Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-2wr7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-02T05:50:58.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeological Context and Systemic Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael B. Schiffer
Michael B. Schiffer*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The cultural aspect of the processes responsible for forming the archaeological record is argued to be an underdeveloped branch of archaeological theory. A flow model is presented by which to view the "life history" or processes of systemic context of any material element. This model accounts for the production of a substantial portion of the archaeological record. The basic processes of this model are: procurement, manufacture, use, maintenance, and discard. Refuse labels the state of an element in archaeological context. The spatial implications of the model suggest a largely untapped source of behavioral information. Differential refuse disposal patterns are examined as they affect artifact location and association. The meaning of element relative frequencies in refuse is discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , April 1972 , pp. 156 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aberle, David F. 1970 Comments. In Reconstructing prehistoric pueblo societies, edited by Longacre, W. A., pp. 214–223. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Ascher, Robert 1968 Time’s arrow and the archaeology of a contemporary community. In Settlement archaeology, edited by Chang, K.C., pp. 43–52. National Press Books, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1964 A consideration of archaeological research design. American Antiquity 29:425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1968a Archeological perspectives. In New perspectives in archeology, edited by Sally, R. and Binford, Lewis R., pp. 5–32. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1968b Some comments on historical versus processual archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24:267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, Sally R., and Binford, Lewis R. 1968 Archeological theory and method. In New perspectives in archeology, edited by Sally, R. and Binford, Lewis R., pp. 1–3. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brose, David S. 1970 The Summer Island site: a study of prehistoric cultural ecology and social organization in the northern Lake Michigan area. Case Western Reserve University Studies in Anthropology 1.Google Scholar
Chang, K.C. 1967 Rethinking archaeology. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Clarke, David 1968 Analytical archeology. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Cole, John P., andKing, Cuchlaine A.M. 1968 Quantitative geography: techniques and theories in geography. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Collins, Michael B. 1971 The role of lithic analysis in socio-cultural inference. Paper presented at the 1971 meeting of The Society for American Archaeology, Norman.Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1970 Sedation method and its evaluation. American Antiquity 35:305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, John M. 1968 Archaeological epistemology: two views. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Fritz, John M., and Plog, Fred T. 1970 The nature of archaeological explanation. American Antiquity 35:405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, Everett E. 1961 Analytical models in the study of social systems. The American Journal of Sociology 67:144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, James N. 1970a Prehistoric social organization in the American Southwest: theory and method. In Reconstructing prehistoric pueblo societies, edited by Longacre, W.A., pp. 11–58. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Hill, James N. 1970b Broken K Pueblo: prehistoric social organization in the American Southwest. University of Arizona, Anthropological Papers 18.Google Scholar
Hole, Frank, and Heizer, Robert F. 1969 An introduction to prehistoric archeology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Longacre, William A. 1970 Archaeology as anthropology: a case study. University of Arizona, Anthropological Papers 17.Google Scholar
McPherron, Alan 1967 The Juntunen site and the Late Woodland prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes area. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 30.Google Scholar
Miller, James G. 1965a Living systems: basic concepts. Behavioral Science 10:193–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, James G. 1965b Living systems: structure and process. Behavioral Science 10:337–379.Google Scholar
Rowe, John H. 1961 Stratigraphy and seriation. American Antiquity 26:324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, John H. 1962 Worsaae’slaw and the use of grave lots for archaeological dating. American Antiquity 28:129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1970 Cultural laws and the reconstruction of past lifeways. Paper presented at the 1970 meeting of The Society for American Archaeology, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Struever, Stuart 1968 Woodland subsistence-settlement systems in the Lower Illinois Valley. In New perspectives in archeology, edited by Sally, R. and Binford, Lewis R., pp. 285–312. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Taylor, Walter W. 1948 A study of archeology. American Anthropological Association, Memoir 69.Google Scholar
Wagner, Philip L. 1960 The human use of the Earth. The Free Press, Glencoe.Google Scholar
White, Leslie A. 1959 The evolution of culture. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, Edwin N. 1970 Lithic analysis and cultural inference: a Paleo-Indian case. University of Arizona, Anthropological Papers 16.Google Scholar