Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:26:07.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On a Fundamental False Dichotomy in Evolutionary Archaeology: Response to Hurt, Rakita, and Leonard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott G. Ortman
Scott G. Ortman*
Affiliation:
Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, 23390 County Road K, Cortez, CO 81321
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

My comments on evolutionary archaeology (EA) were not intended to address assumptions of the neutral model of style, but rather the readiness of evolutionary archaeologists to conclude that decorative variation is selectively neutral. In light of this misunderstanding, I welcome the opportunity to clarify my position on implications of my research for EA, as there was insufficient space in the original article to do more than hint at the issues raised by Hurt and her coauthors.

Résumé

Résumé

Mis comentarios sobre la arqueologia evolucionista (AE) no intentaron discutir las suposiciones del modelo neutro de estilo, sino más bien la rapidez con que los arqueólogos evolucionistas concluyen que la variación decorativa es selectivamente neutral. En vista de este malentendido, yo agradezco la oportunidad de clarificar mi posición sobre las implicaciones de mi investigación en AE, pues no bubo suficiente espacio en mo artículo original para discutir los puntos propuestos por Hurt y sus coautores. '

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 744 - 746
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Bettinger, R. L., Boyd, R., and Richerson, R. J. 1996 Style, Function, and Cultural Evolutionary Processes. In Darwininan Archaeologies, edited by G, H. D.. Maschner, pp. 133–164. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and Feldman, M. W. 1981 Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google ScholarPubMed
Dunnell, R. C. 1970 Sedation Method and its Evaluation. American Antiquity 35: 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43: 192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1986 Methodological Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9: 149–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durham, W. H. 1991 Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford University Press, Stanford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipo, C. P., Madsen, M. E., Dunnell, R. C., and Hunt, T. 1997 Population Structure, Cultural Transmission, and Frequency Seriation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 301–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neiman, F. 1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 60: 7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortman, S. G. 2000 Conceptual Metaphor in the Archaeological Record: Methods and an Example from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 65: 613–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shennan, S. 2000 Population, Culture History, and the Dynamics of Culture Change. Current Anthropology 41: 811–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teltser, P. A. 1995 Culture History, Evolutionary Theory, and Frequency Seriation. In Evolutionary Archaeology: Methodological Issues, edited by Teltser, P. A., pp. 51–68. University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar