236 Wybo Houkes
a study by Michael Schiffer (1996). Although they show that Schiffer’s results can
be reproduced by using cladograms and clade-diversity diagrams, Lyman and O’Brien
admit that Schiffer’s ability to explain his results in terms of stimulated variation and
other transmission processes is due largely to the availability of historical data on the use
and production of vacuum-tube radios. In the absence of such data, explaining changes in
the archaeological record “is fraught with analytical diffi culties” (Lyman and O’Brien
2000: 55). Yet if information on the use and production of artifacts is available, there seems
little need to avoid traditional intentionalist reconstructions by means of evolutionary
models.
Thus the goals of EA may be clear, but the promise to avoid intentionalist reconstruc-
tions remains largely unfulfi lled—and it is diffi cult to see how it can be fulfi lled. Some
techniques are available for the fi rst, classifi catory step, but models and techniques for
taking the crucial second, explanatory step seem lacking. At least some researchers in the
discipline are aware of this lack, and they seem ready to apply further (semi)evolutionary
techniques to solve their “analytical diffi culties.”
13.4 The Open Border
In the previous sections, I report on two fi elds that deal with artifacts, but that use concepts
and mechanisms drawn from the selectionist framework of evolutionary biology. The aims
of these fi elds are different—one studies primitive artifacts and aims at classifi cation and
explanation; the other involves state-of-the-art technology and aims at effective and inno-
vative design. The differences in aim are partly refl ected in the conceptual transfer involved.
Still, there are marked similarities: transfer in EA is as problem-oriented, nonmetaphorical,
and open-ended as in ED. To sum up, selectionist concepts and models in EA serve spe-
cifi cally to avoid appealing to the intentions in explanations of the archaeological record,
structural similarities between classifi cations of organisms and artifacts are used to support
the transfer of cladistic methods, and researchers take an active interest in transferring
more concepts and models.
Although researchers in both fi elds frequently describe their own research as involving
“metaphors,” they actually attempt a faithful and, to some extent, incremental application
of evolutionary concepts and mechanisms. This does not mean that they are interested in
applying the full selectionist framework to their fi eld. Instead they take care to apply the
concepts and techniques transferred from biology accurately in order to solve some spe-
cifi c problem, and they take an active interest in transferring more concepts and techniques
to solve additional problems. Such transfer is, moreover, often supported by considerations
of structural similarity. Thus research in both disciplines is not characterized by a fl ash of
inspiration followed by a short-lived transfer from biology to technology. Instead research-
ers in EA and ED actively search to increase conceptual and methodological similarities