Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-20T17:43:25.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Archaeology beyond Anthropology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Abstract

Archaeology‘s relationship to anthropology in the United States has been one of a natural and beneficial alliance. Archaeologists are currently showing more of an interest in formal models drawn from outside anthropology, but the classification of American archaeology as a subdiscipline in anthropology generally remains unquestioned. We argue that at the present time archaeological research is being hindered by its institutionalized relationship to anthropology and its uncritical use of models from other disciplines. Archaeologists will make the greatest theoretical progress if they view their discipline as an autonomous technique with no a priori ties to sociocultural anthropology. Archaeology as a technique makes possible a truly interdisciplinary research base, but requires in turn a reorganization of research and training procedure as well as an academic restructuring.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1978

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

Bell, Thomas L., Lieber, Stanley R. and Rushton, Gerald 1964 Clustering of services in central places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 64:2.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R., Lieber, Stanley R. and Rushton, Gerald 1962 Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217225.10.2307/278380 S0002731600006247 Google Scholar
Bell, Thomas L., Lieber, Stanley R. and Rushton, Gerald 1977 General introduction. In For theory building in archaeology: essays onfaunal remains, aquatic resources,spatial analysis, and systemic modeling, edited by Binford, Lewis R., pp. 110. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, Sally R. and Binford, Lewis R., Editors 1968 New perspectives in archeology. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Braidwood, Robert J., and Howe, Bruce 1960 Prehistoric investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 31, The Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brown, James A. and Struever, Stuart 1973 The organization of archaeological research: an Illinois example. In Research and theory in currentarcheology, edited by Redman, C.. Pp. 261–80. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
Butzer, Karl W. 1975 The ecological approach to archaeology: are we really trying? American Antiquity 40:106111.10.2307/279276 S0002731600099637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christaller, Walter 1933 Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland: Eine ökonomischgeographische Untersuchung über die Gesetzmässigkeitder Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Siedlungen mit städtischen Funktionen. Fisher, Jena.Google Scholar
Clarke, David L. 1972 Models and paradigms in contemporary archaeology. In Models in archaeology, edited by Clarke, D. L., pp. 160. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Davis, Hester A. 1972 The crisis in American archaeology. Science 175:267272.10.1126/science.175.4019.267 Google Scholar
Deetz, James F. 1972 Archaeology as a social science. In Contemporary archaeology: a guide to theory and contributions, edited by Leone, Mark P., pp. 108–17. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Fitting, James E. 1966 Archaeological investigations of the Carolina-Canadian edge-area in Michigan. The Michigan Archaeologist. 12:4.Google Scholar
Fitting, James E., Editor 1973 The development of North American archaeology: essays in the history of regional traditions. AnchorPress, New York.Google Scholar
Flannery, Kent V. 1973 Archeology with a capital S. In Research and theory in current archeology, edited by Redman, C., pp. 4753. Wiley- Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
Harris, Marvin 1968 Comments. In New perspectives in archeology, edited by Binford, L.. pp. 359–62. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hill, James N. 1974 The archaeologist's use of the concept of culture. Paper presented at a Symposium in honor of Walter W.Taylor. Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian and Orton, Clive 1976 Spatial analysis in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Klejn, Leo S. 1977 A panorama of theoretical archaeology. Current Anthropology 18:147.10.1086/201846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipe, William D. 1974 A conservation model for American archaeology. The Kiva 39:214245.Google Scholar
Leone, Mark P., Editor 1972 Issues in anthropological archaeology. In Contemporary archaeology, edited by Leone, M. P., pp. 1427. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville.Google Scholar
Longacre, William A. 1970 Archaeology as anthropology: a case study. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona. Google Scholar
Lösch, August 1963 The economics of location. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
MacNeish, Richard S. 1967 An interdisciplinary approach to an archaeological problem. In The prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley,Volume 1: environment and subsistence, edited by Byers, D., pp. 1424. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
MacNeish, Richard S. 1974 Review of “The development of North American archaeology: essays in the history of regional traditions,“edited by J. E. Fitting. American Anthropologist 76:463.10.1525/aa.1974.76.2.02a01010 Google Scholar
Marcus, Joyce 1973 Territorial organization of the lowland classic Maya. Science 180:911916.10.1126/science.180.4089.911 Google Scholar
Marcus, Joyce 1976 Emblem and state in the classic Maya lowlands: an epigraphic approach to territorial organization. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Marshall, John V. 1977 Christallerian networks in the Löshain economic landscape. The professional geographer. 29:2.Google Scholar
Martin, Paul S. and Gregory, David 1973 Prehistoric and contemporary problems. In The archaeology of Arizona, by Martin, P. S. and Plog, F., pp. 361–68. Natural History Press, Garden City.Google Scholar
Mellor, D.H. 1973 Do cultures exist? In The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory, edited by Renfrew, C., pp. 5972. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Odum, M. P. 1959 Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Rippeteau, Bruce E. 1972 The need achievement test applied to the Hohokam. American Antiquity 37:50413.10.2307/278956 Google Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1972 Introduction to prehistory: a systematic approach. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1975 Archaeology as behavioral science. American Anthropologist 77:83648.10.1525/aa.1975.77.4.02a00060 Google Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1976 Behavioral archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1973 Archeology in the active voice: the new anthropology. In Research and theory in current archeology edited by Redman, C., pp. 337–55. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
Struever, Stuart 1971 Comments on archaeological data requirements and research strategy. American Antiquity 31:919.Google Scholar
Taylor, Walter W. 1948 A study of archaeology . American Anthropological Association, Memoir 69. Google Scholar
Wheeler, Mortimer 1956 Archeology from the earth. Pelican, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Whittlesey, Julian H. 1977 Interdisciplinary approach to archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 4:13537.10.2307/529729 Google Scholar
Willey, Gordon R. and Phillips, Phillip 1958 Method and theory in American archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Richard B. 1973 Getting round archeologists out of square holes. In Research and theory in current archaeology, edited by Redman, C., pp. 311–20. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Richard B. 1974 Review of “The distribution of prehistoric population aggregates,” edited by George J. Gumerman. American Antiquity 39:399400.10.2307/279606 Google Scholar
Yellen, JohnE. 1977 Archaeological approaches to the present; models for reconstructing the present. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar