Table of Contents
Main
Articles
Pan the Tool-Maker
Latest Homo erectus of Java
Neandertal mtDNA
Middle Stone Age Bone Industry from Katanda
Pedra Furanda
Venus Figures
Web Sites
The Ancient Indus Valley
Stolen Stones: The Modern Sack of Nineveh
Clovis and Beyond
Chimpanzee Cultures
Oldstoneage.com
ROM Visits
Egypt Exhibit
Evolution of Man Exhibit
Bibliography
|
Perenti, F., Fontugue, M., Guerin, C. 1996. Pedra Furanda in Brazil and its 'presumed' evidence: limitations and potential of the available data. Antiquity. v. 70, n. 268, p. 416-424.
This article was published in response to Meltzer, et al.'s Nature And Age of The Deposits In Pedra Furada, Brazil, which was written in response to an earlier work by Perenti, et al. The authors stated that that paper was flawed in two main ways. First, they thought that the sediments used to date the site were of little chronological value, because they had been exposed to natural processes that had decreased their usefullness. Second, they thought the article incorrectly assumed that several so-called human cultural artefacts were atually the result of natural processes.
However, they also stated that there are real example of human occupation, such as a hearth and a middle "filled with signs of human use." This article then proceeds to address each point made by Meltzer et al.'s criticisms of their previous article.
I found this article to be extremely fascinating on the basis of critiquing and rebuffs in scientific literature. The need for constant critiques and revisions are obvious for any field of science. Certain data could have been misinterpreted incorrectly, or new methods of excavation/identifying could have been developed.
What's really interesting is to see the original authors address the points made in a critique of their work. This is where real scientific dialogue comes from, where you can really see the different points of view, and how the evidence is used to support the views.
Sometimes the original authors might be quite offended that someone would question their work, and other times authors welcome critiques to improve scientific knowledge.
I think this article is somewhere in between. It's apparent that the original authors agreed with some of the points made in the critique, and vastly disagreed with others. At times the writing style seemed to by conveying frustration at the critique authors. For example, "We ask our critics: how could water carry charcoal into the shelter if the same agent is evoked for the removing of finest fractions?"
Therefore, overall I found this article to be an intriguing window into scientific processes.
Next Page
|