Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:31:06.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Problems R Us

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

George H. Odell
George H. Odell*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the preceding paper, Binford distinguishes between scholars who derive theory from within archaeological datasets and do science, and those who borrow theory from elsewhere and engage in the humanities. I agree that archaeological datasets constitute one fruitful area for the origin of research questions but not the only one, and suggest other ways that he could have considered the matter. I provide concrete examples of Binford"s preferred research strategy and mine, and discern significant differences between the two. What Binford considered the importation of theory was really the formulation of models that were ultimately tested on archaeological datasets.

Résumé

Résumé

En el artículo adjunto Binford distingue entre quienes construyen la teoría de los datos arqueológicos para las ciencias y quienes toman la teoría de otras fuentes para los estudios de las humanidades. Estoy de acuerdo en que los datos arqueológicos consituyen una zona fructífera para el origen de asuntos de investigatión pero no la única, y sugiero que hay otras formas que se podría haber usado. Ofrezco ejemplos concretos de la estrategia preferida de investigatión de Binford y mía, y reconozco diferencias significantes entre las dos. Lo que Binford consideró la importatión de la teoría fue en realidad la formulatión de modelos quefueron comprobados on datos arqueológicos.

Type
Special Section: Sources of Archaeological Research Questions
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 679 - 685
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2001

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. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31: 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: the Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity 32: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1973 Interassemblage Variability—the Mousterian and the “Functional” Argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 227–254. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1991 When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going: Nunamiut Local Groups, Camping Patterns and Economic Organization. In Ethnographic Approaches to Mobile Campsites, edited by Gamble, C. and Boismier, W., pp. 25–137. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R., and Binford, S. R. 1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American Anthropologist 68: 238–295.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. 1961 Typologie du paléolithique ancien et moyen. Publications de l’Institut de Préhistoire de l’Université de Bordeaux, Mémoire no. 1. Imprimeries Delmas, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Clark, G. A. 1993 Paradigms in Science and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 1: 203–234.Google Scholar
Dumont, J. 1982 The Quantification of Microwear Traces: a New Use for Interferometry. World Archaeology 14: 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flannery, K. 1986 Guila Naquitz: Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. (editor) 1989 The Meanings of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression. Unwin Hyman, Boston.Google Scholar
Kimball, L. R., Kimball, J. F., and Allen, P. E. 1995 Microwear Polishes as Viewed through the Atomic Force Microscope. Lithic Technology 20: 6–28.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1981 The Mechanics of Use-Breakage of Stone Tools: Some Testable Hypotheses. Journal of Field Archaeology 8: 197–209.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1993 A North American Perspective on Recent Archeological Stone Tool Research. Palimpsesto 3: 109–122.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1994a Assessing Hunter-Gatherer Mobility in the Illinois Valley: Exploring Ambiguous Results. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Technologies, edited by Carr, P., pp. 70–86. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1994b Prehistoric Hafting and Mobility in the North American Midcontinent: Examples from Illinois. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13: 51–73.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1994c The Role of Stone Bladelets in Middle Woodland Society. American Antiquity 59: 102–120.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1996a Economizing Behavior and the Concept of “Curation.” In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G., pp. 51–80. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1996b Introduction. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G., pp. 1–6. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1996c Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley: From Hunting-Gathering Camps to Agricultural Villages. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1998 Investigating Correlates of Sedentism and Domestication in Prehistoric North America. American Antiquity 63: 553–571.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H., and Odell-Vereecken, F. 1980 Verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use-Wear Assessments by “Blind Tests”: the Low-Power Approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7: 87–120.Google Scholar
Parry, W. J., and Kelly, R. L. 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Johnson, J. and Morrow, C., pp. 285–304. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Rees, D., Wilkinson, G., Grace, R., and Orton, C. 1992 An Investigation of the Fractal Properties of Flint Microwear Images. Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 629–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, M., and Salmon, W. 1979 Alternative Models of Scientific Explanation. American Anthropologist 81: 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. D. (editor) 1991 Papers on Little Bighorn Battlefield Archeology: the Equipment Dump, Marker 7, and the Reno Crossing. Reprints in Anthropology, vol. 42, J&L Reprint Co., Lincoln.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Routledge Press, London.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A. C. 1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18: 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spector, J. D. 1993 What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at the Wahpeton Dakota Village. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul.Google Scholar
Tomenchuk, J. 1985 The Development of a Wholly Parametric Use-Wear Methodology and Its Application to Two Selected Samples of Epipaleolithic Chipped Stone Tools from Hayonim Cave, Israel. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar