Introduction

  • Lawrence E. Babits
  • Hans Van Tilburg
Part of the The Springer Series in Underwater Archaeology book series (SSUA)

Abstract

It has been over thirty years since the first calls for a “new archaeology” were made at the 1963 Society for American Archaeology meetings in Boulder, Colorado. Building upon the work of James B. Griffin, Albert Spaulding, Julian Steward, W. W. Taylor, and Leslie White, Lewis Binford and others began trying to explain change (Binford 1972: 2–13). The “new archaeologists” utilized an explicitly evolutionary approach, and they proposed scientific methodology for examining their data and its interpretation.

Keywords

Historical Archaeology Scientific Methodology American Philosophical Society American Antiquity Prehistoric Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bass, George F., 1967, Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Volume 57 (8), Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  2. Binford, Lewis H., 1967, Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity 32(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binford, Lewis H., 1972, An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar Press: New York.Google Scholar
  4. Binford, Lewis H. and Sally R. Binford (eds), 1968, New Perspectives in Archaeology. Aldine: Chicago.Google Scholar
  5. Chamberlin, T.C., 1965, The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. Science 148:754–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dean, Martin, et al (eds)., 1990, Archaeology Underwater: the NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, Nautical Archaeology Society: London.Google Scholar
  7. Diole, Philippe, 1954, 4,000 Years under the Sea. Julian Messner: New York.Google Scholar
  8. Greene, Jeremy, 1990, Maritime Archaeology, Academic Press: London.Google Scholar
  9. Harrington, J.C., 1957, New Light on Washington’s Fort Necessity. National Park Service: Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Kuhn, Thomas, 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  11. Muckelroy, Keith, 1978, Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge University Press: New York.Google Scholar
  12. Noel Hume, Ivor, 1963, Here Lies Virginia. Alfred A. Knopf: New York.Google Scholar
  13. Noel Hume, Ivor, 1969, Historical Archaeology. Alfred A. Knopf: New York.Google Scholar
  14. Noel Hume, Ivor, 1969, Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf: New York.Google Scholar
  15. Platt, John R., 1964, Strong Inference. Science 146:347–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schuyler, Robert L. (ed.), 1978, Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions. Baywood Publishing Company Inc.: New York.Google Scholar
  17. South, Stanley, 1977, Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  18. South, Stanley, 1977a, Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence E. Babits
    • 1
  • Hans Van Tilburg
    • 2
  1. 1.East Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations