No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Hypotheses on the nature and processes of culture can be framed from rough observation and general knowledge of cultural situations, or even from logic and imaginary situations, but to test these assumptions one must have more than theory. Thus, although the archaeologist's raw data are for the most part artifacts, from which his deductions about ancient culture are largely inferred and his discipline's role in contributing to culture theory is correspondingly limited, nevertheless this limitation has its advantage in that it forces this particular branch of anthropology to conclusions via data that, for the very reason that they are objects, can usually be dealt with quantitatively. Linguistics, physical anthropology, and certain aspects of ethnology share this characteristic with archaeology, but only linguistics, genetics, anthropometry, and a few of the ethnological studies (for example, kinship) have taken full advantage of it.
* In the Ceramic Repository of the Museum of Anthropology at the University of Michigan there is a stamped potsherd, labeled Early Swift Creek, that has the cross-and-nested-rectangles design so popular in north Georgia Protohistoric (Lamar) pottery. In the present report I count this design as a Lamar invention (Fig. 3, h, l), but even it may be a revival.