I appreciate the effort the reviewer took in reviewing my book, “The Foundations of Cognitive Archaeology,” and I have taken into consideration the comments. However, a few words to supplement and, in some cases, correct certain points the reviewer raises are warranted.

The first point the reviewer raises is that I do not define “mind.” Well, rightly so. One could choose to define “mind,” and other authors have gone this route. The names of these authors who have contributed to mind studies in this manner were noted by the reviewer (although I do not usually associate Fodor—who I should point out is in the bibliography—with Dennett). I resisted defining “mind,” thereby committing to a particular ontological view, since I felt it would be too speculative to use such a view as a starting point. Instead, I reasoned that we stand on empirically firmer ground by defining certain aspects of the mind, such as concepts, percepts, and cognitive capabilities, which cognitive scientists have been investigating for decades. Defining the aforementioned aspects of the mind, instead of the mind in its entirety, is much more useful for seeing why the cognitive approaches discussed in the book work, and how the approaches relate to one another. Still, if it is any conciliation to the reviewer, I do at times discuss what the mind is like and, on occasion, what it is not; I simply do not commit to saying what it is, since it was deemed unnecessary based on the reasoning mentioned above. Moreover, by committing to a single ontological view without the majority of archaeologists united behind this view, I would be contributing to an atmosphere that tends to exclude rather than include, and that of course was not the purpose.

Regarding the second point, the reviewer is quite correct in saying that the book reads more like a textbook than a thesis. This is because the purposes of the book include: presenting some key approaches used by cognitive archaeologists, explaining why the approaches can be used based on evidence from multiple disciplines, and explaining how the approaches relate to one another. These objectives along with the requisite background for achieving these objectives inherently give the book a textbook feel. I chose to seek the foundations in cognitive archaeology through synthesis (and analysis), rather than by way of thesis. So, of course this book will not have the same kind of “connective tissue” longed for by the reviewer and which one might expect in a single-threaded thesis. This is a virtue of the fact that the objectives (and respective starting points) of theses and syntheses are simply different, and that needs to be understood.

Another point, which I noticed, is that the reviewer mistakenly asserts that I envision 30,000 years ago to be a fixed barrier beyond which all six cognitive archaeological approaches I discuss are completely useless. This is an oversimplification. First, as I say in the last chapter, this barrier is tentative and therefore has the potential to move. Second, I state that the conditional approach has the potential to breach this barrier no matter where it is situated in time. The reviewer goes on further in the review to erroneously conflate what I refer to as the conditional approach with the use of conditional statements. The conditional approach, however, is not defined simply by using conditional statements. If this were the case, the reviewer would be correct in saying it is manifest in most archaeological inferences. The conditional approach, although it makes use of conditional statements, is quite particular with regards to the content being related in the statements. It is an approach utilized to infer cognitive capabilities that would have been needed to produce very specific contributions in the archaeological record. The conditional approach involves setting up logical arguments in a conditional manner, such that some remain is contingent on the presence of a certain cognitive capability, but the approach is not defined solely by the setup.

Nearing the end of the review, it is asserted that I claim that the six approaches discussed in the book are often used separately in practice. This was never stated about all six approaches—although there is no doubt that some of these approaches have been treated antithetically and, for this reason, either valued or devalued in past research. On the contrary, I say that certain approaches can in many instances be used together, and depending on the contexts of those instances the case may be stronger for doing so. Indeed, some of the case studies to which I refer in the book exemplify this practice by using at least two approaches simultaneously and I point this out. Therefore, the reviewer’s added comment that I am not the only archaeologist who has noted that multiple approaches can be used together is redundant and unproductive. This comment also suggests that the reviewer is fundamentally misunderstanding the premise of the book. The main question being explored in the book is not simply, “Can multiple approaches be used in cognitive archaeological inquiry?” The question is, “Why can multiple approaches be used in cognitive archaeological inquiry?” This latter question further serves as the basis for understanding why these approaches may or may not be used together.

I would also like to say that nowhere in my text do I state that I wish to be a “pioneer synthesizer.” Being a synthesizer and being a pioneer are incongruous. Being a synthesizer—as I have primarily functioned in this book—involves examining and collating other people’s work. It is those “other” people, whose works are being synthesized, who are the pioneers. Still, it is difficult to see how my personal, unwritten wish to be anyone—whether it is a pioneer or the Prince of Wales—is even relevant in a book review.

As a final note, I find I must also acknowledge the reviewer’s positive commentary at the end of the review. The fact that the reviewer sees the book as raising important issues and setting the groundwork for the next step forward affirms my purpose for writing the book. As I have said, my intent in writing the book was to bring to light the foundations of the main cognitive archaeological approaches utilized to date and to see how the approaches relate. What comes next in all likelihood will entail further testing of these foundations as well as devising new approaches with a keen eye toward their empirical and logical substantiation.

– Marc A. Abramiuk (email: mabramiuk@hotmail.com)