R.I.P Lewis Roberts Binford (1930-2011)

[Moros]

A great man and archaeologist has died.

http://www.examiner.com/world-culture-in-national/lewis-roberts-binford-1930-2011

That he may rest in peace. :bow:

[B-Wing]

Was he a team member?

[Brennus]

A great man and archaeologist has died.

http://www.examiner.com/world-culture-in-national/lewis-roberts-binford-1930-2011

That he may rest in peace. :bow:

Along with Childe, Champolion, Pitt-Rivers and a few others he was one of the greats. He leaves some very very big shoes to fill.

[cmacq]

A great man and archaeologist has died.

http://www.examiner.com/world-culture-in-national/lewis-roberts-binford-1930-2011

That he may rest in peace. :bow:

Forgive my discourtesy
Yet New Archaeology be damned,
I shall honour the passing of the man,
and will not display disrespect.

As our European friends still languish in its grip,
like so many Americans with so little experience,
they are not expected to understand.

[Populus Romanus]

Forgive my discourtesy
Yet New Archaeology be damned,
I shall honour the passing of the man,
and will not display disrespect.

As our European friends still languish in its grip,
like so many Americans with so little experience,
they are not expected to understand.
What is New Archeaeology? RIP.

[Brennus]

What is New Archeaeology? RIP.

New archaeology was a theoretical movement within archaeology which emerged in the 1960s in the US and Britain. It held that archaeology should be studied like you would study a hard science, that within archaeology it was possible to apply universal laws to certain situations and positively prove or disprove a hypothesis by testing it against the data you had. Unfortunately it failed to take into account a variety of unforseen variables such as feminism, cognitive processes (different humans have different beliefs) but most importantly human agency (the capacity of humans to take independent actions). Although an improvement on the earlier culture theory mode of studying archaeology, as practised by the likes of Childe, Hawkes and Wheeler by the 1980s it was replaced in various forms by a collection of new systems and theories knows as Post-proccesual archaeology.

Up Marxist System Theorists!

[cmacq]

New archaeology was a theoretical movement within archaeology which emerged in the 1960s in the US and Britain. It held that archaeology should be studied like you would study a hard science, that within archaeology it was possible to apply universal laws to certain situations and positively prove or disprove a hypothesis by testing it against the data you had. Unfortunately it failed to take into account a variety of unforseen variables such as feminism, cognitive processes (different humans have different beliefs) but most importantly human agency (the capacity of humans to take independent actions). Although an improvement on the earlier culture theory mode of studying archaeology, as practised by the likes of Childe, Hawkes and Wheeler by the 1980s it was replaced in various forms by a collection of new systems and theories knows as Post-proccesual archaeology.

Up Marxist System Theorists!

I of course, have a somewhat different view, and I'm not as enthusiastic about Marxist System Theory. Indeed, General Systems Theory is useful, however I've come to understand the true nature of the former ideology, and have learned the only goal of archaeology can be to progress the historical narrative. For me experence and the test of time has provened all else is simply an exercise in futility. Here the theme replaces the mindless political dogma.

I never knew Binford, although I did know too well those practitioners of his generation and those of his ilk. For some reason I one visited the small liberal-artsy college town in northeast Missouri he exiled himself to

[Populus Romanus]

Archaeology is almost as political as the field it covers! :dizzy2:

[moonburn]

Archaeology is almost as political as the field it covers! :dizzy2:

do not mistake archeology for history they are 2 diferent fields the only part in archeology where there is politics is in the funds distribution and normally the teams have very litle impact in and the polititians and college/university leaders normally decide according to seneriority previous results and historical interests (ofc thats my experience and here only public fundings from institutes and university´s suport archeological diggings and researche )

[Moros]

do not mistake archeology for history they are 2 diferent fields the only part in archeology where there is politics is in the funds distribution and normally the teams have very litle impact in and the polititians and college/university leaders normally decide according to seneriority previous results and historical interests (ofc thats my experience and here only public fundings from institutes and university´s suport archeological diggings and researche )
But even that can have quite an impact. Talk to Zarax about Sicilian archeology in Italy for example.

[moonburn]

herm consider archeology in the basque country (something like that where the central goverments prefer to ignore a few parts since there´s nationalist movements who could use the information gathered to distort the findings ?)

but even then the politics go into the historians who are suposed to interpret the evidences and findings and not the archeological work per se

ofc i have only worked in a few dig sites as a volunteer (i worked with a teacher who as cracked the writtings of the southern iberians when i was in the algarve) and the chaminé mound/mount in my land where there´s a few roman ruins but as i said i´m not that deep into it i know that normally dig teams are hard to get and the funding ain´t much so it´s mostly volunteer work at least in portugal