Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:45:46.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statistical Analyses Cannot be Divorced from Archaeological Theory: A Reply to Potter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Alex Mesoudi  and
Michael J. O’Brien
Alex Mesoudi
Affiliation:
Biological and Experimental Psychology Group, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London El 4NS, United Kingdom ([email protected])
Michael J. O’Brien
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia Missouri 65211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Potter criticizes our experimental study of the roles played by indirect bias and guided variation in shaping prehistoric Great Basin projectile point variation. His criticisms are technically correct from the standpoint of statistical convention, but he fails to understand the theoretical rationale of our study. Without such an understanding, his assertion that our conclusions are questionable is incorrect. Here we point out again (1) how our experimental work bridges the gap between cultural-transmission theory and the empirical record and (2) why our conclusions are indeed valid.

Resumen

Resumen

Potter critica nuestro estudio experimental acerca de los papeles jugados por el sesgo indirecto y la variación guiada en la formulación de la variación de las puntas de proyectil en la Gran Cuenca. Sus críticas son técnicamente correctas desde el punto de vista de la convención estadística, pero él no entiende la justificación teórica de nuestro estudio. Sin esa comprensión, su afirmación de que nuestras conclusiones son cuestionables es incorrecta. Aquí señalamos de nuevo (1) cómo nuestro trabajo experimental conecta la laguna existente entre la teoría de transmisión cultural y los datos empíricos y (2) por qué nuestras conclusiones son, por lo tanto, vãlidas.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 372 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2012

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, Robert L., and Jelmer, Eerkens J 1999 Point Typoiogjcs, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64:231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Robert, and Richerson, Peter J. 1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Lipo, Carl P. 2005 Cultural Transmission, Copying Errors, and the Generation of Variation in Material Culture and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:316–334.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex 2007 Using the Methods of Experimental Social Psychology to Study Cultural Evolution . Journal of Social, Evolutionarygy 1:35–38.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex, and O’Brien, Michael J. 2008a The Cultural Transmission of Great Basin Projectile-Point Technology I: An Experimental Simulation. American Antiquity 73:3–28.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex, and O’Brien, Michael J. 2008b The Cultural Transmission of Great Basin Projectile-Point Technology II: An Agent-Based Computer Simulation. American Antiquity 73:627–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar