AcaWiki - User contributions [en]

Evidence for causal mechanisms in social science: recommendations from Woodward’s

2015-06-01T16:51:04Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Evidence for causal mechanisms in social science: recommendations from Woodward’s |authors=Runhardt, Rosa W |summary=Runhardt discusses how to study the cau..."

{{Summary
|title=Evidence for causal mechanisms in social science: recommendations from Woodward’s
|authors=Runhardt, Rosa W
|summary=Runhardt discusses how to study the causal mechanism by using the technique of process-tracing, which involves contrasting the observable implications of several alternative mechanisms. This method argues that finding the relationship between a potential cause and effect is not enough, and we should examine other intervening variables between the potential cause and effect. In addition, process-tracing includes both top-down and bottom-up approaches. In this paper, Runhardat focuses on the top-down process-tracing method. The essence of top-down process-tracing method is to contrast rival hypotheses about the causal connection between an independent variable X and a dependent variable Y.

At first, Runhardt discusses Woodward’s theory about causation, which assumes that a successful description about the relationship between cause and effect should refer to causal factors which can lead to change in phenomenon. For example, if there is a variable I which can intervene the variable X and then in turn change Y, then we can confirm the relationship between X and Y by controlling variable I. This means by controlling the intervention variable, we can examine the relationship between cause and effect. There are some requirements for the intervention variable between X and Y. First, I should causes X. Second, X can be only influenced by intervention variable I. Third, any directed path from I to Y should go through X. Fourth, I is statistically independent of any other variables which is not on the I-X-Y path. In addition, the intervention does not actually happen in real case, so we may formulate a hypothetical experiment. Also, it is not necessary that the intervention should relate to human action, it can be a natural process instead.

However, Runhardt thinks that Woodward’s method cannot prove the relationship between cause and effect, because it only focuses on the intervention variables in singular case. Runhardt proposed that we should find an intervention variable by looking at two distinct case studies. That means we should compare two similar cases, in which one has the intervention variable, and another one does not have this variable. Based on the comparison, we can examine the relationship between cause and effect. In other word, we should study a control case and an experimental case, and justify their similarity. Besides, He suggested that moving from singular case studies to general theories is based on a homogeneity assumption, which assumes tat the cause for the effect is the same and provides a basis for comparison.

|journal=Philosophy of Science Assoc. 24th Biennial Mtg
|pub_date=2014
}}

Do We Need Mechanisms in the Social Sciences?

2015-05-29T09:50:20Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Do We Need Mechanisms in the Social Sciences? |authors=Reiss, Julian |summary=Reiss discussed some problems of causal mechanism, which is called new mechani..."

{{Summary
|title=Do We Need Mechanisms in the Social Sciences?
|authors=Reiss, Julian
|summary=Reiss discussed some problems of causal mechanism, which is called new mechanist perspective in this paper, and stated that causal mechanism is not the best methodology to give explanation in social science because it ignored non-explanatory aims of social science. First, he mentioned that mechanist perspective is based on three fundamental arguments: 1. theoretical explanation is the aim of social science, 2. the subject of explanation is empirical phenomena, 3. Empirical phenomena is explained in terms of the causal mechanisms.

However, Reiss pointed out that the aim of social science is not just theoretical explanation, but the non-explanatory goals, such as description, prediction and control. For example, rate of unemployment or inflation rate is descriptive measurement for specific phenomena, but it plays an important role for understanding the economy of a state and improving the situation. In addition, predicting or controlling social phenomena is the main goal in social science. Based on the aims of description and prediction in social science, Reiss argued that causal mechanistic model cannot predict social phenomenon well. For example, the econometric model explains events based on data-generating structure, but the structure is easy to break. This means that in real world in addition to causal factor, there are non-causal variables which may also influence the outcome.

Moreover, causal mechanistic model cannot control social phenomenon, because the relationship between causal mechanism and outcome is unstable in social science. For instance, a policy was introduced in order to control or change the target. The real control involves in the stable relationship between the policy variable and the target rather than the mechanism of the relationship. In conclusion, Reiss stated that in social science, methodology and the philosophy of social science should focuses more on the non-explanatory aims, such as measurement, prediction, and policy evaluation, instead of theoretical explanation.

|journal=Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37: 163-184
|pub_date=2007
}}

Modeling Settlement Systems in a dynamic Environment, Case Studies from Mesopotamia

2015-05-23T00:05:27Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Modeling Settlement Systems in a dynamic Environment, Case Studies from Mesopotamia |authors=Wilkinson, Tony J. Et al. |summary=Wilkinson et al. researched st..."

{{Summary
|title=Modeling Settlement Systems in a dynamic Environment, Case Studies from Mesopotamia
|authors=Wilkinson, Tony J. Et al.
|summary=Wilkinson et al. researched state level society in Mesopotamia in the Near East by using agent-based modeling in order to incorporate a wide range of interacting process. They focus on the bottom-up processes that the state formation resulted from the growth of early settlements. That it, they emphasized the basic subsistence economy rather than the developed political economy. Before applying model, they collected the environmental data relative to the development of state, such as route system, which can reveal the interexchange network, and environment fluctuations, which might impact this region.

Wilkinson et al. viewed the individual as a member of a patriarchal household as “agent”, because household is the fundamental social and economic unit in the ancient Near East, and it is the basis of subsistence economy. In addition to households, exchange network, accumulation and distribution of wealth, and dissemination of information also serve as important proxies to examine state formation. The input data contains the basic processes of everyday life and the behaviors of the individual agents. The factors include the size of households, components of the agricultural and pastoral economy. All of the data will be represented in a quantitative way.

The data comes from archaeological excavations, ethnoarchaeology, cuneiform texts, historical documents, and landscape data. In addition to basic subsistence economy based on household, they also collected the information from single settlement system located at Tell Beydar in northern Syriawhich. This settlement system includes 82 sites, and can serve as a proxy for political economy. After setting up the data, they used agent-based models to capture the dynamics interaction between natural processes and social processes within this system. Each agent in the simulation governs their own behavior based on the local rules and in response to its own preferences, capabilities, perceptions, and goals.

The results of one-hundred year simulation shows that the population rose about 41percent, the number of households increased 46 percent, and the settlement had more supply of grain than they needed. Moreover, the result also provides so called “Household diary”, which provides fine-scale detail of every day life of each household, such as the number of member, and the condition of the basic economy. The authors conclude that this simulation is helpful to understand household dynamics and how settlements evolved through time.

|journal=Timothy A. Kohler / Sander E. van der Leeuw (eds.), The Model-Based Archaeology of Socionatural Systems. Pp. 175-208. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press
|pub_date=1997
}}

How models are used to represent reality

2015-05-18T06:26:12Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=How models are used to represent reality |authors=Giere, R. G. |summary=Giere argued science can be viewed as a language and we should focus on the pragmatics..."

{{Summary
|title=How models are used to represent reality
|authors=Giere, R. G.
|summary=Giere argued science can be viewed as a language and we should focus on the pragmatics aspect of scientific practices. He used models to illustrate how we give scientific explanation. The representation reflects the relationship between linguistic entities and the world. For scientific representation, theory is a medium to connect statements with the world. The process to give scientific explanation is to generate models based on principles and specific conditions, and then create hypothesis according to on the model.

Giere then discusses the components or process by which model is built. First, he defined the principle as a highly specific abstract object based on empirical generalization, which also refers to general templates for the construction of models. With the principle, we can build the model, and then apply this model to several similar cases. For Giere, the term “law” or “theory” is too broad and ambiguous. He thought that the term “principle” is more specific and used it to replace laws and theories.

Giere stated that models are often used to represent some aspect of the world for specific purpose by scientists. The usefulness of model is based on its two features, similarity and generalization. Model should have specific features which are similar to the features in real world, and should be based on generalizations of the world. However, law-like statement usually has restrictions and exceptions. Giere proposed that by viewing law statement as a part of a model, we can avoid this problem.

The purpose of using model is to give an understanding of something. We choose model according to the question we ask. For the same subject, it is possible to use different models due to different research questions. Giere argued that there is no true or false principle, but more or less useful for the constriction of good models. What we can test is the model which incorporates the principle rather than the principle itself. Therefore, model building is the way to give better scientific explanation.

|journal=Philosophy of Science 71 (5):742-752 (2004)
|pub_date=2004
}}

Function and configuration in Archaeology

2015-05-15T15:17:23Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Function and configuration in Archaeology |authors=Steward and Setzler |summary=Steward and Setzler criticized the taxonomic methodologies in archaeology, and..."

{{Summary
|title=Function and configuration in Archaeology
|authors=Steward and Setzler
|summary=Steward and Setzler criticized the taxonomic methodologies in archaeology, and proposed that we should stress the general cultural problem, such as the relationship between human and environment and the function of archaeological materials. First, Steward and Setzler discussed the objects in archaeology are concrete artifacts and their associations. In addition, identifying the culture elements and arranging them into historical setting is also an important task for archaeologists. However, they argued that the focus of materials contradicts to the aim to study the human culture. For example, the archaeological materials usually imply the descriptive headings, such as stone or bone instead of hunting or food preparation.

Rather than chronological and spatial arrangements, Steward and Setzler inclined to explore the conditions of the origin, development, diffusion, and interaction of cultural elements. In other words, they thought that archaeology should focus on broader cultural problems. In addition to the details of lists of the archaeological materials, we should discuss more about the general features of a culture, such as the subsistence, the population distribution, and the relationship between culture and environment. They suggested that a culture is adapted to its environment, which refers to the basic economy of a culture, and emphasized the study of human ecology. For example, we should explore food getting, cooking, or hunting and gathering, which relates to human adaptation.

Moreover, Steward and Setzler suggested archaeological objects should be treated as tools employed by human. Therefore, we need to explore the function al place of objects in the total activity. They also pointed out not all culture has all elements which are equally integrated in a culture. For different archaeological materials in a culture, some might have basic importance for the economy of this culture, but others do not. That means every culture element might play different meaning in human activities, and we should explore the manner in which culture elements were linked with one another in order to get general picture of a culture.
|journal=American Antiquity 4 (1), 1938
|pub_date=1938
}}

Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran

2015-05-15T07:36:11Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran |authors=Wright, H. T. and G. A. Johnson |summary=Summary: Wright and Johnson tested c..."

{{Summary
|title=Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran
|authors=Wright, H. T. and G. A. Johnson
|summary=Summary:
Wright and Johnson tested current explanations for the emergence of centralized institutions in Southwest Iran, and proposed that we need more complex type of explanation. According to the archaeological evidenced, there are 8 prehistoric time period of the development of organization on the Mesopotamia plain. The origin of the state was believed at the beginning of the Early Uruk period (around 4000BC.) according to the scale of settlement and settlement distribution. There are three hypotheses for the culture transformation, including population growth, inter-regional exchange, and local craft production.

The population growth hypothesis was based on the argument that population increase in an agriculture setting results in warfare, which leads to the emergence of state to administer societies which were defeated and distribute the resources. If population growth is the case, then they will find the increase of population before the state development. However, the estimation based on the relationship between area and population suggests that the population declined immediately before the development of state. Moreover, the Susiana d period, which is earlier than Early Uruk, has highest population, but there was no emergence of state.

Second hypothesis assumes that the increased rare materials from trade forced the appearance of leader or administrative organization to reorganize imported resource or develop local craft production. If trade is the factor, then they would find the expansion of trade before the state. Although there were increases in local production and intra-regional exchange, no major increase for inter-regional exchange before the Early Uruk period. The third hypothesis suggests that the development of local ceramic production is an important factor. The evidence shows that there was a specialized local administrative system and local exchange network at the beginning of the Early Uruk period, but this is more like an effect of transformation.

Although the evidence is not complete to make conclusion, Wright and Johnson think that by testing certain single variable explanation we can have a general idea about the emergence of the state. The first two hypotheses could be rejected, but each variable serve as a condition to the state formation. Wright and Johnson suggested that only multiple variable changes can lead to the transformation. They argue specialization could be viewed as a function to deal with population growth and intra-regional trade. In conclusion, they suggest four ways to future research: 1. Recover site constituents in correct proportion. 2. Recover should be based on known depositional origin. 3. Investigate the formation process of deposits. 4. Find out representative samples from each community.

|journal=American Anthropologist 77(2): 267-289.
|pub_date=1975
}}

Functional Explanation and Virtual Selection

2015-05-11T16:21:38Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Functional Explanation and Virtual Selection |authors=Pettit, P. |summary=Pettit discussed the common problem and importance of functional explanation in soc..."

{{Summary
|title=Functional Explanation and Virtual Selection
|authors=Pettit, P.
|summary=Pettit discussed the common problem and importance of functional explanation in social science. The functional explanation in social science aims to explain why certain social traits can be found in particular society. However, functional explanation cannot explain the mechanism of the function, which is called missing-mechanism in this paper. Another question is that whether we can adopt natural selection in social science.

Pettit argues that we should focus on the resilience of a phenomenon rather than the emergence or presence in social science. We can explain the resilience of a trait or institution serves an important function. For example, rituals in a society are resilient by serving social communication or solidarity. Anyone who gives up the ritual practice would suffer some difficulties and would go back to the ritual again. Sometimes the resilience is independent of the explanation. Pettit thinks that the idea of resilience relates to two explanations: one is equilibrium explanation, which suggests a pattern is inevitable in a certain context. Another one is the explanation of the fitness of a certain generic change. A gene has a higher degree of fitness means it has higher probability to survive.

By using the concept of resilience, Pettit argues that we do not have to explain the mechanism. What we need to focus on is the virtual selectionism, which means a story of selection will occur under any circumstance. Based on virtual selection, there are two kinds of explanation, functional explanation and rational choice explanation. Pettit then proposed two stages to conduct the functional explanation. First is to identify the function with resilience. Second, conduct an empirical investigation of features that fulfill these functions in our society.

|journal=The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47(2): 291-302
|pub_date=1996
}}

Assessing Functional Explanations in the Social Sciences

2015-05-11T07:25:57Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Assessing Functional Explanations in the Social Sciences |authors=Kincaid, H. |summary=Kincaid discussed and evaluated functionalism used in social science. A..."

{{Summary
|title=Assessing Functional Explanations in the Social Sciences
|authors=Kincaid, H.
|summary=Kincaid discussed and evaluated functionalism used in social science. As a special sociological theory, functionalism explains social phenomena by its function. Functional explanation consists of two claims: one is there are some specific effects of practice or institution; another is this practice exists to promote those effects. However, functionalism was criticized for little statistical evidence, lack of mechanism connecting practices with their persistence, and inappropriate adoption of natural selection.

Before evaluating these critics, Kincaid explained what is functionalism in social sciences. He pointed out some basic principle of functionalism. First, explanation is a straightforward form of causal explanation, which explains causes by their consequences. For the problem of functionalism, he thinks there is no clear correlation between effect and existence of specific practice or institution. In other words, we need a specific mechanism to explain the function.

Thus, Kincaid suggested that we need to test the claims of functionalism to give better explanation. The testing should confirm that A exists in order to fulfill its function B. Based on this principle of testing, there should be two premises: 1.when A exists, it has the function B; 2. A persists because of the effect of function B. Kincaid proposed that we can adopt the concept of trait-environment correlation from biologists to social science. For example, we can examine the correlations between social environment and traits of social organization.

Based on above concepts, Kincaid discussed a procedure to test the functional explanation: 1. Trait of the type A would be the best solution to environmental problem 2. Selection of traits would lead to the establishment of optimal trait 3. The observed trait is of type A. Thus, we can confirm the function of the trait. However, Kincaid also recognized the real functional processes might be complicated, so we need more sophisticated models or statistical techniques to test. He proposed we can eliminate spurious causation by controlling the possible causes that might lead to the correlation between effect and persistence. Therefore, functional explanation is testable and the concept of selection can be used in social science.

|journal=PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association
|pub_date=1990
}}

Inference and evidence in archaeology: a discussion of the conceptual problems

2015-05-08T04:58:18Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=Inference and evidence in archaeology: a discussion of the conceptual problems
|authors=Sullivan, A.
|summary=Sullivan pointed out the most common problem for making inference in archaeology is the uncertain linkage between the inference and evidence. The first part of the article is to review the scientific inference in archaeology, and then address some problems and seek solution. Sullivan discusses many archeologists concerned the procedural matters of archaeological inference, for example, ethnographic materials is one of the procedural matters; however he thinks archaeologists should focuses more on how to justify their conclusion.

The limitations for inference in archaeology results from the nature of archaeological data, inadequate connection between data and argument, and incoherent concept from material remains to data. For archaeological evidence, there are two types of concept. One is phenomenological concept, which viewed archaeological evidence as data, and tends to make single interpretation based on data. Another is problem-oriented approach, which also has some problems; for instance, if the required remains for generating particular data do not exist, then it is hard to answer the research question.

Sullivan thinks the links between data and past behavior depends on archaeological theories. Based on the theory, a model is needed to specify how information about the past transmitted to the present by material remains. The criteria for adequate model includes: 1. Specify what and how information from the past circumstances surrounding is likely to be represented. 2. Specify the conditions which affect the likelihood of archaeological remains. 3. Provide the method to distinguish the traces of production and trances of use of material remains.

Sullivan then proposed three different theories which relate to above criteria respectively. They are formation theory, recovery theory, and analytic theory. The formation theory focuses on the traces which portrays information of past. He thinks that trace production is context-dependent, which provides us a basis to examine the past information. The recovery theory focuses on fieldwork practice, including sampling, research design, and site-building process, which guild the direction of evidence. The analytic theory is to provide appropriate methods to separate archaeological materials in terms of their distinct contexts.
|journal=In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (Vol. 1), edited by M.B. Schiffer. New York.
|pub_date=1978
}}

Inference and evidence in archaeology: a discussion of the conceptual problems

2015-05-08T04:57:54Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Inference and evidence in archaeology: a discussion of the conceptual problems |authors=Sullivan, A. |summary= Sullivan pointed out the most common problem f..."

{{Summary
|title=Inference and evidence in archaeology: a discussion of the conceptual problems
|authors=Sullivan, A.
|summary= Sullivan pointed out the most common problem for making inference in archaeology is the uncertain linkage between the inference and evidence. The first part of the article is to review the scientific inference in archaeology, and then address some problems and seek solution. Sullivan discusses many archeologists concerned the procedural matters of archaeological inference, for example, ethnographic materials is one of the procedural matters; however he thinks archaeologists should focuses more on how to justify their conclusion.

The limitations for inference in archaeology results from the nature of archaeological data, inadequate connection between data and argument, and incoherent concept from material remains to data. For archaeological evidence, there are two types of concept. One is phenomenological concept, which viewed archaeological evidence as data, and tends to make single interpretation based on data. Another is problem-oriented approach, which also has some problems; for instance, if the required remains for generating particular data do not exist, then it is hard to answer the research question.

Sullivan thinks the links between data and past behavior depends on archaeological theories. Based on the theory, a model is needed to specify how information about the past transmitted to the present by material remains. The criteria for adequate model includes: 1. Specify what and how information from the past circumstances surrounding is likely to be represented. 2. Specify the conditions which affect the likelihood of archaeological remains. 3. Provide the method to distinguish the traces of production and trances of use of material remains.

Sullivan then proposed three different theories which relate to above criteria respectively. They are formation theory, recovery theory, and analytic theory. The formation theory focuses on the traces which portrays information of past. He thinks that trace production is context-dependent, which provides us a basis to examine the past information. The recovery theory focuses on fieldwork practice, including sampling, research design, and site-building process, which guild the direction of evidence. The analytic theory is to provide appropriate methods to separate archaeological materials in terms of their distinct contexts.

|journal=In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (Vol. 1), edited by M.B. Schiffer. New York.
|pub_date=1978
}}

Reflections of a bashful Bayesian: A reply to Peter Lipton.

2015-05-04T19:55:39Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=Reflections of a bashful Bayesian: A reply to Peter Lipton
|authors=Salmon, W. C.
|summary=In this paper, Salmon responded to the inference to the best explanation proposed by Lipton, and then made some comments, especially for the relationship between Bayesian and Explanation. Salmon distinguished the difference between explanationist and Bayesian by discussing the probability and informative value. The explanationist suggests that a good hypothesis is based on higher probability. On the contrary, Bayesian thinks that explanatory power is based on higher informative value instead of higher probability.

Based on Lipton’s argument which loveliest explanation is a guild to likeliest explanation, Salmon thinks explanationism and Bayesianism may be complementary to Lipton. Lipton suggests that explanatory consideration will improve the Bayesian mechanism in four ways: first, the explanatory consideration can determine the likelihood in order to move from prior probability to posterior probability. Second, we can infer the conditions based on the prior probability. Third is to determine which data are relevant to hypothesis. Fourth, the explanatory consideration might become a theory.

However, Salmon disagreed that explanatory consideration can help the Bayesianism. For the likelihoods, he thinks that without explanatory consideration, we can also evaluate the likelihood for something based on previous observation. In addition, prior probability was determined by existence of evidence or probability of the hypothesis, which means that simple hypotheses will be more successful due to higher probability. This leads to the problem of oversimplification duo to less explanatory power, and it is hard to apply to social sciences.

Another difference between Salmon and Lipton is the methodology. Lipton thinks that the explanation is descriptive, but Salmon suggests it is more normative. Salmon criticized that Lipton’s inference to the best explanation model does not provide a normative basis for judging inference. In addition, which is the best explanation is hard to determine duo to many different pieces of evidence of real case. Salmon then concluded that Lipton’s model is not scientific but good commonsense explanation.
|journal=Explanation (pp. 121-136). Springer Netherlands.
|pub_date=2001
}}

Reflections of a bashful Bayesian: A reply to Peter Lipton.

2015-05-04T16:13:08Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Reflections of a bashful Bayesian: A reply to Peter Lipton. |authors=Salmon, W. C. |summary=In this paper, Salmon responded to the inference to the best expla..."

{{Summary
|title=Reflections of a bashful Bayesian: A reply to Peter Lipton.
|authors=Salmon, W. C.
|summary=In this paper, Salmon responded to the inference to the best explanation proposed by Lipton, and then made some comments, especially for the relationship between Bayesian and Explanation. Salmon distinguished the difference between explanationist and Bayesian by discussing the probability and informative value. The explanationist suggests that a good hypothesis is based on higher probability. On the contrary, Bayesian thinks that explanatory power is based on higher informative value instead of higher probability.

Based on Lipton’s argument which loveliest explanation is a guild to likeliest explanation, Salmon thinks explanationism and Bayesianism may be complementary to Lipton. Lipton suggests that explanatory consideration will improve the Bayesian mechanism in four ways: first, the explanatory consideration can determine the likelihood in order to move from prior probability to posterior probability. Second, we can infer the conditions based on the prior probability. Third is to determine which data are relevant to hypothesis. Fourth, the explanatory consideration might become a theory.

However, Salmon disagreed that explanatory consideration can help the Bayesianism. For the likelihoods, he thinks that without explanatory consideration, we can also evaluate the likelihood for something based on previous observation. In addition, prior probability was determined by existence of evidence or probability of the hypothesis, which means that simple hypotheses will be more successful due to higher probability. This leads to the problem of oversimplification duo to less explanatory power, and it is hard to apply to social sciences.

Another difference between Salmon and Lipton is the methodology. Lipton thinks that the explanation is descriptive, but Salmon suggests it is more normative. Salmon criticized that Lipton’s inference to the best explanation model does not provide a normative basis for judging inference. In addition, which is the best explanation is hard to determine duo to many different pieces of evidence of real case. Salmon then concluded that Lipton’s model is not scientific but good commonsense explanation.

|journal=Explanation (pp. 121-136). Springer Netherlands.
|pub_date=2001
}}

Causation and the struggle for a science of culture.

2015-05-01T16:25:48Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Causation and the struggle for a science of culture. |authors=O'Meara, T. |summary=O’Meara discussed the failure of positivist social science, and stated..."

{{Summary
|title=Causation and the struggle for a science of culture.
|authors=O'Meara, T.
|summary=O’Meara discussed the failure of positivist social science, and stated that the attempt which we can apply law-like argument in science to sociocultural was based on wrong account of causation, causal laws, and causal explanations. O’Meara thinks we must examine the nature of causation in the social contexts before borrowing the model. If the causation in social contexts has the physical properties and mechanical operations, then explanation of human affairs belongs to physical science, which means it is necessary to adopt law-like argument. On the contrary, if it is not, then we need to find another explanation.

O’Meara then discusses the deductive and inductive argument proposed by Hempel, which explain events or phenomenon by logical statement from certain laws and initial conditions. For Hempel, scientific explanation means to establish general laws, and the causal explanation here means the deduced statement which can also serve as premises of the deduction for more universal laws. In this explanation, laws need not always be causal laws, which means non causal principles or laws of coexistence could exist. This viewpoint is the basis for functional explanations in archaeology. Moreover, in Hempel’s model, prediction and explanation has same form, but the former might contain accidental correlations, and the correlation for later is based on laws or theoretical principles, which suggests that laws are the necessity in order to give explanation.

However, O’Meara thinks that the necessity can only be logical, not physical. In addition, argument based on natural law in human affairs tends to overlook human agency or active powers of things themselves, and it cannot predict some types of behavioral events. Also, some counterexamples cannot be fully explained, which indicates that gthen eneralization about human behavior can only be made under specific temporal and spatial circumstance. O’Meara then advocated the ontological approach proposed by Salmon. He thinks that if our goal is to explain why people do something, then causal ontology is the main thing we must explore, which means we should give an account of causality. The causal process and causal interaction solve the problem of causal connection between events. He emphasized the causal individualism, which claims human affairs can be explained by causal-mechanical explanation, which is limited to operations and interactions among individual human beings and other entities. Moreover, the causal law only can be made by specifing the characteristic causal properties of human causal mechanisms.

|journal=Current anthropology, 38(3), 399-418
|pub_date=1997
}}

Review of "Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World" by Wesley Salmon.

2015-04-27T15:51:21Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title= Review of "Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World" by Wesley Salmon. |authors=Fetzer, J. H. |summary=In this paper, Fetzer briefly ove..."

{{Summary
|title= Review of "Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World" by Wesley Salmon.
|authors=Fetzer, J. H.
|summary=In this paper, Fetzer briefly overviews the statistical relevance proposed by Salmon, examines the difference of conception for explanation between Hempel’s covering law and Salmon’s statistical relevance, and discusses some problems of Salmon’s model and how Salmon solve this problem by suggesting causal mechanism. Fetzer thinks that the distinction between epistemic and ontic approach can be viewed as the difference between “what is taken to be the case” and “what is the case”. For Hempel’s model, event can be expected based on significance for probabilistic, however, salmon proposed that the explanation is to explain why an event has occurred rather than how the event to be expected.

For Hempel, explanations are like arguments, but for Salmon, explanations refer to causation. Moreover, Salmon states that explanations without causation cannot be called explanations. However, Salmon revised his argument later, and suggested that there might be noncausal explanations in the quantum domain. Fetzer thinks the revision of Salmon’s account shows the “two tiered” approach, which means two stages for explanation. First stage is to explain the statistical relevance relations, and the second stage is to explain the causal relevance relations. In addition, causal relationships are underdetermined by statistical relevance relationship.

Later, Salmon thinks S-R model is no longer a complete model. In order to distinguish his previous approach and elaborate the conception of explanation, Salmon abandoned statistical relevance account and proposed causal processes and causal mechanism. This perspective suggested the fundamental role of causal relevance and the statistical relevance relations are secondary. Another arguments Salmon proposed to extend this previous model is the causal processes and causal interaction which involve in both deterministic and indeterministic causal mechanisms.

|journal=Philosophy of Science 54(4): 597-610.
|pub_date=1987
}}

Explanation revisited

2015-04-24T05:49:06Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=Explanation revisited
|authors=Renfrew, A.C.
|summary=In this paper, Renfrew overviews the development of scientific explanation in archaeology in the past years, discusses current explanations we often use, and then tries to resolve some of the confusion and then clarify direction for future. He divides explanation in archeology into several periods, including Darwin’s impact, new archaeology in 1960s, critiques to law-like argument of cultural development, and current confusion of contradictory paradigms.

Renfrew discusses five different approaches of explanation which influence archaeology. The approaches include historiographic, hypothetico-deductive, ststems thinking, Neo-Marxist, and structuralism. Historical explanation focuses on individual event by emphasizing its particularity rather than its generality. For H-D approach, the thing is to be explained is to be deduced from higher order laws. The systems approach in archaeology views every unit together as a system, which is similar to organism and it balances by homeostatic processes. Neo-Marxist focuses on modes of production, relations of production, and forces of production, and thinks specific case can be classified into general model. Structuralism suggests material expression can reveal mental construction and believes general structural principles. In archaeology, Renfrew points out that the aim of most approaches is to make generalization and seeks to apply an explanatory principle from one society to other societies.

In order to understand the logical elements of a good explanation in archaeology, Renfrew examines the features of useful explanation. A good explanation will contain specific event, the class of event, the process, and the pattern. In addition, he uses some archaeological studies such as Maya collapse as examples to illustrate that the form of most satisfying explanations is clear and general. He concludes that explanation must consist of propositions that can be widely applied to other cases. Moreover, there are two different paths for explanation, one is the general and comparative explanation, and the other one is unique based on specific analysis of context. For Renfrew, he prefers the former one, and thinks that an adequate explanation for archaeology should be in form of generalization and formalization.
|journal=Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B. Seagraves. Academic Press, pp. 5-23.
|pub_date=1982
}}

Explanation revisited

2015-04-24T05:48:51Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=Explanation revisited
|authors=Renfrew, A.C.
|summary=In this paper, Renfrew overviews the development of scientific explanation in archaeology in the past years, discusses current explanations we often use, and then tries to resolve some of the confusion and then clarify direction for future. He divides explanation in archeology into several periods, including Darwin’s impact, new archaeology in 1960s, critiques to law-like argument of cultural development, and current confusion of contradictory paradigms.
Renfrew discusses five different approaches of explanation which influence archaeology. The approaches include historiographic, hypothetico-deductive, ststems thinking, Neo-Marxist, and structuralism. Historical explanation focuses on individual event by emphasizing its particularity rather than its generality. For H-D approach, the thing is to be explained is to be deduced from higher order laws. The systems approach in archaeology views every unit together as a system, which is similar to organism and it balances by homeostatic processes. Neo-Marxist focuses on modes of production, relations of production, and forces of production, and thinks specific case can be classified into general model. Structuralism suggests material expression can reveal mental construction and believes general structural principles. In archaeology, Renfrew points out that the aim of most approaches is to make generalization and seeks to apply an explanatory principle from one society to other societies.
In order to understand the logical elements of a good explanation in archaeology, Renfrew examines the features of useful explanation. A good explanation will contain specific event, the class of event, the process, and the pattern. In addition, he uses some archaeological studies such as Maya collapse as examples to illustrate that the form of most satisfying explanations is clear and general. He concludes that explanation must consist of propositions that can be widely applied to other cases. Moreover, there are two different paths for explanation, one is the general and comparative explanation, and the other one is unique based on specific analysis of context. For Renfrew, he prefers the former one, and thinks that an adequate explanation for archaeology should be in form of generalization and formalization.
|journal=Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B. Seagraves. Academic Press, pp. 5-23.
|pub_date=1982
}}

Explanation revisited

2015-04-24T05:48:18Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Explanation revisited |authors=Renfrew, A.C. |journal=Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B. Seagraves. Academic Pre..."

{{Summary
|title=Explanation revisited
|authors=Renfrew, A.C.
|journal=Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B. Seagraves. Academic Press, pp. 5-23.
|pub_date=1982
}}

Unification and Convergence in Archaeological Explanation: The Agricultural “Wave-of-Advance” and the Origins of Indo-European Languages.

2015-04-24T05:46:45Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Unification and Convergence in Archaeological Explanation: The Agricultural “Wave-of-Advance” and the Origins of Indo-European Languages. |authors=Wylie,..."

{{Summary
|title=Unification and Convergence in Archaeological Explanation: The Agricultural “Wave-of-Advance” and the Origins of Indo-European Languages.
|authors=Wylie, A.
|summary=Wylie briefly reviews philosophical theories about explanation by classifying them into three categories: epistemic theories, ontic theories, and pragmatic theories. She thinks that the power of unification in Kitcher’s account depends on the understanding of mechanisms and constitution of explanation of causality. Wylie discusses this argument by examining subsistence driven demic-diffusion model proposed by Colin Renfrew in the 1980s to account contemporary linguistic diversity of Indo-European languages. Based on demic-diffusion model, the linguistic diffusion of Indo-European was driven by the demographic pressure due to advance of agriculture technologies. Language diffused through the introduction of a new agriculture technologies rather than force of arms by Kurdic invasion, which is the previous explanation. Moreover, Renfrew argues that this model can be used to explain other linguistic macrofamilies of the world in addition to the Indo-European language.

Wylie thinks that the philosophical theories about explanation behinds Renfrew’s demic-diffusion model is the nature of the convergence, which is similar to the unificationism proposed by Kitcher, who states that the aim of scientific explanation is to use few pattern to describe a wide range of phenomena. She then discusses how archaeologists interpret the past and thinks that any physical or chemical assumptions relative to evidence are independent of the interpretive principles. Linking archeological evidence to wide range of archaeological theories is a complicated process. Therefore, Wylie questions the relationship between the simplified models and reconstructions of local cultural transition.

Wylie then points out some weakness of Renfrew’s convergence argument. First, Renfrew’s argument depends on the knowledge of linguistic macrofamilies, which is still contentious. Second, Renfrew underestimates that linguistic change can occur without change in material culture. Moreover, demic-diffusion is based on the assumption that Neolithic farmers have an adaptive advantage over hunter gatherers. Besides, there is no absolute relationship between farming and population pressure. Thus, Wylie suggests that it is necessary to consider an ontic explanation, that is, causal explanation or mechanisms for linguistic replacement by Neolithic revolution.

|journal=The Southern Journal of Philosophy 34(S1): 1-30.
|pub_date=1996
}}

Explanatory Unification and the Problem of Asymmetry

2015-04-20T16:04:17Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Explanatory Unification and the Problem of Asymmetry |authors=Barnes, E |summary=In this paper, Barnes discusses the problem of unificationist theory of expla..."

{{Summary
|title=Explanatory Unification and the Problem of Asymmetry
|authors=Barnes, E
|summary=In this paper, Barnes discusses the problem of unificationist theory of explanation proposed by Kitcher (1981). First, Barnes summaries the argument patterns and some terms used in Kitcher’s article, and thinks Kitcher’s theory of explanation can establish the very possibility of understanding the causal structure of the world which causal explanation cannot do. However, Barnes pointes out the problem of asymmetry in unification explanation by using example of height of tower and length of its shadow. In this example, tower height can explain shadow length, but shadow length cannot explain tower height. Despite Kitcher widens the range of explanation by using additional pattern with general patterns, Barnes thinks this way will reduce unifying power of original general explanation. Moreover, genuine explanation should be the most highly unifying based on Kitcher’s argument. However, he cannot explain putative nonexplanatory but unifying argument pattern.

For the unifying but nonexplanatory argument patterns, Barnes gave two examples to explain the failure of unification explanation. One is temporally symmetric closed system (retrodictive pattern), which is different from predictive pattern. Predictive pattern means that the fact it explains is based on the system which connects former explanation and latter subsequent occurrence by laws. However, the retrodictive pattern did not have the system which links the former explanation and latter occurrence. Therefore, the explanation is based on temporally symmetric at that time.

In addition, Barnes points out the difference between explanatory argument and evidentiary argument, and thinks Kitcher lacks the resources to respect the nonexplanatory charactor of such evidentiary argument. The conclusion for evidentiary argument should be an answer to “Why should we believe that conclusion”, while the conclusion for explanatory argument is that “Why such conclusion”. Then Barnes proposed causal process to distinguish the difference between retrodictive argument and predictive argument. A prior causal process of open systems explanatory is easier influence by retrodictive pattern rather than predictive pattern. In other words, retrodictive pattern cannot explain their conclusions, and it is a nonexplanatory and merely evidentiary argument.

|journal=Philosophy of Science 59
|pub_date=1992
}}

Explanatory Unification

2015-04-19T23:50:39Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Explanatory Unification |authors=Kitcher, Philip |summary=The aim of this paper is to develop and suggest the unofficial view, which regards explanation as un..."

{{Summary
|title=Explanatory Unification
|authors=Kitcher, Philip
|summary=The aim of this paper is to develop and suggest the unofficial view, which regards explanation as unification and can avoid some shortcomings of the covering law model. Based on Hempel’s definition, scientific explanation, especially theoretical explanation, is based on objective understanding that achieved by a systematic unification. Kitcher thinks that scientific explanation consists of a proposition and an act to answer questions. Moreover, Kitcher supposes that arguments supplied by science will be used in acts of explanation. Based on his viewpoint, science provides a reserve of explanatory arguments, which we may select when we need. The appropriate arguments relates to a set of accepted sentences. Unification here means that one pattern of argument provided by theory can be used in the derivation of a large number of sentences.

Kitcher proposes the concept of ‘general argument pattern’ to express the structure of the derivations of the same scientific theory by using linguistic terms. Based on his definition, the general argument pattern consists of schematic argument, a set of filling instructions, and a classification for a schematic argument. A schematic sentence here means an expression which obtained by replacing some non-logical expressions in a given sentence with dummy letters. In other words, arguments usually have similar logical structure, in which non-logical vocabulary could be replaced. However, the problem is which explanation we should accept to explain given that there are certain sentences to be true. He thinks that explanation should be the set of arguments which best unifies a given phenomenon.

Kitcher uses systematization’ of K to call any set of arguments that derives some members of K from other members of K. The criterion for best systematization is the notion of unification, which is achieved by generating a large number of acceptable arguments or conclusion about natural phenomena by using a few, convincing patterns. That is, all the patterns may share a common core pattern, which is what we need for explanation. However, Kitcher also recognized asymmetry problem, which means one of the derivations can be used to explain something while the other cannot. He thinks this problem was caused by accidental and irrelevant generalization.

|relevance=I think some ideas are interesting and relevant to archaeology. For example, the structure of general argument pattern Kitcher proposes is similar to the model we use for archaeology. Based on theoretical framework, we develop our model by replacing some non-logical vocabulary. In addition, the idea of unification justifies that archaeology can use theories from other disciplines because of sharing of core pattern.
|journal=Philosophy of Science, Vol. 48, No. 4
|pub_date=1981
}}

Archaeologies that hurt; descendants that matter: A pragmatic approach to collaboration in the public interpretation of African-American archaeology

2015-04-17T07:35:34Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Archaeologies that hurt; descendants that matter: A pragmatic approach to collaboration in the public interpretation of African-American archaeology |authors=..."

{{Summary
|title=Archaeologies that hurt; descendants that matter: A pragmatic approach to collaboration in the public interpretation of African-American archaeology
|authors=McDavid, Carol
|summary=McDavid examines an archaeological project about 18th sugar plantation in Brazoria, Texas based on pragmatic philosophical framework, and discusses how effective this approach brings new way to access and interpret archeological data. Some ideas of pragmatism influence the way archeologists interpret human’s past, for example, ideas of anti-essentialist, plural point of view about truth, and contingency of historically and socially constructed categories. In archaeology, human interaction was treated as historically contingent and pluralistic conversation. In addition, this approach believes there is no singular truth or explanation and encourages the public to express their voices.

In this paper, oral history and folklore were also thought as other ways of understanding the past. McDavid and his collaborators create a website for the public presentation of archeological research, including African-American, European American descendant and other community members. They viewed this website as a contingent and historically constructed conversation instead of presentation by archaeologists. There are four elements which serve as structuring principles for the website, including reflexive, interactive, multivocal, and contextual. Reflexive means we should be aware of the ideologies behinds assumptions we made and be critical for these assumptions. Moreover, we should recognize that archaeology depends on history, ethnography, and continuities and conflicts between past and present, which indicates different contexts involve in archaeology. For the people who does not use computer, they conducted oral history interviews. McDavid thinks himself as collaborators rather than authorities and he asks for permission to put public information before they put on the website to show respect for the descendents.

Finally, he evaluates this project by examining qualitative and quantitative data gathered from website, questionnaires, and automated software. The results show that the website is successful to be an open platform; however, it is not useful to create a space for democratic communication because seldom people questions the authority of archeologists and the public who were interested in this project are limited to certain kind of groups relevant to this project.
|journal=World archaeology 34.2 (2002): 303-314
}}

On Why Questions

2015-04-13T16:18:05Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=On Why Questions |authors=Paul Teller |summary=Teller reviews and points out some counterexamples in Bromberger’s analysis of answer to why-questions. First..."

{{Summary
|title=On Why Questions
|authors=Paul Teller
|summary=Teller reviews and points out some counterexamples in Bromberger’s analysis of answer to why-questions. First, he introduces some technical terms used in Bromberger’s analysis. The presupposition of a why question is the facts for which an explanation is asked in order to answer this why question. Bromberger proposed the abnormic hypothesis, which is used to complete the general rule when we find a new object which also fulfills the general rule but has no included yet. Why the case of that new object or event is the question which needs to be answer. According to Bromberger’s arguments, there are two kinds of abnoromic law, the general abnormic laws and the special abnormic law. In addition, antonymic predicate means the substituted prediction which negates the statement of general law. For example, no rubber is brittle unless it is cold. The sentence following the unless is the antonymic predicates.

However, Teller pointed out some problems, for instance, -Ex (an answer to the why question with presupposition Ax) will not always be the answer. In addition, a putative answer is incorrectly inherent in Bromberger’s condition. Teller thinks that Bromnerger’s account and Hempel’s account are not purely formal, because the concept of lawlikeness which they rely on might be problematic. Although Teller did not provide any adequate explanation which can solve these problems, he suggests that describing contexts when we seek to explain might be helpful.

|relevance=It seems to me that Teller pointed out the importance of contexts like what Van Fraassen (1980) states, although it is not really clear in this reading. I think for archaeology, the context is very crucial and it could be divided to different levels, such as archaeological contexts, history contexts, and environmental context and so on, which is more complicated than the context only for explaining an event or phenomenon.
|journal=Nous 8
|pub_date=1974
}}

Causality in archaeological explanation.

2015-04-10T08:20:24Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Causality in archaeological explanation. |authors=Salmon, W.C. |summary=Salmon discusses the conceptions of scientific explanation that behind the construct..."

{{Summary
|title=Causality in archaeological explanation.
|authors=Salmon, W.C.
|summary=Salmon discusses the conceptions of scientific explanation that behind the construction of explanation models, including deductive-nomological (D-N model), inductive-statistical (I-S model), and statistical-relevance model (S-R model), and addressed some problems which relates to such explanation in archaeology. He points out the conception could be divided into inferential and causal conception, which is the basic conceptions for D-N model and statistical explanation respectively. Salmon thinks that the inferential conception is based on inductive arguments that conclude highly probable in relation to the explanatory facts, which means only high probable result could be viewed as suitable explanatory condition. However, this approach overlooks the improbable events, which should be also explained. Later, the I-S model and the S-R model based on statistical explanation were proposed to solve this problem. But there are still some flaws in such explanations. For example, the I-S model imposes a high-probability requirement for events, while the S-R model has been criticized that it could not explain the causal considerations.

Therefore, Salmon proposed another approach, causal explanation, which combines the probabilistic concept from I-S model and the relations of statistical relevance from S-R model. This approach could be viewed as an extension of the S-R model, which stresses that causal conception requires a probabilistic concept of causality. He then used an archaeological artifact as an example to illustrate a satisfactory explanation will involve in complex causal processes and interactions which lead to artifacts in a given time and space. He thinks that by examining the causal processes and the complex causal mechanisms including positively relevant factors and negatively relevant factors, we are able to explain events which happen in prehistoric period.

|relevance=The causal explanation what Salmon proposed is really relevant to archeology, because when archaeologists explain events or phenomenon, they usually try to find the cause behinds them. I agree some viewpoints of Salmon, for example, he suggests that we also need to consider improbable events even they have low probabilities. I think this idea is suitable for archeology, because the preservation of archaeological artifacts depends on several conditions, which means sometimes artifacts were selected by natural condition, and we cannot exclude the possibilities of potential explanation just due to little evidence. We should consider all factors, compare and then make decisions. However, I feel Salmon overemphasizes the causality, and I think for archaeology, causal explanation is a part of a coherent story but not the main point.
|journal=Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B. Seagraves. Academic Press, pp. 45-55.
|pub_date=1982
}}

Are Statistical Explanations Really Explanatory?

2015-04-06T16:06:28Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Are Statistical Explanations Really Explanatory? |authors=Meixner, J. |summary=Meixner addresses the problems of statistical explanation, and suggests that th..."

{{Summary
|title=Are Statistical Explanations Really Explanatory?
|authors=Meixner, J.
|summary=Meixner addresses the problems of statistical explanation, and suggests that the statistics account behind explanation is entirely independent of the probability of the event which was explained. His research problem is that are explanations essentially statistical? He then pointed out the problem in the covering-law model. In order to expect an event, we need to connect the factors are statistically relevant to its occurrence. However, most statistical explanations depends on the possibility that many fundamental laws are essential random or by chance. In other words, the possibility of actual factor or cause of a given event is actually statistically improbable, which leads to problematic explanation.

He thinks that although statistical relevance model proposed by Salmon attempt to remove this problem in the covering-law model, Salmon still failed to explain why the exact cause for particular event. Meixner uses the lottery as an example to discuss how Salmon fail to explain the cause. Although Meixner did not provide any solution to this problem, he points out the problem of statistical account, which provides us a way to rethink the nature of explanation.

|relevance=I think some points in Meixner paper are quite interesting and relevant to archaeology. For example, he mentions that what is the object of explanation, and thinks that what salmon explain is event. This reminds me we need to always recognize the object we want to explain in archaeology, and I think what we actually want to explain is not the pattern of artifacts but the human behavior behinds them.
|journal=Philosophical Studies, 42, pp. 201-7
|pub_date=1982
}}

Causality and Explanation: A Reply to Two Critiques

2015-04-06T06:55:36Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Causality and Explanation: A Reply to Two Critiques |authors=Salmon, Wesley |summary=Salmon addressed some problems about the explication of causal process, c..."

{{Summary
|title=Causality and Explanation: A Reply to Two Critiques
|authors=Salmon, Wesley
|summary=Salmon addressed some problems about the explication of causal process, causal interaction, and causal transmission to respond to Christopher Hitchcock’s criticisms. First, salmon revised the criteria for causal process to include the temporal properties. He formulated the criteria in terms of conserved quantities, rather than invariant quantities he argued before. The conserved quantities mean that there is a constant value in the causal process if there is no causal interaction with another process involving an exchange of the quantity. Salmon admitted that the conserved quantities theory has pragmatic problem, because every movement involves in a string of interactions. However, he stated that the discussion in theory is necessity and emphasized the importance of the fundamental part of causal transmission and interaction. He further defined that causal process is a process, in which object transmits a nonzero amount of a conserved quantity at each moment of its history. In addition, things for transmission include conserved quantities, information, or causal influence. This transmission relates events at A and B. Salmon then explained the concepts of field and causal interaction. He uses the falling object as an example; an object falling toward earth involves changing its state of motion, and the gravitational force explains this change. This means there is a continuous series of interactions between this object and Earth’s gravitational field. Field means a continuous medium in which causal processes can interact. Moreover, the causal interaction should involve exchange of a conserved quantity.
Although his argument remained some question, for example, it cannot determine which properties of causal processes and interactions lead to given outcome and which are not, the concept of causal processes and interaction can be useful for explain events in particular space and time.

|relevance=Salmon talks about the genidentity, which is an indicator to determine whether a given object is wholly present at any given moment of its history. I think this point of view for objects is similar when we look at artifacts in archaeological context. Salmon used human’s body as an example and it makes me think that object might process the same shape and mass but different meaning over time. In my case, it reminds me that the meaning of prestige goods brought by European to indigenous settlement in the post-European period might change with time. Also, he proposed the concept of causal processes might be modified in causal interaction, which is the characteristic to distinguish the causal interaction and intersection. This idea might be applied to culture contact studies in archaeology. We can view European and indigenous people as causal processes. This provides a basis to further discuss the interaction.
|journal=Philosophy of Science 64:461-477.
|pub_date=1997
}}

Entanglement and tinkering

2015-02-23T08:31:50Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Entanglement and tinkering |authors=Martindale, Andrew |summary=The author used the concept of ‘entanglement’ to understand the history and role of Northe..."

