Is it ‘ me ’ or is it ‘ mine ’ ?

Introduction The main idea of this paper derives from the recent phenomenologically grounded archaeological conceptualisations of the body as a site of lived experience and embodied agency (Fowler 2002, 2003; Hamilakis et al. 2002; Knappett 2005, 2006; Thomas 2000). Adopting the perspective of the Material Engagement approach (Malafouris 2004, 2008a; Renfrew 2004; Malafouris and Renfrew in press) I shall attempt to clarify the possible cognitive and neuronal mechanisms that underpin our experience of being and having a body as an ongoing phenomenological intertwining between brains, bodies and things. To this end I shall be focusing on the idea of the extended and embodied mind and discuss some important recent findings in the cognitive neurosciences of self and the body that may help archaeology reconceptualise some of the ways that the human physical body is usually understood. The argument I intend to make is that material culture (tools for the body) has the ability to change and shape our bodies by transforming and extending the boundaries of our body schema. I should clarify at the outset that the notion of ‘body schema’ does not relate to our beliefs about the body – i.e. ‘body image’ (Cambell 1995) – but to the complicated neuronal action map associated with the dynamic configurations and position of our body in space (Cambell 1995; Gallagher 1995;