Come si relaziona il pensiero alla produzione di utensili?

How does thinking relate to tool making? (Italian translation)

How the boundaries of the mind should be drawn with respect to action and the material world is a core research question that cognitive archaeology shares with contemporary cognitive sciences. The study of hominin technical thinking, as in the case of stone tool making, is a good way to bring that question to the fore. This article argues that archaeologists who study lithic artefacts and their transformations over the course of human evolution are uniquely well positioned to contribute to the ongoing debate about the marks of the mental. Adopting the material engagement approach, I propose to replace the internalist vision of mentality, that is, the vision of a brain-bound mind that is using the body to execute and externalise preconceived mental plan through the stone, with an ecological-enactive vision of participatory mentality where bodily acts and materials act together to generate rather than merely execute thought processes. I argue that the latter participatory view changes the geography of the cognitive and offers a better description for the continuity of mind and matter that we see in the lithic record.

Bibliografia

• Adams, F. 2010. Why we still need a mark of the cognitive, «Cognitive Systems Research», 11 (4), pp. 324-331.
• Ashton, N. & White, M. J., 2003. Bifaces and raw materials: Flexible flaking in the British early Paleolithic, in M. Soressi, & H. L. Dibble (Eds.), Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial technologies, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, pp. 109-123. 
• Barrett, J. C. 2013. The archaeology of mind: It’s not what you think. «Cambridge Archaeological Journal», 23 (1), pp. 1-17.
• Bateson, G. 1971. The cybernetics of ‘self’: A theory of alcoholism, «Psychiatry», 34 (1), pp. 1-18.
• Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 
• Brentano, F. 1995. Psychology from an empirical standpoint (A. C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell, & L. L. McAlister, Trans.), Routledge, London. 
• Bril, B., Parry, R., & Dietrich, G. 2015. How similar are nut-cracking and stone-flaking? A functional approach to percussive technology, «Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences», 370 (1682).
• Bril, B., Rein, R., Nonaka, T., Wenban-Smith, F., & Die- trich, G. 2010, The role of expertise in tool use: Skill differences in functional action adaptations to task constraint, «Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance», 36 (4), pp. 825-839. 
• Bruineberg, J., & Rietveld, E. 2014. Self-organization, free energy minimization, and optimal grip on a field of affordances, «Frontiers in Human Neuroscience», 8, Article 599. 
• Bruner, E., Fedato, A., Silva-Gago, M., Alonso-Alcalde, R., Terradillos-Bernal, M., Fernandez-Durantes, M. A., & Martin Guerra, E. 2018. Cognitive archeology, body cognition, and hand-tool interaction, in Progress in Brain Research, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 238, pp. 325-345.
• Bruner, E., & Gleeson, B. T. 2019. Body cognition and self-domestication in human evolution, «Frontiers in Psychology», 10, Article 1111, 
• Bruner, E., & Iriki, A. 2016. Extending mind, visuospatial integration, and the evolution of the parietal lobes in the human genus, «Quaternary International», 405, pp. 98-110.
• Chazan, M. 2015. Technological trends in the Acheulean of Wonderwerk Cave, South 
• Africa, «African Archaeological Review», 32, pp. 701-728.
• Chemero, A. 2009. Radical embodied cognitive science, Cambridge, MIT Press
• Clark, A. 2008. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Cole, J. 2016. Accessing hominin cognition: Language and social signaling in the lower to middle Palaeolithic. In T. Wynn, & F. L. Coolidge (Eds.), Cognitive models in Palaeolithic archaeology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 157-195.
• Crane, T. 1998. Intentionality as the mark of the mental, «Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements», 43, pp. 229-251.
• Cueva-Temprana, A., Lombao, D., Morales, J. I., Geribas, N., & Mosquera, M. 2019. Gestures during knapping: A two-perspective approach to Pleistocene, «Lithic Technology», 44 (2), pp. 74-89.
• Currie, A. 2018. Rock, bone, and ruin: An optimist’s guide to the historical sciences. Cambridge, MIT Press.
• Currie, A., & Killin, A. 2019. From things to thinking: Cognitive archaeology. Mind Lang, 34 (2), 263-279.
• Davidson, I. 2010. Stone tools and the evolution of hominin and human cognition. In A. Nowell & I. Davidson (Eds.), Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition, Denver, University Press of Colorado, pp. 185– 205.
• Davidson, I. 2019. Evolution of cognitive archaeology through evolving cognitive systems: A chapter for Tom Wynn, In K. A. Overmann, & F. L. Coolidge (Eds.), Squeezing minds from stones: Cognitive archaeology and the evolution of the human mind, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 79-101.
• Davidson, I., & McGrew, W. C. 2005. Stone tools and the uniqueness of human culture, «Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute», 11, pp. 793-817.
• Dibble, H. L., Holdaway, S. J., Lin, S. C., Braun, D. R., Douglass, M. J., Iovita, R., McPherron, S. P., Olszewski, D. I., & Sandgathe, D. 2017. Major fallacies surrounding stone artifacts and assemblages, «Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory», 24(3), pp. 813-85
• Dreyfus, H. L. 2002. Intelligence without representation: Merleau-Ponty’s critique of mental representation, «Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences», 1, pp. 367-383.
• Dreyfus, H. L. 2014. Skillful coping: Essays on the phenomenology of everyday perception and action. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Dupre´, J. 2008. Against maladaptationism: Or what’s wrong with evolutionary psychology? In M. Mazzotti (Ed.), Knowledge as social order: Rethinking the sociology of Barry Barnes, Farnham, Ashgate, pp. 165-180.
• Fedato, A., Silva-Gago, M., Terradillos-Bernal, M., Alonso-Alcalde, R., Martín Guerra, E., & Bruner, E. 2019. Electrodermal activity during Lower Paleolithic stone tool handling, «American Journal of Human Biology», 31(5), Article e23279.
• Gallagher, S. 2017. Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind., Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Gallagher, S., & Allen, M. 2018. Active inference, enactivism and the hermeneutics of social cognition, «Synthese», 195(6), pp. 2627-2648.
• Garcı´a-Medrano, P., Olle´, A., Ashton, N., & Roberts, M. B. 2019, The mental template in handaxe manufacture: New insights into Acheulean lithic technological behavior at Boxgrove, Sussex, UK., «Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory», 26(1), pp. 396-422.
• Geribas, N., Mosquera, M., & Verge`s, J. M. 2010. What novice knappers have to learn to become expert stone toolmakers, «Journal of Archaeological Science», 37(11), pp. 285-2870.
• Gibson, J. J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
• Gibson, K. R., & Ingold, T. (Eds.), 1993. Tools, language and cognition in human evolution, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Godfrey-Smith, P. 2016. Other minds: The octopus, the sea, and the deep origins of consciousness, New York, Macmillan.
• Gosden, C., & Malafouris, L. 2015. Process archaeology (PArch), «World Archaeology», 47, pp. 701-717.
• Gowlett, J. 2006. The elements of design form in Acheulian bifaces: Modes, modalities, rules and language, in N. Goren-Inbar, & G. Sharon (Eds.), Axe age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard, Sheffielf, Equinox, pp. 203-222. 
• Hodgson, D. 2015. The symmetry of Acheulean handaxes and cognitive evolution. «Journal of Archaeological Science», Reports, 2, pp. 204-208.
• Holdaway, S., & Douglass, M. 2012. A twenty-first century archaeology of stone artifacts, «Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory», 19(1), pp. 101-131.
• Hutchence, L., & Debackere, S. 2018. An evaluation of behaviours considered indicative of skill in handaxe manufacture, «Lithics», 39, pp. 36-51.
• Hutchins, E. 2010. Cognitive ecology, «Topics in Cognitive Science», 2, pp. 705-715.
• Hutto, D., & Myin, E. 2017. Evolving enactivism: basic minds meet content. Cambridge, MIT Press.
• Ihde, D. 1990. Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
• Ihde, D., & Malafouris, L. 2019. Homo Faber revisited: Post-phenomenology and material engagement theory, «Philosophy & Technology», 32(2), pp. 195-214.
• Ingold, T. 1997. Eight themes in the anthropology of technology, «Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice», 4(1), pp. 106–138.
• Ingold, T. 2012. Toward an ecology of materials, «Annual Review of Anthropology», 41, pp. 427-442.
• Ingold, T. 2013. Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture, London, Routledge.
• Ingold, T. & Paulson G. 2013. Biosocial Becomings: Integrating Social and Biological Anthropology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Key, A., Merritt, S. R., & Kivell, T. L. 2018. Hand grip diversity and frequency during the use of Lower Paleolithic stone cutting-tools, «Journal of Human Evolution», 125, pp. 137-158.
• Kirchhoff, M. D., & Kiverstein, J. 2019. How to determine the boundaries of the mind: A Markov blanket proposal, «Synthese».
• Kivell, T. L. 2015. Evidence in hand: Recent discoveries and the early evolution of human manual manipulation, «Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences», 370(1682), 20150105.
• Kohn, M., & Mithen, S. 1999. Handaxes: Products of sexual selection?, «Antiquity», 73(281), 518-526.
• Koukouti, M. D., & Malafouris, L. 2020. Material imagination: An anthropological perspective. In A. Abraham (Ed.), «The Cambridge Handbook of the Imagination», Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 30– 46.
• Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1993. Gesture and speech (A. B. Berger, Trans.), London, MIT Press.
• Lombard, M., Hogberg, A., & Haidle, M. N. 2019. Cognition: From capuchin rock pounding to Lomekwian flake production. «Cambridge Archaeological Journal», 29(2), pp. 201-231.
• Luria, A. R. 1973. The working brain (B. Haigh, Trans.), London, Penguin Books.
• Lycett, S. J., & Eren, M. I. 2019. Built-in misdirection: On the difficulties of learning to knap, «Lithic Technology», 44(1), pp. 8-21.
• 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 perspective, Berlino, Springer, pp. 19-36.
• Malafouris, L. 2008b. 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.
• Malafouris, L. 2008c. Between brains, bodies, and things: Tectonoetic awareness and the extended self, «Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences», 363, pp. 1993-2002.
• Malafouris, L. 2009. ‘Neuroarchaeology’: Exploring the links between neural and cultural plasticity, «Progress in Brain Research», 178, pp. 251-259.
• Malafouris, L. 2010a. Knapping intentions and the marks of the mental, in L. Malafouris & C. Renfrew (Eds.), The cognitive life of things: Recasting the boundaries of the mind, Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 13-27.
• Malafouris, L. 2010b. Metaplasticity and the human becoming: Principles of neuroarchaeology. «Journal of Anthropological Sciences», 88, 49-72. 
• Malafouris, L. 2012. Prosthetic gestures: How the tool shapes the mind, «Behavioral and Brain Sciences», 35(4), pp. 28-29.
• Malafouris, L. 2013. How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. Cambridge, MIT Press.
• Malafouris, L. 2014. Creative thinking: The feeling of and for clay, «Pragmatics and Cognition», 22, pp. 140-158.
• Malafouris, L. 2015. Metaplasticity and the primacy of material engagement, «Time and Mind», 8, pp. 351-371.
• Malafouris, L. 2016a. Material engagement and the embodied mind. In T. Wynn & F. L. Coolidge (Eds.), Cognitive models in Palaeolithic archaeology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 69-82.
• Malafouris, L. 2016b. On human becoming and incompleteness: A material engagement approach to the study of embodiment in evolution and culture. In G. Etzemuller & C. Tewes (Eds.), Embodiment in evolution and culture, Tubinga, Mohr Siebeck, pp. 289-305.
• Malafouris, L. 2018. Bringing things to mind: 4Es and material engagement, in A. Newen, L. De Bruin, & S. Gallagher (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of 4Ecognition, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 755-771.
• Malafouris, L. 2019. Mind and material engagement, «Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences», 18, pp. 1-17.
• Malafouris, L. 2020. Thinking as ‘thinging’: Psychology with things, «Current Directions in Psychological Science», 29(1), pp. 3-8.
• Malafouris, L., & Renfrew, C. 2008. Steps to a ‘neuroarchaeology’ of mind: Introduction, «Cambridge Archaeological Journal», 18, pp. 381–385. 
• Malafouris, L., & Gosden, C. 2020. Material engagement, plasticity, and the developmental challenge, In I. Gaskell, & S. A. Carter (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of History and Material Culture, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 105-120.
• Mateos, A., Terradillos-Bernal, M., & Rodrı´guez, J. 2019. Energy cost of stone knapping, «Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory», 26(2), pp. 561-580.
• McPherron, S. P. 2000. Hand axes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids, «Journal of Archaeological Science», 27(8), pp. 655-663.
• Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London, Routledge. (Original work published 1945)
• Moore, M. W., & Perston, Y. 2016. Experimental insights into the cognitive significance of early stone tools, «PLOS ONE», 11(7), Article e0158803.
• Newen, A., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (Eds.). 2018. The Oxford Handbook of 4E cognition, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 
• Noble, W., & Davidson, I. 1996. Human evolution, language, and mind: A psychological and archaeological inquiry, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Nonaka, T., Bril, B., & Rein, R. 2010. How do stone knappers predict and control the outcome of flaking? Implications for understanding early stone tool technology, «Journal of Human Evolution», 59, pp. 155-167.
• Nowell, A., & Lee Chang, M. 2009. The case against sexual selection as an explanation of handaxe morphology, «Paleoanthropology», pp. 77-88.
• Overmann, K. A., & Coolidge, F. L. (Eds.). 2019. Squeezing minds from stones: Cognitive archaeology and the evolution of the human mind, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Overmann, K. A., & Wynn, T. 2019a. Materiality and human cognition, «Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory», 26(2), pp. 457-478.
• Overmann, K. A., & Wynn, T. 2019b. On tools making minds: An archaeological perspective on human cognitive evolution, «Journal of Cognition and Culture», 19 (12), pp. 39-58. 
• Pain, R. 2019. What can the lithic record tell us about the evolution of hominin cognition? «Topoi». Advance online publication. 
• Pargeter, J., Khreisheh, N., & Stout, D. 2019. Understanding stone tool-making skill acquisition: Experimental methods and evolutionary implications, «Journal of Human Evolution», 133, pp. 146-166.
• Patten, B. 2012. Explaining temporal change in artifacts by the use of process controls, «Lithic Technology», 37, pp. 25-34.
• Rein, R., Nonaka, T., & Bril, B. 2014. Movement pattern variability in stone knapping: Implications for the development of percussive traditions, «PLOS ONE», 9(11).
• Renfrew, C. 2004. Towards a theory of material engagement, in E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden, & C. Renfrew (Eds.), Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world, Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 23-32.
• Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. 2014. A rich landscape of affordances, «Ecological Psychology», 26, pp. 325–352.
• Roche, H. 2005. From simple flaking to shaping: Stone knapping evolution among early hominins, in V. Roux, & B. Bril (Eds.), Stone knapping: The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behavior, Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 35-48.
• Roux, V., & Bril, B. 2005a. General introduction: A dynamic systems framework for studying a uniquely hominin behavior, in V. Roux, & B. Bril (Eds.), Stone knapping: The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behavior, Cambridge, The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 1-18.
• Roux, V., & Bril, B. (Eds.). 2005b. Stone knapping: The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behavior, Cambridge, The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
• Roux, V., Bril, B., & Dietrich, G. 1995. Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone knapping: The case of stone bead knapping in Khambhat, India, «World Archaeology», 27(1), pp. 63-87.
• Roux, V., & David, E. 2005. Planning abilities as a dynamic perceptual-motor skill: An actualistic study of different levels of expertise involved in stone knapping, in V. Roux, & B. Bril (Eds.), Stone knapping: The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behavior, Cambridge, The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 91-108.
• Rowlands, M. 2009. Extended cognition and the mark of the cognitive, «Philosophical Psychology», 22(1), pp. 1-19.
• Sennett, R. 2008. The craftsman, New Heaven, Yale University Press.
• Sharon, G. 2008. The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production, «Journal of Archaeological Science», 35(5), pp. 1329-1344.
• Shea, J. J. 2015. Making and using stone tools: Advice for learners and teachers and insights for archaeologists, «Lithic Technology», 40, pp. 231-248.
• Sheets-Johnstone, M. 1998. The primacy of movement. Amsterdam, John Benjamins. 
• Shipton, C., & Clarkson, C. 2015a. Flake scar density and handaxe reduction intensity, «Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports», 2, pp. 169–175.
• Shipton, C., & Clarkson, C. 2015b. Handaxe reduction and its influence on shape: An experimental test and archaeological case study, «Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports», 3, pp. 408-419.
• Shipton, C., Clarkson, C., & Cobden, R. 2019. Were Acheulean bifaces deliberately made symmetrical? Archaeological and experimental evidence. «Cambridge Archaeological Journal», 29(1), 65-79.
• Stiegler, B. 1998. Technics and time, 1: The fault of Epimetheus. Redwood City, Stanford University Press.
• Stout, D. 2002. Skill and cognition in stone tool production: An ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya, «Current Anthropology», 43, pp. 693-722.
• Stout, D. 2011. Stone toolmaking and the evolution of human culture and cognition. «Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences», 366(1567), pp. 1050-1059.
• Stout, D. 2015. Cognitive demands of lower Paleolithic toolmaking. «PLOS ONE», 10(4).
• Stout, D., Apel, J., Commander, J., & Roberts, M. 2014. Late Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41, pp. 576-590.
• Stout, D., & Chaminade, T. 2007. The evolutionary neuroscience of tool making, «Neuropsychologia», 45, pp. 1091-1100. 
• Stout, D., Toth, N., Schick, K., & Chaminade, T. 2008. Neural correlates of Early Stone Age toolmaking: Technology, language and cognition in human evolution, «Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences», 363, 1939-1949.
• Vaesen, K. 2012. The cognitive bases of human tool use, «Behavioral and Brain Sciences», 35(4), 203-218.
• White, M. J. 1995. Raw materials and biface variability in southern Britain: A preliminary examination, «Lithics», 15, 1-20.
• Whiten, A. 2015. Experimental studies illuminate the cultural transmission of percussive technologies in Homo and Pan, «Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences», 370(1682).
• Wynn, T. 1995. Handaxe enigmas, «World Archaeology», 27(1), pp. 10-24.
• Wynn, T. 2002. Archaeology and cognitive evolution, «Behavioral and Brain Sciences», 25(3), pp. 389-402.
• Wynn, T., & Gowlett, J. A. J. 2018. The handaxe reconsidered, «Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews», 27(1), pp. 21-29.
• Yarrow, K., Brown, P., & Krakauer, J. W. 2009. Inside the brain of an elite athlete: The neural processes that support high achievement in sports, «Nature Reviews Neuroscience,» 10 (8), pp. 585-596.