Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T14:53:59.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Description for Artifact Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Andrew Hunter Whiteford
Andrew Hunter Whiteford*
Affiliation:
Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin November
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Suggestions that archaeologists cease their dalliance with inconsequential minutiae and concern themselves to some extent with conceptualization and problem have appeared a number of times in recent anthropological literature. This injunction is probably justified, and if archaeology is to contribute to our knowledge of the processes of culture and the historical interrelations of peoples it must broaden its scope of understanding and sharpen its tools of analysis. This is not as simple as might be hoped.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , April 1947 , pp. 226 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1947

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bell, Robert 1943. Lithic Analysis as a Method in Archaeology. Master's thesis, University of Chicago Library, Chicago.Google Scholar
Black, Glenn A., and Weer, Paul 1936. “A Proposed Terminology for Shape Classifications of Artifacts.” AMERICAN ANTIQUITY, Vol. 1, pp. 280–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on Archaeological Nomenclature 1909. “Report.” American Anthropologis., N.S., Vol. 2, pp. 114–19. Washington.Google Scholar
Committee on Archaeological Terminology 1942. “Stone Artifact Terminology.” NOTEBOOK, SOCIETY TOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY, Vol. 2, p. 67.Google Scholar
Finklestein, J. J. 1937. “A Suggested Projectile-Point Classification.” AMERICAN ANTIQUITY, Vol. 2, pp. 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowke, Gerard 1896. “Stone Art.” Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnolog., No. 13. Washington.Google Scholar
Kluckhohn, Clyde 1940. “The Conceptual Structure in Middle American Studies.” The Maya and Their Neighbors. pp. 41–51. New York: Appleton Century.Google Scholar
Krieger, Alex D. 1944. “The Typological Concept.” AMERICAN ANTIQUITY, Vol. 9, pp. 271–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, T. M. N., and Kneberg, Madeline 1939. Manual of Field and Laboratory Techniques Employed by the Division of Anthropology, University of Tennessee. Mimeographed, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Lewis, T. M. N., and Kneberg, Madeline 1946. Hiwasse Island. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1939. “Prehistory in Haiti, a Study in Method.” Yale University Publications in Anthropology. No. 21. New Haven.Google Scholar
Rouse, Irving 1944. “On the Typological Method.” AMERICAN ANTIQUITY, Vol. 10, pp. 202-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, W. D. 1935. “An Introduction to Nebraska Archeology.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 93, No. 10. Washington.Google Scholar
Wilson, Thomas 1897. “Arrowpoints, Spearheads, and Knives of Prehistoric Times.” Report of the U. S. National Museum for 1897, Pt. 1, pp. 811–988. Washington.Google Scholar