Abstract
Different ideas are proposed all the time in archaeology. These often rise or fall based on how well they predict objective, measureable characteristics of the archaeological record. But other ideas are more paradigmatic, concerned with how we think about the archaeological record rather than the record itself. What determines which ideas rise or fall? This essay considers the specific question of why Lewis Binford’s middle-range approach became more prevalent over the very similar formation-process approach of Michael Schiffer in the 1970s and 1980s. It is hypothesized that while an approach’s ability to predict objective characteristics of the archaeological record is one selective factor, in this particular case, other factors, including personality and, especially, the association between Binford’s approach and significant, long-standing problems of prehistory, were also significant selective factors.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.