An Experimental Approach to Understanding the “Eolithic” Problem: Cultural Cognition and the Perception of Plausibly Anthropic Artifacts

References

• Arnheim R. 1974 Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. University of California Press, Berkeley.
   Google Scholar
• Atran S., Medin D. 2008 The Native Mind and the Cultural Construction of Nature. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes Alfred S. 1939 The Differences Between Natural and Human Flaking on Prehistoric Flint Implements. American Anthropologist 41(1): 99–112.
   Google Scholar
• de Bont R. 2003 The Creation of Prehistoric Man: Aimé Rutot and the Eolith Controversy, 1900–1920. Isis 94: 604–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole M., Gay J., Glick J.A., Sharp D.W. 1971 The Cultural Context of Learning and Thinking. Methuen, London.
   Google Scholar
• Daniel G. 1950 A Hundred Years of Archaeology. Duckworth, London.
   Google Scholar
• Daniel G. 1962 The Idea of Prehistory. Penguin, Harmondsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Duvall J.G., Venner W.T. 1979 A Statistical Analysis of the Lithics From the Calico Site (5BCM 15000A) California. Journal of Field Archaeology 6: 455–462.
   Google Scholar
• Ellen R.F. 1993 The Cultural Relations of Classification: An Analysis of Nuaulu Animal Categories from Central Seram. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Ellen R.F. 2004 From Ethno-science to Science, or “What the Indigenous Knowledge Debate Tells Us About How Scientists Define their Project”. Journal of Cognition and Culture 4(3–4): 409–450.
   Google Scholar
• Ellen R.F. 2005 Fraud, “Faction” and the Anthropological Imagination. The Stirling Lecture, delivered at the University of Kent at Canterbury. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Ellen R.F. 2006 Introduction: Categories, Classification and Cognitive Anthropology. In The Categorical Impulse: Essays on the Anthropology of Classifying Behaviour, edited by , Ellen R.F., pp. 1–30. Berghahn, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Ellen R. 2011a The Place of the Eolithic Controversy in the Anthropology of Alfred Russel Wallace. The Linnean 27(1): 22–33.
   Google Scholar
• Ellen R. 2011b The Eolith Debate, Evolutionist Anthropology and the Oxford Connection Between 1880 and 1940. History and Anthropology 22(3): 277–306.
   Google Scholar
• Ellen R. 2013 ‘These Rude Implements’: Competing Claims for Authenticity in the Eolithic Controversy. The Anthropological Quarterly 86(2): 445–480. [Special Collection, Laying claim to authenticity: anthropological dilemmas, ed. D. Theodossopoulos].
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellen R., Muthana A. 2010 Classifying “Eoliths”: How Cultural Cognition Featured in Arguments Surrounding Claims for the Earliest Human Artifacts as these Developed Between 1880 and 1900. Journal of Cognition and Culture 10: 341–375.
   Google Scholar
• Evans J. 1872 The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments of Great Britain. Longmans, London.
   Google Scholar
• Forge A. 1970 Learning to See in New Guinea. In Socialization: The Approach from Social Anthropology, edited by , Mayer P., pp. 269–291. Tavistock, London.
   Google Scholar
• Frake C.O. 1983 Did Literacy Cause the Great Cognitive Divide? American Ethnologist 10: 368–371.
   Google Scholar
• Goody J. 1977 The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Grayson D.K. 1983 The Establishment of Human Antiquity. Academic Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Grayson D.K. 1986 Eoliths, Archaeological Ambiguity, and the Generation of “Midle Range” Research. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by , Meltzer D.J., , Fowler D.D., Sabloff J.A., pp. 71–133. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson N.R. 1965 [1958] Patterns of Discovery: An Enquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison B. 1891 On Certain Rude Implements From the North Downs. Journal of the Anthropological Institute 21: 263–276.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison B. 1895 High-level Flint Drift. Report of the Committee, Consisting of Sir John Evans (Chairman), Mr. B. Harrison (Secretary), Professor J. Prestwich, and Professor H.G. Seeley. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 65: 349–351.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison E.R. (editor) 1928 Harrison of Ightham: A Book About Benjamin Harrison, of Ightham, Kent, Made up Principally of Extracts From his Notebooks and Correspondence. Oxford University Press, London.
   Google Scholar
• Haward F.N. 1913 The Problem of the Eoliths. Proceedings Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 1(3): 347–360.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson L.L. 1978 A History of Flint-knapping Experimentation, 1838–1976. Current Anthropology 19(2): 337–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson M. 1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Keith A. 1913 Modern Problems Relating to the Antiquity of Man. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Dundee: 1912, pp. 753–759. John Murray, London.
   Google Scholar
• Latour B. 1999 Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
   Google Scholar
• MacAlister R.A.S. 1921 A Text-book of European Archaeology. Volume 1: The Palaeolithic Period. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Marriott R.A. 1916 The Bearing of Early Stone Implements on the Stages of Man's Progress. Knowledge: A Monthy Record of Science 39(577): 153–157.
   Google Scholar
• de Mortillet G. 1873 Classification des Diverses Periodes de l'Age de la Pierre. Compte Rendu du Congrès International D'Anthropologie en d'Archéologie Préhistoriques, 6me Session. Bruxelles, 182. Weissenbruch, Bruxelles.
   Google Scholar
• O'Connor A. 2003 Geology, Archaeology and the “Raging Vortex” of the ‘Eolith’ Controversy. Proceedings of the Geological Association 114: 255–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Connor A. 2007 Finding Time for the Old Stone Age: A History of Palaeolithic Archaeology and Quaternary Geology in Britain, 1860–1960. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• O'Dell George H. 2004 Lithic Analysis. [Manuals in archaeological methods, thought and technique]. Plenum, Kluwer, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson L.W. 1983 Criteria for Determining the Attributes of Man-made Lithics. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 297–307.
   Google Scholar
• Peacock E. 1991 Distinguishing Between Artifacts and Geofacts: A Test Case From Eastern England. Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 345–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prestwich J. 1892 On the Primitive Characters of the Flint Implements of the Chalk Plateau of Kent, with Reference to the Question of Their Glacial or Pre-glacial Age. Journal of the Anthropological Institute 21: 246–276.
   Google Scholar
• Proctor R.N. 2003 Three Roots of Human Recency: Molecular Anthropology, The Refigured Acheulean, and the UNESCO Response to Auschwitz. Current Anthropology 44(2): 213–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramachandran V. 2003 The Emerging Mind. 2003 Reith Lectures. BBC, London.
   Google Scholar
• Van Reybrouck D., de Bont R., Rock J. 2009 Material rhetoric: spreading stones and showing bones in the study of prehistory. Science in Context 22, 195–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutot A. 1907 Une Grave Problème: Une Industrie Humaine Datant de l'Epoque Oligocène: Comparison des Outils avec Ceux des Tasmanian Actuels. Bulletin de la Société Belge de Géologie, de paléontologie, et de hydrologie, Mémoires 21: 439–482.
   Google Scholar
• Segall M.H., Campbell D.T., Herskovits M.J. 1966 The Influence of Culture on Visual Perception. Bobbs-Merrill, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Semenov S.A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology, trans. , Thompson M. W.. Cory, Adams and MacKay, London.
   Google Scholar
• Shapin S. 1979 Homo Phrenologicus: Anthropological Perspectives on an Historical Problem. In Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture, edited by , Barnes B., Shapin S., pp. 41–71. Sage, London.
   Google Scholar
• Sommer M. 2004 Eoliths as Evidence for Human Origins? The British context. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 26: 209–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer M. 2011 Human tools of the European tertiary? Artifacts, brains and minds in evolutionist reasoning, 1870–1920. Notes and Records of the Royal Society 20, 65–82.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer F. 1988. Prologue to a Scientific Forgery: The British Eolithic Movement From Abbeville to Piltdown. In Bones, Bodies, Behavior: Essays on Biological Anthropology, edited by , Stocking G.W., pp. 84–116. University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin.
   Google Scholar
• Warren S. Hazzledine 1905 On the Origin of “Eolithic” Flints by Natural Causes, Especially by the Foundering of Drifts. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 35: 337–364.
   Google Scholar
• Warren S. Hazzledine 1914 The Experimental Investigation of Flint Fracture and its Application to Problems of Human Implements. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 44: 412–450.
   Google Scholar
• Watson W. 1968 Flint Implements. Third edition. British Museum, London.
   Google Scholar
• White J.P., Thomas D.H. 1972 What Mean These Stones?: Ethno-taxonomic Models and Archaeological Interpretations in the New Guinea Highlands. In Models in Archaeology, edited by , Clarke D.L., pp. 275–308. Methuen, London.
   Google Scholar
• Wolpert L. 1992 The Unnatural Nature of Science. Faber, London.
   Google Scholar