User talk:2003:C9:C723:4600:9CC6:C0A5:8009:BC6

Renfrew's work in inferring social structure from tombs is good solid archaeology, but it's not mainstream cognitive archaeology, as it does not incorporate neuroscientific data in its interpretation. Nor does it discuss how social structure relates to cognition. Nor does it incorporate any of the 4E concepts that typify the British school of ECA.Hazegrae (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that Renfrew was too early for the neurological aspects because the modern imaging brain scanners did not yet exist. But on the other hand, it will be easy even for lay people to transfer the neurological details to Renfrew's articles that you wrote at the potter. The weakness of this excerpt from Malafouris' article seems to me to be that it no longer contains any reference to Renfrew's original cognitive archaeology. What is meant by "4E concepts"? I copy our discussion to TALK of our articel.2003:C9:C723:4600:9CC6:C0A5:8009:BC6 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)