Do early body ornaments prove cognitive modernity? A critical analysis from situated cognition

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Duilio Garofoli
• 关键词：Cognitive archaeology ; Enactivism ; Early body ornaments ; Mindreading
• 刊名：Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：December 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：14
• 期：4
• 页码：803-825
• 全文大小：347 KB
• 参考文献：Apperly, I. A. (2011). Mindreaders. New York: Psychology.
  Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. A. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review, 116(4), 953-70.
  Atkin, A. (2013) [2006]. Peirce’s Theory of Signs, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta, forthcoming. http://?plato.?stanford.?edu/?archives/?sum2013/?entries/?peirce-semiotics/-/span> Accessed 28 April 2013.
  Barnard, P. J. (2010a). Current developments in inferring cognitive capabilities from the archaeological traces left by stone tools. In A. Nowell & I. Davidson (Eds.), Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition (pp. 207-26). Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
  Barnard, P. J. (2010b). From executive mechanisms underlying perception and action to the parallel processing of meaning. Current Anthropology, 51(1), S39–S53.
  Barnard, P., Duke, D., Byrne, R., & Davidson, I. (2007). Differentiation in cognitive and emotional meanings: an evolutionary analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 21(6), 1155-183.
  Baron-Cohen, S. (2001). Theory of mind in normal development and autism. Prisme, 34, 174-83.
  Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-60.
  Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounding symbolic operations in the brain’s modal systems. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Situating concepts. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 236-63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(2), 84-1.
  Bar-Yosef, O. (2002). The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 363-93.
  Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Vandermeersch, B., & Bar-Yosef, O. (2009). Shells and ochre in Middle Paleolithic Qafzeh Cave, Israel: indications for modern behavior. Journal of Human Evolution, 56, 307-14.
  Bogdan, R. J. (2009). Predicative minds: The social ontogeny of propositional thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  Botha, R. (2010). On the soundness of inferring modern language from symbolic behaviour. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 20, 345-56.
  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. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 104(24), 9964-969.
  Butterfill, S., & Apperly, I. A. (2013). How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind and Language, 28(5), 606-37.
  Caron, F., d’Errico, F., Del Moral, P., Santos, F., & Zilh?o, J. (2011). The reality of Neandertal symbolic behavior at the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e21545.
  Carruthers, P. (2006). The architecture of the mind. Massive modularity and the flexibility of thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
  Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2005). Working memory, its executive functions, and the emergence of modern thinking. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 15(1), 5-6.
  Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2007). The working memory account of Neandertal cognition: how phonological storage capacity may be related to recursion and the pragmatics of modern speech. Journal of Human Evolution, 52(6), 707-10.
  Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2011). Comment to C.S. Henshilwood & B. Dubreuil: the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort, 77-9 ka symbolic material culture and the evolution of the mind during the African Middle Stone Age. Current Anthropology, 52(3), 380-82.
  Deacon, T. W. (1976). Semiotics and cybernetics: The relevance of C.S. Peirce. In The System & Structure Study Group (Ed.), Sanity and Signification. Bellingham: Fairhaven College Press.
  Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species. New York: Norton & Company Inc.
  de Bruin, L., Strijbos, D., & Slors, M. (2011). Early social cognition: alternatives to implicit mindreading. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(3), 499-17.
  de Bruin, L., & de Haan, S. (2012). Enactivism & social cognition: in search of the whole story. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, IV(1), 225-50.
  de Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: an enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485-07.
  De Mello, M. (2007). Encyclopedia of body adornment: A cultural history. Westport: Greenwood Press.
  d’Errico, F. (2003). The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin of behavioral modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology, 12, 188-02.
  d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Vanhaeren, M., & van Niekerke, E. (2005). Nassarius kraussianus sh
• 作者单位：Duilio Garofoli (1)
  
  1. Zentrum für Naturwissenschaftliche Arch?ologie, Abt. Pal?oanthropologie, Eberhard Karls Universit?t Tübingen, Rümelinstr. 23, 72070, Tübingen, Germany
  
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Philosophy
  Phenomenology
  Interdisciplinary Studies
  Philosophy of Mind
  Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1572-8676

文摘

The documented appearance of body ornaments in the archaeological record of early anatomically modern human and late Neanderthal populations has been claimed to be proof of symbolism and cognitive modernity. Recently, Henshilwood and Dubreuil (Current Anthropology 52:361-00, 2011) have supported this stance by arguing that the use of beads and body painting implies the presence of properties typical of modern cognition: high-level theory of mind and awareness of abstract social standards. In this paper I shall disagree with this position. For the purposes of the argument, body ornaments are divided in three categories: aesthetic, indexical and fully-symbolic, on the basis of the necessary and sufficient conditions to construct meaning for each category. As previously acknowledged by a number of authors, I will argue that the abilities considered by Henshilwood & Dubreuil necessarily apply only to fully symbolic ornaments and they do not extend to the aesthetic and indexical categories. Indeed, a series of situated strategies can be sufficient to process non-symbolic categories of ornaments, through their phases of initiation, understanding and maintenance. Since these strategies could be implemented also by non-modern cognitive architectures, it is concluded that early body ornaments are currently unable to support cognitive equivalence between primitive and modern human populations. Keywords Cognitive archaeology Enactivism Early body ornaments Mindreading