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.[1][2]

Definition

As explained by archaeologist Dietrich Stout and evolutionary neuroscientist Erin E. Hecht,[3]: 146  neuroarchaoelogy "has specific theoretical implications that extend beyond the general sense of the neologism. It is thus useful to distinguish between Neuroarchaeology (narrow sense) and neuroarchaeology (general sense). As outlined by Malafouris,[2] Neuroarchaeology is an outgrowth of the cognitive-processual archaeology of Renfrew[4] and is explicitly grounded in Material Engagement Theory.[5][6] Material Engagement Theory focuses on the role of objects in mediating human behavior, cognition, and sociality and is closely aligned with approaches to cognition as extended,[7] grounded,[8] situated[9] and distributed[10] developed in psychology, philosophy, anthropology, and elsewhere. Neuroarchaeology explicitly aims to: (1) incorporate neuroscience findings into cognitive archaeology, (2) promote 'critical reflection on neuroscience’s claims on the basis of our current archaeological knowledge', and (3) facilitate cross-disciplinary dialog."[2]

Neuroarchaeology combines the words "neuro-" as in "neuroscience," indicating its connection with the brain sciences, and "archaeology," meaning the study of human history and prehistory through excavation and other techniques designed to investigate the material record.[3] The term has "archaeology" as its primary component, with "neuro-" used adjectivally; thus, it means an archaeology informed by neuroscience, or evolutionary cognitive archaeology.[3][11] It denotes a relatively new research area investigating questions related to interactions between brain, body, and world over cultural and evolutionary spans of time.[1]

Significance

In the 21st century, significant gains in understanding the brain through the cognitive sciences opened up new areas of collaboration between archaeology and neuroscience. This has enabled archaeologists to base hypotheses about the biological and neural substrates of human cognitive abilities on archaeological data, especially change in material forms like stone tools across time. Neuroscientific insights can also be applied in critically reviewing and challenging theories and assumptions about the inception of modern human cognition and behavior, including whether there even are such things.[12] Both neuroscience and neuroarchaeology seek to understand the human mind. However, the theories and methods of the two disciplines differ significantly. Neuroscience collects data on brain form and function in extant populations, while neuroarchaeolgy uses archaeological and neuroscientific data to examine change in brain form and function in extinct populations. To reconcile these theoretical and methodological differences, neuroarchaeology "aims at constructing an analytical bridge between brain and culture by putting material culture, embodiment, time and long term change at center stage in the study of mind."[13]: 49 

Over the past several decades, neuroscientific data have been an essential component of neuroarchaeological analyses. The converse is less certain, as neuroscience has yet to make much use of archaeology's ability to furnish critical data on the timing and context of developments in human cognitive evolution, provide unique insight into what materiality does in human cognition, and negotiate temporalities of cognitive change that are difficult to assimilate into neuroscientific theories and methods.[3]

Neuroarchaeology's interdisciplinary approach provides new opportunities for investigating the human mind and the role of material culture in human cognition and cognitive evolution. Specific focuses for neuroarchaeological research to date have included language,[14] symbolic capacity,[15] theory of mind,[16] technical cognition,[17] creativity,[18] aesthetics,[19] spatial cognition,[20] numeracy,[21] literacy,[22] and casual understanding.[23]

See also

References

  1. 1 2 Renfrew, Colin; Malafouris, Lambros (2008). "Steps to a 'neuroarchaeology' of mind, Part 1, Introduction". Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 18 (3): 381–385. doi:10.1017/s0959774308000425. S2CID 231810895.
  2. 1 2 3 Malafouris, Lambros (2009). "'Neuroarchaeology': Exploring the links between neural and cultural plasticity". In Chiao, Joan Y (ed.). Cultural neuroscience: Cultural influences on brain function. Progress in Brain Research 178. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. pp. 253–261. ISBN 9780080952215.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Stout, Dietrich; Hecht, Erin E (2015). "Neuroarchaeology". In Bruner, Emiliano (ed.). Human paleoneurology. Springer Series in Bio-/Neuroinformatics 3. Berlin: Springer. pp. 145–175. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08500-5_7. ISBN 978-3-319-08499-2.
  4. ↑ 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.
  5. ↑ Malafouris, Lambros (2004). "The cognitive basis of material engagement: Where brain, body and culture conflate". In DeMarrais, Elizabeth; Gosden, Chris; Renfrew, Colin (eds.). Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. pp. 53–61. ISBN 9781902937304.
  6. ↑ Renfrew, Colin (2004). "Towards a theory of material engagement". In DeMarrais, Elizabeth; Gosden, Chris; Renfrew, Colin (eds.). Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. pp. 23–32. ISBN 9781902937304.
  7. ↑ Clark, Andy; Chalmers, David J (1998). "The extended mind". Analysis. 58 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1093/analys/58.1.7. JSTOR 3328150.
  8. ↑ Barsalou, Lawrence W (2008). "Grounded cognition". Annual Review of Psychology. 59: 617–645. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639. PMID 17705682. S2CID 22345373.
  9. ↑ Lave, Jean; Wenger, Etienne (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521423748.
  10. ↑ Hutchins, Edwin (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262275972.
  11. ↑ Malafouris, Lambros (2008). "Between brains, bodies and things: Tectonoetic awareness and the extended self". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 363 (1499): 1993–2002. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0014. PMC 2606705. PMID 18292056.
  12. ↑ Roberts, Patrick (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. Bibcode:2016QuInt.405....8R. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.03.011.
  13. ↑ Malafouris, Lambros (2010). "Metaplasticity and the human becoming: Principles of neuroarchaeology" (PDF). Journal of Anthropological Sciences. 88: 49–72. PMID 20834050.
  14. ↑ Putt, Shelby Stackhouse (2019). "The stories stones tell of language and its evolution". 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. 304–318. ISBN 9780190854614.
  15. ↑ Wynn, Thomas; Coolidge, Frederick L (2010). "Beyond symbolism and language: An introduction to Supplement 1, working memory". Current Anthropology. 51 (S1): S5–S16. doi:10.1086/650526. S2CID 142942270.
  16. ↑ 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.
  17. ↑ Stout, Dietrich; Passingham, Richard E; Frith, Christopher D; Apel, Jan; Chaminade, Thierry (2011). "Technology, expertise and social cognition in human evolution". European Journal of Neuroscience. 33 (7): 1328–1338. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07619.x. PMID 21375598. S2CID 5661351.
  18. ↑ Wynn, Thomas; Coolidge, Frederick L (2014). "Technical cognition, working memory and creativity". Pragmatics & Cognition. 22 (1): 45–63. doi:10.1075/pc.22.1.03wyn.
  19. ↑ Wynn, Thomas; Tony, Berlant (2019). "The handaxe aesthetic". 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. 278–303. ISBN 9780190854614.
  20. ↑ Hodgson, Derek (2019). "Stone tools and spatial cognition". 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. 200–224. ISBN 9780190854614.
  21. ↑ Overmann, Karenleigh A (2019). "Materiality and the prehistory of number". 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. 432–456. ISBN 9780190854614.
  22. ↑ 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.
  23. ↑ Haidle, Miriam Noël (2014). "Building a bridge—An archeologist's perspective on the evolution of causal cognition". Frontiers in Psychology. 5 (1472): 1472. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01472. PMC 4268908. PMID 25566147.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.