Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-xlmdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-09T00:09:20.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Archaeology and the Origins of Symbolism: a reply to Bednarik

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Phillip G. Chase  and
Harold L. Dibble
Phillip G. Chase
Affiliation:
University Museum of Archaeology and AnthropologyUniversity of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania19104, U.S.A.
Harold L. Dibble
Affiliation:
Department of AnthropologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1987, we published a review of archaeological data that had been interpreted by others as evidence for the making and use of symbols before the Upper Palaeolithic (Chase & Dibble 1987). It has become clear to us since then that our study raises a number of issues we did not address directly. The foregoing critique by Bednarik touches on a few of them, but there are more fundamental issues he does not confront. Also, some of his criticisms seem to stem primarily from a misunderstanding or misreading of our article. What we will do here, then, is to respond briefly to his criticisms (we will not discuss his comments on the work of other authors), and then go on to address some of the important issues that he has not considered.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 1992 , pp. 43 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 1992

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

Boas, F., 1888. The Central Eskimo. (Repr. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 1964)Google Scholar
Brain, C.K., 1969. The Contribution of the Namib Desert Hottentots to on Understanding of Australopithecine Bone Accumulations. Scientific Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station 39Google Scholar
Chase, P.G., 1990. Sifflets du Paléolithique moyen (?). Les implications d'un coproli the de coyote actuel. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Franqaise 87, 165–7Google Scholar
Chase, P.G., 1991. Symbols and Palaeolithic artifacts: style, standardization, and the imposition of arbitrary form. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10, 193–214Google Scholar
Chase, P.G. & Dibble, H.L., 1987. Middle Palaeolithic symbolism: a review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6, 263–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dart, R.A., 1957. The Osteodontkeratic Culture of Australopithecus Prometheus. Transvaal Museum Memoir 10Google Scholar
Dibble, H.L., 1987. The interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic scraper morphology. American Antiquity 52, 109–17Google Scholar
Dibble, H.L., 1988. Typological aspects of reduction and intensity of utilization of lithic resources in the French Mousterian in The Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, eds. Dibble, H.L. & Montet-White, A.. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 181–97Google Scholar
Frayer, D.W., & Montet-White, A., 1989. Comment on R.H. Gargett, ‘Grave shortcomings: evidence for Neandertal burial.’ Current Anthropology 30, 180–1Google Scholar
Gargett, R.H., 1989. Grave shortcomings: the evidence for Neandertal burial. Current Anthropology 30, 157–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, R.L., 1981. Culture, symbols and human brain evolution. Dialectical Anthropology 5, 287–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeber, A.L., 1900. The Eskimo of Smith Sound. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 12, 265–327Google Scholar
Murdoch, J., 1892.Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition. Ninth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. (Reprinted 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E.W., 1899. The Eskimo about Bering Strait. Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1896–1997, Part 1, 19–526Google Scholar
Peirce, C.S., 1960. The icon, index, and symbol, in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, eds. Hartshorne, C. & Weiss, P., Vol. II. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 156–73Google Scholar
Wynn, T., 1991. Tools, grammar and the archaeology of cognition. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1, 191–206Google Scholar