Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T22:08:24.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fashion versus reason – then and now

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

R. Alexander Bentley
R. Alexander Bentley*
Affiliation:
*AHRC Centre for the Evolution of Cultural Diversity, Department of Anthropology, Durham University, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Analogies between modern practice and prehistoric material culture are becoming increasingly useful for archaeologists, including those interested in branding studies, for example (e.g. Wengrow, in press) and at formal research centres such as the AHRC Centre for the Evolution of Cultural Diversity and the Santa Fe Institute. Studies of modern cultural change – at a level of detail that most archaeologists can only dream about – can lead to related insights about prehistoric culture change through time. Modern fashion analysis can be methodologically similar to testing, for example, the degree to which certain prehistoric transitions reflect demographic change (e.g. Shennan 2000; Henrich 2004). How much of the Upper Palaeolithic ‘revolution’ in cave art is due to increases in population in western Europe? Although the data are trickier to obtain, the goal is basically the same – subtract what is considered background (e.g. population size) fromwhat is of interest to the researcher (e.g. instances of particular art motifs). In Neolithic Germany, for example, pottery designs can be treated as the ‘fashions’ and numbers of longhouses are used to estimate population size (e.g. Shennan & Wilkinson 2001; Bentley & Shennan 2003).

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 81 , Issue 314 , 1 December 2007 , pp. 1071 - 1073
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2007

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

Ammerman, A. J. & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.. 1984. The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, R. A. 2006. Academic copying, archaeology and the English language. Antiquity 80: 196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, R. A. & Shennan, S. J.. 2003. Cultural evolution and stochastic network growth. American Antiquity 68: 459–85.Google Scholar
Bentley, R. A., Hahn, M. W. & Shennan, S. J.. 2004. Random drift and culture change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271: 1443–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentley, R. A., Lipo, C. P., Herzog, H. A. & Hahn, M. W.. 2007. Regular rates of popular culture change reflect random copying. Evolution and Human Behavior 28: 151–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. 1963. “Red ochre” caches from the Michigan area: a possible case of cultural drift. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 19: 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliege Bird, R. & Smith, E. Alden. 2005. Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology 46: 221–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. & Feldman, M. W. (ed.) 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: a quantitative approach. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Chrisomalis, S. 2007. The perils of pseudo-Orwellianism. Antiquity 81: 204–7.Google Scholar
Collard, M., Shennan, S. J. & Tehrani, J. J.. 2006. Branching, blending and the evolution of cultural similarities and differences among human populations. Evolution and Human Behavior 27: 169–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1978. Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity 43: 192–202.Google Scholar
Eerkens, J. & Lipo, C. P.. 2005. Cultural transmission and the generation, maintenance, and propagation of variation in the archaeological record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24: 316–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geher, G. & Miller, G. F. (ed.) 2007. Mating Intelligence. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J. H. 1998. Population Genetics: a Concise Guide. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gintis, H. 2007. A framework for the unification of the behavioural sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30: 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, M. W. & Bentley, R. A.. 2003. Drift as a mechanism for cultural change: an example from baby names. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270: S1–S4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J. 2001. Cultural transmission and the diffusion of innovations. American Anthropologist 103: 992–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J. 2004. Demography and cultural evolution: why adaptive cultural processes produced maladaptive losses in Tasmania. American Antiquity 69: 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J. & Gil-White, F. J.. 2001. The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22: 165–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herzog, H. A., Bentley, R. A. & Hahn, M. W.. 2004. Random drift and large shifts in popularity of dog breeds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271: S353-56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koerper, H. C. & Stickel, E. G. 1980. Cultural Drift: A primary process of culture change. Journal of Anthropological Research 36: 463–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipo, C. P., Madsen, M. E., Dunnell, R. C. & Hunt, T. 1997. Population structure, cultural transmission and frequency seriation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 301–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElreath, R. & Boyd, R.. 2007. Mathematical Models of Social Evolution: a Guide for the Perplexed. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A. & Laland, K. N.. 2006. Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 329–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neiman, F. D. 1995. Stylistic variation in evolutionary perspective. American Antiquity 60: 7–36.Google Scholar
Orwell, G. 1946. Politics and the English language, in The Penguin Essays of George Orwell: 348–60. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1978. Trajectory, discontinuity and morphogenesis: the implications of catastrophe theory for archaeology. American Antiquity 43: 203–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S. & Watts, D. J.. 2006. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311: 854–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shennan, S. J. 2000. Population, culture history, and the dynamics of change. Current Anthropology 41: 811–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shennan, S. J. 2002. Genes, Memes and Human History. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Shennan, S. J. & Wilkinson, J. R.. 2001. Ceramic style change and neutral evolution: a case study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66: 577–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simkin, M. V. & Roychowdhury, V. P.. 2003. Read before you cite! Complex Systems 14: 269.Google Scholar
Surowiecki, J. 2004. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
Watts, D. J. 2003. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Wengrow, D. In press. Prehistoric commodity branding. Current Anthropology.Google Scholar
Winterhalder, B. & Smith, E. Alden. 2000. Analyzing adaptive strategies: human behavioral ecology at twenty-five. Evolutionary Anthropology 9: 51–72.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar