Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T16:21:04.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is Evolution? A Response to Bamforth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael J. O'Brien ,
R. Lee Lyman  and
Robert D. Leonard
Michael J. O'Brien
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
R. Lee Lyman
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Robert D. Leonard
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Douglas Bamforth's recent paper in American Antiquity, “Evidence and Metaphor in Evolutionary Archaeology,” charges that Darwinism has little to offer archaeology except in a metaphorical sense. Specifically, Bamforth claims that arguments that allegedly link evolutionary processes to the archaeological record are unsustainable. Given Bamforth's narrow view of evolution—that it must be defined strictly in terms of changes in gene frequency—he is correct. But no biologist or paleontologist would agree with Bamforth"s claim that evolution is a process that must he viewed fundamentally at the microlevel. Evolutionary archaeology has argued that materials in the archaeological record are phenotypic in the same way that hard parts of organisms are. Thus changes in the frequencies of archaeological variants can be used to monitor the effects of selection and drift on the makers and users of those materials. Bamforth views this extension of the human phenotype as metaphorical because to him artifacts are not somatic features, meaning their production and use are not entirely controlled by genetic transmission. He misses the critical point that in terms of evolution, culture is as significant a transmission system as genes are. There is nothing metaphorical about viewing cultural transmission from a Darwinian point of view.

Resumen

Resumen

El reciente trabajo de Douglas Bamforth que apareció en American Antiquity y llamado “Evidencia y metáfora en Arqueología Evolutiva” acusa al darvinismo de tener poco que ofrecer a la arqueología excepto en un amplio sentido metafórico. Especí ficamente, Bamforth afirma que los argumentos que supuestamente conectan la selección y el desplazamiento con el registro arqueológico son insostenibles. Dada la opinión estrecha de la evolución—que deber ser estrictamente definida en términos de cambios en frecuencia de genes—tiene razón. Pero ningún biólogo o paleontólogo estaría de acuerdo con la acusación de Bamforth de que la evolución es un proceso que deber ser considerado fundamentalmente al nivel micro. La arqueología evolutiva ha sostenido que los materiales en el registro arqueológico son fenotipos de la misma manera que lo son las partes duras de los organismos. De esta manera, los cambios en las frecuencias de las variantes arqueológicas pueden ser usados para seguir de cerca los efectos de la selección y el desplazamiento en los fabricantes y usuarios de esos materiales. Bamforth considera esta extensión de los fenotipos humanos como metafórica porque en su opinión los artefactos no son características somáticas, lo que quiere decir que su producción y uso no están controlados completamente por transmisión genética. Él no capta el punto crítico que en términos de evolución, la cultura es un sistema de transmisión tan significante como los genes. No hay nada metafórico en considerar la transmisión cultural desde un punto de vista darviniano.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , July 2003 , pp. 573 - 580
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

Arkell, W. J., and Moy-Thomas, J. A. 1940 Palaeontology and the Taxonomic Problem. In The New Systematics, edited by Huxley, J. S., pp. 395–410. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
Aunger, R. 2002 The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We Think. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bamforth, D. B. 2002 Evidence and Metaphor in Evolutionary Archaeology. American Antiquity 67:435–452.Google Scholar
Bettinger, R. L., and Eerkens, J. 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64:231–242.Google Scholar
Boone, J. L., and Smith, E. A. 1998 Is It Evolution Yet? A Critique of Evolutionary Archaeology. Current Anthropology 39:S141–S173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R., and Richerson, P. J. 1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Cziko, G. 1995 Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory and the Second Darwinian Revolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1982 The Extended Phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1989 Aspects of the Application of Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. In Archaeological Thought in America, edited by Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C., pp. 35–49. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Durham, W. H. 1991 Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1989 Time Frames: The Evolution of Punctuated Equilibrium, rev. ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1999 The Pattern of Evolution. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Endler, J. A. 1986 Natural Selection in the Wild. Monographs in Population Biology 21. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Fox, R. C. 1986 Species in Paleontology. Geoscience Canada 13:73–84.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2000 The Replicator in Retrospect. Biology and Philosophy 15:403–423.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1996 Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin. Harmony, New York.Google Scholar
Grant, P. R. 1999 Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Hull, D. 1988 Interactors versus Vehicles. In The Role of Behavior in Evolution, edited by Plotkin, H. C., pp. 19–50. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1942 Evolution, the Modem Synthesis. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1956 Evolution, Cultural and Biological. In Current Anthropology, edited by Thomas, W. L. Jr., pp. 3–25. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Imbrie, J. 1957 The Species Problem with Fossil Animals. In The Species Problem, edited by Mayr, E., pp. 125–153. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Publication No. 50. Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Leonard, R. D. 2001 Evolutionary Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Hodder, I., pp. 65–97. Polity Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Lerner, I. M. 1959 The Concept of Natural Selection: A Centennial View. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 103:173–182.Google Scholar
Lipo, C. P., and Madsen, M. E. 2001 Neutrality, “Style,” and Drift: Building Models for Studying Cultural Transmission in the Archaeological Record. In Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology, edited by Hurt, T. D. and Rakita, G. F. M., pp. 91–118. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L., and O’Brien, M. J. 1998 The Goals of Evolutionary Archaeology: History and Explanation. Current Anthropology 39:615–652.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L., and O’Brien, M. J. 2000 Measuring and Explaining Change in Artifact Variation with Clade-Diversity Diagrams. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:39–74.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L., and O’Brien, M. J. 2001 On Misconceptions of Evolutionary Archaeology: Confusing Macroevolution and Microevolution. Current Anthropology 42:408–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, R. L., and O’Brien, M. J. 2002 Classification. In Darwin and Archaeology: A Handbook of Key Concepts, edited by Hart, J. P. and Terrell, J. E., pp. 69–88. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1942 Systematics and the Origins of Species. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1991 One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Moore, J. A. 2002 From Genesis to Genetics: The Case of Evolution and Creationism. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Neff, H. 2000 On Evolutionary Ecology and Evolutionary Archaeology: Some Common Ground? Current Anthropology 41:427–429.Google Scholar
Neff, H. 2001 Differential Persistence of What? The Scale of Selection Issue in Evolutionary Archaeology. In Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology, edited by Hurt, T. D. and Rakita, G. E M., pp. 25–40. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1949 Types and Hypodigms. American Journal of Science 247:134–142.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1956 Fossil Populations. In The Species Concept in Palaeontology, edited by Sylvester-Bradley, P. C., pp. 63–82. The Systematics Association, London.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. J., Darwent, J., and Lyman, R. L. 2001 Cladistics Is Useful for Reconstructing Archaeological Phylogenies: Paleoindian Points from the Southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1115–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, M. J., and Holland, T. D. 1992 The Role of Adaptation in Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity 57:36–59.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. J., and Holland, T. D. 1995 Behavioral Archaeology and the Extended Phenotype. In Expanding Archaeology: edited by Skibo, J. M., Walker, W. H., and Nielsen, A. E., pp. 143–161. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. J., and Lyman, R. L. 1999 Meeting Theoretical and Methodological Challenges to the Future of Evolutionary Archaeology. Review of Archaeology 20:14–22.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., and Bruce, Rannala 2000a Evolutionary Archaeology: Reconstructing and Explaining Historical Lineages. In Social Theory in Archaeology, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 126–142. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., and Bruce, Rannala 2000b Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., and Bruce, Rannala 2000c Darwinian Evolutionism Is Applicable to Historical Archaeology. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 4:71–112.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., and Bruce, Rannala 2002a Evolutionary Archaeology: Current Status and Future Prospects. Evolutionary Anthropology 11:26–36.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., and Bruce, Rannala 2002b The Epistemological Nature of Archaeological Units. Anthropological Theory 2:37–57.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., Saab, Y., Saab, E., Darwent, J., and Glover, D. S. 2002 Two Issues in Archaeological Phylogenetics: Taxon Construction and Outgroup Selection. Journal of Theoretical Biology 215:133–150.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., and Leonard, R. D. 1998 Basic Incompatibilities between Evolutionary and Behavioral Archaeology. American Antiquity 63:485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocklington, R., and Best, M. L. 1997 Cultural Evolution and Units of Selection in Replicating Text. Journal of Theoretical Biology 188:79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preucel, R. W. 1999 Review of “Evolutionary Archaeology: Theory and Application” by M. J. O’Brien. Journal of Field Archaeology 26:93–99.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Stanley, S. M. 1978 Principles of Paleontology: 2nd ed. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. 1993 Evolution, 2nd ed. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1996 Some Relationships between Behavioral and Evolutionary Archaeologies. American Antiquity 61:643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shennan, S. 2002 Archaeology Evolving: History, Adaptation, Self-Organization. Antiquity 76:253–256.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1940 Types in Modern Taxonomy. American Journal of Science 238:413–431.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1944 Tempo and Mode in Evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., and Bruce, Rannala 1949a Rates of Evolution in Animals. In Genetics, Paleontology and Evolution, edited by Jepsen, G. L., Simpson, G. G., and Mayr, E., pp. 205–228. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., and Bruce, Rannala 1949b The Meaning of Evolution. Yale University Press. New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Sylvester-Bradley, P. C. (editor) 1956 The Species Concept in Palaeontology. The Systematics Association, London.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S., and Gould, S. J. 1986 The Hierarchical Expansion of Sorting and Selection: Sorting and Selection Cannot Be Equated. Paleobiology 12:217–228.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. 1994 The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
Weiss, K., and Hayashida, F. 2002 KulturCrisis! Cultural Evolution Going Round in Circles. Evolutionary Anthropology 11:136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar