Cognitive archaeology

Last updated

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.

Contents

Evolutionary cognitive archaeology

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

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

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

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colin Renfrew</span> British archaeologist

Andrew Colin Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, is a British archaeologist, paleolinguist and Conservative peer noted for his work on radiocarbon dating, the prehistory of languages, archaeogenetics, neuroarchaeology, and the prevention of looting at archaeological sites.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Processual archaeology</span> Theoretical paradigm in archaeology

Processual archaeology is a form of archaeological theory that had its beginnings in 1958 with the work of Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips, Method and Theory in American Archaeology, in which the pair stated that "American archaeology is anthropology, or it is nothing", a rephrasing of Frederic William Maitland's comment: "My own belief is that by and by, anthropology will have the choice between being history, and being nothing." The idea implied that the goals of archaeology were, in fact, the goals of anthropology, which were to answer questions about humans and human culture. That was a critique of the former period in archaeology, the cultural-history phase in which archaeologists thought that any information that artifacts contained about past people and past ways of life would be lost once the items became included in the archaeological record. All they felt could be done was to catalogue, describe, and create timelines based on the artifacts.

Post-processual archaeology, which is sometimes alternatively referred to as the interpretative archaeologies by its adherents, is a movement in archaeological theory that emphasizes the subjectivity of archaeological interpretations. Despite having a vague series of similarities, post-processualism consists of "very diverse strands of thought coalesced into a loose cluster of traditions". Within the post-processualist movement, a wide variety of theoretical viewpoints have been embraced, including structuralism and Neo-Marxism, as have a variety of different archaeological techniques, such as phenomenology.

Lewis Roberts Binford was an American archaeologist known for his influential work in archaeological theory, ethnoarchaeology and the Paleolithic period. He is widely considered among the most influential archaeologists of the later 20th century, and is credited with fundamentally changing the field with the introduction of processual archaeology in the 1960s. Binford's influence was controversial, however, and most theoretical work in archaeology in the late 1980s and 1990s was explicitly construed as either a reaction to or in support of the processual paradigm. Recent appraisals have judged that his approach owed more to prior work in the 1940s and 50s than suggested by Binford's strong criticism of his predecessors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Behavioral modernity</span> Transition of human species to anthropologically modern behavior

Behavioral modernity is a suite of behavioral and cognitive traits that distinguishes current Homo sapiens from other anatomically modern humans, hominins, and primates. Most scholars agree that modern human behavior can be characterized by abstract thinking, planning depth, symbolic behavior, music and dance, exploitation of large game, and blade technology, among others. Underlying these behaviors and technological innovations are cognitive and cultural foundations that have been documented experimentally and ethnographically by evolutionary and cultural anthropologists. These human universal patterns include cumulative cultural adaptation, social norms, language, and extensive help and cooperation beyond close kin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Venus of Berekhat Ram</span> Alleged oldest artifact

The Venus of Berekhat Ram is a pebble found at Berekhat Ram on the Golan Heights. The pebble may have been modified by early humans and is suggested to represent a female human figure.

Archaeological theory refers to the various intellectual frameworks through which archaeologists interpret archaeological data. Archaeological theory functions as the application of philosophy of science to archaeology, and is occasionally referred to as philosophy of archaeology. There is no one singular theory of archaeology, but many, with different archaeologists believing that information should be interpreted in different ways. Throughout the history of the discipline, various trends of support for certain archaeological theories have emerged, peaked, and in some cases died out. Different archaeological theories differ on what the goals of the discipline are and how they can be achieved.

The evolution of human intelligence is closely tied to the evolution of the human brain and to the origin of language. The timeline of human evolution spans approximately seven million years, from the separation of the genus Pan until the emergence of behavioral modernity by 50,000 years ago. The first three million years of this timeline concern Sahelanthropus, the following two million concern Australopithecus and the final two million span the history of the genus Homo in the Paleolithic era.

Number systems have progressed from the use of fingers and tally marks, perhaps more than 40,000 years ago, to the use of sets of glyphs able to represent any conceivable number efficiently. The earliest known unambiguous notations for numbers emerged in Mesopotamia about 5000 or 6000 years ago.

The archaeological record is the body of physical evidence about the past. It is one of the core concepts in archaeology, the academic discipline concerned with documenting and interpreting the archaeological record. Archaeological theory is used to interpret the archaeological record for a better understanding of human cultures. The archaeological record can consist of the earliest ancient findings as well as contemporary artifacts. Human activity has had a large impact on the archaeological record. Destructive human processes, such as agriculture and land development, may damage or destroy potential archaeological sites. Other threats to the archaeological record include natural phenomena and scavenging. Archaeology can be a destructive science for the finite resources of the archaeological record are lost to excavation. Therefore, archaeologists limit the amount of excavation that they do at each site and keep meticulous records of what is found. The archaeological record is the physical record of human prehistory and history, of why ancient civilizations prospered or failed and why those cultures changed and grew. It is the story of the human world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Steven Mithen</span> British archaeologist

Steven Mithen, is an archaeologist. He is noted for his work on the evolution of language, music and intelligence, prehistoric hunter-gatherers, and the origins of farming. He is professor of early prehistory at the University of Reading.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archaeology</span> Study of human activity via material culture

Archaeology or archeology is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. The archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts, sites, and cultural landscapes. Archaeology can be considered both a social science and a branch of the humanities. It is usually considered an independent academic discipline, but may also be classified as part of anthropology, history or geography.

Marxist archaeology is an archaeological theory that interprets archaeological information within the framework of Marxism. Although neither Karl Marx nor Friedrich Engels described how archaeology could be understood in a Marxist conception of history, the archaeological theory was developed by Soviet archaeologists in the Soviet Union during the early twentieth century. Marxist archaeology quickly became the dominant archaeological theory within the Soviet Union, and subsequently spread and was adopted by archaeologists in other countries. In particular, in the United Kingdom, where the theory was propagated by an influential archaeologist V. Gordon Childe. With the rise of post-processual archaeology in the 1980s and 1990s, forms of Marxist archaeology were once more popularised amongst the archaeological community.

Sally Binford was an archaeologist and feminist. A prehistorian, she contributed alongside her husband to the formation of processual archaeology.

Neuroarchaeology is a sub-discipline of archaeology that uses neuroscientific data to infer things about brain form and function in human cognitive evolution. The term was first suggested and thus coined by Colin Renfrew and Lambros Malafouris.

Thomas G. Wynn is an American archaeologist known for his work in cognitive archaeology. He is a pioneer of evolutionary cognitive archaeology; his article "The intelligence of later Acheulean hominids" is considered a classic in the field. He taught at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs from 1977 to 2022, where he now holds the title Distinguished Professor Emeritus.

Frederick L. Coolidge is an American psychologist known for his work in cognitive archaeology. He has been a Professor of Psychology at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs since 1979. With Karenleigh A. Overmann, he currently co-directs the Center for Cognitive Archaeology at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. He also teaches for the Centre for Cognitive and Brain Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, India.

Karenleigh A. Overmann is a cognitive archaeologist known for her work on how ancient societies became numerate and literate. She currently directs the Center for Cognitive Archaeology at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. Before becoming an academic researcher, Overmann served 25 years of active duty in the U.S. Navy.

Lambros Malafouris is a Greek-British cognitive archaeologist who has pioneered the application of concepts from the philosophy of mind to the material record. He is Professor of Cognitive and Anthropological Archaeology at the University of Oxford. He is known for Material Engagement Theory, the idea that material objects in the archaeological record are part of the ancient human mind.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 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. 1 2 Wynn, Thomas (1979). "The Intelligence of Later Acheulean Hominids". Man. 14 (3): 371–391. doi:10.2307/2801865. JSTOR   2801865.
  4. 1 2 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. 1 2 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. 1 2 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

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.