부산대학교 도서관

In prehistoric archaeology, two main models have been proposed to explain processes underlying the transition between different techno-cultural assemblages in prehistoric archaeology. These ‘transitions’ represent either phenomena of ‘gradualism’ connected to in situ evolution or ‘diffusionism’ by various ‘acculturation’ processes prone to external influences (direct loans) and necessarily implicating long-distance migrations of populations. Following a review of the original formulation of these two processes, an alternative paradigm is proposed – ‘transculturation’. Borrowed from ethnologists and introduced by F. Ortiz in 1940, this process is characterised by the integration (through indigenous reinterpretation) of external influences via indirect loans derived from intimate interpersonal contacts. In the sense of the term employed here, transculturation can take several different forms (imitation, assimilation, hybridisation, reinterpretation) that are better suited to accounting for the diverse transformations evident in the archaeological record. Contrary to acculturation which imposes new (foreign) manners of doing things, transculturation reinvests the people hidden behind each techno-culture as the primary agents of their own transformation in that they may or may not be open to the diffusion of certain external ideas and have the possibility of reinterpreting them rather than suffering them.
This abstract is based on Le Brun-Ricalens (Transcultulation versus acculturation: a clarification. In: Akazawa T, Nishiaki Y (eds) Replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans: testing evolutionary models of learning. RNMH2014 The second international conference, Akita kappan, Akita, p 84, 2014a) with permission.