Artifact and Artifact Categorization: Comparing Humans and Capuchin Monkeys
We aim to show that far-related primates like humans and the capuchin monkeys show interesting correspondences in terms of artifact characterization and categorization. We investigate this issue by using a philosophically-inspired definition of physical artifact which, developed for human artifacts, turns out to be applicable for cross-species comparison. In this approach an artifact is created when an entity is intentionally selected and some capacities attributed to it (often characterizing a purpose). Behavioral studies suggest that this notion of artifact is not specific to the human kind. On the basis of the results of a series of field observations and experiments on wild capuchin monkeys that routinely use stone hammers and anvils, we show that the notions of intentional selection and attributed capacity appear to be at play in capuchins as well. The study also suggests that functional criteria and contextualization play a fundamental role in terms of artifact recognition and categorization in nonhuman primates.
KeywordsPhysical Object Choice Location Stone Tool Capuchin Monkey Technical Artifact
This interdisciplinary work has arisen within the Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies of the Italian CNR, across the Laboratory for Applied Ontology and the Unit of Cognitive Primatology & Primate Center.
Permission to work in Brazil was granted by IBAMA and CNPq to N.S. and E.V. Thanks to the Oliveira family for permission to work at Boa Vista and logistical support. Thanks to Elsa Addessi to have collected the data of the Experiment here reported with E.V. and N.S.
- Borgo, S. and Vieu, L. 2009. Artefacts in formal ontology. In Anthonie Meijers, editor, Handbook of philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, Elsevier, 273–308.Google Scholar
- Borgo, S., Franssen, M., Garbacz, P., Kitamura, Y., Mizoguchi, R. and Vermaas, P. 2011. Technical artifact: An integrated perspective. In Vermaas, P. and Dignum, V. eds, Formal Ontologies Meet Industry - Proceedings of FOMI 2011, IOS Press, 3–15.Google Scholar
- Dipert, R. 1993. Artifacts, art works, and agency. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
- Falótico, T. 2011. Uso de ferramentas por macacos-prego (Sapajus libidinosus) do Parque Nacional Serra da Capivara – PI. Tese de Doutorado em Psicologia Experimental. Instituto de Psicologia. Universidade de São Paulo. São Paulo-SP. 172 p.Google Scholar
- Ferreira, R., L. Jerusalinsky, T. Silva, M. Fialho, A. Fernandes, A. Roque, and M.F. Arruda. 2009. On the occurrence of Cebus flavius (Schreber 1774) in the Caatinga, and the use of semiarid environments by Cebus species in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Norte. Primates 50: 357–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fragaszy, D., E. Visalberghi, and L. Fedigan. 2004. The complete capuchin: The biology of the genus Cebus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hilpinen, R. 2011. Artifact. In Edward N. Zalta (ed), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/artifact/>.
- Houkes, W. and Vermaas, P. 2010. Technical functions. On the use and design of artefacts. Springer.Google Scholar
- Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (eds) 2007. Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N. and Oltramari, A. 2003. Wonderweb deliverable 18. Technical report. CNR, 2003.Google Scholar
- Masolo, C., L. Vieu, E. Bottazzi, C. Catenacci, R. Ferrario, A. Gangemi, and N. Guarino. 2004. Social roles and their descriptions. In Proceedings of the 9th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), ed. D. Dubois and C. Welty, 267–277. Menlo Park: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
- Matsuzawa, T. 2001. Primate foundations of human intelligence: A view of tool use in nonhuman primates and fossil hominids. Tokyo: Springer.Google Scholar
- Oswalt, W.H. 1973. Habitat and technology: The evolution of hunting. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
- Potts, R. 1991. Why the Oldowan? Plio-Pleistocene tool making and the transport of resources. Journal of Anthropological Research 47: 153–176.Google Scholar
- Shumaker, R., K. Walkup, and B. Beck. 2011. Animal tool behavior: The use and manufacture of tools by animals. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Thomasson, A. 2007. Artifacts and human concepts. In Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation, ed. E. Margolis and S. Laurence, 52–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Tomasello, M., and J. Call. 1997. Primate cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Vieu, L., S. Borgo, and C. Masolo. 2008. Artefacts and roles: Modeling strategies in a multiplicative ontology. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2008), ed. C. Eschenbach and M. Gruninger, 121–134. Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
- Visalberghi E., Haslam M., Spagnoletti N., Fragaszy D. (2013) Use of stone hammer tools and anvils by bearded capuchin monkeys over time and space: dynamic construction of an archeological record of tool use. Journal of Archeological Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.03.021.