Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:11:12.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models, Definitions, and Stylistic Variation: Comment on Ortman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Teresa D. Hurt,
Gordon F. M. Rakita and
Robert D. Leonard
Teresa D. Hurt
Affiliation:
Lone Mountain Archaeological Services, Inc., 2625 Pennsylvania NE, Suite 2000, Albuquerque. New Mexico 87110
Gordon F. M. Rakita
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131 -1086
Robert D. Leonard
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131-1086
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ortman's comments concerning the evolutionary archaeology model of style in his study of the textile metaphor in Mesa Verde pottery designs are based upon a misunderstanding of the assumptions of the neutral model of style. We clarify these assumptions and explain why Ortman's study is not a test of the model.

Résumé

Résumé

Los comentarios de Ortman acerca del modelo de la arqueología evolutiva de estilo en su estudio de la metáfora del textil en los diseños de la alfarería de Mesa Verde se basan en una mala interpretación de las suposiciones del modelo neutro de estilo. Clarificamos estas suposiciones y explicamos porqué el estudio de Ortman no es una prueba del modelo.

Information

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , October 2001, pp. 742 - 743
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2001

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References Cited

Abbott, A. L., Leonard, R. D., and Jones, G. T. 1996 Explaining the Change from Biface to Flake Technology: A Selectionist Application. In Darwinian Archaeologies, edited by Maschner, H. D. G., pp. 33–42. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ames, K. 1996 Archaeology, Style, and the Theory of Coevolution. In Darwinian Archaeologies, edited by Maschner, H. D. G., pp. 109–132. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bettinger, R. L., Boyd, R., and Richerson, P. J. 1996 Style, Function, and Cultural Evolutionary Processes. In Darwinian Archaeologies, edited by G, H. D.. Maschner, pp. 133–164. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Boone, J. L., and Smith, E. A. 1998 Is it Evolution Yet?: A Critique of “Evolutionary Archeology “ Current Anthropology 39(Supplement): S141–S173.Google Scholar
Hurt, T. D., Leonard, R. D., and VanPool, T. L. 1998 Comment on “The Goals of Evolutionary Archaeology: History and Explanation” by R. L. Lyman and M. J. O’Brien. Current Anthropology 39: 635–636.Google Scholar
Hurt, T. D., VanPool, T. L., Rakita, G. F. M., and Leonard, R. D. 2001 Explaining the Co-occurence of Traits in the Archaeological Record: A Further Consideration of Replicative Success. In Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology, edited by Hurt, T. D. and Rakita, G. F. M., pp. 51–67. Bergin and Garvey, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. D., and Reed, H. E. 1996 Theory, Models, Explanation, and the Record: Response to Kohler and Sebastian. American Antiquity 61: 603–608.Google Scholar
Lipo, C. P., Madsen, M. E., Dunnell, R. C., and Hunt, T. 1997 Population Structure, Cultural Transmission, and Frequency Sedation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 301–333.Google Scholar
McGimsey, C. R. 1995 Lamellar Flakes and the Illinois Middle Woodland: A Selectionist Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Maxwell, T. D. 2001 Directionality, Function, and Adaptation in the Archaeological Record. In Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology, edited by Hurt, T. D. and F, G.. M. Rakita, pp. 41–50. Bergin and Garvey, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Neiman, F. D. 1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 60: 7–36.Google Scholar
O’Brien, M. J., and Holland, T. D. 1990 Variation, Selection, and the Archaeological Record. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 31–79. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Ortman, S. G. 2000 Conceptual Metaphor in the Archaeological Record: Methods and an Example from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 65: 613–645.Google Scholar
Ramenofsky, A. F. 1995 Evolutionary Theory and Native American Artifact Change in the Postcontact Period. In Evolutionary Archaeology: Methodological Issues, edited by Teltser, P. A., pp. 129–147. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Spencer, C. S. 1997 Evolutionary Approaches in Archaeology. In Journal of Archaeological Research 5: 209–264.Google Scholar