Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:27:25.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Howling wolf

The archaeology of Lewis Binford

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Extract

There are several reasons for not interviewing Lewis Binford. So much has already been written on the most famous archaeologist since Childe that one may well wonder why another text or an interview should be added to the corpus. This holds especially true now that Paula Sabloff has published a series of conversations with the man himself (Sabloff 1998). On top of that, his own literary output has proportions that can easily discourage even interviewers of the most intrepid kind. With fourteen monographs, two edited volumes, 59 articles in journals, 34 chapters in edited books, and several dozen reviews, comments and other genres of academic publishing—and this is only the harvest of the previous millennium, the counter is still ticking—Binford is not only one of the most influential archaeologists of the twentieth century, but also one of the most prolific ones. Another good excuse for leaving your tape recorder home is that if his work has made such an important impact, it must by definition be already extremely well known among archaeologists. Why bothering about talking to a man if everyone already knows the content of his thought? Binford has become textbook knowledge, many of his articles have become classics and figure on undergraduate reading lists, his writings belong to the canon of twentieth-century archaeological thought. So, why bother? Finally, everyone who considers, or even just starts thinking about interviewing Lewis Binford will be warned by well-intending colleagues who tell you that the man has a notoriously volatile temper and that you are putting yourself at risk.

Type
Notes
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 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

Binford, L.R., 1962: Archaeology as anthropology, American antiquity 28, 217–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1978: Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1981: Bones. Ancient men and modern myths, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1983a: In pursuit of the past. Decoding the archaeological record, London.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1983b: Working at archaeology, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1984: Faunal remains from Klasies River Mouth, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1989: Debating archaeology, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R., 2001: Constructing frames of reference. An analytical method for archaeological theory building using hunter-gatherer and environmental data sets, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 1999: Anthropology and archaeology. A changing relationship, London and New York.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K.J. and Thagard, P., 1995: Mental leaps. Analogy in creative thought, Cambridge and London.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G.E. 1965: The ecological theater and the evolutionary play, New Haven and London.Google Scholar
Kelly, R.L. 1995: The ecological theatre and the evolutionary play, New Haven and London.Google Scholar
Sabloff, P.L.W., 1998: Conversations with Lew Binford. Drafting the New Archaeology, Norman.Google Scholar
Whitelaw, T.M., 1991: Some dimensions of variability in the social organisation of community space among foragers, in Gamble, C.S. and Boismier, W.A. (eds), Ethnoarchaeological approaches to mobile campsites. Hunter-gatherer and pastoralism case studies, Ann Arbor (International monographs in prehistory: ethnoarchaeological series 1), 139–88.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1985: The reaction against analogy, in Schiffer, M.B. (ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory 8, New York and London, 63111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar