Paradigms in science and archaeology

Clark, Geoffrey A.

doi:10.1007/bf01326535

Cited by 53 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These biases about what causes pattern condition the perception of structure in an archaeological record and, from an Americanist point of view, the assumptions of many European workers are not warrantedare, in fact, hopelessly naive (Clark 1993(Clark , 1994a. As Dibble showed long ago (e.g., 1984Dibble showed long ago (e.g., , 1987, the overall, final form of a normative artefact type like an endscraper or a burin class can be shown to be the result of a complex nexus of factors that, in the main, are more related to the intended function of edges (and the desire to produce and maintain a particular edge configuration), and to the size and quality of available raw material (which constrains choice among reduction sequences) than to the mental templates of long-dead foragers.…”

Section: Archaeological Systematics: Lithic Typologymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…I suggest that the 'Replacement' and 'Continuity' positions are paradigm-like formulations and that these paradigms are based on radically different biases and assumptions about what the remote human past was like. Seldom examined by their adherents, they determine the variables considered significant to measure, the methods deemed appropriate to measure them and, ultimately, the meaning assigned to pattern in the various disciplines and research traditions involved in the debate (Clark 1992(Clark , 1993(Clark , 1994a.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The middle‐upper paleolithic transition in Europe: An American perspective

Clark

1997

Norwegian Archaeological Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A view of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe is offered from the perspective of Americanist anthropological archaeology. After a brief consideration of how the transition seems to be perceived by many British and Continental workers, patterns in lithic typology and technology, raw material variability, reduction strategies and intensity of site use, blank frequencies; bone, antler and ivory technologies, paleolithic art, subsistence strategies and settlement patterns are reviewed. It is concluded that perceptions of pattern, and what it might mean, are (1) theory-laden and paradigm dependent, and (2) are almost entirely determined by the relative importance of historicist biases in a particular research tradition, and (3) by preconceptions about the nature of the biological transition between archaic and modern humans.

show abstract

Section: Archaeological Systematics: Lithic Typologymentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The middle‐upper paleolithic transition in Europe: An American perspective

Clark

1997

Norwegian Archaeological Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The premise that there is only one kind of science, free from subjective or political entanglements, is clearly faulty (see Green 2000). This type of strict empiricism disappeared from the ''hard sciences'' centuries ago but hangs on with incredible tenacity in archaeological circles (Clark 1993). Perhaps other disciplines outside the ''social sciences'' lack the stigmata sometimes associated with the more human of the sciences.…”

Section: Archaeology and The Anthropocenementioning

confidence: 98%

Earth Systems, Human Agency, and the Anthropocene: Planet Earth in the Human Age

Braje

2015

J Archaeol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A proposal to designate a new geological epoch of our own makingthe Anthropocene-is being considered by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), part of the International Union of Geological Sciences. Based on a set of formal criteria, there is growing consensus for a Holocene-Anthropocene boundary set at some point in the last 200 years. A number of scientists have questioned the utility of such a designation because it overlooks the millennia-long history of human impacts on the planet and fails to focus on the causes of human domination of the Earth in favor of the effects. I review these debates and synthesize a variety of proposals for an Anthropocene beginning 10,000 years ago to as little as 50. I then review a number of parallel debates focused less on the geosciences and more on the political, social, and institutional implications of the Anthropocene. I demonstrate how and why formal ICS criteria for the designation of geological time units may be inadequate for effectively meeting the underlying rationale for designating a human-induced geological epoch and the role it is currently and, potentially, will continue to play in the court of public opinion.

show abstract

“…For instance, both approaches suffer from one significant methodological problem-there is a strong tendency to "type" technological processes. Whether typing methods for producing flakes or typing an assemblage of prehistoric artifacts as belonging to a given industrial complex, giving a typological structure to archaeological data unfortunately results in the presentation of interpretations as data-free labels in the literature rather than comparable descriptions of the assemblages in question that others can use themselves to evaluate the validity of the interpretative conclusion (Clark 1993). As Shott notes (2003: 100):…”

Section: Epistemological Problems With Sequence-level Typology: a Ralmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…American scholars, however, also typologize the re-2006), as the largest unit of analysis and thus avoid reifying analytical categories while endeavoring to study diachronic change in behavioral variability, a task impossible with typological reasoning (Clark 1993;Straus 2003). In brief, we need to shift from a typological (essentialist) approach to one of population thinking, as recently adopted by evolutionarily informed archaeologists.…”

Section: Epistemological Problems With Sequence-level Typology: a Ralmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are more areas of overlap as well as distinction between the Reduction Sequence and Chaîne Opératoire methods of archaeological analysis than the current debate recognizes. While methodological differences have been acknowledged, high-level theory differs to a greater degree than is currently appreciated, partly due to the social practice of archaeology in different contexts. This paper compares and evaluates examples of reduction sequence and chaîne opératoire research to demonstrate how high-level theory goals impact middle-range theory and even low-level theory practices (i.e., how data are constructed and published). The paper then utilizes the distinction between an emic decision hierarchy and an etic production hierarchy to elucidate how the practitioners of both methods can more successfully integrate their approaches. An alternative to both methods is offered to demonstrate how common epistemological problems can be resolved. As an example of this alternative approach, the paper compares blank production behaviors and tool kit morphologies among Levantine Ahmarian, as well as among Levantine Aurignacian assemblages, from Kebara Cave, Israel. This case study demonstrates that the two Ahmarian assemblages are more different, rather than more similar to each other, in comparison to the Levantine Aurignacian assemblages. This suggests that a typological approach to these assemblages conceals significant behavioral data.

show abstract

Paradigms in science and archaeology

Cited by 53 publications

References 33 publications

The middle‐upper paleolithic transition in Europe: An American perspective

The middle‐upper paleolithic transition in Europe: An American perspective

Earth Systems, Human Agency, and the Anthropocene: Planet Earth in the Human Age

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About