Jump to content

Cognitive archaeology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Cognitive archeology)

Cognitive archaeology is a theoretical perspective in archaeology that focuses on the ancient mind. It is divided into two main groups: evolutionary cognitive archaeology (ECA), which seeks to understand human cognitive evolution from the material record, and ideational cognitive archaeology (ICA), which focuses on the symbolic structures discernable in or inferable from past material culture.

Evolutionary cognitive archaeology

[edit]

ECA infers change in ancestral human cognition from the archaeological record, often drawing on the theories, methods, and data of other disciplines: cognitive science, comparative cognition, paleoneurology, experimental replication, and hands-on participation in the manufacture and use of traditional technologies.[1] For example, the 3.3-million-year history[2] of stone tool use is broadly informative of change in cognitive capacities like intelligence, spatial reasoning,[3][4] working memory, and executive functioning,[5][6] as defined by and understood through cognitive psychology and as operationalized to permit their detection in the archaeological record.[1] Other ECA investigations have focused on the development of domain-specific abilities, including theory of mind,[7] visual perception and visuospatial abilities,[8][9] technological reasoning,[10][11] language,[12] numeracy,[13][14] and literacy.[15][16][17] ECA is broadly analogous to Steven Mithen's categories of cognitive-processual and evolutionary-cognitive archaeology.[18]

Within ECA, there are two main schools of thought. The North American ECA school began in the mid-1970s with the pioneering work of archaeologist Thomas G. Wynn[3][4] and biological anthropologist Sue Taylor Parker working with evolutionary neurobiologist Kathleen Gibson.[19] It focuses on understanding human cognitive evolution, either from the artifactual record of forms like stone tools, comparisons of ancestral tool use with that of contemporary species (typically but not exclusively, non-human primates), or both. It often involves descriptive pattern analysis: analyzing change in a form like stone tools over millions of years and interpreting that change in terms of its cognitive significance using theories, constructs, and paradigms from cognitive psychology and neuroscience.[1]

East of the Atlantic, the British ECA school also began in the mid-1970s with the work of archaeologists Colin Renfrew[20][21] and John Gowlett[22][23] and evolutionary primatologist William McGrew.[24][25] Renfrew's work in particular, as well as that of his student, Lambros Malafouris, has taken a philosophical approach to the study of the ancient mind, drawing on concepts from the philosophy of mind and ecological psychology to examine the role of material structures in human cognition more fundamentally.[26][27] Renfrew and Malafouris coined the term neuroarchaeology to describe their approach.[28][29] ECA is concerned with how humans think through material structures, with the ability to leverage and exploit material structures for cognitive purposes perhaps being what truly sets human cognition apart from that of all other species.[30] Pottery making is a typical example of this approach. Malafouris does not see the vase as a form created by the potter imposing an internal mental concept on external clay. Instead, the potter’s brain and body interact with his materials, the clay and the wheel; the form assumed by the clay is ultimately produced by the complex interaction between the potter’s perception of the feel of the clay, the pressure of his fingers on it, and its reactions of texture, moisture content, color, balance, and form.[31]

Other early ECA pioneers include Glynn Isaac,[32][33] archaeologist Iain Davidson, and psychologist William Noble.[34][35] Today, ECA integrates interdisciplinary data from human psychology and neurophysiology, social anthropology, physical anthropology, comparative cognition, and artificial intelligence. As a vibrant and expanding field of inquiry,

"[ECA continues to] develop many of the same themes raised in the formative decade of cognitive archaeology: the validity and use of ethnoarchaeological and experimental methods; the question of continuities and discontinuities between humans and non-human species; the selection and application of theoretical frameworks, including the displacement of Piagetian theory by contemporary psychological and neuroscientific approaches to brain function and form; the incorporation of interdisciplinary data; the origin of language; the ability of construing intentionality from artifactual form; the philosophical turn in cognitive archaeology; and the riddle of intergenerational accumulation and transmission."[1]: 6 

Between 2018 and 2020, cognitive archaeologists Thomas Wynn and Lambros Malafouris headed a collaboration between the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs and the University of Oxford to examine the archaeology of the Lower Paleolithic through the lens of the extended mind; the results were published in the journal Adaptive Behavior in 2021.[36]

Ideational cognitive archaeology

[edit]

Archaeologist Thomas Huffman defined ideational cognitive archaeology as the study of prehistoric ideology: the ideals, values, and beliefs that constitute a society's worldview.[37] It is analogous to the category Mithen called postprocessual cognitive archaeology.[18]

"Archaeologists can tell from which mountain source a stone axe came, what minerals there are in a bronze bracelet, how old a dug-out canoe is. They can work out the probable cereal-yield from the fields of a Late Bronze Age farm. These are objective matters. But the language, laws, morals, religion of dead societies are different. They belong to the minds of man. Unless they were written down, and even then only if they were recorded accurately, we shall find it hard to recapture them."

Aubrey Burl, Rites of the Gods (1981, p. 15).[38]

ICA scholars often study the role that ideology and differing organizational approaches would have had on ancient peoples. The way that these abstract ideas are manifested through the remains these peoples have left can be investigated and debated often by drawing inferences and using approaches developed in fields such as semiotics, psychology and the wider sciences.

ICA uses the principles of sociocultural anthropology to investigate such diverse things as material symbols, the use of space, political power, and religion. For example, Huffman uses oral history sources from Zimbabwe and Portuguese documents to attempt to explain symbols discovered in the ruins of Great Zimbabwe, specifically connecting the Shona people's historical association of the right with men and the left with women to the placement of entrances to stone structures. Historian David Beach has pointed out that this ICA may be problematic in its logical leaps and incomplete use of archaeological sources, demonstrating the care that must be used when attempting to explain deep-time intentionality using archaeological evidence.[39]

ICA also works with constructs such as the cognitive map. Humans do not behave under the influence of their senses alone but also through their past experiences such as their upbringing. These experiences contribute to each individual's unique view of the world, a kind of cognitive map that guides them. Groups of people living together tend to develop a shared view of the world and similar cognitive maps, which in turn influence their group material culture.

The multiple interpretations of an artifact, archaeological site or symbol are affected by the archaeologist's own experiences and ideas as well as those of the distant cultural tradition that created it. Cave art, for example, may not have been art in the modern sense at all, but was perhaps the product of ritual. Similarly, it would likely have described activities that were perfectly obvious to the people who created it, but the symbology employed will be different from that used today or at any other time.

Archaeologists have always tried to imagine what motivated people, but early efforts to understand how they thought were unstructured and speculative. Since the rise of processualism, these approaches have become more scientific, paying close attention to the archaeological context of finds and all possible interpretations. For example, a prehistoric bâton de commandement served an unknown purpose, but using ICA to interpret it would involve evaluating all its possible functions using clearly defined procedures and comparisons. By applying logic and experimental evidence, the most likely functions can be isolated.

It can also be argued that the material record shows behavioral traces that are the product of human thought, and thus would have been governed by a multitude of experiences and perspectives with the potential to influence behavior. The combination of material culture and actions can be further developed into a study of the ideas that drove action and used objects. This method attempts to avoid the pitfalls of post-processual archaeology by retaining the 'scientific' aspects of processual archaeology, while reaching for the higher social levels of ideas.

History of cognitive archaeology

[edit]

Cognitive archaeology began in the 1970s as a reaction to the insistence of processual archaeology that the past be interpreted strictly according to the material evidence.[1] This rigid materialism tended to limit archaeology to finding and describing artifacts, excluding broader interpretations of their possible cognitive and cultural significance as something beyond the reach of inferential reasoning.[40] As social anthropologist Edmund Leach once put it, "all the ingenuity in the world will not replace the evidence that is lost and gone for ever," and "you should recognize your guesses for what they are."[41]: 768 

However, processual archaeology also opened up the possibility of investigating the lifestyle of those who made and used material culture. An initial approach was proposed by Lewis Binford, who suggested that ancient lifestyles could be understood by studying the traditional lifestyles of contemporary peoples.[42][43] While this approach was subject to legitimate criticism, Binford's efforts nonetheless inspired further development of the idea that material forms could be informative about lifestyle, and as the product of intelligent behavior, might provide insight into how and perhaps even what their makers had thought.[1] Archaeologists like Binford have also critiqued cognitive archaeology, stating it is only people's actions rather than their thoughts that are preserved in the archaeological record. ECA has responded to this criticism by stressing that it seeks to understand "how" ancient peoples thought using material structures, not "what" they thought.[27]

Several early books helped popularize the idea that the ancient mind could be investigated and characterized, including Merlin Donald's Origins of the Modern Mind (1991),[44] Steven Mithen's The Prehistory of Mind (1996),[45] and David Lewis-Williams's The Mind in the Cave (2002).[46]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e f Overmann, Karenleigh A; Coolidge, Frederick L (2019). "Cognitive Archaeology at the Crossroads". In Overmann, Karenleigh A; Coolidge, Frederick L (eds.). Squeezing Minds from Stones: Cognitive Archaeology and the Evolution of the Human Mind. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–12. ISBN 9780190854614.
  2. ^ Harmand, Sonia; Lewis, Jason E; Feibel, Craig S; Lepre, Christopher J; Prat, Sandrine; Lenoble, Arnaud; Boës, Xavier; Quinn, Rhonda L; Brenet, Michel; Arroyo, Adrian; Taylor, Nicholas; Clément, Sophie; Guillaume, Daver; Brugal, Jean-Philippe; Leakey, Louise; Mortlock, Richard A; Wright, James D; Lokorodi, Sammy; Kirwa, Christopher; Kent, Dennis V; Roche, Hélène (2015). "3.3-Million-Year-Old Stone Tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya". Nature. 521 (7552): 310–315. Bibcode:2015Natur.521..310H. doi:10.1038/nature14464. PMID 25993961. S2CID 1207285.
  3. ^ a b Wynn, Thomas (1979). "The Intelligence of Later Acheulean Hominids". Man. 14 (3): 371–391. doi:10.2307/2801865. JSTOR 2801865.
  4. ^ a b Wynn, Thomas (1989). The Evolution of Spatial Competence. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 9780252060304.
  5. ^ Coolidge, Frederick L; Wynn, Thomas (2001). "Executive Functions of the Frontal Lobes and the Evolutionary Ascendancy of Homo sapiens". Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 11 (3): 255–260. doi:10.1017/S0959774301000142.
  6. ^ Coolidge, Frederick L; Wynn, Thomas (2005). "Working Memory, Its Executive Functions, and the Emergence of Modern Thinking". Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 15 (1): 5–26. doi:10.1017/S0959774305000016.
  7. ^ Cole, James (2019). "Knapping in the Dark: Stone Tools and a Theory of Mind". In Overmann, Karenleigh A; Coolidge, Frederick L (eds.). Squeezing Minds from Stones: Cognitive Archaeology and the Evolution of the Human Mind. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 355–375. ISBN 9780190854614.
  8. ^ Hodgson, Derek (2000). "Art, Perception and Information Processing: An Evolutionary Perspective". Rock Art Research. 17 (1): 3–34.
  9. ^ Hodgson, Derek; Helvenston, Patricia A (2006). "The Emergence of the Representation of Animals in Palaeoart: Insights from Evolution and the Cognitive, Limbic and Visual Systems of the Human Brain". Rock Art Research. 23 (1): 3–40.
  10. ^ Moore, Mark W (2011). "The Design Space of Stone Flaking: Implications for Cognitive Evolution". World Archaeology. 43 (4): 702–715. doi:10.1080/00438243.2011.624778. S2CID 161677366.
  11. ^ Moore, Mark W; Perston, Yinika (2016). "Experimental Insights into the Cognitive Significance of Early Stone Tools". PLOS ONE. 11 (7): e0158803. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1158803M. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158803. PMC 4938430. PMID 27392022.
  12. ^ Putt, Shelby Stackhouse; Wijeakumar, Sobanawartiny; Franciscus, Robert G; Spencer, John P (2017). "The Functional Brain Networks That Underlie Early Stone Age Tool Manufacture". Nature Human Behaviour. 1 (6): 1–8. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0102. S2CID 19830296.
  13. ^ Overmann, Karenleigh A (2018). "Constructing a concept of number". Journal of Numerical Cognition. 4 (2): 464–493. doi:10.5964/jnc.v4i2.161. S2CID 52197209. Retrieved 10 July 2022.[permanent dead link‍]
  14. ^ Overmann, Karenleigh A. (2023). The Materiality of Numbers: Emergence and Elaboration from Prehistory to Present. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781009361248.
  15. ^ Overmann, Karenleigh A (2016). "Beyond writing: The development of literacy in the ancient Near East". Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 26 (2): 285–303. doi:10.1017/S0959774316000019. S2CID 163840618.
  16. ^ Overmann, Karenleigh A (2022). "Early writing: A cognitive archaeological perspective on literacy and numeracy". Visible Language. 56 (1): 8–44. doi:10.34314/vl.v56i1.4934. Retrieved 10 July 2022.
  17. ^ Overmann, Karenleigh A; Wynn, Thomas (2019). "Materiality and human cognition". Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 26 (2): 457–478. doi:10.1007/s10816-018-9378-y. S2CID 149605602.
  18. ^ a b Mithen, Stephen J. (1999). "Cognitive archaeology". In Wilson, Robert A.; Keil, Frank C. (eds.). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. MIT Press. pp. 122–124. ISBN 9780262232005.
  19. ^ Parker, Sue Taylor; Gibson, Kathleen R (1979). "A Developmental Model for the Evolution of Language and Intelligence in Early Hominids". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2 (3): 367–408. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0006307X.
  20. ^ Renfrew, Colin (1982). Towards an Archaeology of Mind: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered before the University of Cambridge on 30th November 1982. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1080/00665983.1984.11077826.
  21. ^ Renfrew, Colin (1994). "Towards a Cognitive Archaeology". In Renfrew, Colin; Zubrow, Ezra B W (eds.). In The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–12. ISBN 9780521456203.
  22. ^ Gowlett, John A J (1979). "Complexities of Cultural Evidence in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene" (PDF). Nature. 278 (5699): 14–17. Bibcode:1979Natur.278...14G. doi:10.1038/278014b0. S2CID 4245666.
  23. ^ Gowlett, John A J (1984). "Mental Abilities of Early Man: A Look at Some Hard Evidence". In Foley, Robert (ed.). Hominid Evolution and Community Ecology: Prehistoric Human Adaptation in Biological Perspective. London: Academic Press. pp. 167–192. OCLC 1014620102.
  24. ^ McGrew, William Clement; Tutin, Caroline E G (1978). "Evidence for a Social Custom in Wild Chimpanzees?". Man. 13 (2): 234–251. doi:10.2307/2800247. JSTOR 2800247.
  25. ^ McGrew, William Clement; Tutin, Caroline E G; Baldwin, Pamela J (1979). "Chimpanzees, Tools, and Termites: Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Senegal, Tanzania, and Rio Muni". Man. 14 (2): 185–215. doi:10.2307/2801563. JSTOR 2801563.
  26. ^ Malafouris, Lambros; Renfrew, Colin, eds. (2010). The Cognitive Life of Things: Recasting the Boundaries of the Mind. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. ISBN 9781902937519.
  27. ^ a b Malafouris, Lambros (2013). How Things Shape the Mind: A Theory of Material Engagement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262528924.
  28. ^ Renfrew, Colin; Malafouris, Lambros (2008). "Steps to a 'Neuroarchaeology' of Mind". Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 18 (3): 381–385. doi:10.1017/S0959774308000425. S2CID 231810895.
  29. ^ Malafouris, Lambros (2010). "Metaplasticity and the Human Becoming: Principles of Neuroarchaeology" (PDF). Journal of Anthropological Sciences. 88: 49–72. PMID 20834050.
  30. ^ Overmann, Karenleigh A (2021). "The Material Difference in Human Cognition". Adaptive Behavior. 29 (2): 123–136. doi:10.1177/1059712320930738. hdl:11250/2766177.
  31. ^ Malafouris, Lambros (2008). "At the potter's wheel: An argument for material agency". In Malafouris, Lambros; Knappett, Carl (eds.). Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 19–36. OCLC 859423170.
  32. ^ Isaac, Glynn Llywelyn (1976). "Stages of Cultural Elaboration in the Pleistocene: Possible Archaeological Indicators of the Development of Language Capabilities". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 280 (1): 275–288. Bibcode:1976NYASA.280..275I. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25494.x. S2CID 84642536.
  33. ^ Isaac, Glynn Llywelyn (1984). "The Archaeology of Human Origins: Studies of the Lower Pleistocene in East Africa 1971–1981". In Wendorf, Fred; Close, Angela E (eds.). Advances in World Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. pp. 1–87. ISBN 9780120399017.
  34. ^ Davidson, Iain; Noble, William (1989). "The Archaeology of Perception: Traces of Depiction and Language". Current Anthropology. 30 (2): 125–155. doi:10.1086/203723. JSTOR 2743542. S2CID 144094302.
  35. ^ Noble, William; Davidson, Iain (1996). Human Evolution, Language, and Mind: A Psychological and Archaeological Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521445023.
  36. ^ Wynn, Thomas; Overmann, Karenleigh A; Malafouris, Lambros (2021). "4E cognition in the Lower Paleolithic: An introduction". Adaptive Behavior. 29 (2): 99–106. doi:10.1177/1059712320967184.
  37. ^ Huffman, Thomas (1986). "Cognitive studies of the iron age in Southern Africa". World Archaeology. 18: 84–95. doi:10.1080/00438243.1986.9979990.
  38. ^ Burl, Aubrey (1981). Rites of the Gods. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0460043137.
  39. ^ Beach, David (1998). "Cognitive Archaeology and Imaginary History at Great Zimbabwe". Current Anthropology. 39: 47–72. doi:10.1086/204698. S2CID 143970768.
  40. ^ Hawkes, Christopher (1954). "Archeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions from the Old World". American Anthropologist. 56 (2): 155–168. doi:10.1525/aa.1954.56.2.02a00020. JSTOR 664357.
  41. ^ Leach, Edmund R (1973). "Concluding Address". In Renfrew, Colin (ed.). The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. Proceedings of a Meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects Held at the University of Sheffield, December 14–16, 1971. London: Gerald Duckworth. pp. 761–771. OCLC 476129218.
  42. ^ Binford, Lewis R (1962). "Archaeology as Anthropology". American Antiquity. 28 (2): 217–225. doi:10.2307/278380. JSTOR 278380. S2CID 162242910.
  43. ^ Binford, Lewis R (1972). An Archaeological Perspective. New York: Seminar Press. ISBN 9780127850535.
  44. ^ Donald, Merlin (1991). Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674644847.
  45. ^ Mithen, Steven J (1996). The Prehistory of Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. London: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 9780500281000.
  46. ^ Lewis-Williams, David (2002). The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art. London: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05117-8.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cognitive_archaeology&oldid=1225217274"