Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T14:03:41.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is Archaeology? (Or, Confusion, Sound, and Fury, Signifying…)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Douglas B. Bamforth
Douglas B. Bamforth*
Affiliation:
Anthropology Department, 233 UCB, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

O'Brien, Lyman, and Leonard's comment misrepresents my paper and obscures the problems evolutionary archaeology faces. In particular, I took the ongoing operation of natural selection among modern humans as one of my fundamental assumptions and I did not limit evolution to genetic change. The assertion that the selectionists have identified the operation of natural selection in the archaeological record fails to meet the most basic standards of archaeological reasoning.

Resumen

Resumen

El comentario de O'Brien, Lyman, y Leonard describe engañ osamente mi artículo y obscurece los problemas que la arqueología evolucionaria enfrenta. En particular, yo tomé la operación continua de la selección natural entre los humanos modernos como una de mis suposiciones fundamentales y no limité la evolución al cambio genético. La afirmación de que los seleccionistas han identificado la operación de la selección natural en el record arqueoló gico no logra alcanzar las normas más básicas del razonamiento arqueológico.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , July 2003 , pp. 581 - 584
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2003

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

Bamforth, D. 1999 Theory and Inference in Plains Archaeology. Plains Anthropologist 44:209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, D., and Bleed, P. 1997 Technology, Flaked Stone Technology, and Risk. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation, edited by Barton, C.M. and Clark, G., pp. 109–140. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 7, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43:192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinn, M. 1997 Culture and Evolution of Social Learning. Evolution and Human Behavior 18:23–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 1979 Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterning. American Antiquity 44:446–454.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1991 Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56:7–18.Google Scholar
Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R., Krainitzki, H., and Paabo, S. 1997 DNA Sequence of the Mitochondrial Hypervariable region II from the Neandertal Type Specimen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96:5581–5585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, R. 2001 Evolutionary Archeology. In Archaeological Theory Today , edited by Hodder, I., pp. 65–97. Polity Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Ovchinnikov, I., Gotherstrom, A., Romoanova, G., Kharitonov, V., Liden, K., and Goodwin, W. 2000 Molecular Analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus. Nature 404:490–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shennan, S., and Wilkinson, J. 2001 Ceramic Style Change and Neutral Evolution: A Case Study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66:577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar