DOCSLIB.ORG

An Introduction to Cognitive Archaeology Research-Article6570852016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Introduction to Cognitive Archaeology Research-Article6570852016 CDPXXX10.1177/0963721416657085Coolidge, WynnAn Introduction to Cognitive Archaeology 657085research-article2016 Current Directions in Psychological Science An Introduction to Cognitive Archaeology 2016, Vol. 25(6) 386 –392 © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0963721416657085 cdps.sagepub.com Frederick L. Coolidge1 and Thomas Wynn2 1Department of Psychology and 2Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Abstract Cognitive archaeology studies human cognitive evolution by applying cognitive-science theories and concepts to archaeological remains of the prehistoric past. After reviewing the basic epistemological stance of cognitive archaeology, this article illustrates this interdisciplinary endeavor through an examination of two of the most important transitions in hominin cognitive evolution—the appearance of Homo erectus about 2 million years ago, and the recent enhancement of working-memory capacity within the past 200,000 years. Although intentionally created stone tools date to about 3.3 million years ago, Homo erectus produced a bifacial, symmetrical handaxe whose design then persisted for nearly the next 2 million years. An enhancement in working-memory capacity may have been responsible for the relative explosion of culture within the past 50,000 years, which included personal ornamentation, highly ritualized burials, bow-and-arrow technology, depictive cave art, and artistic figurines. Keywords cognitive archaeology, evolutionary cognitive archaeology, executive functions, working memory, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens Cognitive archaeology (aka evolutionary cognitive Archaeologists recover artifacts and patterns of arti- archaeology) is most often defined as an approach to facts (a) and from them reconstruct the activities respon- studying human cognitive evolution that applies theo- sible (b). The key piece of reasoning is the inferential ries and concepts developed in the cognitive sciences to link (b). How is this done? Archaeologists base this infer- archaeological remains of the prehistoric past. It is ence on their knowledge of technical systems in the pres- based on the premise that the material traces of past ent and the past. They often confirm inferences through activities can be used as clues to the minds that orga- experimentation, by duplicating the production and use nized those activities. It is an interdisciplinary endeavor, of the artifact (e.g., Stout, Schick, & Toth, 2009; Wadley, drawing on the data provided by Paleolithic archaeol- 2010). This requires a second inference (d), again based ogy (Paleolithic literally means “old stone age”), from primarily on knowledge of modern technical systems. In the first stone tools about 3.3 million years ago to those this step, ethnographic information about non-modern about 12,000 years ago, and upon interpretive concepts systems is also important and, for very early remains, provided by the cognitive sciences, psychology, and knowledge of non-human primates. A final inference (f) other disciplines. that relies on concepts developed in the cognitive sci- But how can one construct valid arguments about ences is necessary to get from (e) to (g). It requires that cognition in the past? After all, the actors died long ago features of the reconstructed knowledge system be linked and cannot be participants in well-designed experiments. explicitly to elements of an established cognitive model. Instead, cognitive archaeology relies on forms of reason- ing used in the historical sciences, such as geology and Corresponding Authors: paleontology. It is primarily observational, reasoning Frederick L. Coolidge, Department of Psychology, University of about past processes from patterns visible in the present. Colorado, Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, Colorado Experimentation plays a role in testing hypotheses about Springs, CO 80918 E-mail: [email protected] past processes but is not the primary basis of an archaeo- logical argument. An archaeological argument about cog- Thomas Wynn, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, Colorado Springs, nition relies on a series of linked inferences (Botha, 2010; CO 80918 Wynn, 2009; see Fig. 1). E-mail: [email protected] An Introduction to Cognitive Archaeology 387 Artifact or Technical Procedures Cognitive Feature System and Knowledge Prerequisites abcd efg Fig. 1. Botha’s (2010) and Wynn’s (2009) linked series of bridging arguments about cognition in the past. Artifacts (a) are linked to the technologies that produced them (c), those technologies to the concepts and knowledge they derived from (e), and that knowledge to its cognitive prerequisites (g) through a series of inferences (b, d, and f). Herein lies the challenge of cognitive archaeology, for habilis, had a brain size around 650 cc, which was about only with carefully constructed arguments can the assess- 50% greater than that of the australopithecines. However, ment achieve modest levels of reliability. But it is not a the body proportions of the habilines remained similar to fool’s errand; this form of reasoning is the only way that those of the australopithecines, suggesting they probably science can access the minds of prehistoric actors, and still slept in trees. The stone tools of the australopithe- thus, despite the challenge, it is a necessary component cines and habilines were relatively simple: mostly sharp of any attempt to document human cognitive evolution. stone flakes struck from a pebble core (see Fig. 2). How- Given the interdisciplinary nature of cognitive archae- ever, there is nothing known about this earliest technol- ology, it is a challenge for scholars to follow all of the ogy that would have selected for the increase in brain relevant scholarly developments. However, collaboration size. These tools were used to butcher animal carcasses eases this load and also provides more nuanced under- obtained through scavenging, and this access to higher- standings of the peculiarities of the disciplines involved. quality nutrition arguably powered the increase (for We began working together in 2000, Wynn the archae- greater detail on the relationship of meat to the evolution ologist and Coolidge the neuropsychologist, and the fol- of cognition, see DeLouize, Coolidge, & Wynn, 2016). lowing summarizes our thoughts on two of the most The first apparent evolutionary development in cogni- salient transitions in hominin cognitive evolution (hom- tion well beyond the ape range occurred with the advent inin refers to modern and extinct humans and their most of Homo erectus (upright man) about 2 million years ago known or suspected distant ancestors). along with a lithic (stone) technology known as Acheu- lean (see Fig. 3). The First Major Leap in the Evolution The hallmark of this technology is the handaxe, which of Human Cognition: Two Million Homo erectus made by trimming around the margins of a large flake to produce a sinuous cutting edge. In doing so, Years Ago they also imposed a bilateral symmetry on the tool. Its In the second edition of our book, The Rise of Homo manufacture clearly required spatial cognitive abilities sapiens: The Evolution of Modern Thinking (Coolidge & (the active coordination of dorsal and ventral information Wynn, in press), we propose there were at least two from the primary visual cortex) and hierarchical organiza- major leaps in the evolution of cognition in hominins. tion of action that also relied on mechanisms of cognitive The first major cognitive leap was in the evolution of control whose use was not evident in the stone tools of Homo erectus out of an earlier, smaller-brained hominin earlier hominins (Hecht et al., 2014; Wynn, 2002). Homo about 2 million years ago. The earlier australopithecines erectus was not just a variant on the standard ape; it was (comprising many species of bipedal hominins at that something altogether different in its morphology, behav- time) had brain sizes in the range of modern chimpan- ior, and cognition. A number of evolutionary firsts were zees (around 400 cc), but some made and used stone associated with Homo erectus: dispersal out of the tropics tools. Their smallish bodies compared to their longer and into cooler habitats; modern body size and locomo- limbs indicate that they traveled on the ground while tion, including running (Lieberman, Bramble, Rachlen, & foraging but probably slept in nests in trees, like modern Shea, 2009); an increase in female body size and reduced chimps. They had varied diets that probably included sexual dimorphism (i.e., difference in body size between some meat, but they seemed to be very apelike in terms males and females); and an increase in relative brain size of brain size, brain shape, and behaviors. well beyond the ape range, about 950 cc (modern brains = No significant increase in relative brain size occurred 1,350 cc). Antón, Potts, and Aiello (2014) have argued that in any of the various hominin groups until about 2.5 mil- the pivotal feature of Homo erectus’s success was the abil- lion years ago, with the advent of hominins assigned to ity to adjust to dynamically fluctuating environmental the genus Homo; one tool-making hominin, Homo conditions. These authors did not specify their cognitive 388 Coolidge, Wynn Fig. 2. The first known stone tools, a pebble core and sharp flakes, dating to about 3.3 million years ago. These were the first tools that were retained and reused, rather than being discarded
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evolutionary Psychology, Cognitive Archaeology, and Psychological Prehistory Course Description: This Course Is PSY 325, Evoluti
    Evolutionary Psychology, Cognitive Archaeology, and Psychological Prehistory Course Description: This course is PSY 325, Evolutionary Psychology, as offered in the Spring of 2020 Text: Henley, T., Rossano, M., & Kardas, E. (2020). Handbook of Cognitive Archaeology: Psychology in Prehistory. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Note – I know this book is expensive, so there will be a copy placed on reserve in the library that you can use The Basics: Keep in mind that a syllabus sometimes shifts a little as a course unfolds. I say that by way of noting the importance of class attendance, as you will be held responsible for any change in plans announced in class. The other basic admonition every syllabus must include is that cheating (broadly defined) is not allowed. Or, as the university likes me to say: "All students enrolled at the University shall follow the tenets of common decency and acceptable behavior conducive to a positive learning environment (see Student's Guide Handbook, Policies and Procedures, Conduct).” And, note that “Students requesting accommodations for disabilities must go through the Academic Support Committee. For more information, please contact the Director of Disability Resources & Services, Gee Library, Room 132, (903) 886-5835.” Last: Only qualified law enforcement officers or those who are otherwise authorized to carry a concealed handgun in the State of Texas are permitted to do so. Pursuant to Penal Code (PC) 46.035 and A&M-Commerce Rule 34.06.02.R1, even license holders may not carry a concealed handgun in restricted locations. Readings: The readings are listed on the Schedule of Events as follows: key required; required; suggested; and optional.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemological Problems in Cognitive Archaeology: an Anti-Relativistic Proposal Towards Methodological Uniformity
    doi 10.4436/JASS.91003 JASs Invited Reviews e-pub ahead of print Journal of Anthropological Sciences Vol. 92 (2014), pp. 7-41 Epistemological problems in Cognitive Archaeology: an anti-relativistic proposal towards methodological uniformity Duilio Garofoli1 & Miriam Noël Haidle1,2 1) Zentrum für Naturwissenschaftliche Archäologie, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Rümelinstr. 23, 72070 Tübingen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] 2) Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Research Group “The Role of Culture in Early Expansions of Humans,” Research Institute Senckenberg, Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt/ Main, Germany Summary - Cognitive archaeology (CA) has an inherent and major problem. The coupling between extinct minds, brains and behaviors cannot be investigated in a laboratory. Without direct testability, there is a risk that theories in CA will remain merely subjective opinions in which “anything goes”. To counter this risk, opponents of relativism originally argued that CA should adopt a method of validation based on “indirectly” testing inferences from the archaeological record. In this paper, we will offer a two-part analysis. In the first part, we will discuss problems with the original anti-relativistic agenda. While we agree with the necessity of developing a rational methodology for this discipline, in our view previous analyses have significant weak points that need to be strengthened. In particular, we will propose that “indirect testability” should be superseded by a methodology based upon deductive mappings from networks of theories, followed by a plausibility-selection stage. This methodology will be implemented by adopting an extension of Barnard´s (2010b) proposals for mapping hierarchical systems. In the second part, we will compare our methods with those currently adopted in the CA debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Archaeology
    Introduction to Archaeology: Class 16 Cognitive archaeology Copyright Bruce Owen 2009 − Cognitive archaeology : What people thought in the past, when they thought it, how they came to think it, and how that affected other things − Two broad foci: − Origins and development of modern human thinking abilities − When did people start thinking like we do, why, how, etc. − Content and influence of thought, as opposed to environment, economics, etc. − What religious ideas have people had, why, and how did that affect their lives and developments in their societies? − How did people understand and explain their world, both the physical world and the social (economic, political, etc.) world? − that is, what have people's ideologies been? − In part, this is a reaction to the excesses of the New Archaeology and the processual approach, which tended to emphasize − adaptation to the environment − economic or material determinism − a systemic view of society in which subsystems or subgroups acted in certain ways in response to certain conditions − reacting to this solely materialist focus, the cognitive archaeology approach emphasizes individuals and what they think as being of interest and having a causal role − in order to understand what people were doing in the past, cognitive archaeologists say you have to understand what they were thinking − their cognitive abilities (in the case of very early humans who may or may not have been fully modern in their psychology) − their ideology and cosmological framework for the world − which shapes their understanding
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Phenomenological Cognitive Archaeology
    PHILIP TONNER The University of Glasgow [email protected] TOWARD A PHENOMENOLOGICAL COGNITIVE ARCHAEOLOGY abstract Archaeologists, neuroscientists and philosophers all aim to shed light on the holistic and co- constitutive role played by bodies and brains, objects and culture over the course of hominin cognitive evolution. Recent advances in neuroscience and brain imaging have enabled exploration of the foundation for tool using capacity in modern human brains. In tandem with this has been the development of cognitive archaeology, a perspective that seeks to uncover and engage with past ways of thought, as these can be inferred from surviving material remains. What I will suggest in this paper is that the phenomenological perspective can contribute to the methodological drive in cognitive archaeology. Phenomenology provides just the kind of access to consciousness and the mind required for an understanding of “ways of thought and action”, including past ways of thought and action, to emerge. I will argue that pragmatic meaning- bestowing agency is operative throughout the Palaeolithic and I will suggest how empirical evidence can be understood in the terms suggested by phenomenological philosophers. keywords Phenomenology; cognitive; archaeology; tools; manufacture; agency TOWARD A PHENOMENOLOGICAL COGNITIVE ARCHAEOLOGY PHILIP TONNER The University of Glasgow 1. Archaeologists, neuroscientists and philosophers all aim to shed light on the holistic and co-constitutive role played by bodies, brains, objects and worlds throughout hominin cognitive evolution. Hominins include modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) and all of our fossil ancestors: hominins are hominids, as are the great apes (Coward and Gamble 2009, p. 64). Archaeology can, with an increasing precision, tell us where and when modern humans emerged: Africa between 100.000 and 200.000 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology: the Key Concepts Is the Ideal Reference Guide for Students, Teachers and Anyone with an Interest in Archaeology
    ARCHAEOLOGY: THE KEY CONCEPTS This invaluable resource provides an up-to-date and comprehensive survey of key ideas in archaeology and their impact on archaeological thinking and method. Featuring over fifty detailed entries by international experts, the book offers definitions of key terms, explaining their origin and development. Entries also feature guides to further reading and extensive cross-referencing. Subjects covered include: ● Thinking about landscape ● Cultural evolution ● Social archaeology ● Gender archaeology ● Experimental archaeology ● Archaeology of cult and religion ● Concepts of time ● The Antiquity of Man ● Feminist archaeology ● Multiregional evolution Archaeology: The Key Concepts is the ideal reference guide for students, teachers and anyone with an interest in archaeology. Colin Renfrew is Emeritus Disney Professor of Archaeology and Fellow of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Paul Bahn is a freelance writer, translator and broadcaster on archaeology. YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN THE FOLLOWING ROUTLEDGE STUDENT REFERENCE TITLES: Archaeology: The Basics Clive Gamble Ancient History: Key Themes and Approaches Neville Morley Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt Michael Rice Who’s Who in the Ancient Near East Gwendolyn Leick Who’s Who in the Greek World John Hazel Who’s Who in the Roman World John Hazel ARCHAEOLOGY The Key Concepts Edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2005 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX 14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • COGNITIVE ARCHAEOLOGY: in SEARCH of the EARLIEST SYNTACTIC LANGUAGE-USERS in HIMALAYA Maheshwar P
    COGNITIVE ARCHAEOLOGY: IN SEARCH OF THE EARLIEST SYNTACTIC LANGUAGE-USERS IN HIMALAYA Maheshwar P. Joshi Recent scientific studies unfold that neural structures bearing on intonation of speech have a deep evolutionary history traced to mammal-like reptiles called therapsids found in the Triassic period (∼252.17 mya, million years ago). Therefore, these structures were already present in the primates. It goes to the credit of Homo sapiens who developed it to the extent that humans are defined as symbolling animals, for language is the most articulated symbolism. Cognitive archaeology makes it clear that it took hominins millions of years to develop a syntactic language. Stratigraphically controlled and securely established artefact-bearing sites of the Middle Palaeolithic Arjun complex in the Deokhuri Valley, West Nepal, provide firm dates for the presence of the earliest syntactic language speakers in Himalaya from 100 ka to 70 ka (thousand years ago). Keywords: cognitive archaeology, neural structure, syntactic language, verbal communication, Arjun complex 1. Introduction Study of prehistory of language falls in the domain of cognitive archaeology and this discipline ‘is still in early development’ (Renfrew 2008: 67). To the best of my information, no scholar studying South Asian prehistory has addressed this issue despite the fact that South Asia is very rich in material culture vis-à-vis prehistory of language (see for details, Joshi 2014: in press-a; Joshi 2017: in press-b). Since my primary concern in this essay is Himalaya in general and Central Himalaya in particular, I will focus on the earliest syntactic language-users in the context of Central Himalaya.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Archaeology Abstract 1. Introduction
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilSci Archive From Things to Thinking: Cognitive Archaeology Adrian Currie & Anton Killin Penultimate version, forthcoming in Mind & Language Acknowledgements This paper was read by Exeter University’s Culture & Cognition group, who provided invaluable feedback. Alexandra Ion, Kim Sterelny, Sarah Jackson and Greg Currie all provided useful comments on drafts. Adrian’s research was supported by a grant by the World Templeton Charity Foundation. Abstract Cognitive archaeologists infer from material remains to the cognitive features of past societies. We characterize cognitive archaeology in terms of trace-based reasoning, that is, cognitive archaeology involves inferences drawing upon background theory linking objects from the archaeological record to cognitive (including psychological, symbolic, and ideological) features. We analyse such practices, examining work on cognitive evolution, language, and musicality. We argue that the central epistemic challenge for cognitive archaeology is often not a paucity of material remains, but insufficient constraint from cognitive theories. However, we also argue that the success of cognitive archaeology doesn’t necessarily require well-developed cognitive theories: success might instead lead to them. 1. Introduction Human cognition and things are intimately linked: we build tools and manipulate our environment; we innovate, experiment, and probe. Regardless of cognition’s exact nature and its precise relationship with materiality, this suggests that much can be gleaned about mental and 1 cultural lives from material objects. This thought underwrites cognitive archaeology: using the material remains of past cultures as inferential windows to the development of human thought, past inner lives and social practices.
    [Show full text]
  • COGNITIVE ARCHAEOLOGY and HUMAN EVOLUTION This Book Presents New Directions in the Study of Cognitive Archaeology
    COGNITIVE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HUMAN EVOLUTION This book presents new directions in the study of cognitive archaeology. Seeking to understand the conditions that led to the development of a variety of cognitive processes during evolution, it uses evidence from empirical studies and offers theoretical speculations about the evolu- tion of modern thinking as well. The volume draws from the fields of archaeology and neuropsychology, which traditionally have shared little in the way of theories and methods, even though both disciplines provide crucial pieces to the puzzle of the emergence and evolution of human cognition. The twelve essays, written by an international team of scholars, represent an eclectic array of interests, methods, and theories about evolutionary cognitive archaeology. Collectively, they consider whether the processes in the development of human cognition sim- ply made use of anatomical and cerebral structures already in place at the beginning of hominization. They also consider the possibility of an active role of hominoids in their own development and query the impact of hominoid activity in the emergence of new cognitive abilities. Sophie A. de Beaune is Professor of Prehistory at Jean Moulin Univer- sity – Lyon 3 and Deputy Scientific Director at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS). The author of eight books, most recently L’Homme et L’outil: L’invention Technique durant la Prehistoire´ , she is also director of a book series entitled “Le passe´ recom- pose”´ at CNRS Editions. Frederick L. Coolidge is Professor of Psychology at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. He has published extensively in behav- ioral genetics, neuropsychology, psychopathology assessment, and cog- nitive archaeology, with recent articles in Cambridge Archaeological Journal, the Journal of Human Evolution, and Journal of Archaeologi- cal Research, among others.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Center for Cognitive Archaeology ANTH 4515 / 5515: the Archaeology of Numbers
    University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Center for Cognitive Archaeology ANTH 4515 / 5515: The Archaeology of Numbers Professor: Karenleigh A. Overmann, DPhil, Oxon Email: [email protected] Phone: 719-332-7183 Office Hours: Coordinate appointments via email. OVERVIEW Numbers are integral to daily life: We use them while shopping, telling time, placing phone calls, and driving cars. This course will introduce you to the ABCs of numbers—their archaeological, biological, cultural, and linguistic aspects. We will look at how such cultural systems are invented, how and why numbers vary across systems and change with systems over time, how societies use numbers, how having numbers changes societies, and much more. This is not a math course! However, basic arithmetical competency (adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing small numbers) is recommended (and hoped-for). Calculators are permitted and encouraged, though most of you will find them unnecessary for the simple calculations involved in understanding what numbers are and how they vary and change. TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS Week 1 Numbers in a nutshell: What’s a “natural” number? Cardinality (how many of something there are) vs. ordinality (how numbers are ordered). What’s a number: zero and “non-being”; one and “the unity.” How high can you count? “Highest number counted” vs infinity. Highest number counted and numerical elaboration. Numerical change over time and historical cumulatively. An analytical framework for comparing number systems across cultures. • Reading − Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2011). Cultural variation in numeration systems and their mapping onto the mental number line. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(4), 579–597. − Chrisomalis, S.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook of Cognitive Archaeology: Psychology in Prehistory Edited by Tracy B
    Handbook of Cognitive Archaeology: Psychology in Prehistory Edited by Tracy B. Henley, Matt J. Rossano and Edward P. Kardas 2020. New York: Routledge. E-book. 546 pp. 34 B/W illus. ISBN: 978-1-1385-9450-0 reviewed by Carmen Martín-Ramos Institute of Archaeology, University College London and Earth Sciences Department, Natural History Museum, London Handbook of Cognitive Archaeology: Psychology in Prehistory is an ambitious interdisciplinary volume containing 28 chapters organized into four major categories: Developmental (I), Cognitive (II), Social (III) and Clinical (IV) Psychology. In addition, two preceding forewords provide a historical overview to the discipline of Cognitive Archaeology and stress the need for cross-discipli- nary collaboration in order to properly establish cognitive evolutionary theories. Here, I present a summary of the different chapters, followed by a critical review. Chapter one introduces us to the background of Evolutionary Psychology by looking at psychologist Wilhelm Wundt. Editors Kardas and Henley also present their final aim: to produce reliable approaches to the study of Cognitive Archaeology, that, in their own words, “can still be called objective and found acceptable to entire communities of scholars from disparate disciplines” (p. 8). The following chapters (two to four) draw attention to both causes and con- sequences of certain hominin physiological processes and brain development. They explore changes in dietary patterns and social behaviour that could have either influenced or benefitted from brain and cognitive enhancement, espe- cially in relation to hominin life histories and childhood interaction. Daniel L. Krebs (chapter five) and Darcia Narvaez (chapter six) explore the ques- tion of morality.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Archaeology and Human Evolution Sophie A
    Cognitive Archaeology and Human Evolution Sophie A. de Beaune, Frederick L. Coolidge, and Thomas Wynn (eds.) New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 185 pp. (paperback), $30.99. ISBN-13: 9780521746113. Reviewed by KATHLEEN STERLING Department of Anthropology, PO Box 6000, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000, USA; [email protected] ognitive Archaeology and Human Evolution attempts to through the use or critique of the chaîne opératoire approach Cbring together archaeologists and cognitive scientists (Haidle, Maestro and Collina, Pelegrin). in what Sophie A. de Beaune describes as “a quickly grow- Many of the authors identify a behavior or a category ing discipline” (p. 2) that archaeologists have been slow to of material culture they see as key to their conception of embrace. The editors, a French archaeologist, an American human cognition, then seek the earliest instances in the archaeologist, and an American psychologist have assem- archaeological record where that trait may be seen. Stone bled a group of European and American archaeologists, tools are one of the major means of discussing cognition. linguists, psychologists, and physical anthropologists to The Acheulean biface is cited several times—as evidence of address this field, which they call “evolutionary cognitive long-term memory and analogical reasoning (de Beaune); archaeology” or ECA. as requiring a high level of skill that indicates increased This slim volume is largely the product of a 2006 col- “cognitive fluidity,” aesthetic sensibility, and identity (Ros- loquium at the Congress of the International Union for sano, p. 29); as the earliest instance of handedness, which in Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences organized by de turn is indirect evidence of language (Uomini); mental tem- Beaune.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology and Cognitive Evolution
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2002) 25, 389–438 Printed in the United States of America Archaeology and cognitive evolution Thomas Wynn Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150 [email protected] Abstract: Archaeology can provide two bodies of information relevant to the understanding of the evolution of human cognition – the timing of developments, and the evolutionary context of these developments. The challenge is methodological. Archaeology must doc- ument attributes that have direct implications for underlying cognitive mechanisms. One example of such a cognitive archaeology is found in spatial cognition. The archaeological record documents an evolutionary sequence that begins with ape-equivalent spatial abil- ities 2.5 million years ago and ends with the appearance of modern abilities in the still remote past of 400,000 years ago. The timing of these developments reveals two major episodes in the evolution in spatial ability, one, 1.5 million years ago and the other, one million years later. The two episodes of development in spatial cognition had very different evolutionary contexts. The first was associated with the shift to an open country adaptive niche that occurred early in the time range of Homo erectus. The second was associated with no clear adaptive shift, though it does appear to have coincided with the invasion of more hostile environments and the appearance of sys- tematic hunting of large mammals. Neither, however, occurred in a context of modern hunting and gathering. Keywords: Archaeology, evolution, Homo erectus, spatial cognition, symmetry 1. Introduction man,” and the recent discovery of 400,000-year-old spears at Schoeningen (Thieme 1997) are unique and wonderfully This article has two goals.
    [Show full text]