Advertisement

Embodied Cognition and the Archaeology of Mind: A Radical Reassessment

  • Duilio Garofoli
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is organized in three main parts. Within the first, I provide a historical introduction of the traditional account in evolutionary cognitive archaeology, which I call the internalist view. I report about the critical arguments against this view advanced by relational models in cognitive science and anthropology. After further refining the aims of this chapter, within the second part I argue that also such relational approaches in evolutionary cognitive archaeology, which can be associated with the so-called “conservative embodied and extended cognition” movement, remain affected by deep philosophical problems. I contend that such a critique, although leaning toward the right direction of conceiving the mind as embodied and extended, remains bound to the internalist view it wishes to criticize. The third part of this chapter focuses upon building an alternative to the standard internalist view, which at the same time can eliminate the residual problems with the conservative embodied counterproposals. This implies drawing upon the recently emerging radical enactive and embodied account of cognition.

Keywords

Radical enactivism Cognitive archaeology Distributed cognition Material engagement theory Acheulean Enactive signification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been funded by the Gerda Henkel Foundation. I wish to thank the editor, Prof. Anna Prentiss, for assistance during the production of this chapter and two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments about a previous version of it.

Data Sharing Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  1. Abramiuk, M. A. (2012). The foundations of cognitive archaeology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aiello, L. C., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Neocortex size, group size, and the evolution of language. Current Anthropology, 34(2), 184–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, M. L. (2007a). Evolution of cognitive function via redeployment of brain areas. The Neuroscientist, 13, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, M. L. (2007b). The massive redeployment hypothesis and the functional topography of the brain. Philosophical Psychology, 20(2), 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, M. L. (2010). Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(4), 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, M. L. (2014). After phrenology: Neural reuse and the interactive brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atran, S. (1998). Folk biology and the anthropology of science: Cognitive universals and cultural particulars. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(4), 547–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barham, L. (2010). A technological fix for ‘Dunbar’s Dilemma’? In R. I. M. Dunbar, C. Gamble, & J. Gowlett (Eds.), Social brain, distributed mind (pp. 376–389). Oxford, UK: The British Academy.Google Scholar
  9. Barham, L. S. (2013). Beyond modernity. In L. P. Mitchell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of African archaeology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barrett, L., Pollet, T. V., & Stulp, G. (2014). From computers to cultivation: Reconceptualizing evolutionary psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 867.Google Scholar
  13. Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., Wilson, C. D., De Vega, M., Glenberg, A., et al. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245–283). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Barton, R. A., & Dunbar, R. I. (1997). Evolution of the social brain. In A. Whiten & W. R. Byrne (Eds.), Machiavellian intelligence II: Extensions and evaluations (Vol. 2, pp. 240–263). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bouzouggar, A., Barton, N., Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Collcutt, S., Higham, T., et al. (2007). 82,000-year-old shell beads from North Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(24), 9964–9969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1), 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buller, D. J. (2005). Adapting minds: Evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Buss, D. (2012). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. London: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  22. Buttelmann, D., Buttelmann, F., Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2017). Great apes distinguish true from false beliefs in an interactive helping task. PLoS One, 12(4), e0173793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carruthers, P. (2006). The architecture of the mind: Massive modularity and the flexibility of thought. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chalmers, D. J. (2010). The character of consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chase, P. G., & Dibble, H. L. (1987). Middle Paleolithic symbolism: a review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 6(3), 263–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cole, J. (2015). Hominin language development: A new method of archaeological assessment. Biosemiotics, 8(1), 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Conard, N. J. (2010). Cultural modernity: Consensus or conundrum? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(17), 7621–7622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1994). Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: Toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science. Cognition, 50(1), 41–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). Evolutionary psychology: New perspectives on cognition and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Coward, F. (2016). Scaling up: Material culture as scaffold for the social brain. Quaternary International, 405, 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. d’Errico, F. (2003). The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin of behavioral modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 12(4), 188–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. d’Errico, F., & Vanhaeren, M. (2007). Evolution or revolution? New evidence for the origin of symbolic behaviour in and out of Africa. In P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, & C. Stringer (Eds.), Rethinking the human revolution: new behavioural and biological perspectives on the origin and dispersal of modern humans (pp. 275–286). Cambridge: Mc Donald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  35. d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Vanhaeren, M., & Van Niekerk, K. (2005). Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: Evidence for symbolic behaviour in the Middle Stone Age. Journal of Human Evolution, 48(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Davies, M. (1998). Language, thought and the language of thought (Aunty’s own argument revisited). In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (p. 226). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Delton, A. W., & Sell, A. (2014). The co-evolution of concepts and motivation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. DeMarrais, E. C., Gosden, C., & Renfrew, C. (Eds.). (2004). Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  41. Di Paolo, E., & De Jaegher, H. (2017). Neither individualistic, nor interactionist. In C. Durt, T. Fuchs, & C. Tewes (Eds.), Embodiment, enaction, and culture: Investigating the constitution of the shared world (pp. 87–105). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Doherty, M. (2009). Theory of mind: How children understand others’ thoughts and feelings. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  43. Dunbar, R., Gamble, C., & Gowlett, J. (2010). The social brain and the distributed mind. In R. Dunbar, C. Gamble, & J. Gowlett (Eds.), Social brain, distributed mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998a). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6(5), 178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998b). Theory of mind and the evolution of language. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language (pp. 92–110). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2007). The social brain and the cultural explosion of the human revolution. In P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, & C. Stringer (Eds.), Rethinking the human revolution (pp. 91–98). Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar
  48. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2009). Why only humans have language. In R. Botha & C. Knight (Eds.), The prehistory of language (Vol. 11, pp. 12–35). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Evans, G., McDowell, J., & McDowell, J. H. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  50. Everett, D. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 621–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  53. Fenici, M. (2012). Embodied social cognition and embedded theory of mind. Biolinguistics, 6(3-4), 276–307.Google Scholar
  54. Fenici, M. (2015). A simple explanation of apparent early mindreading: Infants’ sensitivity to goals and gaze direction. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 14(3), 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Fenici, M., & Garofoli, D. (2017). The biocultural emergence of mindreading: Integrating cognitive archaeology and human development. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 1(2), 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Fodor, J. A. (2008). LOT 2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Froese, T. (2019). Making sense of the chronology of Paleolithic cave painting from the perspective of material engagement theory. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18(1), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gallagher, S. (2008). Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Gamble, C. (2010). Technologies of separation and the evolution of social extension. In R. I. M. Dunbar, C. Gamble, & J. Gowlett (Eds.), Social brain, distributed mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Gamble, C., Gowlett, J., & Dunbar, R. (2011). The social brain and the shape of the Palaeolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 21(1), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gamble, C., Gowlett, J., & Dunbar, R. (2014). Thinking big: How the evolution of social life shaped the human mind. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  62. Garfield, J. L., Peterson, C. C., & Perry, T. (2001). Social cognition, language acquisition and the development of the theory of mind. Mind & Language, 16(5), 494–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Garofoli, D. (2015a). Do early body ornaments prove cognitive modernity? A critical analysis from situated cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 14, 803–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Garofoli, D. (2015). A radical embodied approach to Lower Paleolithic spear-making. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 36(1-2), 1–26.Google Scholar
  65. Garofoli, D. (2016). Metaplasticit-ies: Material engagement meets mutational enhancement. In G. Etzelmüller & C. Tewes (Eds.), Embodiment in evolution and culture (pp. 307–335). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  66. Garofoli, D. (2017a). Holistic mapping: Towards an epistemological foundation for evolutionary cognitive archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24(4), 1150–1176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9308-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Garofoli, D. (2017b). Ornamental feathers without mentalism: A radical enactive view on Neanderthal body adornment. In C. Durt, T. Fuchs, & C. Tewes (Eds.), Embodiment, enaction, culture: Investigating the constitution of the shared world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Garofoli, D. (2018). RECkoning with representational apriorism in evolutionary cognitive archaeology. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 973–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Garofoli, D., & Iliopoulos, A. (in press). Replacing epiphenomenalism: A pluralistic enactive take on the metaplasticity of early body ornamentation. Philosophy & Technology, 1–28.Google Scholar
  70. Gauker, C. (2003). Words without meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. German, T. P., & Barrett, H. C. (2005). Functional fixedness in a technologically sparse culture. Psychological Science, 16(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  73. Gibson, J. J. (2015 [1979]). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  74. Gosden, C. (2005). What do objects want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12(3), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Gowlett, J., Gamble, C., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Human evolution and the archaeology of the social brain. Current Anthropology, 53(6), 693–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Haidle, M. (2009). How to think a simple spear. In S. de Beaune, F. L. Coolidge, & T. Wynn (Eds.), Cognitive archaeology and human evolution (pp. 57–73). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Henshilwood, C., d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Van Niekerk, K., & Jacobs, Z. (2004). Middle stone age shell beads from South Africa. Science, 304(5669), 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Henshilwood, C. S., & Dubreuil, B. (2009). Reading the artifacts: Gleaning language skills from the Middle Stone Age in southern Africa. In R. Botha & C. Knight (Eds.), The cradle of language (Vol. 2, pp. 61–92). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Henshilwood, C. S., & Dubreuil, B. (2011). The Still Bay and Howiesons Poort, 77–59 ka. Symbolic material culture and the evolution of the mind during the African Middle Stone Age. Current Anthropology, 52(3), 361–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Henshilwood, C. S., & Marean, C. W. (2003). The origin of modern human behavior. Current Anthropology, 44(5), 627–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Malden, MA: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Hodgson, D. (2008). An “aesthetic” explanation for the symmetry of Acheulean handaxes: Some neuropsychological insights. Plastir, 12.Google Scholar
  83. Hodgson, D., & Pettitt, P. (2018). The origins of iconic depictions: A falsifiable model derived from the visual science of Palaeolithic cave art and world rock art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 28(4), 591–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Hurley, S. (2001). Perception and action: Alternative views. Synthese, 129(1), 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Hutto, D. D. (2005). Knowing what? Radical versus conservative enactivism. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Hutto, D. D. (2008a). First communions: Mimetic sharing without theory of mind. In J. Zlatev, T. P. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (Vol. 12, p. 245). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Hutto, D. D. (2008b). Folk psychological narratives: The sociocultural basis of understanding reasons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  89. Hutto, D. D. (2011). Elementary mind minding, enactivist-style. In A. Seeman (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments in psychology (pp. 307–341). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  90. Hutto, D. D. (2015). Overly enactive imagination? Radically re-imagining imagining. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 53(S1), 68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  92. Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2017). Evolving enactivism: Basic minds meet content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2018). Going radical. In A. Newen, L. de Bruin, & S. Gallagher (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition (pp. 94–116). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Ihde, D. (2002). Bodies in technology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  96. Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and technoscience. The Peking University lectures. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  97. Ihde, D., & Malafouris, L. (in press). Homo faber revisited: Postphenomenology and material engagement theory. Philosophy & Technology.Google Scholar
  98. Iliopoulos, A. (2015). The prehistory of material signification: Tracing the nature and emergence of early body ornamentation through a pragmatic and enactive theory of cognitive semiotics. (Dr. Phil.), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  99. Iliopoulos, A. (2016a). The evolution of material signification: Tracing the origins of symbolic body ornamentation through a pragmatic and enactive theory of cognitive semiotics. Signs and Society, 4(2), 244–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Iliopoulos, A. (2016b). The material dimensions of signification: Rethinking the nature and emergence of semiosis in the debate on human origins. Quaternary International, 405, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Iliopoulos, A., & Garofoli, D. (2016). The material dimensions of cognition: Reexamining the nature and emergence of the human mind. Quaternary International, 405, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Ingold, T. (2007). The trouble with ‘evolutionary biology. Anthropology Today, 23(2), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Ingold, T., & Palsson, G. (2013). Prospect. In T. Ingold & G. Palsson (Eds.), Biosocial becomings: Integrating social and biological anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Klein, R. G. (2008). Out of Africa and the evolution of human behavior. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 17(6), 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Knappett, C. (2002). Photographs, skeuomorphs and marionettes: Some thoughts on mind, agency and object. Journal of Material Culture, 7(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Knappett, C. (2005). Thinking through material culture. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Kohn, M., & Mithen, S. (1999). Handaxes: Products of sexual selection? Antiquity, 73, 518–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Krupenye, C., Kano, F., Hirata, S., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs. Science, 354(6308), 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Kurzban, R. (2010). Grand challenges of evolutionary psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Laland, K., Uller, T., Feldman, M., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., et al. (2014). Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature News, 514(7521), 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Laroche, J., & Kaddouch, I. (2014). Enacting teaching and learning in the interaction process: “Keys” for developing skills in piano lessons through four-hand improvisations. Journal of Pedagogy, 5(1), 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Leslie, A. M., German, T. P., & Polizzi, P. (2005). Belief-desire reasoning as a process of selection. Cognitive Psychology, 50(1), 45–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Machin, A. (2009). The role of the individual agent in Acheulean biface variability: A multi-factorial model. Journal of Social Archaeology, 9(1), 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Malafouris, L. (2004). The cognitive basis of material engagement: Where brain, body and culture conflate. In Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world (pp. 53–61). Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar
  115. Malafouris, L. (2007). Before and beyond representation: Towards an enactive conception of the Palaeolithic image. In C. Renfrew & I. Morley (Eds.), Image and imagination: A global history of figurative representation (pp. 287–300). Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  116. Malafouris, L. (2008). 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
  117. Malafouris, L. (2010a). The brain–artefact interface (BAI): A challenge for archaeology and cultural neuroscience. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Malafouris, L. (2010b). Metaplasticity and the human becoming: Principles of neuroarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 88(4), 49.Google Scholar
  119. Malafouris, L. (2012). Linear B as distributed cognition: Excavating a mind not limited by the skin. In Excavating the mind: Cross-sections through culture, cognition and materiality. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Malafouris, L. (2016). On human becoming and incompleteness: A material engagement approach to the study of embodiment in evolution and culture. In G. Etzelmüller & C. Tewes (Eds.), Embodiment in evolution and culture (pp. 289–305). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  122. Mania, D., & Mania, U. (2005). The natural and socio-cultural environment of Homo erectus at Bilzingsleben, Germany. In The hominid individual in context: Archaeological investigations of lower and middle palaeolithic landscapes, locales and artifacts (pp. 98–114). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  123. Marean, C. W., Bar-Matthews, M., Bernatchez, J., Fisher, E., Goldberg, P., Herries, A. I., et al. (2007). Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature, 449(7164), 905–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Mareschal, D., Johnson, M. H., Sirois, S., Spratling, M., Thomas, M. S., & Westermann, G. (2007). Neuroconstructivism-I: How the brain constructs cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. McBrearty, S., & Brooks, A. S. (2000). The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution, 39(5), 453–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. McNabb, J. (2013). Pole to pole. Archaeology and adaptation in the Middle Pleistocene at opposite ends of the Acheulean world. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 32(2), 123–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Mellars, P. (2005). The impossible coincidence. A single-species model for the origins of modern human behavior in Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 14(1), 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Mellars, P., & Stringer, C. (1989). The human revolution. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  129. Menary, R. (2007). Cognitive integration: Mind and cognition unbounded. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Menary, R., & Gillett, A. J. (2016). Integrated cognitive systems and cultural evolution. In The Routledge handbook of philosophy of the social mind. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  131. Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture and synthesize the social sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Laland, K. N. (2006). Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(4), 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Miłkowski, M. (2013). Explaining the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  134. Mithen, S. (1994). From domain specific to generalized intelligence: A cognitive interpretation of the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition. In A. C. Renfrew & E. B. W. Zubrow (Eds.), The ancient mind: Elements of cognitive archaeology (pp. 137–156). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  135. Mithen, S. (1996). The prehistory of the mind: A search for the origins of art, religion and science. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  136. Mithen, S. (2005). The singing Neanderthals: The origins of music, language, mind, and body. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  137. Mithen, S. (2014). The cognition of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens: Does the use of pigment necessarily imply symbolic thought? In Dynamics of learning in Neanderthals and modern humans (Vol. 2, pp. 7–16). Tokyo: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Myin, E., & O’Regan, J. K. (2009). Situated perception and sensation in vision and other modalities: Form an active to a sensorimotor account. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 185–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  139. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  140. Nowell, A. (2010). Defining behavioral modernity in the context of Neanderthal and anatomically modern human populations. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Nowell, A., & Chang, M. L. (2009). The case against sexual selection as an explanation of handaxe morphology. PaleoAnthropology, 2009, 77–88.Google Scholar
  142. O’Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 939–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Odling-Smee, J. (2007). Niche inheritance: A possible basis for classifying multiple inheritance systems in evolution. Biological Theory, 2(3), 276–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308(5719), 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Overmann, K. A., & Wynn, T. (in press). Materiality and human cognition. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory.Google Scholar
  146. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1936). In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), The collected papers. Volumes 1–6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  147. Peresani, M., Fiore, I., Gala, M., Romandini, M., & Tagliacozzo, A. (2011). Late Neanderthals and the intentional removal of feathers as evidenced from bird bone taphonomy at Fumane Cave 44 ky BP, Italy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(10), 3888–3893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Pettitt, P. (2011). The living as symbols, the dead as symbols. In Homo symbolicus: The dawn of language, imagination and spirituality (pp. 141–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Pope, M., Russel, K., & Watson, K. (2006). Biface form and structured behaviour in the Acheulean. Lithics, 27, 44–57.Google Scholar
  150. Preucel, R. W. (2007). Archaeological semiotics (vol. 4). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  151. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1978). When is attribution of beliefs justified? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 592–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Radovčić, D., Sršen, A. O., Radovčić, J., & Frayer, D. W. (2015). Evidence for Neanderthal jewelry: Modified white-tailed eagle claws at Krapina. PLoS One, 10(3), e0119802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Raja, V. (2017). A theory of resonance: Towards an ecological cognitive architecture. Minds and Machines, 28(1), 29–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9431-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Renfrew, C. (2004). Towards a theory of material engagement. In E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden, & A. C. Renfrew (Eds.), Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world (pp. 23–31). Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  155. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  156. Rietveld, E., Denys, D., & Van Westen, M. (2018). Ecological-enactive cognition as engaging with a field of relevant affordances: The skilled intentionality framework (SIF). In A. Newen, L. De Bruin, & S. Gallagher (Eds.), Oxford handbook of 4E cognition (pp. 41–70). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  157. Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  159. Robbins, S. (2014). Collapsing the singularity: Bergson, Gibson and the mythologies of artificial intelligence. Atlanta, GA: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
  160. Robbins, S. E. (2006). Bergson and the holographic theory of mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5(3-4), 365–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Robbins, S. E. (2017). Analogical reminding and the storage of experience: The paradox of Hofstadter-Sander. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Roberts, P. (2016). We have never been behaviourally modern’: The implications of Material Engagement Theory and Metaplasticity for understanding the Late Pleistocene record of human behaviour. Quaternary International, 405, 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Rowlands, M. (2010). The new science of the mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Shapiro, L. (Ed.). (2014). The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  165. Shea, J. J. (2011). Homo sapiens is as Homo sapiens was: Behavioral variability versus “behavioral modernity” in Paleolithic archaeology. Current Anthropology, 52(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Shipton, C. B. K. (2013). A million years of hominin sociality and cognition: Acheulean bifaces in the Hunsgi-Baichbal Valley, India. Oxford, UK: British Archaeological Report.Google Scholar
  167. Silverman, I. (2002). Symmetry and human spatial cognition: An alternative perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(3), 418–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Sonesson, G. (2006). The meaning of meaning in biology and cognitive science: A semiotic reconstruction. Sign Systems Studies, 34(1), 135–213.Google Scholar
  169. Sonesson, G. (2010). From mimicry to mime by way of mimesis: Reflections on a general theory of iconicity. Sign Systems Studies, 38(1-4), 18–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Sterelny, K. (2012). The evolved apprentice: How evolution made humans unique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Stotz, K. (2014). Extended evolutionary psychology: The importance of transgenerational developmental plasticity. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Symons, D. (1992). On the use and misuse of Darwinism in the study of human behavior. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 137–162). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  173. Tallis, R. (2011). Aping mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the misrepresentation of humanity. Durham, North Carolina: Acumen.Google Scholar
  174. Thieme, H. (1997). Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature, 385, 807–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Thieme, H. (2005). The Lower Palaeolithic art of hunting. In The hominid individual in context. Archaeological investigations of lower and middle palaeolithic landscapes, locales and artefacts (pp. 115–132). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  176. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  177. Thompson, E., & Cosmelli, D. (2011). Brain in a vat or body in a world? Brainbound versus enactive views of experience. Philosophical Topics, 39(1), 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  179. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  180. van Dijk, L., Withagen, R., & Bongers, R. M. (2015). Information without content: A Gibsonian reply to enactivists’ worries. Cognition, 134, 210–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., van Niekerk, K. L., Henshilwood, C. S., & Erasmus, R. M. (2013). Thinking strings: Additional evidence for personal ornament use in the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 64(6), 500–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  183. Wadley, L. (2001). What is cultural modernity? A general view and a South African perspective from Rose Cottage Cave. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 11(2), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Walls, M. (in press). The bow and arrow and early human sociality: An enactive perspective on communities and technical practice in the middle stone age. Philosophy and Technology.Google Scholar
  185. Watts, I. (2009). Red ochre, body painting, and language: Interpreting the Blombos ochre. In R. Botha & C. Knight (Eds.), The cradle of language (Vol. 2, pp. 93–129). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  186. Wilson, R. A. (1994). Wide computationalism. Mind, 103(411), 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Wilson, R. A., & Clark, A. (2009). How to situate cognition: Letting nature take its course. In M. A. P. Robbins (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 55–77). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  188. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  189. Woodward, M. (2019). Metaplasticity rendered visible in paint: How matter ‘matters’ in the lifeworld of Human action. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18(1), 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Wynn, T. (2000). Symmetry and the evolution of the modular linguistic mind. In P. Carruthers & A. Chamberlain (Eds.), Evolution and the human mind: Modularity, language and meta-cognition (pp. 113–139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Wynn, T. (2002). Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(3), 389–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Zahidi, K., & Myin, E. (2016). Radically enactive numerical cognition. In G. Etzelmüller & C. Tewes (Eds.), Embodiment in evolution and culture (pp. 57–71). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  193. Zilhão, J. (2007). The emergence of ornaments and art: An archaeological perspective on the origins of “behavioral modernity”. Journal of Archaeological Research, 15(1), 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Duilio Garofoli
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Cognitive Archaeology Unit, Institute for Archaeological SciencesEberhard Karls University TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Research Center “The Role of Culture in Early Expansions of Humans” of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and HumanitiesEberhard Karls University TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations