Ross Pain (University of Bristol, UK): Comparative Cognitive Archaeology

Archaeology has traditionally been an anthropocentric project. However, we now know that populations of West African chimpanzees, bearded capuchins, Burmese long-tailed macaques, and New Caledonian crows leave archaeological signatures. The study of these signatures and their production, a practice that combines ethology and archaeology, is gathering momentum (see Haslam et al., 2009, 2017; Pascual-Garrido et al., 2023 for disciplinary overviews) (see Carvalho et al., 2008; Falo tico et al., 2019; Haslam, Luncz, Pascual-Garrido, et al., 2016; Haslam, Luncz, Staff, et al., 2016; Hunt & Gray, 2003; Luncz et al., 2015; McGrew et al., 2014; Mercader et al., 2002, 2007; Proffitt et al., 2016; Visalberghi et al., 2007, 2009 for examples in practice).  

Evolutionary cognitive archaeology seeks to infer cognitive, cultural and social features of past populations from their archaeological signatures. As with archaeology more broadly, cognitive archaeology has traditionally had an anthropocentric bias, with a particular focus on extinct hominin populations. However, this might now be expanded to comparative cognitive archaeology, bridging the disciplines of cognitive ethology and comparative psychology on one hand, and cognitive archaeology on the other. In this paper, I make some first steps towards sketching what this discipline might look like, outline its promises, and identify some methodological pitfalls.  

Comparative cognitive archaeology can address key questions in cognitive, social, and cultural evolution from an inter-species perspective. Change over time in the archaeological record is a proxy for understanding how cognitive, social, and cultural aspects of a population evolve. In addition, archaeological methods allow us to develop precise chronologies of these changes. This information not only adds to our understanding of the evolution of individual species, but also produces important comparative data. Given cognitive archaeology’s current anthropocentric bias, the discipline does little to inform generalised theories of cognitive, social, and cultural evolution. Moreover, comparative cognitive archaeology has the potential to identify mistaken assumptions produced by the focus on hominin archaeological signatures.    

For example, tool-use in the primate order appears highly convergent. Lithic processing behaviour is found in West African chimpanzees, bearded capuchins and Burmese long-tailed macaques, but not in bonobos or gorillas. Clearly phylogenetic proximity to the hominin lineage does not predict tool-use. So, what does? Applying cognitive archaeology to the records produced by primates gives us resources to address this question.   

Comparative cognitive archaeology has some distinct methodological upshots to evolutionary cognitive archaeology. Principle among these is that we can directly access the species we are studying. For instance, we cannot run experiments on Homo habilis, nor can we directly observe the process of Oldowan site formation. In the case of extant primates, however, we can gather data of this kind. Nonetheless, there are methodological challenges. The interdisciplinary nature of evolutionary cognitive archaeology brings with it the problem of theory integration. Comparative cognitive archaeology adds comparative psychology and ethology to an already long list of disciplines, including archaeology, psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, and evolutionary biology. A key challenge will be synthesising data from these diverse research programs, especially across human/non-human subjects. The upshot is the broader explanatory scope offered by cognitive archaeological models built on a wider set of phylogenetic data.  

Carvalho, S., Cunha, E., Sousa, C., & Matsuzawa, T. (2008). Chaî nes ope ratoires and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking. Journal of Human Evolution, 55(1), 148163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.02.005 

Falo tico, T., Proffitt, T., Ottoni, E. B., Staff, R. A., & Haslam, M. (2019). Three thousand years of wild capuchin stone tool use. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0904-4 

Haslam, M., Hernandez-Aguilar, A., Ling, V., Carvalho, S., de la Torre, I., DeStefano, A., Du, A., Hardy, B., Harris, J., Marchant, L., Matsuzawa, T., McGrew, W., Mercader, J., Mora, R., Petraglia, M., Roche, H., Visalberghi, E., & Warren, R. (2009). Primate archaeology. Nature, 460(7253), Article 7253. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08188 

Haslam, M., Hernandez-Aguilar, R. A., Proffitt, T., Arroyo, A., Falo tico, T., Fragaszy, D., Gumert, M., Harris, J. W. K., Huffman, M. A., Kalan, A. K., Malaivijitnond, S., Matsuzawa, T., McGrew, W., Ottoni, E. B., Pascual-Garrido, A., Piel, A., Pruetz, J., Schuppli, C., Stewart, F., … Luncz, L. V. (2017). Primate archaeology evolves. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(10), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0286-4 

Haslam, M., Luncz, L., Pascual-Garrido, A., Falo tico, T., Malaivijitnond, S., & Gumert, M. (2016). Archaeological excavation of wild macaque stone tools. Journal of Human Evolution, 96, 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.05.002 Haslam, M., Luncz, L. V., Staff, R. A., Bradshaw, F., Ottoni, E. B., & Falo tico, T. (2016). Pre-Columbian monkey tools. Current Biology, 26(13), R521–R522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.046 

Hunt, G. R., & Gray, R. D. (2003). Diversification and cumulative evolution in New Caledonian crow tool manufacture. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270(1517), 867–874. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2302 

Luncz, L. V., Wittig, R. M., & Boesch, C. (2015). Primate archaeology reveals cultural transmission in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1682), 20140348. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0348 

McGrew, W. C., Matsumoto, T., Nakamura, M., Phillips, C. A., & Stewart, F. A. (2014). Experimental Primate Archaeology: Detecting Stone Handling by Japanese Macaques (macaca Fuscata). Lithic Technology, 39(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1179/0197726114Z.00000000037 

Mercader, J., Barton, H., Gillespie, J., Harris, J., Kuhn, S., Tyler, R., & Boesch, C. (2007). 4,300-Year-old chimpanzee sites and the origins of percussive stone technology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(9), 3043–3048. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607909104 

Mercader, J., Panger, M., & Boesch, C. (2002). Excavation of a Chimpanzee Stone Tool Site in the African Rainforest. Science, 296(5572), 1452–1455. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1070268 

Pascual-Garrido, A., Carvalho, S., & Almeida-Warren, K. (2023). Primate archaeology 3.0. American Journal of Biological Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24835 

Proffitt, T., Luncz, L. V., Falo tico, T., Ottoni, E. B., de la Torre, I., & Haslam, M. (2016). Wild monkeys flake stone tools. Nature, 539(7627), Article 7627. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20112 

Visalberghi, E., Fragaszy, D., Ottoni, E., Izar, P., de Oliveira, M. g., & Andrade, F. r. d. (2007). Characteristics of hammer stones and anvils used by wild bearded capuchin monkeys (Cebus libidinosus) to crack open palm nuts. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 132(3), 426–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20546 

Visalberghi, E., Spagnoletti, N., Ramos da Silva, E. D., Andrade, F. R. D., Ottoni, E., Izar, P., & Fragaszy, D. (2009). Distribution of potential suitable hammers and transport of hammer tools and nuts by wild capuchin monkeys. Primates, 50(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-008-0127-9