Abstract
AbstractResearch into human uniqueness is gaining increasing importance in prehistoric archaeology. The most striking behaviour unique to early and modern humans among other primates is perhaps that they used fire to transform the properties of materials. In Archaeology, these processes are sometimes termed “engineering” or “transformative techniques” because they aim at producing materials with altered properties. Were such transformative techniques cognitively more demanding than other tool making processes? Were they the key factors that separated early humans, such as Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens, from other hominins? Many approaches to investigating these techniques rely on their complexity. The rationale behind this is that some techniques required more steps than others, thus revealing the underlying mechanisms of human uniqueness (e.g., unique human culture). However, it has been argued that the interpretation of process complexity may be prone to arbitrariness (i.e., different researchers have different notions of what is complex). Here I propose an alternative framework for interpreting transformative techniques. Three hypotheses are derived from an analogy with well-understood processes in modern-day cuisine. The hypotheses are about i) the requirement in time and/or raw materials of transformative techniques, ii) the difficulty to succeed in conducting transformative techniques and iii) the necessity to purposefully invent transformative techniques, as opposed to discovering them randomly. All three hypotheses make testable predictions.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Psychology,General Social Sciences,General Arts and Humanities,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference99 articles.
1. Ambrose SH (2001) Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291(5509):1748. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059487
2. Aubry T, Bradley B, Almeida M, Walter B, Joao Neves M, Pelegrin J, Tiffagom ML (2008) Solutrean laurel leaf production at Maîtreaux: an experimental approach guided by techno-economic analysis. World Archaeol 40(1):48–66
3. Bandura A (1997) Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
4. Bar-Yosef O (1998) On the nature of transitions: the middle to upper palaeolithic and the neolithic revolution. Camb Archaeol J 8(2):141–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774300001815
5. Bentley RA, Maschner HDG (2007) Complexity theory. In: Bentley RA, Maschner HDG, Chippendale C (eds) Handbook of archaeological theories. AltaMira Press, Maryland, p 245–270
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献