Sijilmassi et al. make a compelling case for historical myths as core components of people's psychology with a role in promoting cooperation. According to the authors, myths fulfill this role by targeting specific features of our social cognition, particularly, our sensitivity to cues of fitness interdependence within groups. They further claim that their model can account for the design-features of historical myths, as well as their cross-cultural similarities and differences. Surprisingly, in their hypothesis, Sijilmassi et al. seem to have ignored language (the term “language” is not mentioned even once in the text). Language plays a central role in defining, maintaining, and spreading group/ethnic identities, certainly on a par with the sense of a shared a past crystallized in the type of myths considered by these authors. We are referring here to language as a core component of human cognition and behavior, which grants us the ability to project to the past, to share these mental excursions with others, and to promote human cooperation, which are all central aspects of the model posited by Sijilmassi et al.. This commentary is intended to address this crucial omission. Including language in this otherwise interesting model can be expected to improve its explanatory power.
The creation and transmission of historical myths can be viewed as a specific instance of our more general ability for storytelling, which builds on our advanced linguistic abilities and which fulfills important social functions. Anchoring the advent of historical myths to current narratives of language evolution vis-à-vis human social evolution is expected to result in a richer account of the place of myths within human socialization patterns and social cognition, as intended by the authors. In this sense, two of such narratives stand out as particularly promising. One is Dunbar's view (e.g., Reference Dunbar2014), who has claimed that the emergence of storytelling abilities might have favored the creation of larger and more complex human groups, mostly through the role of narratives in reducing social stress. Accordingly, while primates rely on grooming for managing social conflicts, humans have circumvented the limitations of grooming, which is much time-consuming, and use instead language to resolve conflicts and reinforce bonding. Like grooming, storytelling (but also other activities governed by language, such as feasting or religion) triggers the endorphin system and increases bonding (Dunbar, Reference Dunbar2021). In truth, most of the affiliative behaviors supporting coalitions highlighted by Sijilmassi et al. depend on language. One notable example is friendship. Cross-culturally, friendship relies on a small set of dimensions, or cues of community of origin, like a shared place of birth, a similar educational history, or a common worldview (see Dunbar, Reference Dunbar2018 for details). These cues are both language-dependent and relevant for the creation of myths. More generally, there is evidence of a coevolution between the reduction in reactive aggression and the complexification of language (see Progovac & Benítez-Burraco, Reference Progovac and Benítez-Burraco2019 for details). This means that language is both a trigger and an outcome of our trend toward a prosocial behavior (the latter certainly including all forms of coalitional support). Accordingly, as human socialization patterns complexified, modern-like languages seemingly emerged, endowed with extensive vocabularies and layered syntax, and as such, more suitable for transmitting sophisticated knowledges and narratives to others (including historical myths) (see Benítez-Burraco & Progovac, Reference Benítez-Burraco and Progovac2020 for details), this ultimately promoting further cooperation, as hypothesized by Sijilmassi et al..
A second evolutionary narrative of interest is Corballis' view (e.g., Reference Corballis2018, Reference Corballis2019). Myths are certainly complex narratives about a distant (sometimes irreal) past. For creating a mythological account of one's own history, one needs to be able to project oneself to the past and eventually, to make mental wanderings in space and time. As with storytelling more generally, this is only possible because of our advanced abilities for mental time travel (MTT) (Ferretti et al., Reference Ferretti, Adornetti, Chiera, Nicchiarelli, Magni, Valeri and Marini2017). Even more generally, displacement (i.e., the ability to talk about things and events outside from the here and now) is universally acknowledged as one core property of human language (Hockett, Reference Hockett1960). Nonetheless, two opposite views exist of the relationships between displacement and language. One view is that it was the advent of full (i.e., recursive) syntax that enabled humans to produce utterances about situations (spatial or temporal) not encountered before (e.g., Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, Reference Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch2002; Pinker & Bloom, Reference Pinker and Bloom1990, among many others). The other view is that it was the emergence of an enhanced MTT ability, of an unbounded and generative nature, that resulted in a more displaced, thus more sophisticated language (and in more sophisticated narrative abilities). Neurobiologically, this potentiated MTT ability was likely the outcome of the enhancement of our episodic memory, which enables us to visit past events (Tulving, Reference Tulving2001). Thinking about the objectives of the target paper, these cognitive issues are worth considering, since Sijilmassi et al. also aim to provide a cognitive account of the origins and functioning of historical myths. Linking all this to selected changes in our social cognition makes a lot of sense but linking all this to changes in our MTT abilities seems to make sense too.
