CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Middle-range theory, behavioral archaeology, and postempiricist philosophy of science in archaeology

Tschauner, Hartmut·1996·Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
DOI 10.1007/bf02228929
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02228929

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 88

  1. Amsterdamski, S. (1975). Between experience and metaphysics. InBoston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 35, Reindel, Boston.
  2. Bernstein, R. J. (1983).Beyond Objectivism and Realism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
  3. Binford, L. R. (1962). Archaeology as anthropology.American Antiquity 28(2): 217–225. · DOI
  4. Binford, L. R. (1968a). Archeological perspectives. In Binford, S. R., and Binford, L. R. (eds.),New Perspectives in Archeology, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 5–32.
  5. Binford, L. R. (1968b). Methodological considerations of the archaeological use of ethnographic data. In Lee, R. B., and DeVore, I. (eds.),Man the Hunter, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 268–273.
  6. Binford, L. R. (1968c). Some comments on historical versus processual archaeology.Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24(3): 267–275. · DOI
  7. Binford, L. R. (1975). Sampling, judgment, and the archaeological record. In Mueller, J. W. (ed.),Sampling in Archaeology, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 251–257.
  8. Binford, L. R. (1976). Forty-seven trips: A case study in the character of some formation processes. In Hall, E. S., Jr. (ed.),Contributions to Anthropology: The Interior Peoples of Northern Alaska, National Museum of Canada, Mercury Series No. 49, Ottawa, pp. 299–351. · DOI
  9. Binford, L. R. (1977). General introduction. In Binford, L. R. (ed.),For Theory Building in Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–10.
  10. Binford, L. R. (1978).Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology, Academic Press, New York.
  11. Binford, L. R. (1979). Organization of formation processes: Looking at curated technologies.Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3): 255–273. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Binford, L. R. (1980). Willow smoke and dogs' tales: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation.American Antiquity 45(1): 4–20. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Binford, L. R. (1981a). Behavioral archaeology and the “Pompeii premise.”Journal of Anthropological Research 37(3): 195–208. · DOI
  14. Binford, L. R. (1981b).Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths, Academic Press, New York.
  15. Binford, L. R. (1982). Objectivity — explanation — archaeology 1981. In Renfrew, C. R., Rowlands, M. J., and Segraves, C. (eds.),Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 125–138.
  16. Binford, L. R. (1983a).In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record, Thames and Hudson, London.
  17. Binford, L. R. (1983b).Working at Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.
  18. Binford, L. R. (1986). In pursuit of the future. In Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D., and Sabloff, J. A. (eds.),American Archaeology Past and Future, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 459–479.
  19. Binford, L. R. (1987). Data, relativism and archaeological science.Man (n.s.) 22(3): 391–404. · DOI
  20. Binford, L. R. (1989a).Debating Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
  21. Binford, L. R. (1989b). The “New Archaeology,” then and now. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (ed.),Archaeological Thought in America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 50–62. · DOI
  22. Binford, L. R., and Sabloff, J. A. (1982). Paradigms, systematics, and archaeology.Journal of Anthropological Research 38(2): 137–152. · DOI
  23. Binford, S. R., and Binford, L. R. (1968). Archeological theory and method. In Binford, S. R., and Binford, L. R. (eds.),New Perspectives in Archeology, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 1–3.
  24. Braithwaite, M. (1984). Ritual and prestige in the prehistory of Wessex, 2200-1400 BC: A new dimension to the archaeological evidence. In Miller, D., and Tilley, C. (eds.),Ideology, Power and Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 93–110. · DOI
  25. Brown, H. I. (1972). Perception and meaning. In Rescher, N. (eds.), Studies in the philosophy of mind.American Philosophical Quarterly, Monograph No. 6, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1–9.
  26. Brown, H. I. (1977).Perception, Theory and Commitment: The New Philosophy of Science, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  27. Collingwood, R. G. (1939).An Autobiography. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  28. Collingwood, R. G. (1946).The Idea of History. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  29. Deetz, J. F. (1968). The inference of residence and descent rules from archeological data. In Binford, S. R., and Binford, L. R. (eds.),New Perspectives in Archeology, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 41–48.
  30. Gándara Vázquez, M. (1981). Hacia una teoría de la observación en arqueología. Ms., Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México, D.F.
  31. Goodyear, A. C. (1977). Review ofBehavioral Archaeology, by Michael B. Schiffer.American Antiquity 42(4): 668–671. · DOI
  32. Gould, S. J. (1977).Ever Since Darwin: Reflections on Natural History, Norton, New York.
  33. Hanson, N. R. (1958).Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  34. Hill, J. N. (1972). The methodological debate in modern archaeology: A model. In Clarke, D. L. (ed.),Models in Archaeology, Methuen, London, pp. 61–107.
  35. Hill, J. D. (1992). Can we recognize a different European past?Journal of European Archaeology 1: 57–75. · DOI
  36. Hodder, I. (1982). Theoretical archaeology: A reactionary view. In Hodder, I. (ed.),Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–16. · DOI
  37. Hodder, I. (1983). Archaeology, ideology, and contemporary society.Royal Anthropological Institute News 56: 6–7.
  38. Hodder, I. (1985). Postprocessual archaeology. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.),Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 1–26. · DOI
  39. Hodder, I. (1986).Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  40. Hodder, I. (1988). Archaeology and theory: Reply to Binford.Man (n.s.) 23(3): 373–374.
  41. Hodder, I. (1990).The Domestication of Europe, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
  42. Hodder, I. (1991a). Interpretive archaeology and its role.American Antiquity 56(1): 7–18. · DOI
  43. Hodder, I. (1991b). Postprocessual archaeology and the current debate. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Occasional Paper No. 10, Carbondale, pp. 30–41.
  44. Hodder, I. (1991c).Reading the Past, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  45. Hodder, I. (1992).Theory and Practice in Archaeology, Routledge, London.
  46. Kosso, P. (1988). Dimensions of observability.British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39: 449–467. · DOI
  47. Kosso, P. (1989). Science and objectivity.Journal of Philosophy 86: 245–257. · DOI
  48. Kosso, P. (1991). Method in archaeology: Middle-range theory as hermeneutics.American Antiquity 56(4): 621–627. · DOI
  49. McGuire, R. H., and Schiffer, M. B. (1983). A theory of architectural design.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 277–303. · DOI
  50. Preucel, R. W. (1991). The philosophy of archaeology. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Southern Illinois University, Occasional Paper No. 10, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, pp. 30–41.
  51. Raab, L. M., and Goodyear, A. C. (1984). Middle-range theory in archaeology: A critical review of origins and applications.American Antiquity 49(2): 255–268. · DOI
  52. Rathje, W. L., and Schiffer, M. B. (1982).Archaeology, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
  53. Reid, J. J., Schiffer, M. B., and Rathje, W. L. (1975). Behavioral archaeology: Four strategies.American Anthropologist 77(4): 864–869. · DOI
  54. Saitta, D. J. (1992). Radical archaeology and middle-range theory.Antiquity 66(253): 886–897. · DOI
  55. Salmon, M. H. (1975). Confirmation and explanation in archaeology.American Antiquity 40(4): 459–464. · DOI
  56. Salmon, M. H. (1982).Philosophy and archaeology, Academic Press, New York.
  57. Schiffer, M. B. (1972a). Archaeological context and systemic context.American Antiquity 37(2): 156–165. · DOI
  58. Schiffer, M. B. (1972b). Cultural laws and the reconstruction of past lifeways.Kiva 37(3): 148–157. · DOI
  59. Schiffer, M. B. (1975). Archaeology as behavioral science.American Anthropologist 77(4): 836–848. · DOI
  60. Schiffer, M. B. (1976a).Behavioral archeology, Academic Press, New York.
  61. Schiffer, M. B. (1976b). What is archaeology?South Carolina Antiquities 8(2): 326–331.
  62. Schiffer, M. B. (1977). Toward a unified science of the cultural past. In South, S. (ed.),Research Strategies in Historical Archeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 13–40.
  63. Schiffer, M. B. (1978). Methodological issues in ethnoarchaeology. In Gould, R. A. (ed.),Explorations in ethnoarchaeology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 229–247.
  64. Schiffer, M. B. (1979a). A preliminary consideration of behavioral change. In Renfrew, C. R., and Cooke, K. L. (eds.),Transformations: Mathematical Approaches to Cultural Change, Academic Press, New York, pp. 353–368. · DOI
  65. Schiffer, M. B. (1979b). The place of lithic use-wear analysis in behavioral archaeology. In Hayden, B. (ed.),Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, Academic Press, New York, pp. 15–25.
  66. Schiffer, M. B. (1980). Review ofFor Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by Lewis R. Binford.American Antiquity 45(2): 377–378. · DOI
  67. Schiffer, M. B. (1981). Some issues in the philosophy of archaeology.American Antiquity 46(4): 899–908. · DOI
  68. Schiffer, M. B. (1983a). Binford's hunting stand hypothesis and the Joint Site.American Antiquity 48(1): 139–141. · DOI
  69. Schiffer, M. B. (1983b). Toward the identification of formation processes.American Antiquity 48(4): 675–706. · DOI
  70. Schiffer, M. B. (1985). Review ofWorking at archaeology, by Lewis R. Binford.American Antiquity 50(1): 191–193. · DOI
  71. Schiffer, M. B. (1987).Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
  72. Schiffer, M. B. (1988). The structure of archaeological theory.American Antiquity 53(3): 461–485. · DOI
  73. Schiffer, M. B. (1989). Formation processes of Broken K pueblo: Some hypotheses. In Leonhard, R. D., and Jones, G. T. (eds.),Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 37–58.
  74. Schiffer, M. B. (1992).Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
  75. Schiffer, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. (1987). Theory and experiment in the study of technological change.Current Anthropology 28: 595–622. · DOI
  76. Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1987).Re-constructing Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  77. Shapere, D. (1982). The concept of observation in science and philosophy.Philosophy of Science 49: 485–525. · DOI
  78. Shapere, D. (1985). Observation and the scientific enterprise. In Atchinstein, P., and Hannaway, O. (eds.),Observation, Experiment, and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Science, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 22–45.
  79. Sullivan, A. P. (1978). Inference and evidence in archaeology: A discussion of the conceptual problems. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.),Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, pp. 183–222. · DOI
  80. Szuter, C. R. (1991).Hunting by Prehistoric Horticulturalists in the American Southwest, Garland, New York.
  81. Thomas, J. (1991).Rethinking the Neolithic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  82. Trigger, B. G. (1989).A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  83. Tschauner, H. (1994). Archaeological systematics and cultural evolution: Retrieving the honour of culture history.Man (N.S.) 29(1): 77–93. · DOI
  84. Watson, P. J. (1986). Archaeological interpretation, 1985. In Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D., and Sabloff, J. A. (eds.),American Archaeology Past and Future, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 439–457.
  85. Wylie, A. (1985). The reaction against analogy. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.),Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 63–111. · DOI
  86. Wylie, A. (1988). “Simple” analogy and the role of relevance assumptions: Implications of archaeological practice.International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2(2): 134–150. · DOI
  87. Wylie, A. (1989a). Archaeological cables and tacking: The implications of practice for Bernstein's “Options beyond objectivism and realism.”Philosophy of Social Science 19: 1–8. · DOI
  88. Wylie, A. (1989b). Matters of fact and matters of interest. In Shennan, S. J. (ed.),Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 94–109.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 39

Metadata

Authors
Tschauner, H.
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1996-03
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
1-30
ISSN
  • 1072-5369
  • 1573-7764
DOI
10.1007/bf02228929
Cited by
39
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review