{{Summary
|title=Entanglement and tinkering
|authors=Martindale, Andrew
|summary=The author used the concept of ‘entanglement’ to understand the history and role of Northern Tsimshian communities in the colonial period. Cultural entanglement emphasized the power and agency of individuals to confront colonial forces, which connects the actions of individuals with the broader patterns of history. The notion of entanglement is that it combines concepts of variability, autonomy, resistance, and views cultural identity as a shared and negotiation between individuals. In addition, Entanglement builds the ideas of creolization and rejects the dichotomies of European/Indigenous or dominant/passive relationship. Based on the model of entanglement, the author traces the changes of artifacts and identity by examining the material culture and historical records, and is able to describe complex cultural trends and explanation for the trends.
|journal=Journal of Social Archaeology.9 (1): 59-91.
|pub_date=2009
}}

’Barter...immediately commenced to the satisfaction of both parties‘: cross-cultural exchange at Port Jaclson

2015-02-23T08:30:45Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=’Barter...immediately commenced to the satisfaction of both parties‘: cross-cultural exchange at Port Jaclson |authors=Isabel Mcbryde |summary=This aim of..."

{{Summary
|title=’Barter...immediately commenced to the satisfaction of both parties‘: cross-cultural exchange at Port Jaclson
|authors=Isabel Mcbryde
|summary=This aim of this article is to explore the nature and reason of importance of exchange from the indigenous side in Sydney, Australia. By examine the historical records, the author tried to seek evidence on decisions making about whether to participate in exchange or not, and what factor influenced their decisions. Besides, the value of exotic items is also a key point to understand the motivation of exchange. Exchange goods usually involved in functional or economic aspects. They also carry social meaning, establish social relationship, or make statement of current relationship. The author thinks that the exchanged item were given social meaning form the contexts of their production or their life history. In the course of life history, the meaning of items might be recontextualized and acquire new roles. In order to understand the nature and pattern of exchanges, he suggests that we need to recognize the differences between giver and recipient in perceived value. The results shows that the indigenous group provided services, labour, local knowledge, and products as a means of negotiating economic and social survival items, food, tobacco, and alcohol. On the other hand, for Europeans, the exchange is a medium of control and the creation of dependency among the indigenous people.
|journal=The Archaeology of Difference: negotiating cross-cultural engagements in Oceania. Pp238-277.
|pub_date=2000
}}

"Historical Archaeology, Contact, and Colonialism in Oceania"

2015-02-23T08:30:00Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title="Historical Archaeology, Contact, and Colonialism in Oceania" |authors=Flexner, James L. |summary=This article explores how the indigenous people in Oceania f..."

{{Summary
|title="Historical Archaeology, Contact, and Colonialism in Oceania"
|authors=Flexner, James L.
|summary=This article explores how the indigenous people in Oceania face the colonialism in past five centuries and their experiences by examining the archaeological evidence and written documents. The author tried to break the binary oppositions that tend to structure enquiry in historical archaeology and focus on the processes of cultural change and experience in situations of colonialism. He proposed to integrate longer-term perspective, for example, from the first interaction with outsider or trade network to recent colonization, in order to study the cultural development of Europeans and indigenous groups. Based on the long-term perspective and corss-cultural analyses of colonialism, he examined the transformations in ecology, landscapes, settlement pattern, architecture, social space, and other material culture, and political economy in local context. In addition to archaeological evidence, he also considered the oral traditions together to interpret the material culture. Besides, we should also consider the dynamic local context when interpret the artifacts which related to early cross-cultural exchange. Some case studies indicate that there is no clear line between local and introduced artifacts (p67). He thinks the historical archaeology will be helpful to define the identities of the people who used the materials in the past.
|journal=Journal of Archaeological Research. 22 (1): 43-87.
|pub_date=2014
}}

Negotiating difference: practice makes theory for contemporary archaeology in Oceania

2015-02-23T08:28:59Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=Negotiating difference: practice makes theory for contemporary archaeology in Oceania
|authors=Robin Torrence and Anne Clarke
|summary=The author overviewed the studies of interaction between the indigenous people and European settler societies in the recent period in Oceania. He emphasizes the important role of archaeology, which provides a direct way to understand the indigenous voice and recognize the nature of cross-cultural engagement. Rather than seeking the universal models for explaining the interaction cases in Oceania, recent studies focus on the unique process of interaction and assume the those process are context specific, which should be studied by the recognition of cultural difference and historical circumstance. The author also clarify the terms ”contact”, “encounter” and “engagement”, which refers to different interaction. The contact tends to deny the active role of indigenous people. The term “encounter” can cover both sides in the interaction but fails to describe the process. He thinks the engagement is the best term because it stresses the active involvement of both sides, such as negotiation.
|journal=The Archaeology of Difference: negotiating cross-cultural engagements in Oceania. pp1-31
|pub_date=2000
}}

“Guns or barter” Indigenous exchange networks and the mediation of conflict in post-contact western Arnhem Land

2015-02-23T08:28:35Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=“Guns or barter” Indigenous exchange networks and the mediation of conflict in post-contact western Arnhem Land |authors=Scott Mitchell |summary=The autho..."

{{Summary
|title=“Guns or barter” Indigenous exchange networks and the mediation of conflict in post-contact western Arnhem Land
|authors=Scott Mitchell
|summary=The author explores the relationship between the exchange of foreign trade goods and the resolution of conflict within indigenous societies in Arnhem Land in Northern Australia. Based on previous studies of trade goods, he states that the introduction of foreign materials into indigenous exchange networks was associated with significant social and political change. He argues that the incorporation of imported materials within regional networks during the 19th century relates to the need to mediate increasing competition and conflict within society. He assumes that if the exchange networks altered after cultural contact, then the diversity and quantity of stone transported into the area would have increased. Then he compares the stone artifact assemblages from pre-contact and post-contact middens. The result reveals that there are no major differences in the frequency of local stone artifact, but there are major differences in the range and frequency of non-local stone artefacts, which is consistent with the model that regional exchange accelerated as a result of contact with non-indigenous groups.
|journal=The Archaeology of Difference: negotiating cross-cultural engagements in Oceania. Pp182-214.
|pub_date=2000
}}

Negotiating difference: practice makes theory for contemporary archaeology in Oceania

2015-02-23T08:27:56Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Negotiating difference: practice makes theory for contemporary archaeology in Oceania |authors=Robin Torrence and Anne Clarke |summary=The author overviewed t..."

Corporate/network: new perspectives on models of political action and the Puebloan Southwest

2015-02-23T08:26:12Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=Corporate/network: new perspectives on models of political action and the Puebloan Southwest
|authors=Feinman, Gary M.
|summary=The author criticized that previous studies overemphasized the hierarchical complexity, which presumes centralization of power, economic stratification always directly co-occur. He then proposed network and corporate mode to expand the theoretical concepts in order to better understand the variation of societies. These two models refer to distinct strategies for achieving power, which are two polar ends at a same dimension crosscutting the hierarchical complexity. Network mode focuses on individuals and their personal network, such as personal prestige, wealth, power accumulation, elite aggrandizement, individualized leadership, long-distance exchange, exotic wealth, princely burials, and specialized manufacture of status-related craft goods. On the other hand, corporate mode stresses the group membership, communal ritual, public construction, segmental organization, food production, large cooperative labor tasks, shared power, and staple finance.
These strategies might be coexisting in the political dynamics process. Following the corporate/network dimension, the author examined the settlement patterns, architectural differences, ritual structures, and storage features form a case study at Peubloan Southwest.
|journal=Social Theory in Archaeology
|pub_date=2000
}}

“Just another trader? An archaeological perspective on European barter with Admiralty Islandsers, Papua New Guinea”

2015-02-23T08:25:21Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=“Just another trader? An archaeological perspective on European barter with Admiralty Islandsers, Papua New Guinea”
|authors=Robin Torrence
|summary=The author examined the material culture found from Papua New Guinea in the period of European contact and tried to figure out the nature of trading relations between indigenous groups and outsiders. Instead of the model that the trade good was imposed by a dominant group, the author stated that the goods were negotiated by both parties through bartering. When dealing with the European goods, previous studies often focus on consumption or emphasize power relations rather than negotiation. Unlike such researches, the author focused on production and considered the active behavior of the indigenous people who made the goods for barter. In order to test the hypothesis, he analyzed the changes in the efficiency of spears and daggers which served as trading goods from 1860 to 1980 in Admiralty Islands. The efficiency was measured in terms of the degree of simplification, standardization, and craftsmanship of spears and daggers. If the makers maintained their own conception of value, then there will be little change in efficiency through time. On the contrary, if makers were dominated by European traders who demanded more elaborate items, then the levels of efficiency will be low. If barter was negotiated, then the differences in efficiency will be independent of the demands of European consumers. The result proves the third prediction and shows that the spears and daggers production was prior to the arrival of Europeans exchange and the Europeans were just other traders who under established principles of barter.
|journal=The Archaeology of Difference: negotiating cross-cultural engagements in Oceania
|pub_date=2000
}}

“Just another trader? An archaeological perspective on European barter with Admiralty Islandsers, Papua New Guinea”

2015-02-23T08:24:49Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=“Just another trader? An archaeological perspective on European barter with Admiralty Islandsers, Papua New Guinea” |authors=Robin Torrence |journal=The A..."

{{Summary
|title=“Just another trader? An archaeological perspective on European barter with Admiralty Islandsers, Papua New Guinea”
|authors=Robin Torrence
|journal=The Archaeology of Difference: negotiating cross-cultural engagements in Oceania
|pub_date=2000
}}

Corporate/network: new perspectives on models of political action and the Puebloan Southwest

2015-02-23T08:22:46Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Corporate/network: new perspectives on models of political action and the Puebloan Southwest |summary=The author criticized that previous studies overemphasiz..."

{{Summary
|title=Corporate/network: new perspectives on models of political action and the Puebloan Southwest
|summary=The author criticized that previous studies overemphasized the hierarchical complexity, which presumes centralization of power, economic stratification always directly co-occur. He then proposed network and corporate mode to expand the theoretical concepts in order to better understand the variation of societies. These two models refer to distinct strategies for achieving power, which are two polar ends at a same dimension crosscutting the hierarchical complexity. Network mode focuses on individuals and their personal network, such as personal prestige, wealth, power accumulation, elite aggrandizement, individualized leadership, long-distance exchange, exotic wealth, princely burials, and specialized manufacture of status-related craft goods. On the other hand, corporate mode stresses the group membership, communal ritual, public construction, segmental organization, food production, large cooperative labor tasks, shared power, and staple finance.
These strategies might be coexisting in the political dynamics process. Following the corporate/network dimension, the author examined the settlement patterns, architectural differences, ritual structures, and storage features form a case study at Peubloan Southwest.

|journal=Social Theory in Archaeology
|pub_date=2000
}}

The power of prestige: Competitive generosity and the emergence of rank societies in lowland Mesoamerica

2015-02-23T08:20:48Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=The power of prestige: Competitive generosity and the emergence of rank societies in lowland Mesoamerica |authors=Clark, J. E., & Blake, M |summary=This autho..."

{{Summary
|title=The power of prestige: Competitive generosity and the emergence of rank societies in lowland Mesoamerica
|authors=Clark, J. E., & Blake, M
|summary=This author explored the transition from egalitarian to rank societies from a case study of prehistoric chiefdom in Chiapas, Mexico, Mesoamerica. He stated that the political actors who procure for prestige or social esteem are the factor which drives the social inequality. This model assumes the presence of ambitious males who compete for prestige within a regional setting, and these people become more influential to organize resources and labors, which eventually involved in social and political power. However, this process might be a long-term, unexpected consequence, and it is necessary but insufficient condition for the transient to ranked societies, which differs from previous “social contracts” and “coercion” models. He also mentions that two necessary conditions for social inequality are social differentiation and a system of social evaluation. In this model, the prestige can be obtained by accumulating some resources for social display and competition. The availability, productivity, periodicity, and extent of resource are important to the development of political inequality. Besides, the demography, social interaction will also influence the process. Based on this model, the author examined the archaeological evidence from Mazatan region in Mesoamerica including population dynamic, development of ceramic technology, and adoption of agriculture to examine his arguments.
|journal=Factional competition and political development in the New World
|pub_date=1994
}}

Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia

2014-11-26T20:52:22Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=A pottery workshop with flint tools on blades knapped with copper at Nausharo (Indus civilisation, ca. 2500 BC)
|authors=Sophie Me´ry et al.
|summary=Context

The research focuses on the pottery workshop of Nausharo site, which is located at province of Baluchistan in Pakistan and dates to around 2500-2400B.C., corresponds to the first two phases of the Indus Civilization. Both knapped stone tools and unbaked sherds were found in the workshop site, which indicates that the blades might be associated with the pottery manufacture. This is a critical issue, because the knapped flint tools had never been involved in pottery production. Therefore, in order to figure out the function of blades, the author examined the blades by microwear analysis.

Methods and Materials

There are 10 almost complete blades and one proximal fragment were found in this site. The characteristics, such as the pressure technique and faceted platforms, represent the Indus blade production. The raw material of blades is from the Rohri Hills, which is located at the edge of the Indus, about 220km south-east Nausharo site. 7 blades from the workshop site were examined by conducting microwear analysis through scanning electron microscope (SEM) and comparing with traces of a series of experimental knapping blades. The author also conducted the optical reflected-light microscope at magnification of 100* and 200* if traces were not observed by SEM. In order to figure out the function of blades, the author compared the blades in Nausharo site with experimental blades which involved in harvesting or processing of silica-rich plants, preparing animal skins, shaping soft stones, and using on clay. For the clay experimental blades, three blades were used for periods ranged between 20 minutes to 3 hours. The edges of blades were pressed 2 to 3 centimeters against the clay which was on a turning wheel.

Results

For the function of blades, the microwear analysis shows that these blades have similar features, for example, the usewear usually appear on curved distal tips to proximal end of both dorsal ridges and blade edges, and there are comet-like dark depressions which flow in a transversal direction from the edge or ridge. These features on blades including distribution of glossed usewear, comet-shaped grooves, and flowing and undulated polish indicate they were used to trim the clay on a turning wheel by comparing to the traces of the experimental assemblages. Also, the long, and thin shavings with parallel ridges found at workshop site provided another evidence of an instrument with long and regular rotation. In addition, from the SEM and X-ray analysis, the author found some small nodules on the butts of flint blades, which consisted of high proportions of the copper, zinc, and lead, which indicates the metal point was used for knapping activity including pressure technique and pressure retouch.
About the pottery source, they confirm that there is only a single type of clay in the workshop site, the sandy marl, which is also the composition of domestic potteries from other areas of Nausharo site. Based on these evidence, the author thinks that the existence of specialized, highly skilled craftsman in this site.
|relevance=In this paper, the author discussed that the blades show the characteristics of a distinctive Indus blade production based on their technique. This kind of blades can be viewed as an boundary object as Frieman (2012) mentioned, which indicates this material serves as an bridge for social boundaries, allowing the people with different backgrounds to receive similar values by exchange network.

The author studied the function of blades found in a potteries workshop by conducting microwear analysis. The methodology and process of analysis are rational. I think it is convincing that he made some experimental blades for comparison with the blades in this site, which both proved that the blades were used for clay and excluded the other possibilities. However, there is not much information about the different experimental assemblages except clay one, for example, the sample size. If the author can mention more about these experiments, the methodology of this research will be clearer.
|journal=Journal of Archaeological Science 34 1098-1116
|pub_date=2007
}}

Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia

2014-11-26T20:51:40Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=A pottery workshop with flint tools on blades knapped with copper at Nausharo (Indus civilisation, ca. 2500 BC)
|authors=Sophie Me´ry et al.
|summary=Context

The research focuses on the pottery workshop of Nausharo site, which is located at province of Baluchistan in Pakistan and dates to around 2500-2400B.C., corresponds to the first two phases of the Indus Civilization. Both knapped stone tools and unbaked sherds were found in the workshop site, which indicates that the blades might be associated with the pottery manufacture. This is a critical issue, because the knapped flint tools had never been involved in pottery production. Therefore, in order to figure out the function of blades, the author examined the blades by microwear analysis.

Methods and Materials

There are 10 almost complete blades and one proximal fragment were found in this site. The characteristics, such as the pressure technique and faceted platforms, represent the Indus blade production. The raw material of blades is from the Rohri Hills, which is located at the edge of the Indus, about 220km south-east Nausharo site. 7 blades from the workshop site were examined by conducting microwear analysis through scanning electron microscope (SEM) and comparing with traces of a series of experimental knapping blades. The author also conducted the optical reflected-light microscope at magnification of 100* and 200* if traces were not observed by SEM. In order to figure out the function of blades, the author compared the blades in Nausharo site with experimental blades which involved in harvesting or processing of silica-rich plants, preparing animal skins, shaping soft stones, and using on clay. For the clay experimental blades, three blades were used for periods ranged between 20 minutes to 3 hours. The edges of blades were pressed 2 to 3 centimeters against the clay which was on a turning wheel.

Results

For the function of blades, the microwear analysis shows that these blades have similar features, for example, the usewear usually appear on curved distal tips to proximal end of both dorsal ridges and blade edges, and there are comet-like dark depressions which flow in a transversal direction from the edge or ridge. These features on blades including distribution of glossed usewear, comet-shaped grooves, and flowing and undulated polish indicate they were used to trim the clay on a turning wheel by comparing to the traces of the experimental assemblages. Also, the long, and thin shavings with parallel ridges found at workshop site provided another evidence of an instrument with long and regular rotation. In addition, from the SEM and X-ray analysis, the author found some small nodules on the butts of flint blades, which consisted of high proportions of the copper, zinc, and lead, which indicates the metal point was used for knapping activity including pressure technique and pressure retouch.
About the pottery source, they confirm that there is only a single type of clay in the workshop site, the sandy marl, which is also the composition of domestic potteries from other areas of Nausharo site. Based on these evidence, the author thinks that the existence of specialized, highly skilled craftsman in this site.
|relevance=In this paper, the author discussed that the blades show the characteristics of a distinctive Indus blade production based on their technique. This kind of blades can be viewed as an boundary object as Frieman (2012) mentioned, which indicates this material serves as an bridge for social boundaries, allowing the people with different backgrounds to receive similar values by exchange network.

The author studied the function of blades found in a potteries workshop by conducting microwear analysis. The methodology and process of analysis are rational. I think it is convincing that he made some experimental blades for comparison with the blades in this site, which both proved that the blades were used for clay and excluded the other possibilities. However, there is not much information about the different experimental assemblages except clay one, for example, the sample size. If the author can mention more about these experiments, the methodology of this research will be clearer.
|journal=European Journal of Archaeology 15(3):440-464
|pub_date=2007
}}

Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia

2014-11-26T20:31:44Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia
|authors=Frieman, C.J
|summary=Context

The research focuses on the pottery workshop of Nausharo site, which is located at province of Baluchistan in Pakistan and dates to around 2500-2400B.C., corresponds to the first two phases of the Indus Civilization. Both knapped stone tools and unbaked sherds were found in the workshop site, which indicates that the blades might be associated with the pottery manufacture. This is a critical issue, because the knapped flint tools had never been involved in pottery production. Therefore, in order to figure out the function of blades, the author examined the blades by microwear analysis.

Methods and Materials

There are 10 almost complete blades and one proximal fragment were found in this site. The characteristics, such as the pressure technique and faceted platforms, represent the Indus blade production. The raw material of blades is from the Rohri Hills, which is located at the edge of the Indus, about 220km south-east Nausharo site. 7 blades from the workshop site were examined by conducting microwear analysis through scanning electron microscope (SEM) and comparing with traces of a series of experimental knapping blades. The author also conducted the optical reflected-light microscope at magnification of 100* and 200* if traces were not observed by SEM. In order to figure out the function of blades, the author compared the blades in Nausharo site with experimental blades which involved in harvesting or processing of silica-rich plants, preparing animal skins, shaping soft stones, and using on clay. For the clay experimental blades, three blades were used for periods ranged between 20 minutes to 3 hours. The edges of blades were pressed 2 to 3 centimeters against the clay which was on a turning wheel.

Results

For the function of blades, the microwear analysis shows that these blades have similar features, for example, the usewear usually appear on curved distal tips to proximal end of both dorsal ridges and blade edges, and there are comet-like dark depressions which flow in a transversal direction from the edge or ridge. These features on blades including distribution of glossed usewear, comet-shaped grooves, and flowing and undulated polish indicate they were used to trim the clay on a turning wheel by comparing to the traces of the experimental assemblages. Also, the long, and thin shavings with parallel ridges found at workshop site provided another evidence of an instrument with long and regular rotation. In addition, from the SEM and X-ray analysis, the author found some small nodules on the butts of flint blades, which consisted of high proportions of the copper, zinc, and lead, which indicates the metal point was used for knapping activity including pressure technique and pressure retouch.
About the pottery source, they confirm that there is only a single type of clay in the workshop site, the sandy marl, which is also the composition of domestic potteries from other areas of Nausharo site. Based on these evidence, the author thinks that the existence of specialized, highly skilled craftsman in this site.
|relevance=In this paper, the author discussed that the blades show the characteristics of a distinctive Indus blade production based on their technique. This kind of blades can be viewed as an boundary object as Frieman (2012) mentioned, which indicates this material serves as an bridge for social boundaries, allowing the people with different backgrounds to receive similar values by exchange network.

The author studied the function of blades found in a potteries workshop by conducting microwear analysis. The methodology and process of analysis are rational. I think it is convincing that he made some experimental blades for comparison with the blades in this site, which both proved that the blades were used for clay and excluded the other possibilities. However, there is not much information about the different experimental assemblages except clay one, for example, the sample size. If the author can mention more about these experiments, the methodology of this research will be clearer.
|journal=European Journal of Archaeology 15(3):440-464
|pub_date=2007
}}

Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia

2014-11-26T20:30:55Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia
|authors=Frieman, C.J
|summary=Context

The research focuses on the pottery workshop of Nausharo site, which is located at province of Baluchistan in Pakistan and dates to around 2500-2400B.C., corresponds to the first two phases of the Indus Civilization. Both knapped stone tools and unbaked sherds were found in the workshop site, which indicates that the blades might be associated with the pottery manufacture. This is a critical issue, because the knapped flint tools had never been involved in pottery production. Therefore, in order to figure out the function of blades, the author examined the blades by microwear analysis.

Methods and Materials

There are 10 almost complete blades and one proximal fragment were found in this site. The characteristics, such as the pressure technique and faceted platforms, represent the Indus blade production. The raw material of blades is from the Rohri Hills, which is located at the edge of the Indus, about 220km south-east Nausharo site. 7 blades from the workshop site were examined by conducting microwear analysis through scanning electron microscope (SEM) and comparing with traces of a series of experimental knapping blades. The author also conducted the optical reflected-light microscope at magnification of 100* and 200* if traces were not observed by SEM. In order to figure out the function of blades, the author compared the blades in Nausharo site with experimental blades which involved in harvesting or processing of silica-rich plants, preparing animal skins, shaping soft stones, and using on clay. For the clay experimental blades, three blades were used for periods ranged between 20 minutes to 3 hours. The edges of blades were pressed 2 to 3 centimeters against the clay which was on a turning wheel.

Results

For the function of blades, the microwear analysis shows that these blades have similar features, for example, the usewear usually appear on curved distal tips to proximal end of both dorsal ridges and blade edges, and there are comet-like dark depressions which flow in a transversal direction from the edge or ridge. These features on blades including distribution of glossed usewear, comet-shaped grooves, and flowing and undulated polish indicate they were used to trim the clay on a turning wheel by comparing to the traces of the experimental assemblages. Also, the long, and thin shavings with parallel ridges found at workshop site provided another evidence of an instrument with long and regular rotation. In addition, from the SEM and X-ray analysis, the author found some small nodules on the butts of flint blades, which consisted of high proportions of the copper, zinc, and lead, which indicates the metal point was used for knapping activity including pressure technique and pressure retouch.
About the pottery source, they confirm that there is only a single type of clay in the workshop site, the sandy marl, which is also the composition of domestic potteries from other areas of Nausharo site. Based on these evidence, the author thinks that the existence of specialized, highly skilled craftsman in this site.

|relevance=Connection
In this paper, the author discussed that the blades show the characteristics of a distinctive Indus blade production based on their technique. This kind of blades can be viewed as an boundary object as Frieman (2012) mentioned, which indicates this material serves as an bridge for social boundaries, allowing the people with different backgrounds to receive similar values by exchange network.

The author studied the function of blades found in a potteries workshop by conducting microwear analysis. The methodology and process of analysis are rational. I think it is convincing that he made some experimental blades for comparison with the blades in this site, which both proved that the blades were used for clay and excluded the other possibilities. However, there is not much information about the different experimental assemblages except clay one, for example, the sample size. If the author can mention more about these experiments, the methodology of this research will be clearer.

}}

Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia

2014-11-26T20:30:11Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia |authors=Frieman, C.J |summary=Context The research focuses on the..."

{{Summary
|title=Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia
|authors=Frieman, C.J
|summary=Context
The research focuses on the pottery workshop of Nausharo site, which is located at province of Baluchistan in Pakistan and dates to around 2500-2400B.C., corresponds to the first two phases of the Indus Civilization. Both knapped stone tools and unbaked sherds were found in the workshop site, which indicates that the blades might be associated with the pottery manufacture. This is a critical issue, because the knapped flint tools had never been involved in pottery production. Therefore, in order to figure out the function of blades, the author examined the blades by microwear analysis.

Methods and Materials
There are 10 almost complete blades and one proximal fragment were found in this site. The characteristics, such as the pressure technique and faceted platforms, represent the Indus blade production. The raw material of blades is from the Rohri Hills, which is located at the edge of the Indus, about 220km south-east Nausharo site. 7 blades from the workshop site were examined by conducting microwear analysis through scanning electron microscope (SEM) and comparing with traces of a series of experimental knapping blades. The author also conducted the optical reflected-light microscope at magnification of 100* and 200* if traces were not observed by SEM. In order to figure out the function of blades, the author compared the blades in Nausharo site with experimental blades which involved in harvesting or processing of silica-rich plants, preparing animal skins, shaping soft stones, and using on clay. For the clay experimental blades, three blades were used for periods ranged between 20 minutes to 3 hours. The edges of blades were pressed 2 to 3 centimeters against the clay which was on a turning wheel.

Results
For the function of blades, the microwear analysis shows that these blades have similar features, for example, the usewear usually appear on curved distal tips to proximal end of both dorsal ridges and blade edges, and there are comet-like dark depressions which flow in a transversal direction from the edge or ridge. These features on blades including distribution of glossed usewear, comet-shaped grooves, and flowing and undulated polish indicate they were used to trim the clay on a turning wheel by comparing to the traces of the experimental assemblages. Also, the long, and thin shavings with parallel ridges found at workshop site provided another evidence of an instrument with long and regular rotation. In addition, from the SEM and X-ray analysis, the author found some small nodules on the butts of flint blades, which consisted of high proportions of the copper, zinc, and lead, which indicates the metal point was used for knapping activity including pressure technique and pressure retouch.
About the pottery source, they confirm that there is only a single type of clay in the workshop site, the sandy marl, which is also the composition of domestic potteries from other areas of Nausharo site. Based on these evidence, the author thinks that the existence of specialized, highly skilled craftsman in this site.

|relevance=Connection
In this paper, the author discussed that the blades show the characteristics of a distinctive Indus blade production based on their technique. This kind of blades can be viewed as an boundary object as Frieman (2012) mentioned, which indicates this material serves as an bridge for social boundaries, allowing the people with different backgrounds to receive similar values by exchange network.

Judgment
The author studied the function of blades found in a potteries workshop by conducting microwear analysis. The methodology and process of analysis are rational. I think it is convincing that he made some experimental blades for comparison with the blades in this site, which both proved that the blades were used for clay and excluded the other possibilities. However, there is not much information about the different experimental assemblages except clay one, for example, the sample size. If the author can mention more about these experiments, the methodology of this research will be clearer.

}}

Why Levallois? A Morphometric Comparison of Experimental ‘Preferential’ Levallois Flakes versus Debitage Flakes

2014-10-29T18:48:48Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=Why Levallois? A Morphometric Comparison of Experimental ‘Preferential’ Levallois Flakes versus Debitage Flakes
|authors=Eren, M.I., and S.J. Lycett
|tags=Levallois, experimental
|summary=Theoretical background

Levallois cores were frequently viewed as prepared cores, which was prepared in a deliberate and goal-orientated manner to make Levallois flakes. Some researches (Lieberman 1975) link such processes of tool making with the cognitive processes involved in language. However, other researches assume that there is no predetermination according to the less standardization of Levallois flakes (Dibble 1989). Whether the Levallois technology represents predetermination or not is still an issue. The author thinks that previous researches only measured few dimensional attributes and did not consider the multivariate statistic approach, which leads to limited results. Besides, the arbitrary classification will affect the results which based on comparative method. In order to better understand predetermination involved in tool making and the reason for the preference of Levallois flakes, he conducts an experiment to examine the attributes and standardization of preferential Levallois flakes by comparative study. The experimental assemblage was from the Cretaceous-aged Fredericksburg Group, and the author made the flakes according to the criteria by Boëda(1995) and Bradley(1977).

Methods and Materials

The experiment assemblage is from 25 nodules of Texas chert. A total of 642 flakes were examined in this study, including 75 preferential Levallois flakes and 567 debitage flakes produced during the manufacture. The flakes were divided into three groups, preferential Levallois flakes, ventral debitage flakes, and dorsal debitage flakes. There are 15 quantitative variables were measured for each flakes, including the dimensional attributes for different part of flake, bulb thickness, length of sharp edge, and index of symmetry. The analysis focused on two issues. First, if the preferential Levallois flake is a preferred product, they will have common attributes which unite them as a category. For this, the author conducted Discriminant Function Analysis to assign those samples to groups. Because the size of preferential Levallois flakes are usually bigger than debitage flakes, the author adjust the size by the geometric mean. Another argument is if the Levallois flakes meet special requirement, their attributes will present greater standardization than debitage flakes. The coefficients of variation and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to test different groups. The quantitative analysis was calculated by SPSS Statistics.

Results

The results show that preferential Levallois flakes can be viewed as a coherent group based on particular attributes, especially for the thickness. Moreover, the attributes of Levallois flakes are less variable and present more symmetrical than debitage flakes, which indicates more standardized in form. Based on the results, the author discussed the Levallois flake preference from the viewpoint of mobility. He suggested that the appearance of Levallois relates to increased mobility in hunter-gatherer population in Middle Paleolithic. The large surface area of Levallois flake provides not only the retouch potential, but also greater efficiency. Moreover, according to experiment, thickness is more evenly distributed and less variable across preferential Levallois flakes, which indicates the thickness is an important factor for retouch and reuse potential because of edge durability. The increased symmetry in flakes also increased efficiency in cutting performance. Based on the predetermination of Levallois flakes, the author supported the analogies between the hierarchical structure of tool making and the hierarchical organization of grammar in sentence.
|relevance=The association of Levallois artifacts with extinct hominins leads to the debate about whether the extinct hominins such as Neanderthals possessed the cognitive and linguistic capacities. The concept of predetermination is a critical factor to support the “grammar” involved in both Levallois production (Holloway 1969). The author proved there is a predetermination for preferential Levallois flakes and suggested that the Middle Pleistocene hominins had similar way to make Levallois flakes and solve problem, which indicates the extinct hominins might process the linguistic capacities and there is no significant difference in cognitive capacities among these hominid species.

By conducting experiment and multivariate statistics, the author suggested the predetermination of preferential Levallois flakes and further discussed the preference for such flakes, which provides a foundation for the issue of linguistic capacity in early hominins. However, I think the connection between linguistic capacity and the predetermination of Levallois technology still needs more evidence.
|journal=PLoS ONE 7(1): 29273
|pub_date=2012
}}

Why Levallois? A Morphometric Comparison of Experimental ‘Preferential’ Levallois Flakes versus Debitage Flakes

2014-10-29T18:48:02Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Why Levallois? A Morphometric Comparison of Experimental ‘Preferential’ Levallois Flakes versus Debitage Flakes |authors=Eren, M.I., and S.J. Lycett |tags..."

{{Summary
|title=Why Levallois? A Morphometric Comparison of Experimental ‘Preferential’ Levallois Flakes versus Debitage Flakes
|authors=Eren, M.I., and S.J. Lycett
|tags=Levallois, experimental
|summary=Theoretical background

Levallois cores were frequently viewed as prepared cores, which was prepared in a deliberate and goal-orientated manner to make Levallois flakes. Some researches (Lieberman 1975) link such processes of tool making with the cognitive processes involved in language. However, other researches assume that there is no predetermination according to the less standardization of Levallois flakes (Dibble 1989). Whether the Levallois technology represents predetermination or not is still an issue. The author thinks that previous researches only measured few dimensional attributes and did not consider the multivariate statistic approach, which leads to limited results. Besides, the arbitrary classification will affect the results which based on comparative method. In order to better understand predetermination involved in tool making and the reason for the preference of Levallois flakes, he conducts an experiment to examine the attributes and standardization of preferential Levallois flakes by comparative study. The experimental assemblage was from the Cretaceous-aged Fredericksburg Group, and the author made the flakes according to the criteria by Boëda(1995) and Bradley(1977).

Methods and Materials

The experiment assemblage is from 25 nodules of Texas chert. A total of 642 flakes were examined in this study, including 75 preferential Levallois flakes and 567 debitage flakes produced during the manufacture. The flakes were divided into three groups, preferential Levallois flakes, ventral debitage flakes, and dorsal debitage flakes. There are 15 quantitative variables were measured for each flakes, including the dimensional attributes for different part of flake, bulb thickness, length of sharp edge, and index of symmetry. The analysis focused on two issues. First, if the preferential Levallois flake is a preferred product, they will have common attributes which unite them as a category. For this, the author conducted Discriminant Function Analysis to assign those samples to groups. Because the size of preferential Levallois flakes are usually bigger than debitage flakes, the author adjust the size by the geometric mean. Another argument is if the Levallois flakes meet special requirement, their attributes will present greater standardization than debitage flakes. The coefficients of variation and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to test different groups. The quantitative analysis was calculated by SPSS Statistics.

Results

The results show that preferential Levallois flakes can be viewed as a coherent group based on particular attributes, especially for the thickness. Moreover, the attributes of Levallois flakes are less variable and present more symmetrical than debitage flakes, which indicates more standardized in form. Based on the results, the author discussed the Levallois flake preference from the viewpoint of mobility. He suggested that the appearance of Levallois relates to increased mobility in hunter-gatherer population in Middle Paleolithic. The large surface area of Levallois flake provides not only the retouch potential, but also greater efficiency. Moreover, according to experiment, thickness is more evenly distributed and less variable across preferential Levallois flakes, which indicates the thickness is an important factor for retouch and reuse potential because of edge durability. The increased symmetry in flakes also increased efficiency in cutting performance. Based on the predetermination of Levallois flakes, the author supported the analogies between the hierarchical structure of tool making and the hierarchical organization of grammar in sentence.

|relevance=Theoretical relevance

The association of Levallois artifacts with extinct hominins leads to the debate about whether the extinct hominins such as Neanderthals possessed the cognitive and linguistic capacities. The concept of predetermination is a critical factor to support the “grammar” involved in both Levallois production (Holloway 1969). The author proved there is a predetermination for preferential Levallois flakes and suggested that the Middle Pleistocene hominins had similar way to make Levallois flakes and solve problem, which indicates the extinct hominins might process the linguistic capacities and there is no significant difference in cognitive capacities among these hominid species.

Judgement

By conducting experiment and multivariate statistics, the author suggested the predetermination of preferential Levallois flakes and further discussed the preference for such flakes, which provides a foundation for the issue of linguistic capacity in early hominins. However, I think the connection between linguistic capacity and the predetermination of Levallois technology still needs more evidence.

|journal=PLoS ONE 7(1): 29273
|pub_date=2012
}}

Chaînes opératoire and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking

2014-10-22T19:27:22Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=Chaînes opératoire and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking
|authors=Carvalho, S., Cunha, E., Sousa, C., Matsuzawa, T.
|summary=Theoretical background:

Based on use-wear analysis of stone tools, some scholars argue that tools used by chimpanzees are similar to Oldowan tools; however, there is a morphological difference between chimpanzees’ stone hammer and Oldowan hammers. In order to further understand material culture of chimpanzees, the author focuses on the operational sequence used by wild chimpanzees in nut cracking with stone tools at the sites of Bossou and Diecké, which are located in southeastern Guinea in West Africa. By adopting the Chaîne opératoire conceptual framework and conducting an interdisciplinary approach between archaeology and primatology, the author seeks to provide a foundation for studying the technological evolution of early hominins.

Methods and Materials:

According to the concepts of Chaîne opératoire, the author records and compares the operational sequence used by chimpanzees from three places, experimental nut-cracking sessions in Bossou-Nimba, natural nut-cracking sites in Bossou area, and natural nut-cracking sites in Diecké Forest. For experimental sessions, 7 piles of nuts and 2 stone groups which were divided from 57 stones were placed in a 7*20m rectangular outdoor laboratory area. This placement were standardized and maintained by datum point and GPS. They filmed the activities of chimpanzees, and drawn the tool movement after every sessions in order to observe the operational sequence and spatial distribution. The record ended up with 29 sessions which are 18 hours. For the natural sites in Bossou, they conducted occasional record by video and photograph, and they identified tool function mainly depends on the relative position of stones and fresh traces. For the natural sites in Diecké, indirectly method such as refitting was conducted. The data was analyzed by statistical method, including parametric and nonparametric test, which depends on the nature of data. Chi-square test and t-test are the main methods in this paper.

Results:

Results point out several important finding. First, the comparison from three sites suggests that there is a regional diversity in stone tool technology and typology. The size of hammer and anvil from these sites are different, which might result from the distinct nature of raw materials and food resource in environment. It shows that the ability of technological adaptations of chimpanzees and tool selection based on their sizes and weights. Thus, he thinks the different size of tools can not be a feature for distinguishing hominin tools and chimpanzee tools. Moreover, the behavior of nut cracking indicates there is a series of steps, including raw material selection, tool construction, transport, function selection, utilization, reuse, and discard. These different actions performed repeatedly in order to achieve a preexisting goal. Sometimes the chimpanzees would skip some steps or extend them, which reflect their flexible choice and adaptation. Besides, new tool transport to sites where the raw material is abundant indicates the possible tool preferences and possession. For the spatial distribution, it shows that there are three types of resource exploitation strategy, which explains the optimization and management of resources may be influenced by social constrains.
|relevance=Tool use is not only limited to humans. Some species will also use tool to achieve their goals, especially the primates which is relevant to early hominin species. As Haslam et al.(2009) said, the long-term perspective to the material record of primates is important for understanding hominin technology and behavior. Previous studies stress the typology of tools by chimpanzees; however, this paper focuses on the operational sequences of nut cracking and proposed several points which tackles some cognitive capacity of chimpanzees to solve problems. He also found that the spatial pattern of resource-exploitation strategy is closed to those from Oldowan, and size of tools can not be a feature for distinguishing hominin tools and chimpanzee’s tool.

The resource strategies and operational sequences of chimpanzees shed the light on the development in human and nonhuman primates. This paper does expend our knowledge of the material culture of primates, and provide a foundation to further study the technological evolution of early hominins. The author mentions there is different tool use pattern between male and female, and adult and juveniles. However, he did not describe how the relationship between gender (or age) and resource-exploitation strategy. If the author presents the results, we will have the better understanding of their social relationship.
|journal=Journal of Archaeological Science
|pub_date=2008
}}

Chaînes opératoire and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking

2014-10-22T19:26:42Z

Liying:

{{Summary
|title=Chaînes opératoire and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking
|authors=Carvalho, S., Cunha, E., Sousa, C., Matsuzawa, T.
|summary=Theoretical background

Based on use-wear analysis of stone tools, some scholars argue that tools used by chimpanzees are similar to Oldowan tools; however, there is a morphological difference between chimpanzees’ stone hammer and Oldowan hammers. In order to further understand material culture of chimpanzees, the author focuses on the operational sequence used by wild chimpanzees in nut cracking with stone tools at the sites of Bossou and Diecké, which are located in southeastern Guinea in West Africa. By adopting the Chaîne opératoire conceptual framework and conducting an interdisciplinary approach between archaeology and primatology, the author seeks to provide a foundation for studying the technological evolution of early hominins.

Methods and Materials

According to the concepts of Chaîne opératoire, the author records and compares the operational sequence used by chimpanzees from three places, experimental nut-cracking sessions in Bossou-Nimba, natural nut-cracking sites in Bossou area, and natural nut-cracking sites in Diecké Forest. For experimental sessions, 7 piles of nuts and 2 stone groups which were divided from 57 stones were placed in a 7*20m rectangular outdoor laboratory area. This placement were standardized and maintained by datum point and GPS. They filmed the activities of chimpanzees, and drawn the tool movement after every sessions in order to observe the operational sequence and spatial distribution. The record ended up with 29 sessions which are 18 hours. For the natural sites in Bossou, they conducted occasional record by video and photograph, and they identified tool function mainly depends on the relative position of stones and fresh traces. For the natural sites in Diecké, indirectly method such as refitting was conducted. The data was analyzed by statistical method, including parametric and nonparametric test, which depends on the nature of data. Chi-square test and t-test are the main methods in this paper.

Results

Results point out several important finding. First, the comparison from three sites suggests that there is a regional diversity in stone tool technology and typology. The size of hammer and anvil from these sites are different, which might result from the distinct nature of raw materials and food resource in environment. It shows that the ability of technological adaptations of chimpanzees and tool selection based on their sizes and weights. Thus, he thinks the different size of tools can not be a feature for distinguishing hominin tools and chimpanzee tools. Moreover, the behavior of nut cracking indicates there is a series of steps, including raw material selection, tool construction, transport, function selection, utilization, reuse, and discard. These different actions performed repeatedly in order to achieve a preexisting goal. Sometimes the chimpanzees would skip some steps or extend them, which reflect their flexible choice and adaptation. Besides, new tool transport to sites where the raw material is abundant indicates the possible tool preferences and possession. For the spatial distribution, it shows that there are three types of resource exploitation strategy, which explains the optimization and management of resources may be influenced by social constrains.
|relevance=Tool use is not only limited to humans. Some species will also use tool to achieve their goals, especially the primates which is relevant to early hominin species. As Haslam et al.(2009) said, the long-term perspective to the material record of primates is important for understanding hominin technology and behavior. Previous studies stress the typology of tools by chimpanzees; however, this paper focuses on the operational sequences of nut cracking and proposed several points which tackles some cognitive capacity of chimpanzees to solve problems. He also found that the spatial pattern of resource-exploitation strategy is closed to those from Oldowan, and size of tools can not be a feature for distinguishing hominin tools and chimpanzee’s tool.

The resource strategies and operational sequences of chimpanzees shed the light on the development in human and nonhuman primates. This paper does expend our knowledge of the material culture of primates, and provide a foundation to further study the technological evolution of early hominins. The author mentions there is different tool use pattern between male and female, and adult and juveniles. However, he did not describe how the relationship between gender (or age) and resource-exploitation strategy. If the author presents the results, we will have the better understanding of their social relationship.
|journal=Journal of Archaeological Science
|pub_date=2008
}}

Chaînes opératoire and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking

2014-10-22T19:26:15Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Chaînes opératoire and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking |authors=Carvalho, S., Cunha, E., Sousa, C., Matsuzawa,..."

{{Summary
|title=Chaînes opératoire and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking
|authors=Carvalho, S., Cunha, E., Sousa, C., Matsuzawa, T.
|summary=Theoretical background
Based on use-wear analysis of stone tools, some scholars argue that tools used by chimpanzees are similar to Oldowan tools; however, there is a morphological difference between chimpanzees’ stone hammer and Oldowan hammers. In order to further understand material culture of chimpanzees, the author focuses on the operational sequence used by wild chimpanzees in nut cracking with stone tools at the sites of Bossou and Diecké, which are located in southeastern Guinea in West Africa. By adopting the Chaîne opératoire conceptual framework and conducting an interdisciplinary approach between archaeology and primatology, the author seeks to provide a foundation for studying the technological evolution of early hominins.

Methods and Materials
According to the concepts of Chaîne opératoire, the author records and compares the operational sequence used by chimpanzees from three places, experimental nut-cracking sessions in Bossou-Nimba, natural nut-cracking sites in Bossou area, and natural nut-cracking sites in Diecké Forest. For experimental sessions, 7 piles of nuts and 2 stone groups which were divided from 57 stones were placed in a 7*20m rectangular outdoor laboratory area. This placement were standardized and maintained by datum point and GPS. They filmed the activities of chimpanzees, and drawn the tool movement after every sessions in order to observe the operational sequence and spatial distribution. The record ended up with 29 sessions which are 18 hours. For the natural sites in Bossou, they conducted occasional record by video and photograph, and they identified tool function mainly depends on the relative position of stones and fresh traces. For the natural sites in Diecké, indirectly method such as refitting was conducted. The data was analyzed by statistical method, including parametric and nonparametric test, which depends on the nature of data. Chi-square test and t-test are the main methods in this paper.

Results
Results point out several important finding. First, the comparison from three sites suggests that there is a regional diversity in stone tool technology and typology. The size of hammer and anvil from these sites are different, which might result from the distinct nature of raw materials and food resource in environment. It shows that the ability of technological adaptations of chimpanzees and tool selection based on their sizes and weights. Thus, he thinks the different size of tools can not be a feature for distinguishing hominin tools and chimpanzee tools. Moreover, the behavior of nut cracking indicates there is a series of steps, including raw material selection, tool construction, transport, function selection, utilization, reuse, and discard. These different actions performed repeatedly in order to achieve a preexisting goal. Sometimes the chimpanzees would skip some steps or extend them, which reflect their flexible choice and adaptation. Besides, new tool transport to sites where the raw material is abundant indicates the possible tool preferences and possession. For the spatial distribution, it shows that there are three types of resource exploitation strategy, which explains the optimization and management of resources may be influenced by social constrains.

|relevance=Tool use is not only limited to humans. Some species will also use tool to achieve their goals, especially the primates which is relevant to early hominin species. As Haslam et al.(2009) said, the long-term perspective to the material record of primates is important for understanding hominin technology and behavior. Previous studies stress the typology of tools by chimpanzees; however, this paper focuses on the operational sequences of nut cracking and proposed several points which tackles some cognitive capacity of chimpanzees to solve problems. He also found that the spatial pattern of resource-exploitation strategy is closed to those from Oldowan, and size of tools can not be a feature for distinguishing hominin tools and chimpanzee’s tool.

The resource strategies and operational sequences of chimpanzees shed the light on the development in human and nonhuman primates. This paper does expend our knowledge of the material culture of primates, and provide a foundation to further study the technological evolution of early hominins. The author mentions there is different tool use pattern between male and female, and adult and juveniles. However, he did not describe how the relationship between gender (or age) and resource-exploitation strategy. If the author presents the results, we will have the better understanding of their social relationship.
|journal=Journal of Archaeological Science
|pub_date=2008
}}

Becoming a productive academic writer

2014-09-29T06:38:32Z

Liying: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Becoming a productive academic writer |authors=Susan R. Johnson |url=https://www.aamc.org/download/266274/data/aps2004-11johnsonacademicwriter.pdf |tags=Writi..."

{{Summary
|title=Becoming a productive academic writer
|authors=Susan R. Johnson
|url=https://www.aamc.org/download/266274/data/aps2004-11johnsonacademicwriter.pdf
|tags=Writing, academic writer
|summary=The author tackles the issue about how to be a productive academic writer based on her observation and experiences. She provides many useful and pragmatic methods for each stage of the writing process. For a beginning writer, the first step might be the most difficult one. She suggests that it would be better to write down some ideas instantly, even piece of thought which we can revise it later, than do not write anything until the ideas are perfect. Therefore, first, write down the idea about what the problem is; second, think about what is the answer and finally find out why and how we suppose it.

The following is to create a surrounding where is less distractions and comfortable for writing. Sometimes working at another place instead of office or home is more productive, because we often stake off in familiar environment. In addition to surrounding, cultivating a good habit is also important. We have to set a criterion for writing and execute it regularly, for example, in the morning every day. The author suggest that we can write for 15 minutes at first, after getting used to it then we can add the time. Moreover, exceeding two hours for a session may write something unnecessary, therefore, when we meet the criterion than take a rest. Maintaining brief writing regularly everyday is better than binge writing sometimes according to research.

Monitor the output is another useful method for writing. We need to monitor our writing in order to achieve the daily goal we decide. The author suggests some ways to monitor, for instance, recording the daily result and posting it in our workplace will stimulate and encourage ourselves to move on later.

Finally, the attitude to writing is also important. If we viewed writing as a high, priority thing, it is possible that we will be stressful and cannot meet the criteria we made. Therefore, it is a best way to think writing is a moderate thing, which means even brief, simple words is acceptable, and it is helpful for us to write effective and regularly.

|journal=Academic Physician & Scientist
|pub_date=2004
}}