Interestingly, these two evolutionary narratives might be related. There is evidence that our trend toward a more prosocial phenotype might have favored the neurobiological changes that enhanced our episodic memory, our MTT abilities, and ultimately our language(s). In brief, our episodic memory heavily depends on selected hippocampal functions, but there is also evidence of notable changes in the hippocampus during recent human evolution (reviewed by, e.g., Benítez-Burraco, Reference Benítez-Burraco2021). Since the hippocampus is involved in stress management too (McEwen, Eiland, Hunter, & Miller, Reference McEwen, Eiland, Hunter and Miller2012), our trend toward an increased prosociality (entailing a reduction in reactive aggression) can be hypothesized to have promoted both quantitative and qualitative changes in the hippocampus, and ultimately in our MTT capacities, displacement as found in language(s), and our abilities for storytelling. The resulting richer narratives and more sophisticated cultural practices, which certainly include the creation and transmission of historical myths, can be then expected to have reinforced our prosocial conduct and our affiliative behaviors, as suggested by Sijilmassi et al.
In summary, the take-home message of this commentary is that if one aims to understand the role of historical myths in explaining core aspects of human societies, one should consider them on a par with how language evolved, and particularly, how it co-evolved with our prosocial behavior. A reason is that language is both the cognitive tool for creating and transmitting myths, and a behavioral tool for managing social conflicts and promoting social cooperation, to which myths also certainly contribute to.
You have
Access
Sijilmassi et al. make a compelling case for historical myths as core components of people's psychology with a role in promoting cooperation. According to the authors, myths fulfill this role by targeting specific features of our social cognition, particularly, our sensitivity to cues of fitness interdependence within groups. They further claim that their model can account for the design-features of historical myths, as well as their cross-cultural similarities and differences. Surprisingly, in their hypothesis, Sijilmassi et al. seem to have ignored language (the term “language” is not mentioned even once in the text). Language plays a central role in defining, maintaining, and spreading group/ethnic identities, certainly on a par with the sense of a shared a past crystallized in the type of myths considered by these authors. We are referring here to language as a core component of human cognition and behavior, which grants us the ability to project to the past, to share these mental excursions with others, and to promote human cooperation, which are all central aspects of the model posited by Sijilmassi et al.. This commentary is intended to address this crucial omission. Including language in this otherwise interesting model can be expected to improve its explanatory power.
The creation and transmission of historical myths can be viewed as a specific instance of our more general ability for storytelling, which builds on our advanced linguistic abilities and which fulfills important social functions. Anchoring the advent of historical myths to current narratives of language evolution vis-à-vis human social evolution is expected to result in a richer account of the place of myths within human socialization patterns and social cognition, as intended by the authors. In this sense, two of such narratives stand out as particularly promising. One is Dunbar's view (e.g., Reference Dunbar2014), who has claimed that the emergence of storytelling abilities might have favored the creation of larger and more complex human groups, mostly through the role of narratives in reducing social stress. Accordingly, while primates rely on grooming for managing social conflicts, humans have circumvented the limitations of grooming, which is much time-consuming, and use instead language to resolve conflicts and reinforce bonding. Like grooming, storytelling (but also other activities governed by language, such as feasting or religion) triggers the endorphin system and increases bonding (Dunbar, Reference Dunbar2021). In truth, most of the affiliative behaviors supporting coalitions highlighted by Sijilmassi et al. depend on language. One notable example is friendship. Cross-culturally, friendship relies on a small set of dimensions, or cues of community of origin, like a shared place of birth, a similar educational history, or a common worldview (see Dunbar, Reference Dunbar2018 for details). These cues are both language-dependent and relevant for the creation of myths. More generally, there is evidence of a coevolution between the reduction in reactive aggression and the complexification of language (see Progovac & Benítez-Burraco, Reference Progovac and Benítez-Burraco2019 for details). This means that language is both a trigger and an outcome of our trend toward a prosocial behavior (the latter certainly including all forms of coalitional support). Accordingly, as human socialization patterns complexified, modern-like languages seemingly emerged, endowed with extensive vocabularies and layered syntax, and as such, more suitable for transmitting sophisticated knowledges and narratives to others (including historical myths) (see Benítez-Burraco & Progovac, Reference Benítez-Burraco and Progovac2020 for details), this ultimately promoting further cooperation, as hypothesized by Sijilmassi et al..
A second evolutionary narrative of interest is Corballis' view (e.g., Reference Corballis2018, Reference Corballis2019). Myths are certainly complex narratives about a distant (sometimes irreal) past. For creating a mythological account of one's own history, one needs to be able to project oneself to the past and eventually, to make mental wanderings in space and time. As with storytelling more generally, this is only possible because of our advanced abilities for mental time travel (MTT) (Ferretti et al., Reference Ferretti, Adornetti, Chiera, Nicchiarelli, Magni, Valeri and Marini2017). Even more generally, displacement (i.e., the ability to talk about things and events outside from the here and now) is universally acknowledged as one core property of human language (Hockett, Reference Hockett1960). Nonetheless, two opposite views exist of the relationships between displacement and language. One view is that it was the advent of full (i.e., recursive) syntax that enabled humans to produce utterances about situations (spatial or temporal) not encountered before (e.g., Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, Reference Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch2002; Pinker & Bloom, Reference Pinker and Bloom1990, among many others). The other view is that it was the emergence of an enhanced MTT ability, of an unbounded and generative nature, that resulted in a more displaced, thus more sophisticated language (and in more sophisticated narrative abilities). Neurobiologically, this potentiated MTT ability was likely the outcome of the enhancement of our episodic memory, which enables us to visit past events (Tulving, Reference Tulving2001). Thinking about the objectives of the target paper, these cognitive issues are worth considering, since Sijilmassi et al. also aim to provide a cognitive account of the origins and functioning of historical myths. Linking all this to selected changes in our social cognition makes a lot of sense but linking all this to changes in our MTT abilities seems to make sense too.
Interestingly, these two evolutionary narratives might be related. There is evidence that our trend toward a more prosocial phenotype might have favored the neurobiological changes that enhanced our episodic memory, our MTT abilities, and ultimately our language(s). In brief, our episodic memory heavily depends on selected hippocampal functions, but there is also evidence of notable changes in the hippocampus during recent human evolution (reviewed by, e.g., Benítez-Burraco, Reference Benítez-Burraco2021). Since the hippocampus is involved in stress management too (McEwen, Eiland, Hunter, & Miller, Reference McEwen, Eiland, Hunter and Miller2012), our trend toward an increased prosociality (entailing a reduction in reactive aggression) can be hypothesized to have promoted both quantitative and qualitative changes in the hippocampus, and ultimately in our MTT capacities, displacement as found in language(s), and our abilities for storytelling. The resulting richer narratives and more sophisticated cultural practices, which certainly include the creation and transmission of historical myths, can be then expected to have reinforced our prosocial conduct and our affiliative behaviors, as suggested by Sijilmassi et al.
In summary, the take-home message of this commentary is that if one aims to understand the role of historical myths in explaining core aspects of human societies, one should consider them on a par with how language evolved, and particularly, how it co-evolved with our prosocial behavior. A reason is that language is both the cognitive tool for creating and transmitting myths, and a behavioral tool for managing social conflicts and promoting social cooperation, to which myths also certainly contribute to.
Financial support
This research was supported by grant PID2020-114516GB-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033.
Competing interest
None.