Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T08:10:12.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond the binary: Inferential challenges and solutions in cognitive archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2025

Cheng Liu Open the ORCID record for Cheng Liu [Opens in a new window]  and
Dietrich Stout Open the ORCID record for Dietrich Stout [Opens in a new window]
Cheng Liu*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA cheng.liu@emory.edu https://raylc.github.io/
Dietrich Stout
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA cheng.liu@emory.edu https://raylc.github.io/ Center for Mind, Brain & Culture, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA dwstout@emory.edu https://anthropology.emory.edu/people/bios/stout-dietrich.html
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We welcome Stibbard-Hawkes's empirical contributions and discussion of interpretive challenges for archaeology, but question some of his characterizations and conclusions. Moving beyond critique, it is time to develop new research methods that eschew simplistic modern/premodern binaries. We advocate an inductive, probabilistic approach using multiple lines of evidence to infer the causes and consequences of behavioral variability across time and space.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e13
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Kelly, R. L., Mackie, M. E., & Kandel, A. W. (2023). Rapid increase in production of symbolic artifacts after 45,000 years ago is not a consequence of taphonomic bias. Journal of Archaeological Science, 160, 105885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2023.105885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killin, A., & Pain, R. (2021). Cognitive archaeology and the minimum necessary competence problem. Biological Theory, 18, 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-021-00378-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissel, M., & Fuentes, A. (2021). The ripples of modernity: How we can extend paleoanthropology with the extended evolutionary synthesis. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 30(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21883CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, S. L. (2021). The evolution of paleolithic technologies. Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2000.0435CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meneganzin, A., & Currie, A. (2022). Behavioural modernity, investigative disintegration & Rubicon expectation. Synthese, 200(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03491-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, J. J. (2011). Homo sapiens is as homo sapiens was. Current Anthropology, 52(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1086/658067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, J., Will, M., & Wells, J. C. K. (2023). The extended evolutionary synthesis and distributed adaptation in the genus Homo: Phenotypic plasticity and behavioral adaptability. PaleoAnthropology, 2023(2), 205–233. https://doi.org/10.48738/2023.iss2.123Google Scholar
Stout, D., & Chaminade, T. (2012). Stone tools, language and the brain in human evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1585), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0099CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stout, D., & Hecht, E. (2023). Evolutionary neuroarchaeology. In Wynn, T., Overmann, K. A., & Coolidge, F. L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive archaeology (pp. C14.S1–C14.S11). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192895950.013.14Google Scholar
Stout, D., Rogers, M. J., Jaeggi, A. V., & Semaw, S. (2019). Archaeology and the origins of human cumulative culture: A case study from the earliest Oldowan at Gona, Ethiopia. Current Anthropology, 60(3), 309–340. https://doi.org/10.1086/703173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tylén, K., Fusaroli, R., Rojo, S., Heimann, K., Fay, N., Johannsen, N. N., … Lombard, M. (2020). The evolution of early symbolic behavior in Homo sapiens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(9), 4578–4584. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910880117CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallach, E. (2019). Inference from absence: The case of archaeology. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0307-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar