1981UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona)Requires access

The Interpretation of Negative Evidence in Archaeology

Glenn Davis Stone

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

One of the important changes in the archaeological paradigm that occurred in the l960s was the expansion of the scope of the problems addressed by researchers. This expansion was sparked largely by Lewis Binford (1968:22), who maintained that data relevant to most, if not all, the components of past sociocultural systems are preserved in the archaeological record. Binford argued that we are limited not so much by the nature of the archaeological record as by our lack of principles for relating archaeological remains to past human behavior (1968:23). Just as artifacts tend to reflect more than one component of a cultural system, each component of a cultural system should be reflected in various material remains. This meant that gaps in the archaeological record could be circumvented. Where decay had claimed important information, models could be devised that turned to other, nonperishable, remains (Binford 1968:19, 1975:256)

About this research paper

What this paper is about

One of the important changes in the archaeological paradigm that occurred in the l960s was the expansion of the scope of the problems addressed by researchers. This expansion was sparked largely by Lewis Binford (1968:22), who maintained that data relevant to most, if not all, the components of past sociocultural systems are preserved in the archaeological record. Binford argued that we are limited not so much by the nature of the archaeological record as by our lack of principles for relating archaeological remains to past human behavior (1968:23). Just as artifacts tend to reflect more than one component of a cultural system, each component of a cultural system should be reflected in various material remains. This meant that gaps in the archaeological record could be circumvented. Where decay had claimed important information, models could be devised that turned to other, nonperishable, remains (Binford 1968:19, 1975:256)

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

One of the important changes in the archaeological paradigm that occurred in the l960s was the expansion of the scope of the problems addressed by researchers. This expansion was sparked largely by Lewis Binford (1968:22), who maintained that data relevant to most, if not all, the components of past sociocultural systems are preserved in the archaeological record. Binford argued that we are limited not so much by the nature of the archaeological record as by our lack of principles for relating archaeological remains to past human behavior (1968:23). Just as artifacts tend to reflect more than one component of a cultural system, each component of a cultural system should be reflected in various material remains. This meant that gaps in the archaeological record could be circumvented. Where decay had claimed important information, models could be devised that turned to other, nonperishable, remains (Binford 1968:19, 1975:256)

Key concepts: Archaeological record, Archaeological evidence, Archaeology, Sociocultural evolution, Scope (computer science), History, Interpretation (philosophy), Archaeological theory

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Interpretation of Negative Evidence in Archaeology — Research Paper | ScholarLens