Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T14:29:27.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pots and Evolution: Response to Neff and Schiffer et al.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Helen L. Loney
Helen L. Loney*
Affiliation:
Department of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Glasgow, Crichton University Campus, Dumfries DG1 4ZL, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This reply seeks to answer the comments by Neff and Schiffer et al. by stating the following: 1) evolutionary theory in archaeology is limited by the overextension of biological attributes to nonbiological artifacts, such as pottery; 2) evolutionary theory when applied to technological studies has an underlying technological determinist implication, and hence is inappropriate for use in the study of ancient technologies; 3) the subfields and disciplines of ceramic studies in archaeology are becoming increasingly isolated from each other and from the mainstream of interpretation, as evidenced by exclusionary bibliographies, language and study groups; and 4) ceramic studies are best approached on a contextual, case-by-case basis.

Résumé

Résumé

Esta respuesta cuestiona los comentarios hechos por Neff, Schiffer y Longacre, quienes indican lo siguiente: 1) la teoíia evolutiva en arqueología estd limitadapor la sobre-extensión de atributos biológicos a los artefactos no-biológicos, tales como la cerámicd. 2) La teoíia evolutiva cuando es aplicada a los estudios tecnológicos tiene una fundamental implicatión tecnológica determinista y por lo tanto es inapropiada para el uso en el estudio de las tecnológias antiguas. 3) los subsectores y las disciplinas de estudios de cerámica en arqueología estan creciendo independiente mente de unos a otros y de la secuencia principal de la interpretación, según lo evidenciado por las bibliografias exclusionarias, el lenguaje y los grupos de estudios. 4) Los estudios de cerámica son tratados mejor de una manera contextual, basada en casos singulares.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 738 - 741
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

Arnold, P. J. III 2000 Working Without a Net: Recent Trends in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 8: 105–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, B. 1982 T.S. Kuhn and Social Science. Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basalla, G. 1988 The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Chambers, 1994 Chambers Dictionary. Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., and Pinch, T. J. 1982 Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science. Routlege and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. M. 1993 Cultural Choice and Technological Consequences: Constraint of Innovation in the Late Prehistoric Copper Smelting Industry of Cerro Huaringa, Peru. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. 1997 Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. University of Chicago Press Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Hegmon, M. 2000 Advances in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehoe, A. B. 2000 Evolutionary Archaeology Challenges the Future of Archaeology: Response to O’Brien and Lyman (comment). The Review of Archaeology 21(2): 33–38 Google Scholar
Kvamme, K. L., Stark, M. T., and Longacre, W. A. 1996 Alternative Procedures for Assessing Standardization in Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 61: 116–126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechtman, H. 1977 Style in Technology-Some Early Thoughts. In Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology, edited by Lechtman, H. and Merrill, R.S. pp. 3–20. West, New York.Google Scholar
Loney, H. L. 2000 Society and Technological Control: A Critical Review of Models of Technological Change in Ceramic Studies. American Antiquity 65: 646–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, W. A. 1999 Standardization and specialization: What's the link? In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by Skibo, J. M. and Feinman, G.M. pp. 44–58. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A., Kvamme, K. L., and Kobayashi, M. 1988 Southwestern Pottery Standardization: An Enthoarchaeological View from the Philippines. Kiva 53: 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, H. 1992 Ceramics and Evolution. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 4, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 141–193. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Neff, H., Larson, D. O., and Glascock, M. D. 1997 The Evolution of Anasazi Ceramic Production and Distribution: Compositional Evidence from a Pueblo III site in South-Central Utah. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 473–492.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. J., and Lyman, R. L. 1999 Meeting Theoretical and Methodological Challenges to the Future of Evolutionary Archaeology. The Review of Archaeology 20(2): 14–22.Google Scholar