Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:03:20.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘new archeology’ of the 1960s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Richard A. Watson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the United States, prehistoric archeologyas distinct from Classical Archaeology-has been taught primarily in Departments of Anthropology. A predictable outcome of this is that students so trained have attempted to give archeology-often minimally characterized as mere excavation technique-a strong anthropological orientation. This movement culminated in the 1960s. The following brief review of books published in that decade that illustrate the viewpoint of the ‘ew archeology’ is not meant so much to be critical of as introductory to a literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 46 , Issue 183 , September 1972 , pp. 210 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1972

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, R. MCC. 1966. The evolution of urban society: early Mesopotamia and prehistoric Mexico (Chicago).Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1962. Archeology as anthropology, American Antiquity, XXVIII, 217–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1968a. Archeological perspectives, in Binford, S. R. and Binford, L. R. (eds.), New perspectives in archeology (Chicago), 5–32.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1968b. Post-Pleistocene adaptions, in Binford, S. R. and Binford, L. R. (eds.), New perspectives in archeology (Chicago), 313–41.Google Scholar
Binford, S. R., and Binford, L. R. (eds.). 1968. New perspectives in archeology (Chicago).Google Scholar
Braidwood, R. J., and Willey, G. (eds.). 1962. Courses toward urban life (Chicago).Google Scholar
Breasted, J. H. 1931. The Oriental Institute (Chicago).Google Scholar
Brothwell, D. R., and Higgs, E. J. (eds.). 1963, second edition 1969. Science in archaeology (London).Google Scholar
Butzer, K. W. 1964, second edition 1971. Environment and archeology : an introduction to the Pleistocene (Chicago).Google Scholar
Chang, K.-C. 1967. Rethinking archaeology (New York).Google Scholar
Childe, V. G. 1937. Man makes himself (London).Google Scholar
Childe, V. G. 1942. What happened in history (Harmondsworth).Google Scholar
Clark, G. 1952. Prehistoric Europe : the economic basis (London).Google Scholar
Clark, G. 1957. Archaeology and society: reconstructing the prehistoric past (London).Google Scholar
Clarke, D. 1968. Analytical archaeology (London).Google Scholar
Commission Des Monuments d’Égypte. 1809–28. Description de l’Égypte, ou, receuil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Egypte pendant l’expédition de l’armée française, publié par les ordres de Sa Majesté l’empereur Napoléon le Grand (Paris).Google Scholar
Deetz, J. 1967. Invitation to archaeology (Garden City).Google Scholar
Devore, I. 1968. Comments, in Binford, S. R. and Binford, L. R. (eds.), New perspectives in archeology (Chicago), 346–49.Google Scholar
Dinçol, A. M., and Kantman, S. (eds.). 1969. Analitik arkeolji (Istanbul).Google Scholar
Harris, M. 1964. The nature of cultural things (New York).Google Scholar
Harris, M. 1968. The rise of anthropological theory (New York).Google Scholar
Heizer, R. F., and Cook, S. F. (eds.). 1960. The application of quantitative methods in archaeology (New York).Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation, and other essays in the philosophy of science (New York).Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G., and Oppenheim, P.. 1948. Studies in the logic of explanation, Philosophy of Science, XV, 135–75.Google Scholar
Hole, F. and Heizer, R. F.. 1965, second edition 1969. An introduction to prehistoric archeology (New York).Google Scholar
Meggers, B. (ed.). 1968. Anthropological archeology in the Americas (Washington).Google Scholar
Morgan, L. H. 1877. Ancient society, or researches in the lines of human progress from savagery, through barbarism to civilization (New York).Google Scholar
Semenov, S. A. 1964, Russian original 1957. Prehistoric technology: an experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear (London).Google Scholar
Smith, M. A. 1955. The limitations of inference in archaeology, Archaeological Newsletter, VI, 3–7.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A. C. 1960. Statistical description and comparison of artifact assemblages, in Heizer, R. F. and Cook, S. F. (eds.), The application of quantitative methods in archaeology (New York), 60–83.Google Scholar
Tax, S. (ed). 1945. Humanorigins: anintroductory general course in anthropology, selected readings, Vol. I (Chicago).Google Scholar
Taylor, W. W. 1948, reprinted, 1964 and 1967/71. A study of archeology (American Anthropological Association, reprints Carbondale).Google Scholar
Trigger, Bruce G. 1968. Beyond history: the methods of prehistory (New York).Google Scholar
Watson, P. J., Leblanc, S. A., and Redman, C. L.. 1971. Explanation in archeology: an explicitly scientific approach (New York).Google Scholar
Watson, R. A. 1970 unpublished. Inference in archeology.Google Scholar
Watson, R. A., and Watson, P. J.. 1969. Man and nature: an anthropological essay in human ecology (New York).Google Scholar
White, L. A. 1949. The science of culture: a study of man and civilization (New York).Google Scholar
White, L. A. 1959. The evolution of culture: the development of civilization to the fall of Rome (New York).Google Scholar