Comment on “Trees and ladders: A critique of the theory of human cognitive and behavioural evolution in palaeolithic archaeology” by Langbroek, M. (Quaternary International 270: 4–14)

Abstract

In his paper “Trees and ladders: A critique of the theory of human cognitive and behavioural evolution in Palaeolithic archaeology”, Marco Langbroek puts forward an important argument against simply using linear methodologies in cognitive archaeology (CA). In this comment I shall argue that the reasons why linear models are problematic are not those proposed by Langbroek but rather lie in weaknesses in the way in which arguments based on models have generally been constructed. Top-down and bottom-up approaches in CA should not be viewed as in opposition, but rather as making complementary contributions within the generation of well-formed families of models. The real problem with linear models arises when flawed theories of behavioral systems are improperly mapped onto mental systems, on the basis of arbitrary rules of connection and unsubstantiated assumptions. Neglecting reference to precise analytic categories is a particularly crucial problem in CA, and this applies also with some aspects of Langbroek's argument. To highlight and overcome these issues with the author's original formulation, I shall suggest the formulation be augmented by implementing some recently introduced epistemic tools for CA.