Body Cognition and Self-Domestication in Human Evolution

Bruner, Emiliano; Gleeson, Ben Thomas

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01111

Cited by 36 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, brain expansion was not universal in fossil Homo as evidenced by the small-brained Middle and Late Pleistocene hominins Homo naledi (Berger et al, 2015;Montgomery, 2018) and Homo floresiensis (Brown et al, 2004; Figure 1). Although an almost fourfold increase in brain volume during the last 2 million years is a hallmark in human evolution, it remains unappreciated-but well-documentedthat both absolute and relative brain size have decreased since the end of the Pleistocene (Schwidetzky, 1976;Wiercinski, 1979;Beals et al, 1984;Henneberg, 1988;Henneberg and Steyn, 1993;Ruff et al, 1997;Bailey and Geary, 2009;Hawks, 2011;Bednarik, 2014;Liu et al, 2014;Bruner and Gleeson, 2019). The precise timing of this decrease in brain size, however, is unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When and Why Did Human Brains Decrease in Size? A New Change-Point Analysis and Insights From Brain Evolution in Ants

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human brain size nearly quadrupled in the six million years since Homo last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but human brains are thought to have decreased in volume since the end of the last Ice Age. The timing and reason for this decrease is enigmatic. Here we use change-point analysis to estimate the timing of changes in the rate of hominin brain evolution. We find that hominin brains experienced positive rate changes at 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, coincident with the early evolution of Homo and technological innovations evident in the archeological record. But we also find that human brain size reduction was surprisingly recent, occurring in the last 3,000 years. Our dating does not support hypotheses concerning brain size reduction as a by-product of body size reduction, a result of a shift to an agricultural diet, or a consequence of self-domestication. We suggest our analysis supports the hypothesis that the recent decrease in brain size may instead result from the externalization of knowledge and advantages of group-level decision-making due in part to the advent of social systems of distributed cognition and the storage and sharing of information. Humans live in social groups in which multiple brains contribute to the emergence of collective intelligence. Although difficult to study in the deep history of Homo, the impacts of group size, social organization, collective intelligence and other potential selective forces on brain evolution can be elucidated using ants as models. The remarkable ecological diversity of ants and their species richness encompasses forms convergent in aspects of human sociality, including large group size, agrarian life histories, division of labor, and collective cognition. Ants provide a wide range of social systems to generate and test hypotheses concerning brain size enlargement or reduction and aid in interpreting patterns of brain evolution identified in humans. Although humans and ants represent very different routes in social and cognitive evolution, the insights ants offer can broadly inform us of the selective forces that influence brain size.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When and Why Did Human Brains Decrease in Size? A New Change-Point Analysis and Insights From Brain Evolution in Ants

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tool‐making was probably an activity shared by males and females (Kohn & Mithen, ; Weedman Arthur, ), although with distinct biomechanical constraints (smaller hand in females) and, according to the current results, some minor differences in emotional feedback during haptic exploration. Considering the noticeable morphological hand changes associated with hominid evolution, we can also wonder whether some specific features could have promoted a more comprehensive cognitive engagement between body and tool, increasing the human prosthetic capacity not only in biomechanical and ergonomic aspects, but also at perceptual level (Bruner & Gleeson, ). Taking into account the ability to integrate technology within our cognitive system, any adaptation in this sense would have been crucial.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some of these functions may be associated with specific biomechanical capacities (like precision), while others are thought to be related to the capacity of sensing the tool and integrating the tool within the cognitive schemes. Among the latter mechanisms, the “prosthetic capacity” (Bruner & Gleeson, ; Overmann, ) can be defined as the capacity to integrate an object within the cognitive system through the interface of the body, outsourcing and offloading information processing to external elements (Malafouris, ; Japyassú & Laland, ). It is something that is not necessarily related with specific mechanical abilities (like precision), but instead something that deals with body cognition and sensing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hand morphometrics, electrodermal activity, and stone tools haptic perception

Fedato

Silva‐Gago

Bernal

et al. 2019

American J Hum Biol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Tool use requires integration among sensorial, biomechanical, and cognitive factors. Taking into account the importance of tool use in human evolution, changes associated with the genus Homo are to be expected in all these three aspects. Haptics is based on both tactile and proprioceptive feedbacks, and it is associated with emotional reactions. Previous analyses have suggested a difference between males and females, and during haptic exploration of different typologies of stone tools. Here, we analyze the correlation between electrodermal reactions during stone tool handling and hand morphology to provide evidence of possible allometric factors shared by males and females.Methods: Electrodermal analysis was used to investigate some specific parameters involved in these reactions, such as changes in the level of attention and arousal. We analyzed the responses of 46 right-handed adults to 20 distinct stone tools while blindfolded. Results: Females have smaller hands and a wider range of electrodermal reactions. Within males and females, hand diameters and general hand size do not correlate with the degree of electrodermal level and response.Conclusions: Sex differences in electrodemal reaction during stone tool handling are apparently not due to the effect of hand size or proportions. Differences between males and females are better interpreted as real sex differences, either due to a biological or cultural influences. Hand size does not influence the degree of arousal or attention during tool exploration, suggesting that other factors trigger individual reactions. These results add to a general cognitive approach on hand-tool evolution and tool sensing.

show abstract

“…This by no means denies that the knapping process is intrinsically associated with, follows from and leads to specific patterns of neural activation (See Bruner & Gleeson, 2019;Bruner & Iriki, 2016;Malafouris, 2008bMalafouris, , 2008cMalafouris, , 2009Stout, 2011Stout, , 2015Stout et al, 2008). We can rightly assume there are brains attuned with bodies as there are hands attuned with tools, but there is no indication that the former merits more attention than the later when it comes to studying human cognitive becoming.…”

Section: Thinging Stonementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, the majority of available neuroarchaeological evidence shows that stone tool making can elicit plastic structural responses in evolutionarily relevant brain structures (lateral frontal, parietal and temporal association cortices are among the most volumetrically expanded portions of the human brain). Although the exact nature of the interaction between Palaeolithic tool making and human brain evolution is unclear, what is becoming increasingly recognised is that changes in the human brain are responsive to systemic dynamics and should not be seen as causing the relevant behaviours of interest (Bruner & Gleeson, 2019;Bruner & Iriki, 2016;Malafouris, 2008bMalafouris, , 2009Stout, 2011Stout, , 2015Stout et al, 2008).…”

Section: Thinging Stonementioning

confidence: 99%

How does thinking relate to tool making?

Malafouris

2020

Adaptive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How the boundaries of the mind should be drawn with respect to action and the material world is a core research question that cognitive archaeology shares with contemporary cognitive sciences. The study of hominin technical thinking, as in the case of stone tool making, is a good way to bring that question to the fore. This article argues that archaeologists who study lithic artefacts and their transformations over the course of human evolution are uniquely well positioned to contribute to the ongoing debate about the marks of the mental. Adopting the material engagement approach, I propose to replace the internalist vision of mentality, that is, the vision of a brain-bound mind that is using the body to execute and externalise preconceived mental plan through the stone, with an ecological-enactive vision of participatory mentality where bodily acts and materials act together to generate rather than merely execute thought processes. I argue that the latter participatory view changes the geography of the cognitive and offers a better description for the continuity of mind and matter that we see in the lithic record.

show abstract

Body Cognition and Self-Domestication in Human Evolution

Cited by 36 publications

References 69 publications

When and Why Did Human Brains Decrease in Size? A New Change-Point Analysis and Insights From Brain Evolution in Ants

When and Why Did Human Brains Decrease in Size? A New Change-Point Analysis and Insights From Brain Evolution in Ants

Hand morphometrics, electrodermal activity, and stone tools haptic perception

How does thinking relate to tool making?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About