Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T05:08:45.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking Variation Seriously: The Case of Steatite Vessel Manufacture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James Truncer
James Truncer*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropological Sciences, Building 360, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2117jtruncer@stanford.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How archaeologists conceive variation in the archaeological record influences the kinds of explanations they produce. By treating all variation as potentially informative, evolutionary explanations stand in sharp contrast with transformational models which regard variation as noise. I show that variation in the timing of steatite vessel manufacture is not only less problematic than Sassaman proposes, but crucial to understanding how and why this technological change occurred. Evolutionary models have the additional benefit of requiring explanations to be in the form of tested hypotheses, something not inherently required by transformational models. My conclusion-that the most common function of steatite vessels was to process red oak acorn-has thus far stood up to a range of empirical testing, making it a stronger explanation than untested interpretations.

Résumé

Résumé

Como los arqueólogos conciben la variación en el registro arqueológico influye en los tipos de explicación que ellos producen. Por medio del tratamiento de toda variación como potencialmente informativa, las explicaciones evolucionistas contrastan agudamente con los modelos transformacionales que ven la variación como ruido. Yo muestro que la variación en el tiempo de producción de las vasijas de esteatita es no sólo menos problemática de lo que Sassaman propone, sino que es crucial para entender cómo y por qué ocurre este cambio tecnológico. Los modelos evolucionistas tienen el beneficio adicional de requerir explicaciones en la forma de hipótesis a comprobar, algo que no es inherentemente requerido en los modelos transformacionales. Mi conclusión-que la función más común de las vasijas de esteatita fue para procesar bellotas de roble rojo-se sostiene sobre varias pruebas empíricas, siendo una explicación más fuerte que las interpretaciones no comprobables.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 157 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2006

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

Coe, Joffre L. 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54(2), Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1980 Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 35–99. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1982 Science, Social Science, and Common Sense: The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1992a Archaeology and Evolutionary Science. In Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology’s Future, edited by LuAnn Wandsnider, pp. 209–224. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 20. Carbondale, Illinois.Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1992b Is a Scientific Archaeology Possible? In Metaarchaeology, edited by Lester Embree, pp. 75–97. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1995 What Is It That Actually Evolves? In Evolutionary Archaeology: Methodological Issues, edited by Patrice A. Teltser, pp. 33–50. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 2003 The First New Archaeology and the Development of Chronological Method. In Picking the Lock of Time: Developing Chronology in American Archaeology, edited by James Truncer, pp. 9–21. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Elliott, Daniel T. 1989 Falcon Field and Line Creek: Two Archaic and Woodland Period Sites in West Central Georgia. Southeastern Archaeological Services, Athens, Georgia.Google Scholar
Holmes, William Henry 1892 Evolution of the Aesthetic. In Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for the Forty-First Meeting Held at Rochester, N. Y., August 1892, edited by Frederic W. Putnam, pp. 239–255. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Salem, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Keel, Bennie C. 1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, and O’Brien, Michael J. 1998 The Goals of Evolutionary Archaeology: History and Explanation. Current Anthropology 39:615–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, David J., and Mead, Jim I. 1983 The Timing of Late Pleistocene Mammalian Extinctions in North America. Quaternary Research 19:130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, Hector, and Larson, Daniel O. 1997 Methodology of Comparison in Evolutionary Archaeology. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation, edited by C. Michael Barton and Geoffrey A. Clark, pp. 75–94. Archaeological Papers No. 7. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
O’Brien, Michael J. 1996 Evolutionary Theory: An Introduction. In Evolutionary Archaeology: Theory and Application, edited by Michael J. O’Brien, pp. 1–15. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Michael J., and Lee Lyman, R. 2000 Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1999 A Southeastern Perspective on Soapstone Vessel Technology in the Northeast. In The Archaeological Northeast, edited by Mary Ann Levine, Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Michael S. Nassaney, pp. 75–95. Bergin and Garvey, West-port, Connecticut.Google Scholar
South, Stanley A. 1959 A Study of the Prehistory of the Roanoke Rapids Basin. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. E. 1987 Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Truncer, James 1999 Steatite Vessel Manufacture in Eastern North America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Truncer, James 2004a Steatite Vessel Age and Occurrence in Temperate Eastern North America. American Antiquity 69:487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truncer, James 2004b Steatite Vessel Manufacture in Eastern North America. BAR International Series 1326. Archaeopress, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar