obstructing" law does not require a physical act, but merely a failure to follow a "lawful order . . . necessary to effect the . . . detention";[40] a divided court in Oliver v. Woods concluded that failure to present identification constituted a violation of that law.[35]
It is not universally agreed that, absent a "stop and identify law", there is no obligation for a detainee to identify himself. For example, as the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Hiibel, California "stop and identify" statute was voided in Kolender v. Lawson. But in People v. Long,[41] decided four years after Kolender, a California appellate court found no constitutional impropriety in a police officer's demand for written identification from a detainee. The issue before the Long court was a request for suppression of evidence uncovered in a search of the defendant's wallet, so the issue of refusal to present identification was not directly addressed; however, the author of the Long opinion had apparently concluded in a 1980 case that failure to identify oneself did not provide a basis for arrest.[42] Nonetheless, some cite Long in maintaining that refusal to present written identification constitutes obstructing an officer.[43] Others disagree, and maintain that persons detained by police in California cannot be compelled to identify themselves.[44]
Some courts, e.g., State v. Flynn (Wis. 1979)[45] and People v. Loudermilk (Calif. 1987)[46] have held that police may perform a search for written identification if a suspect refuses to provide it; a later California decision, People v. Garcia (2006) strongly disagreed.[47]
In the case of Utah v. Strieff (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an officer's stop of Edward Strieff and his demand for identification from Strieff was unlawful under Utah state law, but that the evidence collected pursuant to the stop was admissible due to the determination that Strieff was subject to a pre-existing arrest warrant. Therefore, the pre-existing warrant "attenuated" the unlawful stop-and-identify.
Recommendations of legal-aid organizations[edit]
Some legal organizations, such as the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Northern California, recommend to either remain silent or to identify oneself whether or not a jurisdiction has a "stop and identify" law:
And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and refusing to give your name may make them suspicious and lead to your arrest, so use your judgment. If you fear that your name may be incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, and if you are arrested, this may help you later. Giving a false name could be a crime.[48]
In a more recent pamphlet, the ACLU of Northern California elaborated on this further, recommending that a person detained by police should:
. . . give your name and the information on your drivers' license. If you don't, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal.[49]
Other countries[edit]
Main article: List of national identity card policies by country
Many countries allow police to demand identification and arrest people who do not carry any. Normally these countries provide all residents with national identity cards, which have the identity information the police would want to know, including citizenship. Foreign visitors need to have their passport available to show at all times. In some cases national identity cards from certain other countries are accepted.
For example, in Portugal it is compulsory to carry the state ID card at all times. This card named Cartão de Cidadão - Citizen Card is an electronic card which includes biometric information, id number, social security number, fiscal information, place of birth, etc. Police can only ask for the ID card in public or a place open to public and only if there is a reasonable suspicion the person committed a crime. A certified copy of the ID card can be presented in such situations. If a citizen does not carry the ID card or its certified copy, the police will escort the person to the police department to remain detained until clear identification can be obtained.[50]
See also[edit]
Brown v. Texas
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
Kolender v. Lawson
Miranda v. Arizona
Loitering
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Although police and police officer are used throughout this article, most "stop and identify" laws use the term peace officer (or sometimes law enforcement officer). In general, peace officers are state civil officers charged with preserving the public peace and granted the authority to do so. Peace officers normally include police officers, sheriffs and sheriffs' deputies, marshals, constables, and often many other persons; those included vary among the states.
Jump up ^ In upholding Hiibel's conviction, the Court noted,
In this case petitioner's refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him.... As best we can tell, petitioner refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer's business. — 542 U.S. at 190
But the Court did leave open the possibility of different circumstances:
Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here. — 542 U.S. at 191
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Justice Kennedy stated,
Here the Nevada statute is narrower and more precise. The statute in Kolender had been interpreted to require a suspect to give the officer "credible and reliable" identification. In contrast, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS §171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. — 542 U.S. at 184–185
Justice Kennedy continued,
As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a drivers license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means—a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make—the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. — 542 U.S. at 185
Writing for the Nevada Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Dist. Ct., Chief Justice Young said,
The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists. — 118 Nev. 868 at 875
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren stated,
And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. — 392 U.S. at 21
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in Florida v. Royer 460 U.S. 491 (1983), Justice White stated,
The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. — 460 U.S. at 497–498
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) Justice Stewart stated,
Our conclusion that no seizure occurred is not affected by the fact that the respondent was not expressly told by the agents that she was free to decline to cooperate with their inquiry, for the voluntariness of her responses does not depend upon her having been so informed. — 446 U.S. at 555
Jump up ^ The ACLU publication Know Your Rights When Encountering Law Enforcement states,
You can say, "I do not want to talk to you" and walk away calmly. Or, if you do not feel comfortable doing that, you can ask if you are free to go. If the answer is yes, you can consider just walking away. Do not run from the officer. If the officer says you are not under arrest, but you are not free to go, then you are being detained.
Jump up ^ If the encounter is consensual, a person approached need not actually leave to terminate the encounter, but may simply ignore police. In Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988), Justice Blackmun explained the Court's holding that Chesternut had not been detained, stating that the police conduct "would not have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business." — 486 U.S. at 569
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) Justice Stewart stated:
We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. — 446 U.S. at 554
Jump up ^ In a concurring opinion in Terry v. Ohio, Justice White stated that a person detained can be questioned but is "not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest." This opinion, in turn, was cited in many later cases, including Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
Jump up ^ In describing the split authority among the federal appellate court circuits in Hiibel v. Dist. Ct., the Nevada Supreme Court stated:
In Oliver v. Woods, [209 F.3d 1179, 1190 (10th Cir. 2000)] the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Utah statute that requires individuals to produce identification to an officer during an investigatory stop. However, in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board [279 F.3d 873, 881 (9th Cir. 2002)], the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that NRS 171.123(3) violates the Fourth Amendment because " 'the serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification [might] provide a link leading to arrest.' "
Jump up ^ In Hiibel v. Dist. Ct., the Nevada Supreme Court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to address the issue of identification in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), at 53 n.3 ("We need not decide whether an individual may be punished for refusing to identify himself in the context of a lawful investigatory stop which satisfies Fourth Amendment requirements."); and Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), 361–62 n.10 (holding that a California statute was unconstitutional on vagueness grounds, but refusing to consider whether the statute violated the Fourth Amendment).
Jump up ^ Texas does not require a detainee to identify himself unless he has been lawfully arrested, but does make it a crime to provide a false name. Texas Penal Code § 38.02 reads, in relevant part,
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
Jump up ^ California Penal Code § 841, states, in relevant part,
The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest, and the authority to make it . . .
Jump up ^ In Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990), the Court cited the Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12 quoting United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181, n. 2 [CA8 1989]),
the questions fall within a "routine booking question" exception which exempts from Miranda coverage questions to secure the "'biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services.'" — 496 U.S. at 601–602
Jump up ^ The Fifth Amendment prohibits only communication that is testimonial, incriminating, and compelled; see United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), at 34–38. Hiibel held that, in the circumstances of the case, a person's name is not incriminating, and consequently is not protected by the Fifth-Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. — 530 U.S. at 34–38
Jump up ^ Texas Penal Code, Title 8, §38.02(a), reads
A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
Giving false information is a related, and usually more serious offense (under Subsection [b], noted above), and applies to detainees as well as arrestees.
Jump up ^ In People v. Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961, the Court held that refusal to disclose one's identity following a felony arrest constituted obstructing an officer:
These statutory provisions lead to the conclusion that a refusal to disclose personal identification following arrest for a misdemeanor or infraction cannot constitute a violation of [California] Penal Code section 148. . . . Section 148 can reasonably be construed as applying to nondisclosure of identity following arrest for felonies, but not minor offenses, if this exception applies to the provisions cited above dealing with arrests for minor offenses. — 16 Cal.App.4th 961, 970
Similar refusal following arrest for a misdemeanor or infraction did not violate the statute because the Legislature had "established other ways of dealing with such nondisclosure".
Jump up ^ In Burkes v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), Case No. 97-00552, the Court, in affirming the appellant's conviction for violation of § 843.02, Florida Statutes, "Resisting officer without violence to his or her person", stated:
The most compelling argument we discern for answering this question in the affirmative is that the right to remain silent means just that and has no exceptions. We, nevertheless, conclude that after an individual has been lawfully arrested, he must provide his name or otherwise identify himself when asked by law enforcement officers.
Jump up ^ http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/opinions/AppellateCourt/2011/2ndDistrict/December/2100473.pdf
Jump up ^ The Hiibel Court held, "The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop." — 542 U.S. at 187
Jump up ^ The opinion in Hiibel included a list of 21 states with "stop and identify" laws. For some reason, the Indiana law was not included in the list; the Arizona and Ohio laws have been enacted since Hiibel was decided. The Texas law only applies to arrested persons.
Jump up ^ "Constitutional" means that the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. See Hiibel.
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in Hiibel, Justice Kennedy stated, "the source of the legal obligation [to identify oneself] arises from Nevada state law". — 542 U.S. at 187
Jump up ^ In Hiibel, Justice Kennedy stated, "In other States, a suspect may decline to identify himself without penalty.″ — 542 U.S. at 183
Jump up ^ "Lawriter - ORC - 2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information". State of Ohio Codes.
Jump up ^ Assembly, Indiana General. "Indiana Code 2016 - Indiana General Assembly, 2016 Session".
Jump up ^ The opinion noted that Hiibel was asked to provide identification, which the Court understood as a request to produce a driver's license or some other form of written identification, 11 different times; however, it did not indicate that Hiibel was ever asked simply to identify himself.
Jump up ^ NRS §199.280 provides a penalty for a person who "willfully resists, delays or obstructs a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office"
Jump up ^ California stop-and-identify law in Penal Code §647(e) was repealed several years after 1983 and the sub-sections re-lettered, so the current Penal Code §647(e) is what used to be Penal Code §647(f). Also, do not confuse Penal Code §647(e) with Penal Code §647e.
Jump up ^ (voided in Kolender v. Lawson), read, in relevant part,
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: . . . (e) who loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business and who refuses to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer so to do, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification.
Jump up ^ In voiding California Penal Code §647(e) in Kolender v. Lawson, Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, noted that
Section 647(e), as presently drafted and as construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute. — 461 U.S. at 358
Jump up ^ Writing for the Court in People v. Love, 318 Ill.App.3d 534 (2000), rev'd on other grounds, People v. Love, No. 90806 (2002), Justice O'Brien stated,
The State next argues that the officer's order was a justifiable means of compelling defendant to state her name pursuant to section 107-14, which provides that an officer making a Terry stop may "demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions." 725 ILCS 5/107-14 (West 1992). However, while section 107-14 states that an officer may "demand" the defendant's name, it does not provide that the officer may compel a response. Further, the United States Supreme Court has stated in the context of a Terry stop: "[T]he officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond." (Emphasis added.) Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 438, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317, 334, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 3150 (1984).
Noting Berkemer v. McCarty (and Justice White's concurring opinion in Terry that Berkemer quoted), the Hiibel Court stated, "We do not read these statements as controlling" (542 U.S. at 187), so Love is probably weakened to the extent that it relies on Berkemer.
Jump up ^ In Cady v. Sheahan (7th Cir. 2006), the Court stated,
In Hiibel, the Supreme Court held that states are permitted to statutorily authorize the demand for identification during a Terry stop, and to require compliance with such demand. 542 U.S. at 188, 124 S.Ct. 2451. Cady's identity was relevant to the purpose of the stop and the officers did not exceed the scope of the stop by requesting identification. [footnotes omitted]
^ Jump up to: a b Writing for the Court in Oliver v. Woods, 209 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2000), Judge Brorby stated,
Section 76-8-305 does not require the use of force; mere refusal to perform any act required by a lawful order necessary to effect the detention is sufficient to constitute a violation of § 76-8-305. Moreover, an individual who merely refuses to refrain from performing any act that would impede the arrest or detention violates this section. . . . Thus, Officer Woods gave a lawful order when he told Mr. Oliver to present identification and to remain in the parking lot while he conducted the investigation. By refusing to present identification, Mr. Oliver refused to perform an act required by lawful order, necessary to effect the detention.
Jump up ^ New Yorks "obstructing" law, NY Consolidated Laws Penal (PEN) §195.05, reads, in relevant part,
A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function, or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act
Jump up ^ In People v. Offen, 408 N.Y.S.2d 914, 96 Misc.2d 147 (1978), Judge Hertz stated,
An essential element of the crime of obstructing governmental administration, to be charged in an information, must be an act of either (1) intimidation or (2) physical force or interference or (3) an independently unlawful act.
Plainly, ignoring an officer's request for identification is not a crime, nor does that act supply any such element. Though it is clear that such conduct risks pursuit and arrest, no crime has been charged here. — 96 Misc.2d at 150
Jump up ^ See When Do You Have to Give Your Name at the RNC Protests? under External links for an analysis of New York "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws by Just Cause Law Collective lawyer Katya Komisaruk.
Jump up ^ Colorado "obstructing" law, Colorado Revised Statutes §18-8-104(1), reads, in relevant part,
A person commits obstructing a peace officer . . . when by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority.
Jump up ^ Utah "obstructing" law, Utah Code §76-8-305, reads as follows:
Interference with arresting officer.
A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if he has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have knowledge, that a peace officer is seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention of that person or another and interferes with the arrest or detention by:
(1) use of force or any weapon;
(2) the arrested person's refusal to perform any act required by lawful order:
(a) necessary to effect the arrest or detention; and
(b) made by a peace officer involved in the arrest or detention; or
(3) the arrested person's or another person's refusal to refrain from performing any act that would impede the arrest or detention.
Jump up ^ In People v. Long (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 77, Justice Agliano wrote,
The voluntary display of identification is a routine experience for most of us. Measured against the obvious and substantial need for police recording the identity of a person suspected of having committed a crime, we find reasonable the minimal intrusion involved here in requiring the production of identification. In addition, defendant's oral statement of his name was suspect when he insisted he had no identification while appearing to carry a wallet and, in addition, he seemed intoxicated. — 189 Cal.App.3d at 88
Jump up ^ In In re Gregory S. (1980), 112 Cal.App.3d 764, Justice Agliano wrote
We find no authority to support the court's legal conclusion that a person who merely refuses to identify himself or to answer questions in a context similar to that before us thereby violates Penal Code section 148 or otherwise furnishes ground for arrest.
The Legislature has required citizen self-identification in prescribed situations. Vehicle Code section 40302 calls for the production of a driver's license or identification upon arrest for a violation of that code; Vehicle Code section 12951 requires production of a driver's license by the driver of a motor vehicle upon the request of an officer. Penal Code section 647, subdivision (e) imposes a duty to identify oneself when such person loiters or wanders upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business, and the surrounding circumstances reasonably indicate that the public safety demands identification. Section 647, subdivision (e) was held valid in People v. Solomon (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 429 [108 Cal.Rptr. 867], in which strong consideration was given to the legislatively declared governmental purpose to be served by identification when the conditions described in the statute exist. (Id, at p. 436; see also California v. Byers (1971) 402 U.S. 424 [29 L.Ed.2d 9, 91 S.Ct. 1535].) None of the statutory conditions requiring identification existed in this case. — 112 Cal.App.3d at 779
Note: Penal Code 647, subdivision (e) was voided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kolender v. Lawson (1983).
Jump up ^ Shortly after Hiibel was decided, the Alameda County (California) District Attorney's Office provided a case analysis (PDF) maintaining that refusal to identify oneself and provide written identification (if available) constitutes a violation of Penal Code §148(a)(1), resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer. The topic is further discussed in the 2010 edition of Point of View.
Jump up ^ The California Peace Officers Legal Sourcebook ("CPOLS"; written by the office of the California Attorney General) maintains that failure to identify oneself does not constitute a violation of California Penal Code §148(a)(1), resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer:
Unlike Nevada and other states, California does not have a statute mandating that a detainee identify himself, and that obligation cannot be read into Penal Code section 148. . . . Hiibel does not provide a means of arresting someone for failing or refusing to identify himself. (Revision 176, 9/15/2014, p. 2.14a; page last revised 1/10)
Jump up ^ In State v. Flynn (1979) 92 Wis.2d 427 [285 N.W.2d 710, 718], cert. den. 449 U.S. 846, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Terry limitation of a search "to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." (392 U.S. at 29) was limited to the specific circumstances of Terry. Chief Justice Beilfuss wrote,
It is clear from the language itself that the court's holding in Terry was limited to the precise situation before it. The court did not say that the sole justification for any search on less than probable cause is the protection of the police officer and others, but that that was the sole justification of the search in the situation then before it. The situation before us is significantly different.
Jump up ^ In People v. Loudermilk (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 996, Justice Low stated,
Neither case [Kolender v. Lawson or Brown v. Texas] could be interpreted to prevent a police officer from demanding that a Terry suspect produce proof of identification. Further, nothing in those or other cases cited by defendant prevents an officer from seizing a wallet found during a lawful patdown search after that suspect has lied to the officer that he had no identification. — 195 Cal.App.3d at 1003
Justice Low noted the similarity to Flynn, and continued,
We must emphasize that we do not hold that a suspect may be detained and searched merely because he either refused to identify himself or refused to produce proof of identification. Nor do we hold that each time an officer conducts a Terry stop he may immediately conduct a search for identification. The rule we announce does not provide officers with unfettered discretion and does not open citizens to harassment. — 195 Cal.App.3d at 1004
Jump up ^ In People v. Garcia (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 782, Justice Yegan, noting State v. Flynn (Wis. 1979) and State v. Wilcox (N.J. 1981), stated,
We need not look to other jurisdictions to decide this case. We would have to indulge in legal legerdemain to justify a patdown search for identification. In fact, it would require a rewriting of Terry v. Ohio, supra, which we could not and would not undertake even if we were so inclined. Here, the record is devoid of any concern that appellant was armed and dangerous. The sole reason for the patdown was to gather evidence of identification.
A fair reading of Terry v. Ohio, and its reference to the lower court opinion in State v. Terry show that the "frisk" allowable upon a proper showing was " '. . . only a "frisk" for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential.' " (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 16, fn. 12 [20 L. Ed. 2d at p. 903, fn. 12.) Our own Supreme Court has unanimously so held. (People v. Lawler (1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 161 [pat-down search "only" for weapons].) If stare decisis means anything (and it does) and if the word only means only (and it does), the trial court was required to grant this suppression motion as a matter of law. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450.) — 145 Cal.App.4th at 788
Jump up ^ "Know Your Rights! What to Do if Questioned by Police, FBI, Customs Agents or Immigration Officers" (pdf). National Lawyers Guild, S.F. Bay Area Chapter; ACLU of Northern California; American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. August 2004. Retrieved 2012-02-07.
Jump up ^ "Your Rights and the Police". ACLU of Northern California. Retrieved 2014-07-10.
Jump up ^ www.view.pt), VIEW. (info@view.pt -. "Um cidadão traz habitualmente consigo apenas uma fotocópia do cartão de cidadão ou do bilhete de identidade. Se a autoridade lhe exigir a identificação, pode estar descansado? - Direitos e Deveres dos Cidadãos".
External links[edit]
ACLU "Bust Card" What To Do If You’re Stopped By The Police
ACLU Know Your Rights When Encountering Law Enforcement
10 Rules for Dealing with Police from FlexYourRights.org, a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit organization.
California Codes
Colorado Revised Statutes
Nevada Revised Statutes
New York Legislature Source for New York State Laws
Stop-and-Identify Laws from Police Chief magazine
Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves from Police Chief magazine
The Identity Project: Hiibel
When Do You Have to Give Your Name at the RNC Protests? An analysis of New York's "stop and identify" law.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_and_identify_statutes&oldid=865703965"
Categories:
U.S. state criminal law
Search and seizure case law
United States Fourth Amendment case law
United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Deutsch
日本語
Edit links
This page was last edited on 25 October 2018, at 16:31 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

attrs: class href

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

value: b

value: sup

value: p

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 392

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 542

values: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values:
/wiki/Criminal_activity
mw-redirect
Criminal activity

values:
/wiki/N.Y._Crim._Proc._Law
mw-redirect
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law

values:
nofollow
external text
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29

values: border:1px solid #CCCCCC; margin-left: 1.5em; margin-top: 1ex; margin-bottom: 2ex;

values: Edit section: Variations in "stop and identify" laws

values: Edit section: Interaction with other laws

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 461

values: Edit section: Recommendations of legal-aid organizations

values:
/wiki/Cart%C3%A3o_de_Cidad%C3%A3o
mw-redirect
Cartão de Cidadão

values:
/wiki/Peace_officer
mw-redirect
Peace officer

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 460

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 446

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 486

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 468

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 443

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 496

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 530

values:
nofollow
external text
http://cryptome.org/rnc-rights.htm

values:
/wiki/Alameda_County_(California)
mw-redirect
Alameda County (California)

values:
nofollow
http://le.alcoda.org/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/index.php

values:
/wiki/California_Attorney_General
mw-redirect
California Attorney General

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/law1.cfm

values: Category:United States Fourth Amendment case law

values: Category:United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law

values:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Stop_and_identify_statutes rootpage-Stop_and_identify_statutes skin-vector action-view


text:
Middle Stone Age
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the term as applied to African prehistory. For the "middle" period of the Stone Age in general, see Mesolithic. For the "middle" part of the "Old Stone Age", see Middle Paleolithic.
Middle Stone Age tool from Blombos Cave
The Middle Stone Age
This box:
view
talk
edit
↑ Early Stone Age
pre-Still Bay
Stillbay
Howiesons Poort
post-Howiesons Poort
late
final MSA phases
↓ Later Stone Age
The Middle Stone Age (or MSA) was a period of African prehistory between the Early Stone Age and the Later Stone Age. It is generally considered to have begun around 280,000 years ago and ended around 50–25,000 years ago.[1] The beginnings of particular MSA stone tools have their origins as far back as 550–500,000 years ago and as such some researchers consider this to be the beginnings of the MSA.[2] The MSA is often mistakenly understood to be synonymous with the Middle Paleolithic of Europe, especially due to their roughly contemporaneous time span, however, the Middle Paleolithic of Europe represents an entirely different hominin population, Homo neanderthalensis, than the MSA of Africa, which did not have Neanderthal populations. Additionally, current archaeological research in Africa has yielded much evidence to suggest that modern human behavior and cognition was beginning to develop much earlier in Africa during the MSA than it was in Europe during the Middle Paleolithic.[3] The MSA is associated with both anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) as well as archaic Homo sapiens, sometimes referred to as Homo helmei. Early physical evidence comes from the Gademotta Formation in Ethiopia, the Kapthurin Formation in Kenya and Kathu Pan in South Africa.[2]
Contents
[hide]
1 Regional development
2 Early development
3 Lithic technology
4 Hominin evolution and migration
5 Evidence for modern human behavior
5.1 Possible cultural complexes
5.2 Abstract thinking
5.3 Planning depth
5.4 Innovation
5.5 Symbolic behavior
5.6 Complex cognition
5.7 Evidence for language
6 Brain change
7 Sites
8 See also
9 Notes
Regional development[edit]
It is difficult to discuss the MSA of Africa without first considering the immense size of the continent. There are archaeological sites and evidence from across the continent, and, for the sake of ease, it has often been divided into five regions: northern Africa, which is often, though not without controversy, taken into consideration more so with Southwest Asia and Europe than with the rest of Africa; eastern Africa, stretching roughly from the highlands of Ethiopia to the southern part of Kenya; central Africa, which is arguably the least explored region, stretching from the borders of Tanzania and Kenya to include Angola; southern Africa, which includes the numerous cave sites of South Africa; and western Africa.[4][5]
In northern and western Africa, the desiccation and humectation of the modern Sahara desert has led to very fruitful archaeological sites, followed by completely barren soil, only to once again show evidence of population when the aridity of the region was ameliorated. Preservation in these two regions are alternately superb and lamentable, yet the sites that have been uncovered document the adaptive nature of early hominins to climatically unstable environments. Researchers such as Marean and Assefa consider the historic distinction between northern Africa and the rest of Africa, as though they represent divergent cultural developments, an arbitrary and antiquated distinction.[5]
Eastern Africa represents some of the most reliable dates, due to the use of radiocarbon dating on volcanic ash deposits, as well as some of the earliest MSA sites. Faunal preservation, however, is not spectacular, and standardization in site excavation and lithic classification was, until recently, lacking. Unlike northern Africa, shifts between lithic technologies were not nearly as pronounced, likely due to more favorable climatic conditions that would have allowed for more continuous occupation of sites.[4][5][6] Central Africa reflects similar patterning to eastern Africa, yet more archaeological research of the region is certainly required.
Southern Africa consists of many cave sites, most of which show very punctuated starts and stops in stone tool technology. Research in southern Africa has been continuous and quite standardized, allowing for reliable comparisons between sites in the region. Much of the archaeological evidence for the origins of modern human behavior is traced back to sites in this region, including Blombos Cave, Howiesons Poort, Still Bay, and Pinnacle Point.[4][5]
Early development[edit]
The Awash Valley
The origins of the MSA are characterized in most regions by the Acheulian to MSA transition. This transition is considered to be a gradual process, rather than a singular event wherein hominin technologies advanced rapidly. Although the dates for this transition vary widely, the oldest reliably dated MSA site is Gademotta in Ethiopia at greater than 276 thousand years ago.[7] The Middle Awash valley of Ethiopia and the Central Rift Valley of Kenya constituted a major center for behavioural innovation.[8] It is likely that the large terrestrial mammal biomass of these regions supported substantial human populations with subsistence and manufacturing patterns similar to those of ethnographically known foragers.
Archaeological evidence from eastern Africa extending from the Rift Valley from Ethiopia to northern Tanzania represents the largest archaeological evidence of the shift from the Late Acheulian to the Middle Stone Age tool technologies. This transition is characterized by stratigraphic layering of Acheulian stone tools, a bifacial handaxe technology, underneath and even contemporaneous with MSA technologies, such as Levallois tools, flakes, flaked tools, pointed flakes, smaller bifaces that are projectile in form, and, on rare occasions, hafted tools.[5][7] Evidence of the gradual displacement of Acheulian by MSA technologies is further supported by this layering and contemporaneous placement, as well as by the earliest appearance of MSA technologies at Gademotta and the latest Acheulian technologies at the Bouri Formation of Ethiopia, dated to 154 to 160 kya. This suggests a possible overlap of 100-150 thousand years.[7]
South African cave sites have also contributed to the data regarding this shift with accurate dating due to deposits of volcanic ash, which have allowed these sites to be dated to between 999 and 49 thousand years ago. The Cave of Hearths and Montague Cave in South Africa contain evidence of Acheulian technologies, as well as later MSA technologies, however there is no evidence of crossover in this region.[5]
Lithic technology[edit]
2009 excavations at the Diepkloof Rock Shelter
Early blades have been documented as far back as 550-500,000 years in the Kapthurin Formation in Kenya and Kathu Pan in South Africa.[2] Backed pieces from the Twin Rivers and Kalambo Falls sites in Zambia, dated at sometime between 300 and 140,000 years, likewise indicate a suite of new behaviors.[2][9] A high level of technical competence is also indicated for the c. 280 ka blades recovered from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya.[10]
The stone tool technology in use during the Middle Stone Age shows a mosaic of techniques. Beginning approximately 300 kya, the large cutting tools of the Achuelian are gradually displaced by Levallois prepared core technologies, also widely used by Neanderthals during the European Middle Palaeolithic.[11] As the MSA progresses, highly varied technocomplexes become common throughout Africa and include pointed artifacts, blades, retouched flakes, end and side scrapers, grinding stones, and even bone tools.[1][5] However, the use of blades (associated mainly with the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe) is seen at many sites as well.[1] In Africa, blades may have been used during the transition from the Early Stone Age to the Middle Stone Age onwards.[12] Finally, during the later part of the Middle Stone Age, microlithic technologies aimed at producing replaceable components of composite hafted tools are seen from at least 70 ka at sites such as Pinnacle Point and Diepkloof Rock Shelter in South Africa.[13][14]
Artifact technology during the Middle Stone Age shows a pattern of innovation followed by disappearance. This occurs with technology such as the manufacture of shell beads,[15] arrows and hide working tools including needles,[16] and gluing technology.[17] These pieces of evidence provide a counterpoint to the classic "Out of Africa" scenario in which increasing complexity accumulated during the Middle Stone Age. Instead, it has been argued that such technological innovations "appear, disappear and re-appear in a way that best fits a scenario in which historical contingencies and environmental rather than cognitive changes are seen as main drivers".[16]
Hominin evolution and migration[edit]
Homo erectus skull, Museum of Natural History, Ann Arbor
See also: Human Evolution
There have been two migration events out of Africa, the first was the expansion of H. erectus into Eurasia approximately 1.9 to 1.7 million years ago, and the second, by H. sapiens began during the MSA by 80 – 50 ka MSA out of Africa to Asia, Australia and Europe.[18][19] Perhaps only in small numbers initially, but by 30 ka they had replaced Neanderthals and H. erectus.[20] Each of these migrations represent the increased flexibility of the genus Homo to survive in widely varied climates. Based on the measurement of a large number of human skulls a recent study supports a central/southern African origin for Homo sapiens as this region shows the highest intra-population diversity in phenotypic measurements. Genetic data supports this conclusion.[20] However, there is genetic evidence to suggest that dispersal out of Africa began in eastern Africa. Sites such as the Omo Kibish Formation, the Herto Member of the Bouri Formation, and Mumba Cave contain fossil evidence to support this conclusion as well.[7]
Evidence for modern human behavior[edit]
See also: Behavioral modernity
There have been a number of theories proposed regarding the development of modern human behavior, but in recent years the mosaic approach has been the most favored perspective in regards to the MSA, especially when taken in consideration with the archaeological evidence.[21] Some scholars including Klein[22] have argued for discontinuity, while others including McBrearty and Brooks have argued that cognitive advances can be detected in the MSA and that the origin of our species is linked with the appearance of Middle Stone Age technology at 250–300 ka.[1]
The earliest remains of Homo sapiens date back to approximately 195 thousand years ago in eastern Africa.[7] In the archaeological record of both eastern Africa and southern Africa, there is immense variability associated with Homo sapiens sites, and it is during this time that we see evidence of the origins of modern human behavior. According to McBrearty and Brooks, there are four features that are characteristic of modern human behavior: abstract thinking, the ability to plan and strategize, "behavioral, economic and technological innovativeness," and symbolic behavior.[1] Many of these aspects of modern human behavior can be broken down into more specific categories, including art, personal adornment, technological advancement, yet these four overarching categories allow for a thorough, albeit significantly overlapping, discussion of behavioral modernity.
Possible cultural complexes[edit]
Aterian stone tool
As early Homo sapiens began to diversify the ecological zones that they inhabited during the MSA, the archaeological record associated with these zones begins to show evidence for regional continuities. These continuities are significant for a number of reasons. The expansion of Homo sapiens into various ecological zones demonstrates an ability to adapt to a variety of environmental contexts including marine environments, savanna grasslands, relatively arid deserts, and forests. This adaptability is reflected in MSA artifacts found in these zones. These artifacts display stylistic variability depending on zone. During the Acheulian, which spanned from 1.5 million years ago to 300 thousand years ago, lithic technology displayed incredible homogeneity throughout all ecological niches. MSA technologies, with their evidence for regional variability and continuity, represent a remarkable advance.[1][6][7] These data have been used to support theories of social and stylistic development throughout the MSA.[23]
In southern Africa, we see the technocomplexes of Howiesons Poort and Stillbay, named after the sites at which they were first discovered. Several others have not been dated or have been dated unreliably; these include the Lupemban technocomplex of central Africa, the Bambatan in southeast Africa, 70-80ka, and the Aterian technocomplex of northern Africa, 160-90ka.[1][21]
Abstract thinking[edit]
Evidence of abstract thinking can be seen in the archaeological record as early as the Acheulean-Middle Stone Age transition, approximately 300,000-250,000 years ago. This transition involves a shift in stone tool technology from Mode 2, Acheulean tools, to Mode 3 and 4, which include blades and microliths. The manufacture of these tools requires planning and the understanding of how striking a stone will produce different flaking patterns.[24] This requires abstract thought, one of the hallmarks of modern human behavior.[1] The shift from large cutting tools in the Acheulian to smaller and more diversified toolkits in the MSA represents a better cognitive and conceptual understanding of flintknapping, as well as the potential functional effects of distinct tool types.
Planning depth[edit]
The ability to plan and strategize, much like abstract thinking, can be seen in the more diversified toolkit of the Middle Stone Age, as well as in the subsistence patterns of the period. As MSA hominins began to migrate into a range of different ecological zones, it became necessary to base hunting strategies around seasonally available resources. Awareness of seasonality is evident in the faunal remains found at temporary sites. In less forgiving ecological zones, this awareness would have been essential for survival and the ability to plan subsistence strategies based on this awareness demonstrates an ability to think beyond the present tense and act upon this knowledge.[1]
This planning depth is also seen in the presence of exotic raw materials at a variety of sites throughout the MSA. Procurement of local raw materials would have been a simple task to accomplish, yet MSA sites regularly contain raw materials that were obtained from sources over 100 km away, and sometimes farther than 300 km.[5] Obtaining raw materials from this distance would require an awareness of the resources, a perceived value in the resources, whether it be functional or symbolic, and, possibly, the ability to organize an exchange network in order to obtain the materials.[1][5]
Innovation[edit]
The ability to expand into new environments throughout Africa and, ultimately, the world, displays a level of adaptability and, consequently, innovativeness that is often seen as characteristic of behavioral modernity.[1] This, however, is not the only evidence of innovativeness that can be seen in early Homo sapiens. The development of new, regionally relevant tools, such as those used for the collection of marine resources seen at Abdur, Ethiopia, Pinnacle Point Cave, South Africa, and Blombos Cave, South Africa.[1][4] The use of fire demonstrates another innovative aspect of human behavior when it is used in order to create stronger tools, such as the heated silcrete at Blombos, Howiesons Poort and Still Bay,[4][14] and the heat treated bone tools from Still Bay.[21]
Hafted tools are further representative of human innovation. The large cutting tools of the Acheulian technocomplex become smaller, as more complex tools are better suited towards the needs of highly diversified environments. Composite tools represent a new level of innovation in their increased efficacy and more complex manufacturing process. The ability to conceptualize beyond the mere reduction of stone cores demonstrates cognitive flexibility, and the use of glue, which was often processed with ochre, to attach flakes to hafts demonstrates an understanding of chemical changes that can be utilized beyond the simple use of color.[4] Adhesives were used to construct hafted tools by 70ka at Sibudu Cave in South Africa.[1][4]
Symbolic behavior[edit]
Zoomorphic pictogram on stone slab from the MSA of Apollo 11 Cave, Namibia
Symbolic behavior is, perhaps, one of the most difficult aspects of modern human behavior to distinguish archaeologically. When searching for evidence of symbolic behavior in the MSA, there are three lines of evidence that can be considered: direct evidence reflecting concrete examples of symbols; indirect evidence reflecting behaviors that would have been used to convey symbolic thought; and technological evidence reflecting the tools and skills that would have been used to produce art. Direct evidence is difficult to find beyond 40ka, and indirect evidence is essentially intangible, thus technological evidence is the most fruitful of the three.[5]
Today there is widespread agreement among archaeologists that the world's first art and symbolic culture dates to the southern African Middle Stone Age. Some of the most striking artifacts, including engraved pieces of red ochre, were manufactured at Blombos Cave in South Africa 70 ka. Pierced and ochred Nassarius shell beads were also recovered from Blombos, with even earlier examples (Middle Stone Age, Aterian) from the Taforalt Caves. Arrows and hide working tools have been found at Sibudu Cave[16] as evidence of making weapons with compound heat treated gluing technology.[17]
Complex cognition[edit]
A series of innovations have been documented by 170–160,000 years ago at the site of Pinnacle Point 13B on the southern Cape coast of South Africa.[25] This includes the oldest confirmed evidence for the utilization of ochre and marine resources in the form of shellfish exploitation for food. Based on his analysis of the MSA bovid assemblage at Klasies, Milo[26] reports MSA people were formidable hunters and that their social behavior patterns approached those of modern humans. Deacon[27] maintains that the management of plant food resources through deliberate burning of the veld to encourage the growth of plants with corms or tubers in the southern Cape during the Howiesons Poort (c. 70–55 ka) is indicative of modern human behavior. A family basis to foraging groups, color symbolism and the reciprocal exchange of artifacts and the formal organization of living space are, he suggests, further evidence for modernity in the MSA.
Lyn Wadley et al.[17] have argued that the complexity of the skill needed to process the heat-treated compound glue (gum and red ochre) used to haft spears would seem to argue for continuity between modern human cognition and that of humans 70,000 BP at Sibudu Cave.[28]
Evidence for language[edit]
Ochre is reported from some early MSA sites, for example at Kapthurin and Twin Rivers, and is common after c. 100 ka.[29] Barham[30] argues that even if some of this ochre was used in a symbolic, color-related role then this abstraction could not have worked without language. Ochre, he suggests, could be one proxy for trying to find the emergence of language.
Formal bone tools are frequently associated with modern behaviour by archaeologists.[31] Sophisticated bone harpoons manufactured at Katanda, West Africa at c. 90 ka[32][33] and bone tools from Blombos Cave dated at c. 77 ka[31] may then also serve as examples of material culture associated with modern language.
Language has been suggested to be necessary to maintain exchange networks. Evidence of some form of exchange networks during the Middle Stone Age is presented in Marwick (2003) in which the distance between the source of raw material and location in which a stone artifact was found was compared throughout sites containing early stone artifacts.[34] Five Middle Stone Age sites contained distances between 140–340 km and have been interpreted, when compared with ethnographic data, that these distances were made possible through exchange networks.[34] Barham[35] also views syntactic language as one aspect of behavior that in fact allowed MSA people to settle in the tropical forest environments of what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Many authors have speculated that at the core of this symbolic explosion, and in tandem, was the development of syntactic language that evolved through a highly specialized social learning system[36] providing the means for semantically unbounded discourse.[37] Syntax would have played a key role in this process and its full adoption could have been a crucial element of the symbolic behavioral package in the MSA.[38]
Brain change[edit]
Although the advent of anatomical physical modernity cannot confidently be linked with palaeoneurological change,[39] it does seem probable that hominid brains evolved through the same selection processes as other body parts.[40] Genes that promoted a capacity for symbolism may have been selected for, suggesting that the foundations for symbolic culture may well be grounded in biology. However, behavior that was mediated by symbolism may have only come later, even though this physical capacity was already in place much earlier. Skoyles and Sagan, for example, argue that human brain expansion by increasing the prefrontal cortex would have created a brain capable of symbolizing its previously non-symbolic cognition, and that this process, slow to begin with, increasingly accelerated during the last 100,000 years.[41] Symbolically mediated behavior may then feed back upon this process by creating a greater ability to manufacture symbolic artifacts and social networks. According to the research team in Jebel Irhoud, the discovery means that Homo sapiens — not members of a rival or ancestor species (Homo heidelbergensis, Homo naledi) — were the ones who left behind Middle Stone Age hand tools that have since been unearthed all over Africa.[42]
Sites[edit]
Excavations at Pinnacle Point, South Africa
Numerous sites in southern Africa reflect the four characteristics of behavioral modernity. Blombos Cave, South Africa contains personal ornaments and what are presumed to be the tools used for the production of artistic imagery, as well as bone tools.[21] Still Bay and Howieson's Poort contain variable tool technologies.[43] These different types of assemblages allow researchers to extrapolate behaviors that would likely be associated with such technologies, such as shifts in foraging behaviors, which are further supported by faunal data at these sites.
Blombos Cave, South Africa
Klasies River Caves, South Africa
Sibudu Cave, South Africa
Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa
Pinnacle Point, South Africa
Mumba Cave, Tanzania
Mumbwa Caves, Zambia
See also[edit]
Out of Africa hypothesis
Symbolic culture
The Human Revolution (human origins)
Later Stone Age
Notes[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m McBrearty, Sally; Brooks, Alison A. (2000). "The revolution that wasn't: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behaviour". Journal of Human Evolution. 39: 453–563. PMID 11102266. doi:10.1006/jhev.2000.0435.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Herries, A.I.R. (2011). "A chronological perspective on the Acheulian and its transition to the Middle Stone Age in southern Africa: the question of the Fauresmith". International Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2011: 1–25. doi:10.4061/2011/961401.
Jump up ^ D'Errico, Francesco; Banks, William E. (2013). "Identifying Mechanisms behind Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age Cultural Trajectories". Current Anthropology. 54 (8): 371–387. doi:10.1086/673388.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Lombard, Marlize (2012). "Thinking through the Middle Stone Age of sub-Saharan Africa". Quaternary International. 270: 140–155. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.02.033.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Marean, Curtis W. and Zelalem Assefa. 2004. "The Middle and Upper Pleistocene African Record for the Biological and Behavioral Origins of Modern Humans" In African Archaeology: A Critical Introduction, edited by Ann B. Stahl, pp.93-129. Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey
^ Jump up to: a b Ambrose, Stanley H (2001). "Paleolithic Technology and Human Evolution". Science. 291: 1748–1753. PMID 11249821. doi:10.1126/science.1059487.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Tryon, Christopher A.; Faith, Tyler (2013). "Variability in the Middle Stone Age of Eastern Africa". Current Anthropology. 54 (8): 234–254. doi:10.1086/673752.
Jump up ^ Brooks, A. S. 2006. "Recent perspectives on the Middle Stone Age of Africa" Paper presented at the African Genesis Symposium on Hominid Evolution in Africa: Johannesburg.
Jump up ^ Barham, Lawrence (2002). "Backed tools in Middle Pleistocene central Africa and their evolutionary significance". Journal of Human Evolution. 43: 585–603. doi:10.1006/jhev.2002.0597.
Jump up ^ Deino, Alan L.; McBrearty, Sally (2002). "40Ar/(39)Ar dating of the Kapthurin Formation, Baringo, Kenya". Journal of Human Evolution. 42 (1–2): 185–210. PMID 11795974. doi:10.1006/jhev.2001.0517.
Jump up ^ Shea, John (2011). "Homo sapiens is as Homo sapiens was". Current Anthropology. 52: 1–35. doi:10.1086/658067.
Jump up ^ Porat, Naomi; Chazan, Michael; Grün, Rainer; Aubert, Maxime; Eisenman, Vera; Kolska Horwitz, Liora (2010). "New radiometric ages for the Fauresmith industry from Kathu Pan, southern Africa: Implications for the Earlier to Middle Stone Age transition". Journal of Archaeological Science. 37: 269–283. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.09.038.
Jump up ^ Rigaud, Jean-Phillipe; Texier, Pierre-Jean; Parkington, John; Poggenpoel, Cedric (2006). "Le mobilier Stillbay et Howiesons Poort de l'abri Diepkloof: La chronologie du Middle Stone Age sud-africain et ses implications". Comptes Rendus Palevol. 5 (6): 839–849. doi:10.1016/j.crpv.2006.02.003.
^ Jump up to: a b Brown, Kyle S.; Marean, Curtis W.; Jacobs, Zenobia; Schoville, Benjamin J.; Oestmo, Simen; Fisher, Erich C.; Bernatchez, Jocelyn; Karkanas, Panagiotis; Matthews, Thalassa (2012). "An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa". Nature. 491: 590–593. PMID 23135405. doi:10.1038/nature11660.
Jump up ^ D'Errico, Francesco; Vanhaeren, Marian; Wadley, Lyn (2008). "Possible shell beads from the Middle Stone Age layers of Sibudu Cave, South Africa". Journal of Archaeological Science. 35 (10): 2675–2685. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.04.023.
^ Jump up to: a b c Backwell, L; d'Errico, F; Wadley, L (2008). "Middle Stone Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa". Journal of Archaeological Science. 35: 1566–1580. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2007.11.006.
^ Jump up to: a b c Wadley, L; Hodgskiss, T; Grant, M (2009). "Implications for complex cognition from the hafting of tools with compound adhesives in the Middle Stone Age, South Africa". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106: 9590–9594. PMC 2700998  . PMID 19433786. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900957106.
Jump up ^ Anton, Susan C.; Potts, Richard; Aeillo, Leslie C. (2014). "Evolution of early Homo: An integrated biological perspective". Science. 345: 45–59. doi:10.1126/science.1236828.
Jump up ^ Mellers, Paul (2006). "A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of modern humans in Eurasia". Nature. 439: 931–935. PMID 16495989. doi:10.1038/nature04521.
^ Jump up to: a b Manica, Andrea; Amos, William; Balloux, Francois; Hanihara, Tsunehiko (2007). "The effect of ancient population bottlenecks on human phenotypic variation". Nature. 448: 346–348. PMC 1978547  . PMID 17637668. doi:10.1038/nature05951.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Henshilwood, Christopher S.; d'Errico, Francesco; Marean, Curtis W.; Milo, Richard G.; Yates, Royden (2001). "An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language.". Journal of Human Evolution. 41: 631–678. PMID 11782112. doi:10.1006/jhev.2001.0515.
Jump up ^ Klein, R. G. (2000). "Archaeology and the evolution of human behavior". Evolutionary Anthropology. 9: 17–36. doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6505(2000)9:1<17::aid-evan3>3.0.co;2-a.
Jump up ^ Hogsberg, Anders; Larsson, Lars (2011). "Lithic technology and behavioural modernity: New results from the Still Bay site, Hollow Rock Shelter, Western Cape Province, South Africa". Journal of Human Evolution. 61: 133–155. PMID 21470660. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.02.006.
Jump up ^ Lombard, Marlize (2012). "Thinking through the Middle Stone Age of sub-Saharan Africa". Quaternary International. 270: 140–155. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.02.033.
Jump up ^ Marean, Curtis W.; Bar-Matthews, Miryam; Bernatchez, Jocelyn; Fisher, Erich; Goldberg, Paul; Herries, Andy I. R.; Jacobs, Zenobia; Jerardino, Antonieta; Karkanas, Panagiotis; Minichillo, Tom; Nilssen, Peter J.; Thompson, Erin; Watts, Ian; Williams, Hope M. (2007). "Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene". Nature. 449: 905–908. PMID 17943129. doi:10.1038/nature06204.
Jump up ^ Milo, R. G. (1998). "Evidence for hominid predation at Klasies River Mouth, South Africa, and its implications for the behavior of early modern humans". Journal of Archaeological Science. 25: 99–133. doi:10.1006/jasc.1997.0233.
Jump up ^ Deacon, H. J. 2001. "Modern human emergence: an African archaeological perspective" In Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millennia: Colloquia in Human Biology and Palaeoanthropology, edited by P. V. Tobias, M. A. Raath, J. Maggi-Cecchi, and G. A. Doyle, pp.217-226. Florence University Press, Florence.
Jump up ^ Wynn, Thomas (2009). "Hafted spears and the archaeology of mind". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (24): 9544–9545. PMC 2701010  . PMID 19506246. doi:10.1073/pnas.0904369106.
Jump up ^ Watts, I (2002). "Ochre in the Middle Stone Age of southern Africa: ritualized display or hide preservative?". South African Archaeological Bulletin. 57: 64–74.
Jump up ^ Barham, L. S. (2002). "Systematic pigment use in the Middle Pleistocene of south central Africa". Current Anthropology. 43 (1): 181–190. doi:10.1086/338292.
^ Jump up to: a b Henshilwood, C. S.; d'Errico, F.; Marean, C.; Milo, R.; Yates, R. (2001). "An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language". Journal of Human Evolution. 41: 631–678. PMID 11782112. doi:10.1006/jhev.2001.0515.
Jump up ^ Yellen, J.E.; Brooks, A.S.; Cornelissen, E.; Mehlman, M.J.; Stewart, K. (1995). "A Middle Stone Age worked bone industry from Katanda, Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire". Science. 268: 553–556. PMID 7725100. doi:10.1126/science.7725100.
Jump up ^ Brooks, A.S.; Helgren, D.M.; Cramer, J.S.; Franklin, A.; Hornyak, W.; Keating, J.M.; Klein, R.G.; Rink, W.J.; Schwarcz, H.; Smith, J.N.L.; Stewart, K.; Todd, N.E.; Verniers, J.; Yellen, J.E. (1995). "Dating and Context of Three Middle Stone Age Sites with Bone Points in the Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire". Science. 268: 548–553. doi:10.1126/science.7725099.
^ Jump up to: a b Marwick, Ben (2003). "Pleistocene Exchange Networks as Evidence for the Evolution of Language". Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 13 (1): 67–81. doi:10.1017/s0959774303000040.
Jump up ^ Barham, Lawrence. 2001. "Central Africa and the emergence of regional identity in the Middle Pleistocene" In Human Roots: Africa and Asia in the Middle Pleistocene, edited by Lawrence Barham and Kate Robson-Brown, pp.65-80. Western Academic and Specialist Press, Bristol.
Jump up ^ Richerson, P. and Boyd, R. 1998. "The Pleistocene and the origins of human culture: built for speed" Paper presented at the 5th Biannual Symposium on the Science of Behaviour: Behaviour, Evolution and Culture. University of Guadalajara, Mexico.
Jump up ^ Rappaport, R. A. 1999. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jump up ^ Bickerton, D. 2003. "Symbol and structure: A comprehensive framework for language evolution" In Language Evolution, edited by M. H. Christiansen and S. Kirby, pp. 77-93. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Jump up ^ Holloway, R.L. 1996. "Evolution of the human brain" In Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution, edited by A. Locke and C. Peters, pp. 74-116. Oxford University Press, New York.
Jump up ^ Gabora, L. 2001. Cognitive mechanisms underlying the origin and evolution of culture Ph.D. dissertation. Center Leo Apostel For interdisciplinary Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Jump up ^ Skoyles JR. Sagan D. 2002. Up from Dragons: The evolution of intelligence McGraw-Hill.
Jump up ^ Moroccan fossil find rearranges Homo sapiens family tree, June 8, 2017
Jump up ^ Henshilwood, Christopher S.; Dubreuil, Benoit (2011). "The Still Bay and Howiesons Poort, 77-59 ka: Symbolic Material Culture and the Evolution of the Mind during the African Middle Stone Age". Current Anthropology. 52: 361–400. doi:10.1086/660022.
[hide]
v
t
e
Prehistoric technology
Prehistory
timeline
outline
Stone Age
subdivisions
New Stone Age
synoptic table
Technology
history
[show]
Tools
Farming
Neolithic Revolution
founder crops
New World crops
Ard / plough
Celt
Digging stick
Domestication
Goad
Irrigation
Secondary products
Sickle
Terracing
Food processing
Fire
Basket
Cooking
Earth oven
Granaries
Grinding slab
Ground stone
Hearth
Aşıklı Höyük
Qesem Cave
Manos
Metate
Mortar and pestle
Pottery
Quern-stone
Storage pit
Hunting
Arrow
Boomerang
throwing stick
Bow and arrow
history
Nets
Spear
Spear-thrower
baton
harpoon
woomera
Schöningen Spears
Projectile points
Arrowhead
Bare Island
Cascade
Clovis
Cresswell
Cumberland
Eden
Folsom
Lamoka
Manis Site
Plano
Transverse arrowhead
Systems
Game drive system
Buffalo jump
Toolmaking
Earliest toolmaking
Oldowan
Acheulean
Mousterian
Clovis culture
Cupstone
Fire hardening
Gravettian culture
Hafting
Hand axe
Grooves
Langdale axe industry
Levallois technique
Lithic core
Lithic reduction
analysis
debitage
flake
Lithic technology
Magdalenian culture
Metallurgy
Microblade technology
Mining
Prepared-core technique
Solutrean industry
Striking platform
Tool stone
Uniface
Yubetsu technique
Other tools
Adze
Awl
bone
Axe
Bannerstone
Blade
prismatic
Bone tool
Bow drill
Burin
Canoe
Oar
Pesse canoe
Chopper
tool
Cleaver
Denticulate tool
Fire plough
Fire-saw
Hammerstone
Knife
Microlith
Quern-stone
Racloir
Rope
Scraper
side
Stone tool
Tally stick
Weapons
Wheel
illustration
[show]
Architecture
Ceremonial
Göbekli Tepe
Kiva
Standing stones
megalith
row
Stonehenge
Pyramid
Dwellings
Neolithic architecture
British megalith architecture
Nordic megalith architecture
Burdei
Cave
Cliff dwelling
Dugout
Hut
Quiggly hole
Jacal
Longhouse
Mud brick
Mehrgarh
Neolithic long house
Pit-house
Pueblitos
Pueblo
Rock shelter
Blombos Cave
Abri de la Madeleine
Sibudu Cave
Stone roof
Roundhouse
Stilt house
Alp pile dwellings
Wattle and daub
Water management
Check dam
Cistern
Flush toilet
Reservoir
Water well
Other architecture
Archaeological features
Broch
Burnt mound
fulacht fiadh
Causewayed enclosure
Tor enclosure
Circular enclosure
Goseck
Cursus
Henge
Thornborough
Oldest buildings
Megalithic architectural elements
Midden
Timber circle
Timber trackway
Sweet Track
[show]
Arts and culture
Material goods
Baskets
Beadwork
Beds
Chalcolithic
Clothing/textiles
timeline
Cosmetics
Glue
Hides
shoes
Ötzi
Jewelry
amber use
Mirrors
Pottery
Cardium
Grooved ware
Linear
Jōmon
Unstan ware
Sewing needle
Weaving
Wine
Winery
wine press
PrehistArt
Art of the Upper Paleolithic
Art of the Middle Paleolithic
Blombos Cave
List of Stone Age art
Bird stone
Bradshaw rock paintings
Cairn
Carved Stone Balls
Cave paintings
painting
pigment
Cup and ring mark
Geoglyph
Golden hats
Guardian stones
Megalithic art
Petroform
Petroglyph
Petrosomatoglyph
Pictogram
Rock art
Stone carving
Sculpture
Statue menhir
Stone circle
list
British Isles and Brittany
Venus figurines
Burial
Burial mounds
Bowl barrow
Round barrow
Mound Builders culture
U.S. sites
Chamber tomb
Severn-Cotswold
Cist
Dartmoor kistvaens
Clava cairn
Court tomb
Cremation
Dolmen
Great dolmen
Funeral pyre
Gallery grave
transepted
wedge-shaped
Grave goods
Jar burial
Long barrow
unchambered
Grønsalen
Megalithic tomb
Mummy
Passage grave
Rectangular dolmen
Ring cairn
Simple dolmen
Stone box grave
Tor cairn
Tumulus
Unchambered long cairn
Other cultural
Astronomy
sites
lunar calendar
Behavioral modernity
Origin of language
Prehistoric medicine
trepanning
Evolutionary musicology
music archaeology
Prehistoric music
Alligator drum
flutes
Divje Babe flute
gudi
Prehistoric numerals
Origin of religion
Paleolithic religion
Prehistoric religion
Spiritual drug use
Prehistoric warfare
Symbols
symbolism
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_Stone_Age&oldid=801083894"
Categories:
Middle Stone Age
Human evolution
Recent African origin of modern humans
Hidden categories:
Good articles
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
العربية
Deutsch
Français
Nederlands
ไทย
Edit links
This page was last edited on 17 September 2017, at 15:26.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: This is a good article. Click here for more information.

attrs: href title

attrs: class id

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: role class

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

attrs: href class title

attrs: class style

value: span

values:
/wiki/Early_Stone_Age
mw-redirect
Early Stone Age

values:
bordered infobox
font-size:90%; width:200px;
5

values:
/wiki/African_prehistory
mw-redirect
African prehistory

values:
/wiki/Middle_Palaeolithic
mw-redirect
Middle Palaeolithic

values:
/wiki/Upper_Palaeolithic
mw-redirect
Upper Palaeolithic

values: Edit section: Hominin evolution and migration

values:
/wiki/Human_Evolution
mw-redirect
Human Evolution

values:
/wiki/Out_of_Africa_hypothesis
mw-redirect
Out of Africa hypothesis

values: Edit section: Evidence for modern human behavior

values:
/wiki/Richard_G._Klein
mw-redirect
Richard G. Klein

values:
/wiki/Modern_human_behavior
mw-redirect
Modern human behavior

values: Edit section: Possible cultural complexes

values:
/wiki/Taforalt_Caves
mw-redirect
Taforalt Caves

values:
/wiki/Modern_behaviour
mw-redirect
Modern behaviour

values:
/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Congo
mw-redirect
Democratic Republic of Congo

values:
/wiki/Howieson%27s_Poort
mw-redirect
Howieson's Poort

values:
/wiki/PubMed_Identifier
mw-redirect
PubMed Identifier

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11102266

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1006%2Fjhev.2000.0435

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.4061%2F2011%2F961401

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F673388

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11249821

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1059487

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F673752

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1006%2Fjhev.2002.0597

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11795974

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1006%2Fjhev.2001.0517

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F658067

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jas.2009.09.038

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.crpv.2006.02.003

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23135405

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature11660

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jas.2008.04.023

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jas.2007.11.006

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19433786

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0900957106

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1236828

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16495989

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature04521

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17637668

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature05951

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11782112

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1006%2Fjhev.2001.0515

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21470660

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943129

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature06204

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1006%2Fjasc.1997.0233

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19506246

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0904369106

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F338292

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7725100

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.7725100

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.7725099

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F660022

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures

values: Use of animals during the Gravettian period

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

values: Prehistoric pile dwellings around the Alps

values: Neolithic circular enclosures in Central Europe

values: Timeline of clothing and textiles technology

values: Stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany

values: List of burial mounds in the United States

values:
/wiki/Megalithic_tomb
mw-redirect
Megalithic tomb

values: List of archaeoastronomical sites by country

values: Entheogenic drugs and the archaeological record

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible expanded navbox-inner

values: Category:Recent African origin of modern humans

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Middle_Stone_Age
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: عصر حجري متوسط في أفريقيا – Arabic

values: ยุคหินกลาง (แอฟริกา) – Thai

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Middle_Stone_Age rootpage-Middle_Stone_Age vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view