Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:57:50.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aims in Prehistoric Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Bruce G. Trigger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Not long ago the theoretical literature in archaeology dealt mainly with excavation techniques and the primary analysis of archaeological data. In recent years, the successful realization of many of these empirical objectives, plus a rapidly increasing corpus of data, have motivated a younger generation of archaeologists to investigate more carefully the problems that are involved in the explanation of these data and the study of prehistory in general. This concern has produced a spate of publications which, although they often disagree radically about particular issues, are attempting (a) to investigate the theoretical structure of prehistoric archaeology, (b) to formulate a more rigorous canon for the interpretation of archaeological data, and (c) to pioneer new methods of analysis (Binford, S. R. and L. R., 1968; Chang, 1967 and 1968; Clarke, 1968; Trigger, 1968).

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 44 , Issue 173 , March 1970 , pp. 26 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1970

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

Adams, W. Y. 1968. Invasion, Diffusion, Evolution?, Antiquity, XLII, 194–215.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology, American Antiquity, XXVIII, 217–25.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1967a. Current Anthropology, VIII, 234–5.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1967b. An Ethnohistory of the Nottoway, Meherrin and Weanock Indians of Southeastern Virginia, Ethnohistory, XIV, 104–218.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1967c. Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: the Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning, American Antiquity, XXXII, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1968. Some Comments on Historical vs. Processual Archaeology, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, XXIV, 267–75.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R., and Binford, S. R. 1966. A preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies, in (eds.) Clark, J. D. and Howell, F. C., Recent Studies in Paleoanthropology, American Anthropologist, LXVIII, part 2, no. 2, 238–95.Google Scholar
Binford, S. R. 1968. A Structural Comparison of Disposal of Dead in The Mousterian and the Upper Palaeolithic, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, XXIV, 139–64.Google Scholar
Binford, S. R., and Binford, L. R. 1968. (eds.), New Perspectives in Archaeology (Chicago).Google Scholar
Carr, E. H. 1962. What is History? (London).Google Scholar
Chang, K. C. 1967. Rethinking Archaeology (New York Google Scholar
Chang, K. C. 1968. (ed.) Settlement Archaeology (Palo Alto).Google Scholar
Clarke, D. L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology (London).Google Scholar
Deetz, J. 1965. The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics, Illinois Studies in Anthropology, IV.Google Scholar
Dethlefson, E. and Deetz, J.. 1966. Death’s Heads, Cherubs and Willow Trees: Experimental Archaeology in Colonial Cemeteries, American Antiquity, XXXI, 502–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elton, G. R. 1969. The Practice of History (London).Google Scholar
Erikson, E. H. 1959. Young Man Luther (London).Google Scholar
Erasmus, C. J. 1968. Thoughts on Upward Collapse: an Essay on Explanation in Anthropology, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, XXIV, 170–94.Google Scholar
Harris, M. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture (New York).Google Scholar
Hawkes, J. 1968. The Proper Study of Mankind, Antiquity, XLII, 255–62.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. 1952. The Nature of Culture (Chicago).Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A. 1966. Changing Patterns of Social Integration; a Prehistoric Example from the American Southwest, American Anthropologist, LXVIII, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution (Cambridge, Mass.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. 1961. The Structure of Science (London).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plog, F. 1968. A Study in Experimental Archaeology, Bulletin of the American Anthropological Association (Abstracts of the 67th A.G.M.), I, no. 3, 110.Google Scholar
Rouse, I. 1958. The Inference of Migrations from Anthropological Evidence, in (ed.) Thompson, R. H., Migrations in New World Culture History (Tucson), 63–8.Google Scholar
Sabloff, J. A., and Willey, G. R.. 1968. The Collapse of Maya Civilization in the Southern Lowlands: a Consideration of History and Process, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, XXIII, 311–36.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. W. 1968. Conceptions of Kentucky Prehistory: a Case Study in the History of Archaeology (Lexington).Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. 1966. Numerical Taxonomy, Scientific American, 215, no. 6, 106–17.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A. C. 1968. Explanation in Archaeology, in (eds.) Binford, S. R. and Binford, L. R., 1968, 33–9.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. W. 1948. A Study of Archaeology (Menasha, Wisconsin). (Memoir 69 of the American Anthropological Association.)Google Scholar
Trevelyan, G. M. 1949. Illustrated English Social History i, (London).Google Scholar
Trigger, B. G. 1968. Beyond History: the Methods of Prehistory (New York).Google Scholar
Trigger, B. G. 1969. The Myth of Meroe and the African Iron Age, African Historical Studies, II, 23–50.Google Scholar
White, L. 1945. History, Evolutionism and Functionalism, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, I, 221–48.Google Scholar
Willey, G. R. 1968. One Hundred Years of American Archaeology in (ed.) Brew, J. O., One Hundred Years of Anthropology (Cambridge, Mass.).Google Scholar
Willey, G. R., and Phillips, P.. 1956. Method and Theory in American Archaeology (Chicago).Google Scholar