Advertisement

Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 243–264 | Cite as

How Stone Tools Shaped Us: Post-Phenomenology and Material Engagement Theory

  • Manjari ChakrabartyEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

The domain of early hominin stone tool making and tool using abilities has received little scholarly attention in mainstream philosophy of technology. This is despite the fact that archeological evidence of stone tools is widely seen today as a crucial source of information about the evolution of human cognition. There is a considerable archeological literature on the cognitive dimensions of specific hominin technical activities. However, within archeology and the study of human evolution the standard perception is stone tools are mere products of the human mind (or brain or innate cognitive capacities). A number of recent approaches to cognition challenges this simplistic one-way-causal-arrow view and emphasizes instead the functional efficiency of tools or artifacts in transforming and augmenting human (or hominin) cognitive capacities. As a result, the very idea that tools or artifacts are intimately tied to human cognitive processes is fast becoming an alternative within the cognitive sciences and a few allied disciplines. The present study intends to explore its implications for philosophy of technology. The central objective of this paper is to examine the dynamic and intricate tool-mediated activities of the early hominins through the lens of Don Ihde’s post-phenomenological theory of human-technology relations and Lambros Malafouris’ Material Engagement Theory. Highlighting the key points where these two research approaches, despite their subtle nuances, converge and look capable of mutually catalyzing each other, the paper attempts to show why it is important to bring these approaches together for a more refined understanding of the controversial role these stone tools played in human evolution.

Keywords

Post-phenomenology Material engagement theory Embodiment relations Non-neutrality Quasi-transparency Continuity thesis Stone flaking Prehistoric knapper Oldowan technology 

References

  1. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2009). Why the mind is still in the head. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, B. B. (1980). Animal tool behavior: the use and manufacture of tools by animals. New York: Garland STPM.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, E., & Iriki, A. (2016). Extending mind, visuospatial integration, and the evolution of the parietal lobes in the human genus. Quaternary International, 405, 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryne, R. W. (2004). The manual skills and cognition that lie behind hominid tool use. In A. E. Russon & D. R. Begun (Eds.), The evolution of thought: Evolutionary origins of great ape intelligence (pp. 31–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2016). An introduction to cognitive archaeology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 386–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2017). The rise of Homo sapiens: The evolution of modern thinking (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, G. (1977). World prehistory in new perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A. (2007). Re-inventing ourselves: the plasticity of embodiment, sensing, and mind. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32, 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delagnes, A., & Roche, H. (2005). Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: the case of Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution, 48(5), 435−472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De la Torre, I. (2011). The origins of stone tool technology in Africa: a historical perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1028–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Beaune, S. A. (2004). The invention of technology: prehistory and cognition. Current Anthropology, 45(2), 139−162.Google Scholar
  13. Donald, M. (2010). The exographic revolution: Neuropsychological sequelae. In L. Malafouris & C. Renfrew (Eds.), The cognitive life of things: Recasting the boundaries of the mind (pp. 71–79). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar
  14. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 127–143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hutchins, E. (2001). Cognitive artifact. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 126–128). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hutchins, E. (2008). The role of cultural practices in the emergence of modern human intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 363, 2011–2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ihde, D. (1979). Technics and praxis. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  19. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. from garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ihde, D. (2003). Postphenomenology—again? Aarhus: The Centre for STS Studies.Google Scholar
  21. Ihde, D. (2007). Technologies—musics—embodiments. Janus Head, 10(1), 7–24.Google Scholar
  22. Ihde, D. (2008). The designer fallacy and technological imagination. In P. E. Vermaas, P. Kroes, A. Light, S. A. Moore (Eds.), Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture, Springer Science + Business Media B. V.Google Scholar
  23. Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and technoscience. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ihde, D. (2012). Experimental phenomenology: Multistabilities (2nd ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jeffares, B. (2010a). The co-evolution of tools and minds: cognition and material culture in the hominin lineage. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9, 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jeffares, B. (2010b). The evolution of technical competence: strategic and economic thinking. In W. Christensen, E. Schier, & J. Sutton (Eds.), ASCS09: Proceedings of the 9th conference of the Australasian Society for Cognitive Science (pp. 162–169). Sydney: Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science.  https://doi.org/10.5096/ASCS200925.Google Scholar
  27. Keller, C., & Keller, J. (1996). Cognition and tool use: The blacksmith at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Leaky, M. (1971). Olduvai Gorge: Volume 5: Excavations in beds I and II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lewis, J. E., & Harmand, S. (2016). An earlier origin for stone tool making: implications for cognitive evolution and the transition to Homo. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1698), 20150233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malafouris, L. (2008a). At the potter’s wheel: An argument for material agency. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric approach (pp. 19–36). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malafouris, L. (2008b). Between brains, bodies and things: tectonoetic awareness and the extended self. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London B, 363, 1993–2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malafouris, L. (2008c). Beads for a plastic mind: the “blind man’s stick” (BMS) hypothesis and the active nature of material culture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18(3), 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Malafouris, L. (2015). Metaplasticity and the primacy of material engagement. Time and Mind, 8(4), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Malafouris, L. (2016). Material engagement and the embodied mind. In T. Wynn & F. L. Coolidge (Eds.), Cognitive models in Palaeolithic archaeology (pp. 69–87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Malafouris, L., & Renfrew, C. (Eds.). (2010). The cognitive life of things: Recasting the boundaries of the mind. Cambridge: McDonald Institute.Google Scholar
  37. Marzke, M. W. (1996). Evolution of the hand and bipedality. In A. Lock & C. R. Peters (Eds.), Handbook of human symbolic evolution (pp. 126–154). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  38. Marzke, M. W. (1997). Precision grips, hand morphology, and tools. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 102(1), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Menary, R. (2007). Cognitive integration: mind and cognition unbounded. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Menary, R. (2009). Intentionality, cognitive integration and the continuity thesis. Topoi, 28, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mithen, S. J. (1998 [1996]) The prehistory of the mind: a search for the origins of art, religion and science. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  42. Mithen, S., & Parsons, L. (2008). The brain as a cultural artefact. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moore, M. W., & Perston, Y. (2016). Experimental insights into the cognitive significance of early stone tools. PLoS One, 11(7), e0158803.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nowell, A., & Davidson, I. (Eds.). (2010). Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar
  45. Orban, G. A., & Caruana, F. (2014). The neural basis of human tool use. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–12.Google Scholar
  46. Ottoni, E. B. (2015). Tool use traditions in nonhuman primates: the case of tufted capuchin monkeys. Human Ethology Bulletin – Proc. of the XXII. ISHE Conference, 22–40.Google Scholar
  47. Preston, B. (1998). Cognition and tool use. Mind & Language, 13(4), 513–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Proffitt, T., et al. (2016). Wild monkeys flake stone tools. Nature, 539(7627), 85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schick, K. D., & Toth, N. P. (1993). Making silent stones speak: Human evolution and the dawn of technology. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  50. Sterelny, K. (2010). Minds: extended or scaffolded? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9174-y.
  51. Stout, D. (2002). Skill and cognition in stone tool production: an ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology, 43(5), 693–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stout, D. (2008). Technology and human brain evolution. General Anthropology, 15(2), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stout, D. (2011). Stone tool making and the evolution of human culture and cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, 366, 1050–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stout, D., & Chaminade, T. (2007). The evolutionary neuroscience of tool making. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1091–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stout, D. and Chaminade, T. (2009). Making tools and making sense: complex, intentional behaviour in human evolution. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(1): 85–96.Google Scholar
  56. Stout, D., Toth, N., Schick, K., & Chaminade, T. (2008). Neural correlates of early stone age tool making: technology, language and cognition in human evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London series B, 363, 1939–1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stotz, K. (2010). Human nature and cognitive-developmental niche construction. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9178-7.
  58. Toth, N. (1985). The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science, 12, 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Toth, N. (1987). The first technology. Scientific American, 1, 112–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Toth, N., & Schick, K. D. (2009). The Oldowan: the tool making of early hominins and chimpanzees compared. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38, 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Toth, N., et al. (1993). Pan the tool-maker: investigations into the stone tool-making and tool using capabilities of a bonobo. Journal of Archaeological Science, 20, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Toth, N., Schick, K. D., & Semaw, S. (2006). A comparative study of the stone-tool making skills of Pan, Australopithecus, and Homo sapiens. In N. Toth & K. Schick (Eds.), The Oldowan: Case studies into the earliest stone age. Gosport: Stone Age Institute Press.Google Scholar
  63. Washburn, S. L. (1978). The evolution of man. Scientific American, 194–209.Google Scholar
  64. Woelert, P. (2014). Tool use and the human mind: from basic to materially mediated operational intentionality. Cognitive Semiotics.  https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2014-0014.
  65. Wynn, T. (1993). Layers of thinking in tool behaviour. In K. R. Gibson & T. Ingold (Eds.), Tools, language and cognition in human evolution (pp. 389–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Wynn, T. (2002). Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 25(3), 389–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wynn, T. (2009). Hafted spears and the archaeology of mind. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(24), 9544–9545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wynn, T., & Coolidge, F. L. (2016). Archaeological insights into hominin cognitive evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 25(4), 200–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wynn, T. G., & Coolidge, F. L. (Eds.). (2017). Cognitive models in Palaeolithic archaeology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Wynn, T. G., & McGrew, W. C. (1989). An Ape’s view of the Oldowan. Man, New Series, 24(3), 383–398.Google Scholar
  71. Wynn, T., Hernandez-Aguilar, R. A., Marchant, L. F., & McGrew, W. C. (2011). An ape’s view of the Oldowan revisited. Evolutionary Anthropology, 20(5), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Comparative ReligionVisva Bharati (Central University)SantiniketanIndia

Personalised recommendations