Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:03:43.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Divided We Stand: Aspects of Archaeology and Information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

A. Colin Renfrew
A. Colin Renfrew*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB23DZ England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of the New Archaeology of the 1960s is recognized as decisive in the history of archaeology: an awakening from the “long sleep of archaeological theory” from about 1880 to 1960. But at the same time, limitations in the New Archaeology are responsible for corresponding defects in the present scene. The first of these is the lack of clear policy for the handling and especially the publication of data. It is argued that the outstanding defect of Cultural Resource Management, especially in the United States, is the failure to promote a clear policy that all survey work and all excavations should be adequately published. Accompanying this is the inadequate provision for the effective retrieval, at a national level, of the information which does emerge from CRM projects. The responsibility for this lies at the door of the academic archaeologists.

The second defect is the failure to recognize that the New Archaeology primarily offered new and interesting problems, not ready solutions. The widespread misconception that processual archaeology has become “normal science” is partly responsible for the lack of steam in the current theoretical scene in the United States. Some alternative approaches are indicated, and it is suggested that cognitive archaeology may, in the 1980s and 1990s, take its place alongside the social archaeology of the past two decades as a significant growth area.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 1983 , pp. 3 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1983

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

References Cited

Binford, L. R. 1962 Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217–225.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1968 Archaeological perspectives. In New perspectives in archaeology, edited by Binford, S. R. and Binford, L. R., pp. 5–39. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1972 Contemporary model building: paradigms and the current state of Paleolithic research. In Modelsin archaeology, edited by Clarke, D. L., pp. 109–166. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Binford, S. R. and Binford, L. R. (editors) 1968 New perspectives in archaeology. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Broadbent, S. R. 1955 Quantum hypotheses. Biometrika 42:45–57.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. L. 1968 Analytical archaeology. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. L. 1973 Archaeology, the loss of innocence. Antiquity 47:6–18.Google Scholar
Davis, H. A. 1982 Professionalism in archaeology. American Antiquity 47:158–162.Google Scholar
Flannery, K. V. 1972 The cultural evolution of civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399–425.Google Scholar
Flannery, K. V. 1973 Archeology with a capital S. In Research and theory in current archeology, edited by Redman, C. L., pp. 47–58. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Flannery, K. V. 1976 Contextual analysis of ritual paraphernalia in Formative Oaxaca. In The early Mesoamericanvillage, edited by Flannery, K. V., pp. 329–344. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Frankenstein, S., and Rowlands, M. J. 1978 The internal structure and regional context of early Iron Age society in southwestern Germany. Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 15:73–112.Google Scholar
Frere, S. S. 1975 Principles of publication in rescue archaeology (Report by a working party of the Ancient MonumentsBoard for England Committee for Rescue Archaeology), Department of the Environment, London.Google Scholar
Friedman, J. 1974 Marxism, structuralism and vulgar materialism. Man 9:444–469.Google Scholar
Fritz, J. M., and Plog, F. 1970 The nature of archaeological explanation. American Antiquity 35:405–412.Google Scholar
Gellner, E. 1982 What is structuralisme? In Theory and explanation in archaeology: The Southampton Conference, edited by Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J. and Abbott Segraves, B., pp. 97–124. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hemmy, A. S. 1931 System of weights at Mohenjo-Daro. In Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilisation (vol. 2), edited by Marshall, J., pp. 589–598. Probsthain, London.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1965 Aspects of scientific explanation. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G., and Oppenheim, P. 1948 Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science 5:125–175.Google Scholar
Hester, T. R. 1981 CRM publication: dealing with reality. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:493–496.Google Scholar
Hewsa, A. D. 1980 The Ashanti weights, a statistical evaluation. Journal of Archaeological Science 7:363–370.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. (editor) 1982 Symbolic and structural archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A. (editor) 1978 Information sources and the development of decision-making organizations. In Social archaeology, edited by Redman, C. L., Berman, M. J., Curtin, E. V., Langhorne, W. T. Jr., Versaggi, N. M., and Wanser, J. C., pp. 87–112. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Keat, R., and Urry, J. 1975 Social theory as science. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Keel, M. B. 1979 Archeological and historical data recovery program 1979. U.S. Department of the Interior, NationalPark Service, Interagency Archeological Services, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Knudson, R. 1982 Basic principles of archaeological resource management. American Antiquity 47:163–166.Google Scholar
Leach, E. 1973 Concluding address. In The explanation of culture change, models in prehistory, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 761–772. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Leone, M. 1971 Review of New perspectives in archaeology, edited by Binford, S. R. and Binford, L. R.. American Antiquity 36:220–222.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A. 1981 CRM publication: a review essay. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:487–491.Google Scholar
McGimsey, C. R., and Davis, H. A. (editors) 1977 The management of archaeological resources: The Airlie House report. Society for American Archaeology.Google Scholar
Petrie, W. M. F. 1926 Ancient weights and measures illustrated by the Egyptian collections in University College, London. ‘Publication of the Egyptian Research Account 39. London.Google Scholar
Petrie, W. M. F. 1934 Measures and weights of ancient civilisations. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Petruso, K. M. 1978a Marks on some Minoan balance weights and their interpretation. Kadmos 17:26–42.Google Scholar
Petruso, K. M. 1978b Systems of weight in the Bronze Age Aegean. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Prigogine, I., Allen, P. M., and Herman, R. 1977 Long term trends and the evolution of complexity. In Goals in a global community: A report to theClub of Rome. Vol. I: Studies on the conceptual foundations, edited by Lazlo, E. and Bierman, J., pp. 1–63. Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar
Raab, L. M., Klinger, T. C., Schiffer, M. B., and Goodyear, A. C. 1980 Clients, contracts and profits: conflicts in public archaeology. American Anthropologist 82:539–551.Google Scholar
Rappaport, R. A. 1971 The sacred in human evolution. Annual review of ecology and systematics 2:23–44.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1980 The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: Archaeology as Anthropology? American Journal of Archaeology 84:287–298.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1982 Explanation revisited. In Theory and explanation in archaeology, The Southampton Conference, edited by Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J., and Abbott Segraves, B., pp. 5–23. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J., and Abbott Segraves, B. (editors) 1982 Theory and explanation in archaeology: The Southampton Conference. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1979 Some impacts of cultural resource management on American archaeology. In Archaeological resourcemanagement in Australia and Oceania, edited by McKinlay, J. R. and Jones, K. L., pp. 1–11. NewZealand Historic Places Trust, Wellington.Google Scholar
Segraves, B. A. 1982 Central elements in the construction of a general theory of the evolution of social complexity. In Theory and explanation in archaeology: The Southampton Conference, edited by Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J., and Abbott Segraves, B., pp. 287–300. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Sterud, E. L. 1978 Changing aims of American archaeology: a citations analysis of American Antiquity 1964-1975. American Antiquity 43:294–302.Google Scholar
Thorn, R. 1975 Structural stability and morphogenesis. W. A. Benjamin, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
Weaver, W. 1949 The mathematics of communication. Scientific American 181:11–15.Google Scholar
Wright, H. 1977 Towards an explanation of the origin of the state. In Explanation of prehistoric change, edited by Hill, J. N., pp. 215–230. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar