Behavioural archaeology

Last updated

Behavioural archaeology is an archaeological theory that expands upon the nature and aims of archaeology in regards to human behaviour and material culture. [1] The theory was first published in 1975 by American archaeologist Michael B. Schiffer and his colleagues J. Jefferson Reid, and William L. Rathje . [1] The theory proposes four strategies that answer questions about past, and present cultural behaviour. [1] It is also a means for archaeologists to observe human behaviour and the archaeological consequences that follow. [2]

Contents

The theory was developed as a reaction to changes in archaeological thought, and expanding archaeological practise during the mid-late 20th century. [3] It reacted to the increasing number of sub-disciplines emerging within archaeology as each came with their own unique methodologies. [1] The theory was also a reaction to the processual thought process that emerged within the discipline some years prior. [4] [5] [6] [7]

In recent years the use of behavioural archaeology has been regarded as a significant contribution to the archaeological community. [4] The strategies outlined by Schiffer and his colleagues have developed into sub-disciplines or methodologies that are used and well-regarded in contemporary archaeological practise. [4] [8] [9] Behavioural archaeology has positive effects on the method in which archaeologists use to reconstruct human behaviour. [2]

Background

"This diversification of research interests is so far-reaching that it compels us to ask fundamental questions about what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how it relates to what others are doing. We contend that the expansion of archaeology into little-explored domains is an expectable outcome of several long-term processes operating in the discipline. Clearly, these processes are leading to an expanded conception of the nature and aims of archaeology. Archaeology has not ceased to exist as an organized discipline; it is merely reorganizing into a new configuration"

Michael Brian Schiffer, 1975. [1]

"Behavioural Archaeology" was first published by Michael B. Schiffer, J. Jefferson Reid, and William L. Rathje in 1975 in the American Anthropologist journal. [1] Leading up to the publication, archaeology as a discipline was expanding in its practice and theory due to the specialisation of various areas and new ideas that were being presented to the community. [1]

Archaeology was beginning to break up into various sub-disciplines such as ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology, and industrial archaeology. [1] Furthermore, Michael Schiffer challenges notions of processual archaeology (or 'New' archaeology) which was introduced prior within the discipline. [4] The paper aimed to address the gaps within the processualist tradition and improve idea presented in processual archaeology, particularly those by James N. Hill and William A. Longacre. [5] [7] [6] Rather than a paradigm shift occurring with the published paper into a new standard thought process within archaeology, Behavioural archaeology became one of many ideas within a vast and expanding theoretical landscape. [6]

Through behavioural archaeology, Michael Schiffer and his colleagues explain the aims and nature of archaeology in relation to the new theories and forms of archaeology that were emerging during this time. [1] [5] They show that the fundamental concepts of archaeology can be represented as the relations between material culture and human behaviour. [1] By examining these relationships and asking questions surrounding them, archaeologists can answer questions about human behavioural change for the past, present, and future. [1]

Theory

The theory of behavioural archaeology outlines four strategies in which human behaviour and material culture can be examined in order to answer questions associated with archaeological inquiry. [1] Behavioural archaeology also defines archaeology as a discipline that transcends time and space as it is the study of not only the past, but also of the present and future. [10] It distinguishes the differences between systematic and archaeological contexts and examines how the archaeological record can be distorted through cultural and non-cultural transformation processes. [5] Michael Schiffer stresses the importance of analysing the formation processes at various sites. [11] This allows archaeologists to discern the most appropriate line of questioning regarding the material culture and how it relates to human behaviour. [11]

Strategies

Strategy 1

Strategy 1 as outlined by Michael Schiffer and his colleagues examines how material culture from a past society or cultural group can be used to answer questions about past behaviour. [1] These questions can include ones that involve the population of specific peoples, the occupation of a certain site or the resources that were used by humans at a certain location. [1] For example, when studying the changes in technology of past societies, inferences regarding changes in diet of individuals can be made. [2]

Strategy 2

Strategy 2 looks at how present material culture can provide archaeologists with information regarding past human behaviour. [1] Questions within this strategy become experimentally charged as they are not confined to a specific time. [1] Due to the nature of this questioning, this strategy relates to the sub-disciplines of experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology. [1] During the time in which this theory was developed, experimental archaeology was being tested. [1] However, in the 21st-century experimental archaeology has undergone further testing and is seen as a useful means of enquiry about the past within archaeological practise. [8] It is often used to recreate the practises and technologies of past societies in order to understand how they operated and the strategic decisions made. [4] [8]

Strategy 3

Strategy 3 concerns itself with studying past material culture in order to answer questions about present human behaviour. [1] Questions include how humans adapt to population changes, such as storage facilities and societal organisation. [1] The past is often seen to be separate from the present, however, Michael Schiffer challenges this by examining how ancient cultures are relevant to modern social problems and issues. [1] This theme of social relevance to contemporary society is inspired by the writings of Paul S. Martin. [1] Most notably, Martin is credited with the theory known as the 'overkill hypothesis' theorising that humans lead to the rapid extinction of prehistoric animals. Although this theory is considered to be controversial, this can be seen as an example of how humans adapt to rising population, a situation that plagues modern society. This strategy can be seen today through the archaeological practise of ethnoarchaeology.

Strategy 4

Strategy 4 examines present-day material culture to examine contemporary human behaviour. [1] This strategy seeks to ask specific questions about ongoing societies such as the consumption of goods by certain groups of people. [1] This strategy can be studied in relation to industrial and non-industrial societies, however, is particularly useful for industrial societies. [1] Additionally, this strategy is useful as by studying present material culture, archaeologists may also be able to look into future human behaviour. [1] Strategy 4 is able to explain many modern behavioural patterns are also promote the relevance of archaeology in a 21st-century society. [1]

Debates

With the introduction of a new theory within the archaeological community there comes a series of debates around how the ideas need to be interpreted. Michael Schiffer and his colleagues initially believed that behavioural archaeology would become a unifying principle for archaeological practise. [6] However it has become one of many theories within archaeology. [6] Behavioural archaeology has often been compared to other theories such as processual and evolutionary archaeology as reacts to ideas within these theories and is often compared to them when analysed in practise. [6] [7]

In this sense not all archaeologists believe it is a revolutionary practise, and many believe that similar to other archaeological theories they should be used in conjunction with each other when practising archaeology. [12]

In 2010 the Society for American Archaeology held a forum concerning 'Assessing Michael B. Schiffer and his Behavioral Archaeology. [12] At this forum, researchers such as Michael J. O'Brien, Alexander Bentley, Robert L. Kelly, Linda S. Cordell, Stephen Plog, and Diane Gifford-Gonzales discussed and raised issues about behavioural archaeology. [12] In 2011 Michael Schiffer responded to these issues after they were published, by clarifying and addressing these points. [12]

Applications in archaeology

Behavioural archaeology can be applied in many different contexts and situations in archaeological practice. It encourages archaeologists to examine an idea that may not be concrete such as belief systems, gender relations, or power relations. [13] When these ideas are studied in conjunction with material culture, human behaviour and experience within various societies is revealed. [13] For example when examining changes within technology in the archaeological record, inferences can be made surrounding diet, environmental and social factors within human society. [2]

In particular Strategies 2 and 4 have significant applications within modern archaeology although Strategies 1 and 3 are also generally applied.

Experimental tree felling at Ergersheim Experiments 2011 ExpArchTreeFelling.jpg
Experimental tree felling at Ergersheim Experiments 2011

Strategy 2

Strategy 2 also known as experimental archaeology, [1] has developed within archaeological practise into a sub-discipline. Experimental archaeology allows an assumption of what occurred in the past to become an inference of what may have actually occurred. [14] Although this concept is not a new idea in archaeological thought, since Michael Schiffer's 1975 paper, experimental archaeology has increasingly become an important subdiscipline within archaeology. [1] Schiffer himself in 1990 and 1987 conducted research surrounding the properties of ceramics in order to understand the decisions of craftsmen when creating these objects. [4] [8] Experimental archaeology surrounding ceramics can be recreating furnaces and vessels in order to see how craftsmen made decisions surrounding the manufacture of ceramic products. [8] Experiments such as this allow archaeologists to have a greater understanding of past human behaviour.

Strategy 4

Strategy 4 is currently being used in practise today particularly in America by William Rathje, one of the original authors of the theory. [1] In the 1970s Rathje began the Garbage Project in Tucson, Arizona. [15] In this project Rathje and his students examined the waste of Tucson locals in order to answer questions regarding human consumption, and decomposition of waste. [15] Through this, they were able to examine human behaviour and make comparisons between what people claim their behaviour is against their actual consumption behaviour. [15] For example individuals claimed they drank less beer when they were actually consuming more of the substance. [15] This analysis of human behaviour and consumption is useful when examining consumption in industrial societies and predicting future consumption behaviours. [15]

'Pompeii Premise'

The 'Pompeii Premise' is an idea that was first proposed by Robert Ascher in 1961 [16] that the remains an archaeologist uncovers is the representation of a group of people frozen at a certain point in time, and that inferences can only be made by the archaeologist when a site has assemblages like those at Pompeii. [3] [11] However rather than seeing the archaeological record as a 'preserved past', it is a combination of material culture over various points in time. [3]

Lewis Binford suggests using the methods of behavioural archaeology in order to avoid viewing material culture in this stagnant way. [3] One method of this is understanding the formation processes and context surrounding the creation of the archaeological record. [3] In this respect, it is important for the archaeologist to remember the difference between the archaeological context and the systematic context of the archaeological record. [3] In this way, cultural and non-cultural transformation processes can be determined and aid the archaeologist in determining if there is any distortion of context within the record. [3] Within cultural transformation processes, human behaviour can be determined as it directly affects the formation of the material culture at a site. [3]

Behavioural Archaeology and Memory

The concept of memory is something so pivotal for those in archaeology. It is through memory itself that an artifact can be understood. Laurent Olivier wrote “[t]he subject of archaeology is nothing other than this imprint of the past inscribed in matter." [17] If that is all archaeology is, then the goal would be how to properly find and later portray this particular “imprint” for everyone to know about the artifact. With Behavioural Archaeology, the imprint in question is with certain artifacts, how exactly a human or multiple reacted to and with the artifact being analyzed.

Olivier also states “[f]undamentally, [archaeology] is an investigation into archives of memory, which is what remains are. [17] Behavioural Archaeology takes the remains found by individuals and then further analyzes their meanings and what possible meanings they held for the humans that they interacted.

For example, in Bonna D. Wescoat’s book, lamps found in different archaeological excavation sites “have been taken to confirm nocturnal timing”. [18] There was much discussion and deliberation before the academic community as a whole agreed that what was found was a lamp and that its function was to act as a light-bringer during the night. As such, some artifacts hold a singular, clear meaning while others found in excavation may hold multiple uses or were used in ways that the excavators cannot fathom as they were not there in the time when the artifact held much relevance. Memory should always be used in conjunction with behavioral archaeology for memory dictates how an object is seen.

Contributions to archaeology

The introduction of behavioural archaeology in 1975 followed by the work of Michael Schiffer and his students has been seen as a significant contribution to the field of archaeology. [4] All four strategies have been significant in expanding the thought process surrounding material culture and human behaviour in various contexts. [4] Furthermore, due to the significance of Behavioral archaeology, it is often used with other archaeological schools of thought when analysing the archaeological record. [4] The act of looking at the relationships between material culture and human behaviour in itself is a significant thought process. [4] In 2010 Society for American Archaeology held a forum in which archaeologists significant to the American archaeological community discussed the contributions of Michael Schiffer and Behavioral archaeology. [12]

Behavioural archaeology is significant as it explores concepts that allow the archaeological record to characterised in terms of context and formation processes. [4] This allows archaeologists to understand variations of different contexts in order to answer questions of inquiry. [4]

It has also made contributions to archaeology as it looks at the creation of the archaeological record over time. [4] This emphasises the fundamental idea of understanding a variety of contexts when examining material culture. [4] This is an idea that was overlooked by processual thinking as processualism did not define specific contexts. [4] Behavioral archaeology fills this gap in order to have a more thorough understanding of the archaeological record. [4]

Behavioural archaeology supports the idea that the scientific process is a fundamental part of archaeological practise. [4] This comes as a reaction to the introduction of postmodern ideas to archaeology and archaeological thought. [4] As the idea of forming a narrative from the archaeological record became common, Behavioral archaeology stresses the importance of using the scientific process in order to construct a sound analysis. [4]

Additionally, it is significant to archaeology as it places importance on creating principles or establishing relationships between human behaviour and material culture. [4] This process is vital to archaeological practise as it allows archaeologists to identify patterns within material culture, and examine the archaeological record across cultures. [4]

Overall behavioural archaeology challenges archaeologists to reconsider how they conduct archaeological practise and how they think about the nature and aims of archaeology. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zooarchaeology</span> Archaeological sub-discipline

Zooarchaeology, also known as faunal analysis, is a branch of archaeology that studies remains of animals from archaeological sites. Faunal remains are the items left behind when an animal dies. These include bones, shells, hair, chitin, scales, hides, proteins and DNA. Of these items, bones and shells are the ones that occur most frequently at archaeological sites where faunal remains can be found. Most of the time, a majority of these faunal remains do not survive. They often decompose or break because of various circumstances. This can cause difficulties in identifying the remains and interpreting their significance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Processual archaeology</span> Theoretical paradigm in archaeology

Processual archaeology is a form of archaeological theory that had its beginnings in 1958 with the work of Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips, Method and Theory in American Archaeology, in which the pair stated that "American archaeology is anthropology, or it is nothing", a rephrasing of Frederic William Maitland's comment: "My own belief is that by and by, anthropology will have the choice between being history, and being nothing." The idea implied that the goals of archaeology were, in fact, the goals of anthropology, which were to answer questions about humans and human culture. That was a critique of the former period in archaeology, the cultural-history phase in which archaeologists thought that any information that artifacts contained about past people and past ways of life would be lost once the items became included in the archaeological record. All they felt could be done was to catalogue, describe, and create timelines based on the artifacts.

Post-processual archaeology, which is sometimes alternately referred to as the interpretative archaeologies by its adherents, is a movement in archaeological theory that emphasizes the subjectivity of archaeological interpretations. Despite having a vague series of similarities, post-processualism consists of "very diverse strands of thought coalesced into a loose cluster of traditions". Within the post-processualist movement, a wide variety of theoretical viewpoints have been embraced, including structuralism and Neo-Marxism, as have a variety of different archaeological techniques, such as phenomenology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Artifact (archaeology)</span> Something made by humans and of archaeological interest

An artifact or artefact is a general term for an item made or given shape by humans, such as a tool or a work of art, especially an object of archaeological interest. In archaeology, the word has become a term of particular nuance and is defined as an object recovered by archaeological endeavor, which may be a cultural artifact having cultural interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Culture-historical archaeology</span> Theoretical paradigm in archaeology

Culture-historical archaeology is an archaeological theory that emphasises defining historical societies into distinct ethnic and cultural groupings according to their material culture.

Environmental archaeology is a sub-field of archaeology which emerged in 1970s and is the science of reconstructing the relationships between past societies and the environments they lived in. The field represents an archaeological-palaeoecological approach to studying the palaeoenvironment through the methods of human palaeoecology. Reconstructing past environments and past peoples' relationships and interactions with the landscapes they inhabited provides archaeologists with insights into the origin and evolution of anthropogenic environments, and prehistoric adaptations and economic practices.

Feminist archaeology employs a feminist perspective in interpreting past societies. It often focuses on gender, but also considers gender in tandem with other factors, such as sexuality, race, or class. Feminist archaeology has critiqued the uncritical application of modern, Western norms and values to past societies. It is additionally concerned with increasing the representation of women in the discipline of archaeology, and reducing androcentric bias within the field.

Cognitive archaeology is a theoretical perspective in archaeology that focuses on the ancient mind. It is divided into two main groups: evolutionary cognitive archaeology (ECA), which seeks to understand human cognitive evolution from the material record, and ideational cognitive archaeology (ICA), which focuses on the symbolic structures discernable in or inferable from past material culture.

Archaeological theory refers to the various intellectual frameworks through which archaeologists interpret archaeological data. Archaeological theory functions as the application of philosophy of science to archaeology, and is occasionally referred to as philosophy of archaeology. There is no one singular theory of archaeology, but many, with different archaeologists believing that information should be interpreted in different ways. Throughout the history of the discipline, various trends of support for certain archaeological theories have emerged, peaked, and in some cases died out. Different archaeological theories differ on what the goals of the discipline are and how they can be achieved.

Michael Brian Schiffer is an American archaeologist and one of the founders and pre-eminent exponents of behavioral archaeology.

The archaeological record is the body of physical evidence about the past. It is one of the core concepts in archaeology, the academic discipline concerned with documenting and interpreting the archaeological record. Archaeological theory is used to interpret the archaeological record for a better understanding of human cultures. The archaeological record can consist of the earliest ancient findings as well as contemporary artifacts. Human activity has had a large impact on the archaeological record. Destructive human processes, such as agriculture and land development, may damage or destroy potential archaeological sites. Other threats to the archaeological record include natural phenomena and scavenging. Archaeology can be a destructive science for the finite resources of the archaeological record are lost to excavation. Therefore, archaeologists limit the amount of excavation that they do at each site and keep meticulous records of what is found. The archaeological record is the physical record of human prehistory and history, of why ancient civilizations prospered or failed and why those cultures changed and grew. It is the story of the human world.

Contemporary archaeology is a field of archaeological research that focuses on the most recent past, and also increasingly explores the application of archaeological thinking to the contemporary world. It has also been referred to as the archaeology of the 'contemporary past'. The use of this term in the United Kingdom is particularly associated with the Contemporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory (CHAT) conference group. The field forms part of historical archaeology, or the archaeology of the modern period. Unlike ethnoarchaeology, contemporary archaeology studies the recent and contemporary past in its own right, rather than to develop models that can inform the study of the more distant past.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archaeology</span> Study of human activity via material culture

Archaeology or archeology is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. The archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts, sites, and cultural landscapes. Archaeology can be considered both a social science and a branch of the humanities. It is usually considered an independent academic discipline, but may also be classified as part of anthropology, history or geography.

In archaeology, phenomenology is the application of sensory experiences to view and interpret an archaeological site or cultural landscape in the past. It views space as socially produced and is concerned with the ways people experience and understand spaces, places and Landscapes. Phenomenology became a part of the Post-processual archaeology movement in the early 1990s and was a reaction to Processual archaeology's proposed 'scientific' treatment of space as an abstract and empty locus for action. In contrast, phenomenology proposes a 'humanized' space which is embedded with meaning and is created through praxis. Phenomenology therefore treats the landscape as a network of places, each of which bears meaning and is connected through movements and narratives.

Marxist archaeology is an archaeological theory that interprets archaeological information within the framework of Marxism. Although neither Karl Marx nor Friedrich Engels described how archaeology could be understood in a Marxist conception of history, the archaeological theory was developed by Soviet archaeologists in the Soviet Union during the early twentieth century. Marxist archaeology quickly became the dominant archaeological theory within the Soviet Union, and subsequently spread and was adopted by archaeologists in other countries. In particular, in the United Kingdom, where the theory was propagated by an influential archaeologist V. Gordon Childe. With the rise of post-processual archaeology in the 1980s and 1990s, forms of Marxist archaeology were once more popularised amongst the archaeological community.

Household archaeology has a long history of anthropological inquiry. Archaeological investigations of the household serve as a microcosm for the greater social universe. The household serves as a space for socialization processes. Household archaeology focuses on the household as a social unit, and involves research on the household's dwelling and other related architecture, material culture, features, and larger sociopolitical organizations that are associated with a specific culture. Household social relationships have been associated as serving as an "atom" for society. Therefore, household studied effectively convey information pertaining to flexible economic and ecological conditions Household activity encompasses spheres of activity related to function and how people act. Household archaeology redefines the notion of the household and the domestic by challenging notions of what households are, how they operate and the social implications of such analysis. The material culture provides information about such activities. Households are families, domestic groups, and co-habitations. Households function in a variety of fashions.

The social sciences are the sciences concerned with societies, human behaviour, and social relationships.

The philosophy of archaeology seeks to investigate the foundations, methods and implications of the discipline of archaeology in order to further understand the human past and present.

There are two main approaches currently used to analyze archaeological remains from an evolutionary perspective: evolutionary archaeology and behavioral ecology. The former assumes that cultural change observed in the archaeological record can be best explained by the direct action of natural selection and other Darwinian processes on heritable variation in artifacts and behavior. The latter assumes that cultural and behavioral change results from phenotypic adaptations to varying social and ecological environments. 

Neuroarchaeology is a sub-discipline of archaeology that uses neuroscientific data to infer things about brain form and function in human cognitive evolution. The term was first suggested and thus coined by Colin Renfrew and Lambros Malafouris.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Reid, J. Jefferson; Schiffer, Michael B.; Rathje, William L. (December 1975). "Behavioral Archaeology: Four Strategies". American Anthropologist. 77 (4): 864–869. doi: 10.1525/aa.1975.77.4.02a00090 . JSTOR   674794.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Broughton, Jack M.; O'Connell, James F. (January 1999). "On Evolutionary Ecology, Selectionist Archaeology, and Behavioral Archaeology". American Antiquity . 64 (1): 153–165. doi:10.2307/2694351. JSTOR   2694351. S2CID   51798071.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Binford, Lewis R. (1981). "Behavioral Archaeology and the "Pompeii Premise"". Journal of Anthropological Research . 37 (3): 195–208. doi:10.1086/jar.37.3.3629723. JSTOR   3629723. S2CID   160505746.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plog, Stephen (2011). "The Contribution of Behavioral Archaeology and the Research of Michael B. Schiffer to the Discipline". Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory . 18 (4): 278–283. doi:10.1007/s10816-011-9114-3. JSTOR   41408800. S2CID   145286222.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Tschauner, Hartmut (1996). "Middle-range theory, behavioral archaeology, and postempiricist philosophy of science in archaeology". Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 3 (1): 1–30. doi:10.1007/BF02228929. JSTOR   20177339. S2CID   147122144.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Reid, J. Jefferson; Skibo, James M. (December 2011). "Introduction to Assessing Michael Brian Schiffer and His Behavioral Archaeology". Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 18 (4): 273–277. doi: 10.1007/s10816-011-9117-0 . JSTOR   41408799.
  7. 1 2 3 O'Brien, Michael J.; Lyman, R. Lee; Leonard, Robert D. (July 1998). "Basic Incompatibilities between Evolutionary and Behavioral Archaeology". American Antiquity. 63 (3): 485–498. doi:10.2307/2694632. JSTOR   2694632. S2CID   147493986.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 Schiffer, Michael B. (1990). "The influence of surface treatment on heating effectiveness of ceramic vessels". Journal of Archaeological Science . 17 (4): 373–381. doi:10.1016/0305-4403(90)90002-M – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  9. ↑ Walker, William H. (2015). Explorations in behavioral archaeology. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. ISBN   9781607814146.
  10. ↑ Schiffer, Michael B. (1999). "Behavioral Archaeology: Some Clarifications". American Antiquity. 64 (1): 166–168. doi:10.2307/2694352. JSTOR   2694352. S2CID   147016081.
  11. 1 2 3 Schiffer, Michael B. (1 April 1985). "Is There a 'Pompeii Premise' in Archaeology?". Journal of Anthropological Research. 41 (1): 18–41. doi:10.1086/jar.41.1.3630269. JSTOR   3630269. S2CID   163209761.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 Schiffer, Michael B. (2011). "A Behavioral Archaeologist Responds". Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 18 (4): 336–348. doi: 10.1007/s10816-011-9109-0 . JSTOR   41408805.
  13. 1 2 3 Cordell, Linda (2011). "What Were We Thinking? What Do I Think? Assessing Michael B. Schiffer and his Behavioral Archaeology". Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 18 (4): 291–298. doi:10.1007/s10816-011-9112-5. JSTOR   41408802. S2CID   161064353.
  14. ↑ Ascher, Robert (August 1961). "Experimental Archaeology". American Anthropologist. 63 (4): 793–816. doi: 10.1525/aa.1961.63.4.02a00070 . JSTOR   279722.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 Anon (March 1981). "From Tikal to Tucson, Today's Garbage is Tomorrow's Artifact". Anthropology News. 22 (3): 6. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-3502.1981.tb00401.x .
  16. ↑ Ascher, Robert (1961). "Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation". Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. 17 (4): 317–325. doi:10.1086/soutjanth.17.4.3628943. JSTOR   3628943. S2CID   153939299.
  17. 1 2 Olivier, Laurent (2011). The Dark Abyss of Time: Archaeology and Memory. Plymouth: AltaMira Press. p. 13.
  18. ↑ Wescoat, Bonna D. (January 17, 2020). "The sanctuary of the Great Gods, Samothrace". EBSCOHost.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.