Scientific Archaeology and the Origins of Symbolism: a reply to Bednarik
- 1 April 1992
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Cambridge Archaeological Journal
- Vol. 2 (1) , 43-51
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774300000469
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Tools, Grammar and the Archaeology of CognitionCambridge Archaeological Journal, 1991
- Symbols and paleolithic artifacts: Style, standardization, and the imposition of arbitrary formJournal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1991
- Grave Shortcomings: The Evidence for Neandertal Burial [and Comments and Reply]Current Anthropology, 1989
- Middle paleolithic symbolism: A review of current evidence and interpretationsJournal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1987
- The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper MorphologyAmerican Antiquity, 1987
- Culture, symbols, and human brain evolution: A synthesisDialectical Anthropology, 1981
- Ethnological results of the Point Barrow expeditionPublished by Biodiversity Heritage Library ,1892