Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy

Our understanding of the archaeological record has been developed under the culture history paradigm. Its fundamental structure is shown to be stylistic; this characteristic, coupled with historical factors, is seen as the major reason why evolutionary processes have not been extensively employed in explaining cultural change. Consideration of an evolutionary approach suggests that such processes as natural selection have considerable explanatory potential, but it is also suggested that a substantial segment of the archaeological record is not best understood in terms of adaptation. The potential of an evolutionary approach cannot be realized without making a fundamental distinction between functions, accountable in terms of evolutionary processes, and style, accountable in terms of stochastic processes.

[1]  J. R. Caldwell.  The New American Archeology: Its changing interests are bringing new kinds of understanding and a generalized view of its problems. , 1959, Science.

[2]  John M. Fritz,et al.  The Nature of Archaeological Explanation , 1970, American Antiquity.

[3]  Lewis R. Binford,et al.  New perspectives in archeology , 1969 .

[4]  Robert C. Dunnell.  Archaeological potential of anthropological and scientific models of function , 1978 .

[5]  C. Morgan.  Archaeology and explanation , 1973 .

[6]  Lewis R. Binford,et al.  Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process , 1965, American Antiquity.

[7]  F. R. Hodson,et al.  Mathematics and computers in archaeology , 1975 .

[8]  G. Daniel.  A Hundred Years of Archaeology , 1950 .

[9]  Robert C. Dunnell,et al.  Systematics in Prehistory , 1971 .

[10]  J. Crow.  The genetic basis of evolutionary change , 1975 .

[11]  Albert C. Spaulding.  Reply to Ford , 1954 .

[12]  Lewis R. Binford,et al.  Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning , 1967, American Antiquity.

[13]  Robert Ascher,et al.  Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation , 1961, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology.

[14]  W. Goodenough,et al.  Process and pattern in culture , 1964 .

[15]  James A. Ford.  Comment on A. C. Spaulding, “Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types” , 1954 .

[16]  Eóin MacWhite.  On the Interpretation of Archeological Evidence in Historical and Sociological Terms1 , 1956 .

[17]  B. Meggers,et al.  The Machalilla Culture: An Early Formative Complex on the Ecuadorian Coast , 1962, American Antiquity.

[18]  J. L. King,et al.  Non-Darwinian evolution. , 1969, Science.

[19]  Albert C. Spaulding,et al.  Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types , 1953, American Antiquity.

[20]  Elman R. Service.  Models for the Methodology of Mouthtalk , 1969, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology.

[21]  Robert Whallon,et al.  A New Approach to Pottery Typology , 1972, American Antiquity.

[22]  W. Durham.  The adaptive significance of cultural behavior , 1976 .

[23]  Edward Mackinnon.  Aspects of Scientific Explanation: and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science , 1967 .

[24]  J. Slotkin.  Some Basic Methodological Problems in Prehistory , 1952, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology.

[25]  R. Lewontin,et al.  The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change , 2022 .

[26]  J. Sabloff,et al.  Recent Developments in Archaeology , 1973 .

[27]  Alex D. Krieger,et al.  The Typological Concept , 1944, American Antiquity.

[28]  Stephen Jay Gould,et al.  The shape of evolution: a comparison of real and random clades , 1977, Paleobiology.

[29]  James C. Gifford.  The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena , 1960, American Antiquity.

[30]  Robert Brown.  Explanation in Social Science , 1963 .

[31]  Fred Plog,et al.  The study of prehistoric change , 1974 .

[32]  M. Harris,et al.  The Rise Of Anthropological Theory , 1968 .