Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:24:29.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on Archaeological Data Requirements and Research strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stuart Struever
Stuart Struever*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The attempt to delineate the processes underlying cultural evolution has become a central problem for archaeology today. Yet, present attempts to explain prehistoric culture change are based on exceedingly fragmentary archeological evidence, a fact resulting partly from inappropriate research strategies and partly from the “one-man scholar” basis on which archaeological research has been traditionally organized.

This paper shows that certain long-held assumptions about the nature of culture which have governed excavation strategy and methods limit the value of currently existing data for attacking processual questions. The paper also examines both the quality of archaeological data required for discovering evolutionary process and the research strategies necessary for recovering these data. It argues that these research strategies cannot be put into effect unless the scale of archaeological staff, facilities, and funding increases greatly, and equally important, unless the concept of how research is organized changes.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 9 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1971

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, Lewis R. 1965 Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. American Antiquity 31:203–210.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Joseph R. 1958 Trend and tradition in the prehistory of the eastern United States. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Vol. 10.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Joseph R. 1964 Interaction spheres in prehistory. In Hope-wellian studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Vol. 12.Google Scholar
Flannery, Kent V. 1967 Culture history vs. cultural process: a debate in American archeology. Scientific American 217:119–122.Google Scholar
Fried, Morton 1967 The evolution of political society. Random House.Google Scholar
Longacre, William A. 1968 Some aspects of prehistoric society in east-central Arizona. In New perspectives in archeology, edited by Sally R. and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 89–102. Aldine.Google Scholar
Naroll, Raoul 1962 Floor area and settlement population. American Antiquity 27:587–589.Google Scholar
Service, Elman R. 1962 Primitive social organization. Random House Paperbacks in Anthropology, No. 1.Google Scholar
Struever, Stuart 1964 The Hopewellian interaction sphere in western Great Lakes-Riverine culture history. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell and Robert L. Hall. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Vol. 12.Google Scholar
Struever, Stuart 1968a Woodland subsistence-settlement systems in the lower Illinois Valley. In New perspectives in archeology, edited by Sally R. and Lewis R. Binford. Aldine.Google Scholar
Struever, Stuart 1968b Problems, methods and organization: a disparity in the growth of archeology. In Anthropological archeology in the Americas, edited by Betty J. Meggers. Anthropological Society of Washington.Google Scholar
Winters, Howard D. 1964 The Hopewell interaction sphere. Paper presented at the 1964 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.Google Scholar