The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential
Abstract
The explanations of burial customs provided by previous anthropologists are examined at length together with the assumptions and data orientations that lay behind them. Both the assumptions and explanations are shown to be inadequate from the point of view of systems theory and from a detailed examination of the empirical record. A cross-cultural survey drawn from the Human Relations Area Files shows that associations do exist between measures of mortuary ritual variety and structural complexity. It was found that both the number and specific forms of the dimensions of the social persona commonly recognized in mortuary ritual vary significantly with the organizational complexity of the society as measured by different forms of subsistence practice. Moreover, the forms that differentiations in mortuary ritual take vary significantly with the dimensions of the social persona symbolized. Hence, much of contemporary archaeological conjecture and interpretation regarding processes of cultural change, cultural differentiation, and the presence of specific burial customs is inadequate as well as the ideational propositions and assumptions underlying these notions. Inferences about the presumed “relationships” compared directly from trait lists obtaining among archaeological manifestations are useless without knowledge of the organizational properties of the pertinent cultural systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
van Gennep, A. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315017594 · Cited by 4,032
The Elementary Forms of Religious Life
Durkheim, E., & Swain, J. W. (1916) · The American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.2307/3405938 · Cited by 3,400
Language, Thought, and Reality.
Halpern, A. M., Whorf, B. L., Carroll, J. B., & Chase, S. (1956) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089121 · Cited by 2,856
(1952) · Cited by 2,024
Magic, Science, and Religion and Other Essays.
Rawls, J., Malinowski, B., & Redfield, R. (1948) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2181808 · Cited by 1,031
Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays
Kaberry, P. M. (1948) · International Affairs · doi:10.2307/3017623 · Cited by 928
Opler, M. K., Malinowski, B., & Redfield, R. (1949) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.2307/2104095 · Cited by 675
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1933) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 569
Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process
Binford, L. R. (1965) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/2693985 · Cited by 535
Self-citationHertz, R. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315017600 · Cited by 421
Cited by
Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology
Hodder, I., & Hutson, S. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814211 · Cited by 846
Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study
Trigger, B. G. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840630 · Cited by 627
Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments
Vanhaeren, M., & d'Errico, F. (2006) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2005.11.017 · Cited by 416
Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology
Wylie, A. (2002) · doi:10.1525/9780520935402 · Cited by 353
The Surplus Theory of Social Stratification and the Size Distribution of Personal Wealth
Angle, J. (1986) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/65.2.293 · Cited by 262
Metadata
- Authors
- Binford, L. R.
- Venue
- Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1971-07
- Volume
- 25
- Pages
- 6-29
- ISSN
- 0081-1300 (ISSN-L)
- 2330-2275
- OpenAlex
- W2465619321
- Cited by
- 768
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 4.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0081130000002525
- The paper
- Binford, L. R. (1971). Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0081130000002525
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.