What is cognitive archaeology?

According to Renfrew and Bahn (1996:369), cognitive archaeology refers to the study of past ways of thought that exhibited by past societies using material remains.

Also, Whitlay (1998:5), defines cognitive archaeology as the study of all those aspects of ancient culture that are the products of products of human mind, that is; the perception, description and the classification of the universe (cosmology), the nature of the supernatural (religion), and the principles, philosophies, ethics, and values that by which human values are governed.

As an approach to archaeology, cognitive archaeology emerged around the 1990s, but before its emergence, there existed other theories which are explained below.

Traditional approach, this was an approach to archaeology that dominated the period before 1960s. This approach was based on the description of cultural phenomena. It used inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive one. Traditional archaeologists also used diffusion theory in describing the cultural phenomena.

Because of basing on description of archaeological remains, there rose another approach during the 1960s to 1970s that came with the notion of explaining the course of cultural process. This new paradigm is called Processual archaeology. The processualists found that there is a need of explaining the course of cultural process rather than description. Processual archaeologists argued that human culture changes according to the environment. They proposed the study of cultural remains through scientific methods. Therefore processual archaeologists wanted to make the study of archaeology like other natural sciences whereby the same answer should be obtained across the world. They did archaeology basing on observation.

According to Renfrew, and Bahn (1996:369-370), Processual archaeology neglected the studies of cognitive basing on the fact that they were by the seemingly unstable nature of many ideas about the cognitive past. For instance, some of the processual archaeologists, notably Lewis Binford argues that “it is not useful to consider what people were thinking in the past”. They further maintain that, it is the actions not the thoughts of people that find their way primarily into the material record.

Processual archaeology was followed by post-processual archaeology in the 1980s. The post-processualists challenged the processual archaeologists by claiming that observation was not enough to explain the course of cultural process. They further argued that, beyond observation there is reality. They also challenged the environmental determinism by saying that processual archaeologists ignored the possibility of organic matter that influences human culture but they argued that it is not only the environment which influences human culture but rather there are other factors such as time and space, interaction, and technological changes. This paradigm also did not incorporate the aspects of the mind (cognitive aspects).

The negligence of cognitive aspects of the past by the previous theories made it possible for the rise of cognitive archaeology. Cognitive archaeologists seek to know the thoughts of the past societies basing on the study of symbols. They provide reasons to why a certain symbol was used by a certain society rather than the other. For instance, the pottery decorations along the neck, rock paintings, and drawings are interpreted basing on the cognitive aspects of the past man with consideration to the traditional culture of the society concern.

Cognitive archaeologists reject the environmental determinism, and seek to develop a more informed theoretical framework by revitalising the central concept of anthropological research: “culture”. They do not rule out (dismiss) the importance of prehistoric material remains but are more concerned with studying the cognitive systems that produced and created the archaeological records. They further argue that aspects of ideological subsystems such as status, class, gender and kingship systems are essential components in explaining why societies became organized in particular ways (Fagan, 1996:150)

So, cognitive archaeology is used to give the meaning of materials (symbols). According to Renfrew and Bahn (1996:369), meaning is ascribed to a particular symbol in an arbitrary way. They maintain that the meaning ascribed to a symbol is specific to a specific cultural tradition. For instance, when we look at prehistoric Scandinavian rock curving of what appears to us to be a boat, we cannot without further research be a certain that it is a boat. It might be very well perhaps be a sledge in this cold region. But the people who made the curving would have had no difficulty in interpreting its meaning (Renfrew, and Bahn, 1996:370).

Before looking at how useful cognitive archaeology is in archaeological research, let us have a look at the uses of symbols. According to Renfrew, and Bahn (1996:375), symbols have the following uses:

As units of measurements; Symbols are used to measure time, length, and weight which help us to organize our relationship with the natural world.

Symbols allow us to cope with the future world, as instruments of planning. They help us define our intentions more clearly by making models, for some future intended action; for example plans of towns or cities.

Symbols are used to regulate and organize relations between human beings. Money is a good example of this, and with it the whole notion that some material objects carry higher value than others. Beyond this is a broader category of symbols, such as badges of rank in an army that have to do with the exercise of power in the society.

Symbols are also used to represent and to try to regulate human relations with the other world; the world of the supernatural or the transcendental which leads on to the entire question of archaeology of religion and cult.

Above all, symbols may be used to describe the world through depiction, this means through the art of representation, as in sculpture or painting.

Having discussed about some of the uses of symbols in the societies, let us have a look at how cognitive archaeology has become useful in the archaeological researches.

Cognitive archaeology enables archaeological researchers to investigate how people (past societies) went about describing and measuring their world. This is mainly possible with the study of symbols that were used by the past societies to measure the world. For instance the existence of measurements of weight can be demonstrated by the discovery of objects of standard forms that prove to be multiples of the recurrent quantity (by weight), which we can assume to be a standard unit. These discoveries had been made in many early civilisations, such as at the site of Mohenjodaro, a major city of the Indus valley civilization around 2000BC (Renfrew, and Bahn 1996:382).

With the use of cognitive archaeology, archaeological researchers can investigate how people planned their monuments and cities, since the layout of streets themselves reveal the aspects of planning, and in some cases, maps and other specific indications of planning (such as models) have been formed. Therefore, archaeological researchers can make use of these cultural phenomena to find out the level of thinking of the past man at that particular time. For instance, the discoveries made at the village like Catalhoyuk in Turkey (C 6500BC) (Renfrew, and Bahn 1996:384).

Cognitive archaeology can help the archaeologists to investigate which material goods people (past societies) valued most highly and perhaps viewed as symbols of power or authority; the past societies had their own ways of expressing the value of material goods that were useful in the societies. In these societies, the highly valued material goods such as gold were buried together with very important figures in the society such as rulers. For instance, the 6^th century BC chieftain’s grave at Huchdorf, Western Germany was accompanied with rich arrays of accoutrement symbolising his wealth and authority in the society (Renfrew, and Bahn 1996:387).

Cognitive archaeology can help the archaeological researchers to determine the level of thinking that shaped the past societies. This is possible with the study of symbols, rock designs and other archaeological remains. For instance, James Deetz (in Fagan, 1996:150) applied the central precepts of cognitive archaeology to early Anglo-America. He identified three distinctive periods that according to him are associated with different world views that permeate all aspects of life, from ceramics and gravestones to architecture and the organisation of space.

The study of extinct minds, brains and behaviours cannot be investigated in the laboratory through experimentation (testing). Therefore, this may result to subjectivism or prejudice of the researchers.

Generally, archaeologists in order to obtain or collect plausible and accurate archaeological information should make use of the combination of multiple approaches rather than relying on only one approach. This is because the end limit of one approach necessitates the use of another theory, hence the collection of accurate and sound archaeological information.

REFFERENCES

Fagan, B.M (1996). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology: Oxford University Press.

Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. (1996). Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames and Hudson Ltd. London.

Whitlay, D.S. (1998). Reader in Archaeological Theory: Processual, Postprocessual, and Cognitive Aproaches. Routledge: London