Interregional Interaction in Prehistory: The Need for a New Perspective

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Recent archaeological efforts to model processes of intersocietal interaction have been hampered by a dearth of conceptual tools suitable to these analyses. In particular, there is a need for a theoretical structure that shifts concern from our traditional focus on spatially distinct cultures and their relations to the physical environment. Without such a shift, questions of intersocietal contact cannot be addressed successfully. This article suggests that the concept of social identity has a role to play in this reorientation. The use of social identity focuses attention directly on intersocietal interactions by encouraging us to ask such questions as who is interacting with whom, under what conditions, and what are the effects of the contact on local social change? This paper defines social identity, provides examples suggesting its utility in archaeological research, and considers the specific questions raised by the application of social identity to archaeological materials.

Related collections

Most cited references 21

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Archaeology as Anthropology

Lewis Binford (1962)

It is argued that archaeology has made few contributions to the general field of anthropology with regard to explaining cultural similarities and differences. One major factor contributing to this lack is asserted to be the tendency to treat artifacts as equal and comparable traits which can be explained within a single model of culture change and modification. It is suggested that “material culture” can and does represent the structure of the total cultural system, and that explanations of differences and similarities between certain classes of material culture are inappropriate and inadequate as explanations for such observations within other classes of items. Similarly, change in the total cultural system must be viewed in an adaptive context both social and environmental, not whimsically viewed as the result of “influences,” “stimuli,” or even “migrations” between and among geographically defined units.

0 comments Cited 163 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process

Lewis Binford (1965)

It is argued that the normative theory of culture, widely held among archaeologists, is inadequate for the generation of fruitful explanatory hypotheses of cultural process. One obvious shortcoming of this theoretical position has been the development of archaeological systematics that have obviated any possibility of measuring multivariate phenomena and permit only the measurement of unspecified “cultural differences and similarities,” as if these were univariate phenomena. As an alternative to this approach, it is proposed that culture be viewed as a system composed of subsystems, and it is suggested that differences and similarities between different classes of archaeological remains reflect different subsystems and hence may be expected to vary independently of each other in the normal operation of the system or during change in the system. A general discussion of ceramic classification and the classification of differences and similarities between assemblages is presented as an example of the multivariate approach to the study of cultural variability. It is suggested that a multivariate approach in systematics will encourage the study of cultural variability and its causes and thereby enhance the study of culture process.