Expert Cognition in the Production Sequence of Acheulian Cleavers at Gesher Benot Ya’Aqov, Israel: a Lithic and Cognitive Analysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RESEARCH ARTICLE Expert cognition in the production sequence of Acheulian cleavers at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel: A lithic and cognitive analysis Gadi Herzlinger1,2*, Thomas Wynn3, Naama Goren-Inbar1 1 Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel, 2 The Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel, 3 Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States of America * [email protected] a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract a1111111111 a1111111111 Stone cleavers are one of the most distinctive components of the Acheulian toolkit. These tools were produced as part of a long and complex reduction sequence and they provide indications for planning and remarkable knapping skill. These aspects hold implications regarding the cognitive complexity and abilities of their makers and users. In this study we OPEN ACCESS have analyzed a cleaver assemblage originating from the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Citation: Herzlinger G, Wynn T, Goren-Inbar N Ya`aqov, Israel, to provide a reconstruction of the chaõÃne opeÂratoire which structured their (2017) Expert cognition in the production sequence production. This reduction sequence was taken as the basis for a cognitive analysis which of Acheulian cleavers at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, allowed us to draw conclusion regarding numerous behavioral and cognitive aspects of the Israel: A lithic and cognitive analysis. PLoS ONE 12 GBY hominins. The results indicate that the cleavers production incorporated a highly spe- (11): e0188337. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0188337 cific sequence of decisions and actions which resulted in three distinct modes of cleavers modification. Furthermore, the decision to produce a cleaver must have been taken very Editor: Michael D. Petraglia, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, GERMANY early in the sequence, thus differentiating its production from that of handaxes. The substan- tial predetermination and the specific reduction sequence provide evidence that the Gesher Received: September 12, 2017 Benot Ya`aqov hominins had a number of cognitive categories such as a general `tool con- Accepted: November 3, 2017 cept' and a more specific `cleaver concept', setting them apart from earlier tool-producing Published: November 16, 2017 hominins and extant tool-using non-human primates. Furthermore, it appears that the Copyright: © 2017 Herzlinger et al. This is an open Gesher Benot Ya`aqov lithic technology was governed by expert cognition, which is the kind access article distributed under the terms of the of thinking typical of modern human experts in their various domains. Thus, the results pro- Creative Commons Attribution License, which vide direct indications that important components of modern cognition have been well estab- permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original lished in the minds of the Gesher Benot Ya`aqov hominins. author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data is provided within the paper and supporting information files. Funding: The study was funded by the Israel Science Foundation grant number 27/12 awarded Introduction to Naama Goren-Inbar Cleavers are a morpho-techno-typological group within the wider family of bifacial tools, and Competing interests: The authors have declared are one of the most distinctive components of the Acheulian Technocomplex. They are that no competing interests exist. defined on the basis of strict morphological and technological criteria of the blank on which it PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188337 November 16, 2017 1 / 14 Expert cognition in Acheulian cleavers production was modified and the morphology and design of the distal end, which is considered to be the working edge. For a tool to be classified as a cleaver it must be made on a flake blank and have a working edge unmodified by retouch [1]. The working edge must be straight or curved in planform view, and have a wedge-like section, forming an acute angle between the dorsal and ventral faces of the tool. The width of the working edge must be at least half of the tool's maxi- mum width. However, it should be noted that while this definition is widely accepted, other definitions for this type do exist (for details see [2]). In light of this strict definition, especially regarding the blank type, cleavers usually appear in assemblages assigned to the large flake Acheulian (LFA) technological tradition. As such, they are found mainly in Acheulian assem- blages from Africa, and although they also appear in other parts of the Old World, they have a somewhat more restricted distribution than other components of the Acheulian bifacial toolkit such as the handaxe. Handaxes have previously received much attention from both amateurs and scholars due to their aesthetic appeal. In recent years handaxes have been a focus of many scholarly attempts to explain their production, use, and their implications for hominin behavior. In contrast, cleavers have received much less attention. In the following paper we provide observations into this tool and analyze them using concepts derived from cognitive neuroscience. This is done to better understand the sophisticated planning behind the production of the cleavers, and the implications this has for the cognitive abilities and behavior of their makers and users. Cognitive background The first step in a cognitive analysis of any prehistoric technology is the identification of attri- butes that carry cognitive implications, and this selection depends to a large degree on the the- oretical grounding of the analysis [3,4]. The current analysis is grounded in the discipline of cognitive neuroscience, which is an interdisciplinary approach that combines the methods and concepts of cognitive psychology with the evidence from neuroscience (neuroimaging and clinical neuropsychology). As this approach has generated an immense literature over the past quarter century, it is necessary to narrow the focus. Here we will rely on two sets of studies: first, neuroimaging research focusing on human and non-human tool use, and second, a cog- nitive model of expert performance. Dietrich Stout and colleagues [5±9], and Guy Orban and colleagues [10,11] have used func- tional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to identify brain activation patterns of humans and macaques using tools. Together these studies have identified a complex pattern of activation that includes the frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes of the brain, and which is centered on the inferior portion of the parietal lobes known as the supra-marginal gyrus. This `anthropoid object manipulation network' (AOMN; Wynn's terminology) includes circuitry governing visually guided reaching, sequential organization of action, and also mirror neurons that fire when action is observed. Stout's research has confirmed that the AOMN is the primary system underpinning stone knapping, and he and his colleagues have begun to identify additional neural resources that came into play with more advanced knapping techniques [7]. Describing the neural substrate of tool use is important but it does not capture the richness and subtlety of tool use in natural settings. Cognitive psychology provides an appropriate and well-researched model known as `expert performance' or expertise. This is the kind of thinking that experts use in their particular domains of performance [12,13]. Expert cognition has sev- eral salient features: rapid problem assessment, virtually error free execution, ability to shift attention and return to task without loss of information, rapid learning of new routines, and flexible responses to problems that arise during performance. Most famously studied in chess masters, this kind of thinking is clearly the basis of expert tool use as well [14±17]. Expertise PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188337 November 16, 2017 2 / 14 Expert cognition in Acheulian cleavers production relies on long-term memory (LTM), especially a huge body of well-learned procedures. As a novice learns procedures he or she consolidates them into coherent `chunks' of information, and attaches a cue to each chunk, such as a word or an image [13±15]. Hearing, seeing, or accessing the cue will give immediate access to the entire chunk of information. The novice accesses a cue in working memory, which is the amount of information one can hold in atten- tion and process in the presence of interference [18±20]. Expertise is thus a cognitive ability that engages both long-term memory and working memory. In sum, tool use, including stone knapping, is an expert cognitive system that relies on well- learned long-term procedural memories, and the ability to access them quickly and deploy them appropriately. Expert cognition has definite advantages over the effortful problem solv- ing performed in the active attention of working memory [18]. Because the procedures are well-learned they can be activated immediately through a simple visual or even tactile cue. It is a flexible kind of thinking, but it is not inherently innovative [15]. On the neural level this cog- nitive system is governed by an object manipulation network that initially evolved with anthropoid primates, but which has been expanded and refined over the course of hominin evolution [8,10]. Here we use the reduction sequence reconstructed for cleavers from the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya`aqov (GBY) to describe the chaîne operatoire used by the knappers. We then use the results of this analysis as the basis for an interpretation of the underlying cognitive strategy. Materials and methods The site of GBY, located in the Northern Jordan Valley, Israel and dated to 780 Ky BP is the only occurrence of in-situ LFA assemblages in the Levant [21, 2]. As such it is the only Levan- tine assemblage that includes cleavers in primary depositional context. We sample here 15 of the archaeological horizons, which together yielded 168 tools (S1 Table).