are. Evolution also unites in a single framework the historical and functional approaches, the antipathy of which has structured the history of anthropology for a century. Finally, it does, on the model of ecology and evolutionary biology, provide a legitimate vehicle for reuniting anthropology and archaeology.

A second strand in the modern mix also represents a continuing commitment to science but one that is effected not by changing archaeology but by retreating into the other natural sciences. This is the pedology, geology, zoology, botany, and mechanics of archaeological materials. The subject is archaeology, but the theory (and most often the questions being asked of the archaeological materials) derives from the parent science, often the science in archaeology rather than the science of archaeology.

The variants comprising the third suite of variants are often grouped as “postprocessualist,” but they come in as many stripes as those in the second group, if not more. What unites them is the rejection of the science goal and the implied epistemological standards. Although most of the seminal works in this vein are European (e.g., Hodder 1982; Shanks and Tilley 1987), there is homegrown precedent as well (e.g., Leone 1982) in which the historically close ties with anthropology have tended to export the intellectual crisis of anthropology (and the social sciences as a whole) to archaeology. Nonetheless, there are many attractive features of such approaches to archaeology, not the least of which is the lack of any data requirements. Such tacks can be applied to virtually any “data,” in contrast to the rather expensive and demanding data requirements of the other two approaches. Further, postprocessualist programs are compatible with just about any other view or interest in the archaeological record (witness the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act). And with much lower costs of doing archaeology, the demand for a product—the bugaboo of all the previous paradigms—is lessened in significance. Whatever else one might want to conclude, one is forced to own up to the realization that unless something happens soon, archaeology is about to run out of time because it will run out of resources. What we believe about archaeology does make a difference.

Robert C. Dunnell

References

Atwater, Caleb. 1820. “Description of the Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio and Other Western States.” Archaeologica Americana 1: 105–267.

———. 1833. The Writings of Caleb Atwater. Columbus: OH: Author, printed by Scott and Wright

Bartram, William. 1791. Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, the Extensive Territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy and the County of the Choctaws. Philadelphia: James and Johnson.

Binford, Lewis R. 1962. “Archaeology as Anthropology.” American Antiquity 28: 217–225.

———. 1964. “A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design.” American Antiquity 29: 425–441.

———. 1965. “Archaeological Systematics and Study of Cultural Process.” American Antiquity 31: 203–210.

———. 1966. “Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning.” American Antiquity 32: 1–13.

———. 1968a. “Archeological Perspectives.” In New Perspectives in Archeology, 5–33. Ed. S.R. Binford and L.R. Binford. Chicago: Aldine.

———. 1968b. “Some Comments on Historical versus Processual Archaeology.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24: 267–275.

Brakenridge, Henry M. 1848. “On the Population and Tumuli of the Aborigines of North America (in a letter from H.H. Brakenridge, Esq., to Thomas Jefferson [1811]).” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 1: 151–159.

Childe, V. Gordon. 1936. Man Makes Himself. London: Watts.

Cowgill, George C. 1972. “Models, Methods and Techniques for Seriation.” In Models in Archaeology, 381–424. Ed. D.L. Clarke. London: Methuen.

Dall, William H. 1877. “On Succession in the Shell-heaps of the Aleutian Islands.” Contributions to North American Ethnology 1: 41–91.

Daniel, Glyn E. 1950. A Hundred Years of Archaeology. London: Duckworth.

———. 1963. The Idea of Prehistory. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing.

———. 1975. A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.