Kafamda ‘’UÇ’’uk Bir Fikir Var: Arkeolojide Teknolojik Açıdan Yaratıcılık

Year 2013, Volume: 7 Issue: 8, 27 - 41, 01.04.2013

Adnan Baysal

Abstract

Bu makale prehistorik şiddet olgusunu dolaylı olarak ve tamamen farklı bir bakış açısından ele almaktadır. Şiddet olgusu arkeoloji içinde birçok akademik araştırmada ele alınmıştır. Bununla birlikte yaratıcı düşüncenin şiddete uzanan geçmişteki boyutuna bir gönderme olabilmesi açısından çalışma benzerlerinden farklı bir noktada durmaktadır. Bu kısa çalışma insanın yaratıcılığı, üretmiş olduğu teknoloji ve sonucunda ortaya çıkan süreci değerlendirmeyi amaçladığından, teknolojik açıdan yaratıcılık ana tema olarak değerlendirilecektir. İnsanın yaratıcı sürecinin doğması, bu sürece bağlı olarak deneyim ve tecrübelerini de birleştirerek milyonlarca yıl sonra uzayı keşfetmekten doğaya başat olup yaşamış olduğu çevreyi en ince detayına kadar tüketecek teknolojiler geliştirmesi de yine bu yaratıcı süreçlerden geçerek şekillendiğini bilmekteyiz. Tüm bunların bilincinde olarak, yaratıcı zekanın ürünü olan şeylerin aynı zamanda geri dönüşümlerine de bir pencere açarak, geçmişteki insanı veya insan gruplarının anlaşılması yolunda yaratıcı zekanın önemine gönderme yaparak, bilişsel arkeoloji olarak tanımlanan ve son yirmi yılda sürekli gündeme taşınan bir yaklaşıma işaret edilecektir.

Keywords

Yaratıcılık, Taş Alet Teknolojisi, Ok Uçları, Bilişsel Arkeoloji

There’s a ‘pointed’ idea in my head: inventiveness in archaeology from a technological perspective

Abstract

This article aims to look at the advent of prehistoric violence in an inferential and entirely different perspective. The fact of violence has been addressed in many academic works. This work aims to stop at a different point to these previous studies by extending the possibility of tracing inventive thinking to violence in the past dimension. This short work takes inventiveness as seen from a technological perspective as its main theme by aiming to evaluate the inventiveness of humans through the technology they produced and the resulting processes. We know that the birth of human inventiveness and the experimentation and experience that were tied to this process have, millions of years later, resulted in the shaping of processes from the discovery of space and the domination of nature to the development of the smallest details of consumable technologies. An approach that has constantly been on the agenda for the last twenty years known as cognitive archaeology will be indicated as a way to reach the importance of inventive intelligence through understanding people or groups in the past and opening a window on the way that the products of the creative mind are recycled.

Keywords

Inventiveness, Stone Tool Technology, Arrow Heads, Cognitive Archaeology

References

• Boyer 1998: Boyer, P., “Cognitive Tracks of Cultural Inheritance: How Evolved Intuitive Ontology Governs Cultural Transmission”, American Anthropologist, 100.4, 1998, 876-889. doi:10.1525/aa.1998.100.4.876
• Brooks vd. 2006: Brooks, A. S.- Nevell, L.- Yellen, J. E.- Hartman, G., “Projectile Technologies of the African MSA”, Transitions Before the Transition, Ed. E. Hovers - S. L. Kuhn, 2006, 233-255
• Carruthers 2002: Carruthers, P., “Human Creativity: Its Cognitive Basis, its Evolution, and its Connections with Childhood Pretence”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53.2, 2002, 225-249.
• Carruthers 2006: Carruthers, P., The architecture of the mind: Massive modularity and the flexibility of thought, Oxford, 2006
• Coward - Gamble 2008: Coward, F., - Gamble, C. “Big brains, small worlds: material culture and the evolution of the mind” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 363.1499, 2008, 1969-1979.
• DeBaune-Clay 2004: DeBaune, S. A., - Clay, S. M., “The Invention of Technology: Prehistory and Cognition”, Current Anthropology, 45.2, 2004, 139- 162.
• DeBaune vd. 2009: DeBaune, S. A. - Coolidge, F. L., - Wynn, T. (Eds.), Cognitive archaeology and human evolution, Cambridge, 2009.
• Donald 1991: Donald, M., Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition, Cambridge, 1991.
• Garrard 2009: Garrard, P., “Cognitive archaeology: Uses, methods, and results”, Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22.3, 2009, 250-265.
• Güvenç 1984: Güvenç, B., İnsan ve Kültür, Remzi Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1984. Hodder 1998: Hodder, I., “Creative thought: a long-term perspective”, Creativity in human evolution and prehistory, Ed. S. Mithen, Londra, 1988, 44-56.
• Knappett 2010: Knappett, C., “Communities of Things and Objects: A Spatial Perspective”, The Cognitive Life of Things, Ed. L. Malafouris - C. Renfrew Cambridge, 2010, 81-89.
• Malafouris 2010: Malafouris, L., “The brain-artefact interface (BAI): a challenge for archaeology and cultural neuroscience”, Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci, 2010, 264-273.
• Malafouris 2013: Malafouris, L., How things shape the mind: A Theory of Material Engagement, Cambridge, 2013.
• Marshack 1972: Marshack, A., “Cognitive Aspects of Upper Paleolithic Engraving”, Current Anthropology 13.3-4, 1972, 445-477.
• May 1994: May, R., The Courage to Create, Londra, 1994.
• Mithen 1998a: Mithen, S., The Prehistory of the Mind, Londra, 1998.
• Mithen 1998b Mithen, S. (Ed.), Creativity in human evolution and prehistory, Londra, 1998.
• Oakley 1972: Oakley, K. P., Man the Tool Maker, Chicago, 1972.
• Renfrew 1998: Renfrew, C., “Mind and matter: cognitive archaeology and external symbolic storage”, Cognition and material culture: the archaeology of symbolic storage, Ed. C. Renfrew - C. Scarre, Cambridge, 1998, 1-6.
• Renfrew 2001: Renfrew, C., “Aklın Arkeolojisi Yapılabilir mi? Bilimsel Bir Arkeolojiye Doğru”, Cogito, 28, 2001, 238-255.
• Renfrew 2008: Renfrew, C., “Neuroscience, evolution and the sapient paradox: the factuality of value and of the sacred”, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363.1499, 2008, 2041-2047.
• Renfrew-Bahn 2005: Renfrew, C., - Bahn, P. (Ed.), Archaeology: the key concepts. Londra, 2005.
• Renfrew vd. 2008: Renfrew, C.- Frith, C., - Malafouris, L., “Introduction. The sapient mind: archaeology meets neuroscience”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 363.1499, 2008, 1935-1938.
• Renfrew-Scarre 1998: Renfrew, C., - Scarre, C. (Ed.), Cognition and material culture: the archaeology of symbolic storage. Cambridge, 1998.
• Renfrew-Zubrow 1994: Renfrew, C., - Zubrow, E. B. W. (Ed.), The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge,1994.
• Roskos-Ewoldsen vd. 1993: Roskos-Ewoldsen, B.- Intons-Peterson, M. J., - Anderson, R. E. (Ed.), Imagery, creativity, and discovery: A cognitive perspective 98. Amsterdam, 1993
• Stout 2002: Stout, D., “Skill and Cognition in Stone Tool Production, An Ethnographic Case Study from Irian Jaya”, Current Anthropology 43.5, 2002, 693-722.
• Stout- Chaminade 2007: Stout, D. - Chaminade, T., “The evolutionary neuroscience of tool making”, Neuropsychologia, 45.5, 2007, 1091-1100.
• Stout- Chaminade 2012: Stout, D.- Chaminade, T., “Stone tools, language and the brain in human evolution”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 367.1585, 2012, 75-87.
• Stout vd.2008: Stout, D.- Toth, N.- Schick, K.- Chaminade, T., “Neural correlates of Early Stone Age toolmaking: technology, language and cognition in human evolution”, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 363.1499, 2008, 1939-1949.
• Turner 2006: Turner, M. (Ed.), The artful mind: cognitive science and the riddle of human creativity, Oxford. 2006.
• Wynn 2002: Wynn, T., “Archaeology and cognitive evolution”, Behav Brain Sci 25.3, 2002, 389-402; 403-438.
• Uzantı 1. https://hiveminer.com/Tags/arrowhead,native
• Uzantı 2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/historicalbodies/13368446124
• Uzantı 3. http://facingtheinevitable.tumblr.com/page/4