Pots and Evolution

Response to Neff and Schiffer et al

Bibliographic Data

ID7604754
AuthorsHelen L Loney (Crichton Royal Hospital, corresponding author)
Year2001
Volume66
Issue4
Pages738-741
Publication date2001-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Antiquity (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-7316 • E-ISSN: 2325-5064
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/2694187
OpenAlexW1994428307
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited12

This reply seeks to answer the comments by Neff and Schiffer et al. by stating the following: 1) evolutionary theory in archaeology is limited by the overextension of biological attributes to nonbiological artifacts, such as pottery; 2) evolutionary theory when applied to technological studies has an underlying technological determinist implication, and hence is inappropriate for use in the study of ancient technologies; 3) the subfields and disciplines of ceramic studies in archaeology are becoming increasingly isolated from each other and from the mainstream of interpretation, as evidenced by exclusionary bibliographies, language and study groups; and 4) ceramic studies are best approached on a contextual, case-by-case basis

Archaeology · Epistemology · Evolutionary theory · Interpretation (philosophy) · Linguistics · Mainstream · Pottery · Sociology · Technological determinism · Archaeology and ancient environmental studies · Archaeology and Rock Art Studies · History · Philosophy · Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub