Learning in the Acheulean: Experimental Insights Using Handaxe Form as a ‘Model Organism’

Lycett, Stephen J.; Schillinger, Kerstin; Kempe, Marius; Mesoudi, Alex

doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55363-2_11

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beyond basic tasks such as accessing proper raw material and being accustomed to a range of working tools and positions, the production process builds on entangled sequences of techniques and methods that, in part, repose on knowledge of specific concepts. These concepts cannot be learned by attempts to copy the sequences of techniques and methods used (Mahaney 2014) or solely by individual (trialand-error) learning (Lycett et al 2015).…”

Section: Teaching Late Acheulean Hand-axe Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of theoretical models have been suggested for the cognitive capacities necessary to perform this technology, typically dealing with variation and complexity of techniques and methods involved (Rugg 2011) or with aspects of symmetry and the ability to cognitively visualize and process a three-dimensional image (Lycett et al 2015; also see Hodgson 2015 for a recent review). We recognize the importance of these models and expand on them by focusing on the techniques and methods necessary to perform platform preparation in particularly crucial phases of the production process (for other relevant concepts, see Read and van der Leeuw 2008).…”

Section: Teaching Late Acheulean Hand-axe Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We recognize the importance of these models and expand on them by focusing on the techniques and methods necessary to perform platform preparation in particularly crucial phases of the production process (for other relevant concepts, see Read and van der Leeuw 2008). This means that we go beyond analysis of morphology and symmetry (Cole 2015;Lycett et al 2015) to discuss a specific technological high-level subgoal (see "Communicating Concepts"; fig. 1).…”

Section: Teaching Late Acheulean Hand-axe Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Archaeology of Teaching and the Evolution ofHomo docens

Gärdenfors¹,

Högberg²

2017

Current Anthropology

138

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching is present in all human societies, while within other species it is very limited. Something happened during the evolution of Homo sapiens that also made us Homo docens-the teaching animal. Based on discussions of animal and hominin learning, we analyze the evolution of intentional teaching by a series of levels that require increasing capacities of mind reading and communication on the part of the teacher and the learner. The levels of teaching are (1) intentional evaluative feedback, (2) drawing attention, (3) demonstrating, (4) communicating concepts, and (5) explaining relations between concepts. We suggest that level after level has been added during the evolution of teaching. We demonstrate how different technologies depend on increasing sophistication in the levels of cognition and communication required for teaching them. As regards the archaeological evidence for the different levels, we argue that stable transmission of the Oldowan technology requires at least teaching by demonstration and that learning the late Acheulean hand-axe technology requires at least communicating concepts. We conclude that H. docens preceded H. sapiens.

show abstract

Section: Teaching Late Acheulean Hand-axe Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Teaching Late Acheulean Hand-axe Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Teaching Late Acheulean Hand-axe Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Archaeology of Teaching and the Evolution ofHomo docens

Gärdenfors¹,

Högberg²

2017

Current Anthropology

138

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Process controls have become an important concept in archaeologists' understanding of lithic technological evolution, the learning of how to knap, and the cultural transmission of knapped artifacts (e.g. Lycett, 2011Lycett, , 2013Lycett & Eren, 2019;Lycett, Schillinger, Eren, von Cramon-Taubadel, & Mesoudi, 2016a;Lycett, Schilllinger, Kempe, & Mesoudi, 2015;Lycett & von Cramon-Taubadel, 2015;Lycett, von Cramon-Taubadel, & Eren, 2016b;Schillinger, Mesoudi, & Lycett, 2014).…”

Section: Process Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robert J. Patten (1944–2017): Life, Legacy, and Contributions to Archaeology, Lithic Technology, and Flintknapping

Eren

Patten

2019

Lithic Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most suitable model organisms thus display some of the complexities of the phenomenon of general interest, yet are not so complex that they are unwieldy in experimental settings and thus enable the precise study of discrete factors and processes relevant in the context of wider evolutionary questions. Given that artifacts are the product of cultural evolutionary processes, we have elsewhere argued that simple laboratory experiments that replicate certain aspects of artifactual form (e.g., their size and/or shape) make a particularly useful subject of study for similar reasons (Schillinger et al, 2014a;Lycett et al, 2015). In other words, similarly to the use of such experiments in evolutionary biology, the examination of "model artifacts" in controlled laboratory settings can help shed light on fundamental microevolutionary processes that are directly relevant to issues that must be considered when examining wide-scale and long-term patterns in the archaeological record (Eerkens, 2000;Mesoudi and O'Brien, 2008;Kempe et al, 2012;Schillinger et al, 2014aSchillinger et al, , 2014bSchillinger et al, , 2015Schillinger et al, , 2016Lycett et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Copying error, evolution, and phylogenetic signal in artifactual traditions: An experimental approach using “model artifacts”

Schillinger

Mesoudi

Lycett

2016

Journal of Archaeological Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatio-temporal patterns of artifactual variation are increasingly being studied via the explicit application of cultural evolutionary theory and methods. Such broad-scale (macroevolutionary) patterns are mediated, however, by a series of small-scale (microevolutionary) processes that occur at the level of individual artifacts, and individual artifact users and producers. Within experimental biology, "model organisms" have played a crucial role in understanding the role of fundamental microevolutionary processes, such as mutation and the inheritance of variation, in respect to macroevolutionary patterns. There has, however, been little equivalent laboratory work to better understand how microevolutionary processes influence macroevolutionary patterns in artifacts and their analysis. Here, we adopt a "model artifact" approach to experimentally study the issues of copy error (mutation) and resultant phylogenetic signal in artifact traditions. We used morphometric procedures to examine shape copying error rates in our "model artifacts." We first established experimentally that statistically different rates of copying error (mutation) could be induced when participants used two different types of shaping tool to produce copies of foam "artifacts." Using this as a baseline, we then tested whether these differing mutation rates led to differing phylogenetic signal and accuracy in two separate experimental transmission chains (lineages), involving participants copying the previous participant's artifact. The analysis demonstrated that phylogenetic reconstruction is more accurate in artifactual lineages where copying error is demonstrably lower. Such results demonstrate how fidelity of transmission impacts directly on the evolution of technological traditions and their empirical analysis. In particular, these results highlight that differing contexts of cultural transmission relating to fidelity might lead to differing patterns of resolution within reconstructed evolutionary sequences. Overall, these analyses demonstrate the importance of a "model artifact" approach in discussions of cultural evolution, equivalent in importance to the use of model organisms in evolutionary biology in order to better understand fundamental microevolutionary processes of direct relevance to macroevolutionary archaeological patterns.

show abstract

Learning in the Acheulean: Experimental Insights Using Handaxe Form as a ‘Model Organism’

Cited by 16 publications

References 57 publications

The Archaeology of Teaching and the Evolution ofHomo docens

The Archaeology of Teaching and the Evolution ofHomo docens

Robert J. Patten (1944–2017): Life, Legacy, and Contributions to Archaeology, Lithic Technology, and Flintknapping

Copying error, evolution, and phylogenetic signal in artifactual traditions: An experimental approach using “model artifacts”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About