Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:43:36.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert C. Dunnell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our understanding of the archaeological record has been developed under the culture history paradigm. Its fundamental structure is shown to be stylistic; this characteristic, coupled with historical factors, is seen as the major reason why evolutionary processes have not been extensively employed in explaining cultural change. Consideration of an evolutionary approach suggests that such processes as natural selection have considerable explanatory potential, but it is also suggested that a substantial segment of the archaeological record is not best understood in terms of adaptation. The potential of an evolutionary approach cannot be realized without making a fundamental distinction between functions, accountable in terms of evolutionary processes, and style, accountable in terms of stochastic processes.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 1978 , pp. 192 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1978

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

Ascher, Robert 1961 Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17:317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, H. G. 1953 Innovation: the basis of cultural change. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. O. 1965 Archaeological systematics and the study of cultural process. American Antiquity 31:203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. O. 1967 Smudge pits and hide smoking: the use of analogy in archaeological reasoning. American Antiquity 32:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. O. 1968 Archeological perspectives. In New Perspectives in Archeology, edited by Binford, S. R. and Binford, L. R., pp. 5–32. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Joseph R. 1959 The new American archaeology. Science 129:303–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, David L. 1968 Analytical archaeology. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Daniel, Glyn E. 1950 A hundred years of archaeology. Duckworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deetz, James A. 1970 Archaeology as a social science. In Current directions in anthropology, edited by Fisher, Ann, pp. 115–125. American Anthropological Association Bulletin 3, Part 2.Google Scholar
Doran, J. E. and Hodson, F. R. 1975 Mathematics and computers in archaeology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1971a Systematics in Prehistory. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1971b Anthropological and scientific models of function in archaeology. Paper presented at the 1971 meeting ofthe American Anthropological Association, New York.Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1978 Archaeological potential of anthropological and scientific models of function. In Archaeological Essays inHonor of Irving B. Rouse, edited by Dunnell, R. C. and Hall, E. S., jr., pp. 41–73. Mouton, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durham, William H. 1976 The adaptive significance of cultural behavior. Human Ecology 4(2):89–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, James A. 1954a Comment on A. C. Spaulding: “Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types.” American Antiquity 19:390–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durham, William H. 1954b The type concept revisited. American Anthropologist 56:42–54.Google Scholar
Durham, William H. 1969 A comparison of formative cultures in the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. 11.Google Scholar
Fritz, John M. and Plog, Fred T. 1970 The nature of archaeological explanation. American Antiquity 45:405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifford, James C. 1960 Type-variety method. American Antiquity 25:341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephan J. 1976 The interpretation of diagrams. Natural History 85:18–28.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephan J., Raup, David M., John Sepkoski, J. Jr., Schopf, Thomas J. M., and Simberloff, Daniel S. 1977 The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology 3(1):23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Marvin 1968 The rise of anthropological theory. T. Y. Crowell, New York.Google Scholar
Hempel, CarlG. 1965 Aspects of scientific explanation, and other essays in the philosophy of science. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Arthur J. 1976 Form, function, and style in lithic analysis. In Cultural Change and Continuity, edited by Cleland, C. E., pp. 19–34. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
King, J. L. and Jukes, T. H. 1969 Non-Darwinian evolution: random fixation of selectively neutral mutations. Science 164:788–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieger, AlexD. 1944 The typological concept. American Antiquity 9:271–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leone, Mark P. 1972 Issues in anthropological archaeology. In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by Leone, M. P., pp. 14–27. University of Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1974 The genetic basis of evolutionary change. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Longacre, William A. 1970 Current thinking in American archaeology. In Current directions in anthropology, edited by Fisher, Ann, pp. 126–138. American Anthropological Association Bulletin 3, Part 2.Google Scholar
Mac White, Eoin 1956 On the interpretation of archaeological evidence in historical and sociological terms. American Anthropologist 58:3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehan, Eugene J. 1968 Explanation in social science. Dorsey Press, Homewood.Google Scholar
Meggers, Betty J. and Evans, Clifford 1962 Machalilla culture: an early formative culture on the Ecuadorian coast. American Antiquity 28:186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Charles G. 1973 Archaeology and explanation. World Archaeology 4:259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plog, Fred T. 1974 The study of prehistoric change. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Sabloff, Jeremy A., Beale, Thomas W., and Kurland, Anthony M. Jr., 1973 Recent developments in archaeology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 408:103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, James R. 1966 Quantitative analysis of Upper Paleolithic stone tools. In Recent studies in paleoanthropology, edited by Clark, J. D. and Howell, F. C., pp. 356-394. American Anthropologist 68, Part 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service, Elman R. 1964 Archaeological theory and ethnological fact. In Process and Pattern in Culture, edited by Manners, R. A., pp. 364–375. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Service, Elman R. 1969 Models for the methodology of mouthtalk. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 25:68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slotkin, J.S. 1952 Some basic methodological problems in prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 8:442–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1953 Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types. American Antiquity 18:305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1954 Reply to Ford. American Antiquity 19:391–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Patty Jo, LeBlanc, Steven A., and Redman, Charles L. 1971 Explanation in archeology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Whallon, Robert Jr., 1972 A new approach to pottery typology. American Antiquity 37:13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar