My position paper for Anthropology 410.

1. Jeff Grimm
Anthropology 410
Position Paper
Knowing the Mind Through Science
I argue the position that through the use of Geographic Information Systems, Cognitive
Archaeology can begin to enter the field of real statistical science through a new archaeological
approach called Landscape Archaeology (L.A.). L.A. is a growing field that can and does allow
archaeologist knowledge of mind for extinct cultures. Through the example of “An Analysis of Pre-
Christian Ireland Using Mythology and G.I.S.” I will show what L.A. Is and that it is useful.
Cognitive Archaeology
Cognitive Archaeology (C.A.) is a sub-discipline of archaeology that utilizes psychology and
sociology very heavily to infer details about human culture from material remains. Ideology, state of
mind, past experience and symbolism are C.A. primary areas of study. Humans do not operate
exclusively on sensory stimuli, but, plan their actions based on previous experiences and beliefs.
People living together begin to share a view of the world which affects their material culture.
Additionally, people living together begin to share a view of the world which affects their material
culture. This shared view of the world is called a cognitive map and reverse engineering this map, from
material culture, is the primary modus operandi for cognitive archaeologists (Feagans).
Within C.A. there are two major focuses, the first is how human thought influences and impacts
human surroundings and material culture. The second major focus is the exploration of the origins of
human cognition and its development. Within the first focus symbolic representations expressed in
human physical culture are the primary concentration. The second focus is a concentration on
examining early hominin species as well as our own ancestors and their cognitive evolution (Feagans).

2. Cognitive Archaeologists believe human thought is expressed symbolically in culture, because
the human mind associates subject material into what is called ontological categories (Feagans).
Ontological categories are groupings of “like” information that allows an individual to remember a vast
amount of data without having to recall all of the details of each subject. A ready example of an
ontological category is the concept of, “animal,” which carries inferences different from the concept,
“family.” These symbolic categories can be reverse-engineered to find out what people think, in regard
to “animal” and “family” (Ontological Categories). Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, in the book
Archaeology, draw upon Karl Popper’s theory of reality and the three intersecting worlds. Popper
describes three worlds in the human mind that consist of:
A) The world of physical objects
B) The world of subjective experiences and thought processes
C) The world of human-made products (art, tools, etc) (Renfrew & Bahn).
The last world (C) is the objective of C.A. and a topic of study for the first focus of the field. If these
categories could be parceled into sub-ontological categories, which in turn, could also be sub-parceled,
then by examining specific categories/sub-parceled categories, inferences about behaviors, associated
with them, can be reasonably assigned through a structuralist approach.
It was suggested by psychologist Merlin Donald that cognitive evolution could be examined as
a model consisting of developmental stages. Donald argued that using a model such as this, would
allow an amount of consistency with non-human primate studies. His stages begin with primate
cognition (episodic culture) and then progress toward a state analogous to the cognitive state of Homo
erectus, (memetic culture). Memetic culture is a transition to linguistic culture/mythic culture that
forms the foundation of early Homo sapiens cognitive state. The final transition as outlined by Donald
is one into theoretic culture where the use of external objects could be used for symbolic storage. This

3. final stage is important as it allows for the ability for humans to record information that doesn’t
necessarily fit neatly and efficiently into ontological categories (Feagans). Renfrew notes that Donald is
a little too inclusive in his definition and lumps Paleolithic cave paintings into the mythic culture along
with early writing systems, like those in Mesopotamia (3500 BC). Renfrew has a slightly broader
vantage point.
Renfrew suggests additional stages of external symbolic storage between mythic and theoretic
cultures. Renfrew’s view includes early agrarian societies. These cultures stored information, such as,
astrological positions which provided critical calendar events, in relation to planting and harvesting.
Hunter-gatherer cultures would also need to be included, as they would have needed to store migratory
details of animals, as well as, symbolic information for rituals. Renfrew also warns that constructing a
narrative model of human cognition does not need to be sequential. Renfrew points out that while there
is much theory and reason involved in human learning, people still learn behavior through repetition
and mimesis, depending on repetition within motor sequences. Do recent and current non-literate
cultures fit into this framework? If so, do they fit into the theoretic phase or are they excluded?
Renfrew points out the stark fact that even within our own society we have non-literate individuals
residing within complex urban culture, managing their affairs without the benefit of written language
(Feagans).
Enter the Geographic Information System
A Geographic Information System (G.I.S.) is any computer program which allows for the user
to compare, analyze and interpret visual geographic information. Often used in cultural resource
management for the location of potential archaeological sites, cataloging existing sites, basic mapping
and many other uses, G.I.S. has allowed archaeologists to ply their trade efficiently. ESRI makes the
most common G.I.S. program, but, there are similar G.I.S. programs also used in archeology (What Is

4. GIS?).
With computers becoming such an important tool within archaeology it is not surprising that
Cognitive Archaeologists have began to use them to uncover ontological meaning. What computers
offer the archaeologist is a more systematic technique of comparing assigned values within a project
and measuring these values in a scientific fashion. In particular, the use of Geographic Information
Systems software derives meaning from the cultural landscape rather than relying exclusively on the
use of artifacts and bones. When C.A. and G.I.S. are combined the resulting field of study is Landscape
Archaeology.
Landscapes of the Mind
Krzysztof Grzymski defines landscape as a holistic term dealing with linking artifacts and
ecofacts to specific spatial location. Landscape also encompass the ecological as well as the
geographies of the location along with the artistic and sociosymbolic aspects. Ecological include how a
culture modified, utilized and shaped the way their landscape functioned. Geographies deal with spatial
layout of a landscape as well as what ecological factors that exist within the landscape. The artistic
aspects revolve around how the culture depicted their landscape in art and as art. This information can
be treated using a structuralist approach or if ethnographic information is present, gleaned directly from
the culture itself (Grzymski). L.A. at Ball State University used a combination of C.A. and G.I.S. along
with known mythological data to attach known meaning to the landscape of Ireland.
An Example: An Analysis of Pre-Christian Ireland Using Mythology and G.I.S.
“An Analysis of Pre-Christian Ireland Using Mythology and G.I.S.” allowed archaeologists at
Ball State to compare pre-Christian Irish myths (known as the Dindshenchas) with actual

5. archaeological sites mentioned within these myths. More specifically, archaeologists at Ball State
wanted to see if there is a geographic correlation between known archeological sites and regions
mentioned within the myths, as well as, find unidentified sites, through geographic details, which
would validate the mythologies as solid ethnographic accounts. Importantly, this study connects
Druidic myth, ontological categories created within the myths and the real life geographic landscape in
which archeologists work (Caviness).
The Dindshenchas are a series of written myths that provide a vague, yet, firsthand account of
pre-Christian cultural practices among the Celtic people of Ireland. Pre-Christian Celtic religious
practices continued well after the conversion to Christianity in Ireland. The Dindshenchas were
recorded during the time that the Catholic church mandated that pagan customs be incorporated into
religious practices to make conversion easier (601 AD). The fact that the Dinshenchas preserve to this
day means that the old religion's mythology held importance beyond their pagan religious significance.
Also, the fact that the place names within the Dinshenchas continued into modern day gives a great
deal of cultural continuity and shows that these stories may have been more then just stories.
The Ball University research bridges the gap between the ideologies broached with C.A. and the
methodical calculations of a database system. Cultural anthropologists analyzed symbolic and
ethnographic information from mythic interpretations while, archaeologists examine physical evidence
from the field. The two disciplines have always been divided over techniques used to arrive at accurate
data. The Ball University study overcomes the towering barrier that has separated two sub-disciplines
and opens the way for future projects involving C.A. and G.I.S within the realm of L.A.
Ball State archaeologists wished to predict the most logical route of the legendary Five Roads
of Tara, a road system prominent within the Dindshenchas. Data used included geographic information
such as water sources, geography, known settlements and other landmarks. Sites mentioned in the
Dindshenchas, such as religious hill sites, could not only be discovered, but, could be assigned
analyzable meaning, due to inclusion in the myth (Caviness). Significance could then be more

6. accurately assessed in conjunction to artifacts found at the sites.
Ball State employed ESRI’s G.I.S. program to map and correlate data, working initially off of
ESRI’s Ireland base map. Layers were overlaid on this base map with each layer representing a
particular theme:
1) Dindshenchas Sites
2) Druid sites
3) Relevant locations
4) Known sacred sites
After these layers were systematically compared, several projected routes were created as prospective
routes of the Five Roads of Tara. These projected routes, may reveal that the Five Roads of Tara were,
in fact, not mythical, but, actual travel routes (Caviness).
The Ball State archeologists have shown that through using G.I.S. the mind of an extinct people
can be examined without the use of calipers or trying to group artifacts together to deduce their
significance. Granted, the use of existing known ethnographic information was primary contributing
factor to this project but the fact that verifiable information can and was extracted from a mythology is
astounding. L.A. with its more quantitative approach will begin to play a larger role in archaeology in
the future. The roots of L.A. within the computer sciences and C.A. Demonstrate a shift from purely
speculative analysis to using hard statistical fact. Paired with future non evasive excavation techniques
who knows what the future holds?

7. Works Cited
Caviness, Dimitra-Alys A. "An Analysis of Pre-Christian Ireland Using Mythology and A GIS." Recent
Proceedings. 1998. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.
<http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc02/pap1030/p1030.htm>.
Feagans, C. "About Cognitive Archaeology." A Hot Cup of Joe. A Hot Cup of Joe, 14 May 2010. Web.
16 Nov. 2011. <http://ahotcupofjoe.net/2010/05/about-cognitive-archaeology/>.
Grzymski, Krzysztof. "Landscape Archaeology of Nubia and Central Sudan." The African
Archaeological Review 21.1 (2004): 7-30. Jstor. Web. 9 Mar. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/stable/25130787?
&Search=yes&searchText=archaeology&searchText=landscape&list=hide&searchUri=
%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dlandscape%2Barchaeology%26fromHomePage
%3Dtrue%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc
%3Doff&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=21049&returnArticleService=showFullText>.
"Ontological Categories : Ontological Categories Oxford Scholarship Online." Home Oxford
Scholarship Online. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199285044.001.0001/acprof-
9780199285044>.
Renfrew, Colin, and Paul G. Bahn. "What Did They Think: Cognitive Archaeology, Art and Religion."
Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London: Thames & Hudson, 2008. 396-402.

8. Print.
"What Is GIS? | Geographic Information Systems." Esri - The GIS Software Leader | Mapping
Software and Data. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. <http://www.esri.com/what-is-gis/index.html>.
Wynn, Thomas, and Frederick L. Coolidge & Martha Bright. "Hohlenstein-Stadel and the Evolution of
Human Conceptual Thought." Steps to a ‘Neuroarchaeology’ of Mind, Part 2. University of
Colorado Colorado Spings, 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.uccs.edu/~faculty/fcoolidg/pdfs/Wynn%20%26%20Coolidge%20CAJ
%202009%20Hohlenstein-Stadel.pdf>.