A Classical Archaeologist's Response to the "New Archaeology"
S. Dyson
Jan 21, 1981
Citations
11
Citations
Journal
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Full text
Semantic Scholar
Key Takeaway Key Takeaway: Binfords and Deetz were viewed as a threat by the American Journal of Archaeology, despite their support for the "new archaeology."
Abstract
Sabloff's paper from the perspective of a classical archaeologist reacting to the "new archaeology," I fantasized about a proper time and space frame. The image of a telephone booth came to mind. You could probably fit most of the classical archaeologists really interested in the "new archaeology" into a booth without challenging the Guinness book of records, and talk about past interaction between the two groups could easily be accommodated within the length of a ten-cent call. Out of fear that I had not done my colleagues justice and, I admit, with a certain morbid curiosity, I decided to survey the book reviews in the American Journal of Archaeology for the time period during which what might be broadly and loosely called the "new archaeologists"-such as the Binfords, David Clarke, Kent Flannery, James Deetz, and various fellow-travelers-had put forth their thoughts in print to see how they had been received, if at all, by the venerable journal of the classical archaeology profession. Somewhat to my surprise, during the first years of the movement a number of the classics such as