Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 28
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Bradtmöller, Marcel Sarmiento, Alfredo Perales, Unai and Zuluaga, María Cruz 2016. Investigation of Upper Palaeolithic adhesive residues from Cueva Morín, Northern Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Vol. 7, p. 1.


    Garofoli, Duilio 2016. Cognitive archaeology without behavioral modernity: An eliminativist attempt. Quaternary International, Vol. 405, p. 125.


    Iovita, Radu Schönekeß, Holger Gaudzinski-Windheuser, Sabine and Jäger, Frank 2016. Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry.


    Kandel, Andrew W. Bolus, Michael Bretzke, Knut Bruch, Angela A. Haidle, Miriam N. Hertler, Christine and Märker, Michael 2016. Increasing Behavioral Flexibility? An Integrative Macro-Scale Approach to Understanding the Middle Stone Age of Southern Africa. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 23, Issue. 2, p. 623.


    Lombard, Marlize and Wadley, Lyn 2016. Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry.


    Reynard, Jerome P. Discamps, Emmanuel Badenhorst, Shaw van Niekerk, Karen and Henshilwood, Christopher S. 2016. Subsistence strategies in the southern Cape during the Howiesons Poort: Taphonomic and zooarchaeological analyses of Klipdrift Shelter, South Africa. Quaternary International, Vol. 404, p. 2.


    Reynard, Jerome P. Discamps, Emmanuel Wurz, Sarah van Niekerk, Karen L. Badenhorst, Shaw and Henshilwood, Christopher S. 2016. Occupational intensity and environmental changes during the Howiesons Poort at Klipdrift Shelter, southern Cape, South Africa. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Vol. 449, p. 349.


    Rogers, Natalie Killcross, Simon and Curnoe, Darren 2016. Hunting for evidence of cognitive planning: Archaeological signatures versus psychological realities. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Vol. 5, p. 225.


    Sterelny, Kim 2016. Cooperation, Culture, and Conflict. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 67, Issue. 1, p. 31.


    Bradfield, Justin and Brand, Tyrone 2015. Results of utilitarian and accidental breakage experiments on bone points. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, Vol. 7, Issue. 1, p. 27.


    Charbonneau, Mathieu 2015. All Innovations are Equal, but Some More than Others: (Re)integrating Modification Processes to the Origins of Cumulative Culture. Biological Theory, Vol. 10, Issue. 4, p. 322.


    Marean, Curtis W. 2015. An Evolutionary Anthropological Perspective on Modern Human Origins. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 44, Issue. 1, p. 533.


    Sano, Katsuhiro and Oba, Masayoshi 2015. Backed point experiments for identifying mechanically-delivered armatures. Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol. 63, p. 13.


    Shennan, Stephen 2015. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.


    Shennan, Stephen 2015. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.


    Haidle, Miriam N. 2014. Building a bridge—an archeologist's perspective on the evolution of causal cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 5,


    Iovita, Radu Schönekeß, Holger Gaudzinski-Windheuser, Sabine and Jäger, Frank 2014. Projectile impact fractures and launching mechanisms: results of a controlled ballistic experiment using replica Levallois points. Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol. 48, p. 73.


    Lewis, Laura Perera, Nimal and Petraglia, Michael 2014. First technological comparison of Southern African Howiesons Poort and South Asian Microlithic industries: An exploration of inter-regional variability in microlithic assemblages. Quaternary International, Vol. 350, p. 7.


    Mahaney, Robert Allen 2014. LITHIC ANALYSIS AS A COGNITIVE SCIENCE: A FRAMEWORK. Lithic Technology, Vol. 39, Issue. 3, p. 173.


    O'Driscoll, Corey A. and Thompson, Jessica C. 2014. Experimental projectile impact marks on bone: implications for identifying the origins of projectile technology. Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol. 49, p. 398.


    ×

Thinking a Bow-and-arrow Set: Cognitive Implications of Middle Stone Age Bow and Stone-tipped Arrow Technology

  • Marlize Lombard (a1) and Miriam Noël Haidle (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095977431200025X
  • Published online: 23 May 2012
Abstract

For various reasons increased effort has recently been made to detect the early use of mechanically-projected weaponry in the archaeological record, but little effort has yet been made to investigate explicitly what these tool sets could indicate about human cognitive evolution. Based on recent evidence for the use of bow-and-arrow technology during the Middle Stone Age in southern Africa by 64 kya, we use the method of generating and analysing cognigrams and effective chains to explore thought-and-action sequences associated with this technology. We show that, when isolated, neither the production of a simple bow, nor that of a stone-tipped arrow, can be reasonably interpreted to indicate tool behaviour that is cognitively more complex than the composite artefacts produced by Neanderthals or archaic modern Homo. On the other hand, as soon as a bow-and-arrow set is used as an effective group of tools, a novel cognitive development is expressed in technological symbiosis, i.e. the ability to conceptualize a set of separate, yet inter-dependent tools. Such complementary tool sets are able to unleash new properties of a tool, inconceivable without the active, simultaneous manipulation of another tool. Consequently, flexibility regarding decision-making and taking action is amplified. The archaeological evidence for such amplified conceptual and technological modularization implies a range of cognitive and behavioural complexity and flexibility that is basic to human behaviour today.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Cambridge Archaeological Journal
  • ISSN: 0959-7743
  • EISSN: 1474-0540
  • URL: /core/journals/cambridge-archaeological-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×