Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3. Michael B. Schiffer, editor. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1991. 298 pp., figures, tables, references. ’35.00 (cloth).

1994 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-156
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Durand
Keyword(s):  
Archaeological Method And Theory ◽  
University Of Arizona ◽  
Archaeological Method

scholarly journals THE PROBLEM OF TYPOLOGY IN CHINESE ARCHAEOLOGY

Early China ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 21-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anke Hein
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Archaeological Research ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Chinese Archaeology ◽  
Archaeological Method And Theory ◽  
Archaeological Work ◽  
History Of ◽  
Archaeological Method ◽  
The Rich

AbstractChinese and Western archaeologists (especially those of the anthropologically-oriented tradition) often seem to be talking past each other, not only because they are publishing in different languages, but also because of differences in theory and method. While most of the major theoretical works in Western languages are by now available in Chinese translations, hardly any English-language publications exist that explain Chinese approaches to archaeological method and theory. This article helps to bridge the gap by introducing the history of debates on archaeological method in China to a Western audience, focusing particularly on issues of typology and classification. Discussing in detail the merits—and issues—of approaches suggested by four of the most influential Chinese archaeologists (Li Chi, Xia Nai, Su Bingqi, and K. C. Chang), this article provides a deeper understanding of the preconditions of archaeological research in China. It also suggests future directions for archaeological work by local and foreign archaeologists, including but also going beyond the classification of the rich body of artifacts coming to light in Chinese excavations.

Elliptical Analysis: An Heuristic Technique for the Analysis of Artifact Clusters

1976 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 79-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert A. Dekin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Organization ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Archaeological Research ◽  
Archaeological Data ◽  
Archaeological Method And Theory ◽  
Heuristic Technique ◽  
Archaeological Method ◽  
Arctic Archaeology

Perhaps the most neglected aspect of archaeological research in the Arctic has been the within-site dimension of archaeological data. Few archaeologists have “attempted to see their material as remains left by social groups” (Anderson 1968:397) and fewer still have attempted to infer patterns of social organization and the within-site organization of activities. One measure of the degree to which Arctic archaeologists have failed to contribute to contemporary archaeological method and theory is the fact that the 37-page bibliography of Contemporary Archaeology: A Guide to Theory and Contributions recently edited by Mark Leone (1972) contains not one reference to Arctic archaeology. In part, this is because much of the contents of this collection of papers considers data from the southwestern United States and Mesoamerica, but it also demonstrates that Arctic archaeologists have contributed little to discussions of archaeological method and theory.In a recent chapter on the development of Arctic archaeology (Dekin 1973), I expressed optimism regarding the potential theoretical contributions of archaeology in the Arctic, but this will not occur without a renewed emphasis on precise excavation, analytic sophistication, and a revitalized sense of “problem.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document