Cognition and planning in paleolithic technology: Studies in experimental archaeology

In this project, I use experimental archaeology and techniques from cognitive science to identify the cognitive resources involved in stoneknapping and map them onto it. This analysis provides several novel hypotheses to explain the key cognitive transitions from early Oldowan to Acheulean technologies at ~1.8 million years ago.;Planning in lithic technology occurs at three levels: (1) integration into foraging, (2) design recipe, and (3) practical-problem solving. Each involves distinct cognitive resources. The appearance of Acheulean technology implicates changes at all three levels. This project focuses on the practical problem-solving level during stoneknapping.;First, I report on a protocol analysis of stoneknappers replicating Late Acheulean handaxes. Stoneknappers used means-end analysis, a planning heuristic often used by subjects solving cognitive psychology's Tower puzzle. Using this analogy I conclude that inhibition, task-switching, and hierarchical planning are involved in stoneknapping. Second, I shift focus to generative action planning resources that sequence actions during stoneknapping and language production. Using an observed Late Acheulean replication, I derive a formal grammar indicating that the ability to embed actions flexibly within a phrase-like structure is present in Late Acheulean technology. This analysis finds that working memory for action is integral to Late Acheulean technology. Third, I then support these results using an ALE meta-analysis past neuroimaging studies of stoneknapping in comparison with 447 neuroimaging studies. I find that (1) cognitive control is an essential ingredient for Acheulean replication, (2) verbal working memory is essential for both Oldowan and Acheulean replication, (3) generative action planning in stoneknapping and language (syntax) appear to be the analogous processes, and (5) dorsal attention plays a role in mediating the perception-action system. I conclude by focusing on this project's implications. First, it may be the case that Homo specialized in complex tasks and that this drove modern patterns of cerebral asymmetry. Second, the important role of working memory in both stoneknapping and language suggests that working memory of action is the resource shared by both behaviors and is the source of similar structural features in both. Thirds, the many levels of planning in lithic technology interact to structure it hierarchically.