Abstract
AbstractPhilosophical preoccupation with the hard problem of self-consciousness often takes human becoming for granted. In archaeology, the opposite is the norm. The emphasis is on when and how we became human while the problem of self (how did the ability to think about one’s own self come about? ) is largely neglected. This article suggest that those two aspects of human becoming cannot be meaningfully disentangled: humans are both persons and members of a species. I argue that people are STRANGE. I use the acronym STRANGE to describe the Situated TRANsactional and GEnerative process by which the human species (nature) and the human self (culture) become co-constituted in the lived space of material engagement. I propose that to study this middle space of self-becoming a synergy of enactive and situated perspectives from philosophy and archaeology is needed. Drawing on material engagement theory I sketch out my vision of what this synergy entails based on the notions of self-bounding, enactive in/dividuation, and the situated person perspective. I use the archaeological examples of stone knapping (toolmaking) and early body ornamentation to substantiate some of the main issues and methodological challenges.
Funder
H2020 European Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference141 articles.
1. Ambrose, S. H. (2001). Palaeolithic technology and human evolution. Science, 291, 1748–1753.
2. Bateson, G. (1973). Steps to an ecology of mind. Granada.
3. Binford, L. (1972). Archaeological reasoning and smudge pits—revisited. An archeological perspective (pp. 52–58). Seminar.
4. Bird-David, N. (1999). “Animism” revisited: Personhood, environment, and relational epistemology. Current Anthropology, 40, 67–91.
5. Bloch, M. (2012). Anthropology and the cognitive challenge. Cambridge University Press.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献