Skip to main content

Status and role of formation theory in contemporary archaeological practice

Abstract

Since Binford appropriated the term “middle-range theory,” it has signified the process of reasoning from the extant material record to the cultural past. Merton's sociological concept of middle-range theory is relevant to archaeology, but does not mean what Binford denoted by it. More accurately, Binford's domain should be called “formation theory.” By whatever name used, archaeologists differ greatly in our views of its role and status. Somehow, formation theory has come to be viewed as method but not theory, and as intrinsic to materialism, but irrelevant if not antithetical to other ontologies. Yet it is as critical to the contextual understanding of the past sought by many archaeologists today—a role that, among others, belies formation theory's marginal status in academic practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References Cited

  • Bailey, G. N. (1983). Concepts of time in Quaternary prehistory.Annual Review of Anthropology 12: 165–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J. A. (1994).Reconstructing Prehistory: Scientific Method in Archaeology, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L. (1991).Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeology and Evolution, Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1977). General introduction. In Binford, L. (ed.),For Theory Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Modeling, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1980). Willow smoke and dogs' tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation.American Antiquity 45: 4–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1981a).Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1981b). Behavioral archaeology and the “Pompeii premise.”Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 195–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1982). Meaning, inference and the material record. In Renfrew, C., and Shennan, S. (eds.),Ranking, Resource and Exchange, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 160–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1983).Working at Archaeology, Academic Press, Orlando.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, S. R., and Binford, L. R. (1968). Archeological theory and method. In Binford, S., and Binford, L. (eds.),New Perspectives in Archeology, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blitz, J. H. (1993).Ancient Chiefdoms of the Tombigbee, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenschine, R. J., Cavallo, J. A., and Capaldo, S. D. (1994). Competition for carcasses and early hominid behavioral ecology: A case study and conceptual framework.Journal of Human Evolution 27: 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, R. (1993). Archaeology: The loss of nerve. In Yoffee, N., and Sherratt, A. (eds.),Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 131–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D. P. (1995). Style, selection, and historicity. In Carr, C., and Neitzel, J. (eds.),Style, Society, and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 123–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. G. (1995). Beyond stone-age economics: A strategy for a contextual lithic analysis. In Schofield, A. J. (ed.),Lithics in Context Suggestions for the Future Direction of Lithic Studies, Lithic Studies Society, London, pp. 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. (1973) Archaeology: The loss of innocence.Antiquity 47: 6–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowgill, G. L. (1970) Some sampling and reliability problems in archaeology. In Gardin, J.-C. (ed.),Archéologie et calculateurs: problèmes semiologiques et mathématiques, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp. 161–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowgill, G. L. (1993) Distinguished lecture in archeology: Beyond criticizing New Archeology.American Anthropologist 95: 551–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1966).Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1992). Is a scientific archaeology possible? In Embree, L. (ed.),Metaarchaeology: Reflections by Archaeologists and Philosophers, Kluwer Academic, Amsterdam, pp. 75–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggert, M. K. (1982). Comment I: On form and content. In Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M., and Segraves B. (eds.),Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 139–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, D. (1988). Characterizing change in prehistoric sequences: A view from Australia.Archaeology in Oceania 23: 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, J. M. (1972). Archaeological systems for indirect observation of the past. In Leone, M. (ed.),Contemporary Archaeology: A Guide to Theory and Contributions, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 135–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, A. C., Raab, L. M., and Klinger, T. C. (1978). The status of archaeological research design in cultural resource management.American Antiquity 43: 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1965). Is uniformitarianism necessary?American Journal of Science 263: 223–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, D. K. (1986). Eoliths, archaeological ambiguity, and the generation of “middle-range” research. In Meltzer, D., Fowler, D., and Sabloff, J. (eds.),American Archaeology Past and Future: A Celebration of the Society for American Archaeology 1935–1985, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 77–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, C. F. (1954). Archeological theory and method: Some suggestions from the Old World.American Anthropologist 56: 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. D. (1995).Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: A Study on the Formation of a Specific Archaeological Record, BAR British Series, No. 242, Oxford.

  • Hodder, I. (1982).Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, I. (1986).Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, I. (1991). Postprocessual archaeology and the current debate. In Preucel, R. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Occasional Paper, No 10, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (1992). Foraging for data, camping with theories: Hunter-gatherers and nomadic pastoralists in archaeology and anthropology.Antiquity 66: 790–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ives, J. W. (1990).A Theory of Northern Athapaskan Prehistory, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, J. H., and Hanen, M. P. (1988).Archaeology and the Methodology of Science, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitts, D. B. (1992). The conditions for a nomothetic paleontology. In Nitecki, M., and Nitecki, D. (eds.),History and Evolution, State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 131–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosso, P. (1991). Method in archaeology: Middle-range theory as hermeneutics.American Antiquity 56: 621–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leone, M. P., and Crosby, C. A. (1987). Epilogue: Middle-range theory in historical archaeology. In Spencer-Wood, S. (ed.),Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 397–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lightfoot, R. R. (1994).The Duckfoot Site, Volume 2. Archaeology of the House and Household, Occasional Paper, No. 4, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrer, M. W. (1995).Cahokia's Countryside: Household Archaeology, Settlement Patterns, and Social Power, Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1938).Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England, St. Catherine Press, Bruges, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1948). Discussion.American Sociological Review 13: 164–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1957).Social Theory and Social Structure, 2nd ed., Free Press, Glencoe, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1967).On Theoretical Sociology: Five Essays, Old and New, Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, B. J. (1994). Community dynamics and archaeological dynamics: Some considerations of middle-range theory. In Wills, W., and Leonard, R. (eds.),The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (1959).The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. A., and Keene, A. S. (1983). Archaeology and the law of the hammer. In Moore, J., and Keene, A. (eds.),Archaeological Hammers and Theories. Academic Press, New York, pp. 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. A., Kohler, T. A., and Kintigh, K. W. (1994). Demographic alternatives: Consequences for current models of Southwestern prehistory. In Gumerman, G., and Gell-Mann, M. (eds.),Understanding Complexity in the Prehistoric Southwest, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, pp. 113–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, M. J., Holland, T. D., Hoard, R. J., and Fox, G. L. (1994). Evolutionary implications of design and performance characteristics of prehistoric pottery.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 259–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Connell, J. F. (1995). Ethnoarchaeology needs a general theory of behavior.Journal of Archaeological Research 3: 205–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1948). The position of sociological theory.American Sociological Review 13: 156–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peebles, C. S. (1992). Rooting out latent behaviorism in prehistory. In Gardin, J. C., and Peebles, C. (eds.),Representations in Archaeology, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 357–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raab, L. M., and Goodyear, A. C. (1984). Middle-range theory in archaeology: A critical review of origins and applications.American Antiquity 49: 255–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabloff, J. A. (1992). Interpreting the collapse of classic Maya civilization: A case study of changing archaeological perspectives. In Embree, L. (ed.),Metaarchaeology: Reflections by Archaeologists and Philosophers, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 99–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabloff, J. A., Binford, L. R., and McAnany, P. A. (1987). Understanding the archaeological record.Antiquity 61: 203–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saitta, D. J. (1992). Radical archaeology and middle-range methodology.Antiquity 66: 886–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, M. (1982).Philosophy and Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, M. B. (1976).Behavioral Archeology, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, M. B. (1979). A preliminary consideration of behavioral change. In Renfrew, C., and Cooke, K. (eds.),Transformations: Mathematical Approaches to Culture Change, Academic Press, New York, pp. 353–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, M. B. (1985). Is there a “Pompeii premise” in archaeology?Journal of Anthropological Research 41: 18–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, M. B. (1987).Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, M. B. (1988). The structure of archaeological theory.American Antiquity 53: 461–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (1993). On recent trends in the anthropology of foragers: Kalahari revisionism and its archaeological implications.Man (n.s.) 27: 843–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (1996a). An exegesis of the curation concept.Journal of Anthropological Research 52: 259–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (1996b). Mortal pots: On use life and vessel size in the formation of ceramic assemblages.American Antiquity 61: 463–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (1998). Crises in forager studies, ethnographic and archeological.Reviews in Anthropology 18 (in press).

  • Stern, N. (1994). The implications of time-averaging for reconstructing the land-use patterns of early tool-using hominids.Journal of Human Evolution 27: 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, W. W. (1948).A Study of Archeology, Memoir, No. 69, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. H. (1986). Contemporary hunter-gatherer archaeology in America. In Meltzer, D., Fowler, D., and Sabloff, J. (eds.),American Archaeology Past and Future: A Celebration of the Society for American Archaeology 1935–1985, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 237–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigger, B. G. (1989).A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge. University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigger, B. G. (1995). Expanding middle-range theory.Antiquity 69: 449–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschauner, H. (1996). Middle-range theory, behavioral archaeology, and postempiricist philosophy of science in archaeology.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. H. (1986)The Structure of Sociological Theory, 4th ed., Dorsey Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varien, M. D., and Potter, J. M. (1997). Unpacking the discard equation: Simulating the accumulation of artifacts in the archaeological record.American Antiquity 62: 194–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1958).The Protestant Ethic and the Spirti of Capitalism, Scribner's, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wobst, H. M. (1990). Commentary: A socio-politics of sociopolitics in archaeology. In Pinsky, V., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 136–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1989). Matters of fact and matters of interest. In Shennan, S. (ed.),Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 94–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (1995). An expanded behavioral archaeology: Transformation and redefinition. In Skibo, J., Walker, W., and Nielsen, A. (eds.),Expanding Archaeology, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 198–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yellen, J. E. (1989). The present and the future of hunter-gatherer studies. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. (ed.),Archaeological Thought in America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

Bibliography of Recent Literature

  • Aldenderfer, M. (1977).The Computer Simulation of Assemblage Formation Processes: The Evaluation of Multivariate Statistical Methods in Archaeological Research, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology Pennsylvania State University, State College.

  • Ammerman, A. J., and Feldman, M. (1974). On the “making” of an assemblage of stone tools.American Antiquity 39: 610–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, M. J., and Cool, H. E. (1994).Notes on Some Statistical Aspects of Pottery Quantification, Research Report 15/94, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Operational Research, Nottingham Trent University.

  • Bettinger, R. L. (1987). Archaeological approaches to hunter-gatherers.Annual Review of Anthropology 16: 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1983).In Pursuit of the Past, Thames and Hudson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, J. E., and Owens, D. D. (1997). A method for measuring relative abundance of fragmented archaeological ceramics.Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 315–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, C. M., and Tomka, S. A. (eds.) (1993).The Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childress, M. (1992). Mortuary vessels and comparative ceramic analysis: An example from the Chucalissa site.Southeastern Archaeology 11: 31–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cool, H. E., and Baxter, M. J. (1996).Quantifying Glass Assemblages, Research Report 5/96, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Operational Research, Nottingham Trent University.

  • Cordell, L. S., and Upham, S. (1989) Culture and cultural behavior: One more time, please.American Antiquity 54: 815–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordell, L. S., Upham, S., and Brock, S. L. (1987). Obscuring cultural patterns in the archaeological record: A discussion from Southwestern archaeology.American Antiquity 52: 565–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowgill, G. L. (1989). The concept of diversity in archaeological theory. In Leonard, R., and Jones, G. (eds.),Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 131–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, W. R. (1983). The archaeological record as preserved death assemblage. In Moore, J., and Keene, A. (eds.),Archaeological Hammers and Theories, Academic Press, New York, pp. 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, W. R., and Lathrap, D. (1979). The making and breaking of Shipibo-Conibo ceramics. In Kramer, C. (ed.),Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 102–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depew, D. J., and Weber, B. H. (1995).Darwinisn Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H., and Rolland, N. (1992). On assemblage variability in the middle paleolithic of western Europe: History, perspectives and a new synthesis. In Dibble, H., and Mellars, P. (eds.),The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability, University Museum Press, Philadelphia, pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1992). The notion site. In Rossignol, J., and Wandsnider, L. (eds.),Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1992). Archaeology and evolutionary science. In Wandsnider, L. (ed.),Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology's Future, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 209–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert, J. I. (1992).Distributional Archaeology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embree, L. (1987). Archaeology: The most basic science of all.Antiquity 61: 75–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, C. (1986).The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, P., Nash, D. T., and Petraglia, M. D. (1993).Formation Processes in Archaeological Context, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, B., and Cannon, A. (1983). Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya highlands.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 117–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keegan, W. F. (1991). Culture processes and culture realities. In Preucel, R. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Occasional Paper, No. 10, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 183–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, S. M., and Bosence, D. W. (1991). Taphonomy and time-averaging of marine shelly faunas. In Allison, P., and Briggs, D. (eds.),Taphonomy: Releasing the Data Locked in the Fossil Record, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 115–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristiansen, K. (1985). The place of chronological studies in archaeology: A view from the Old World.Oxford Journal of Archaeology 4: 251–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristiansen, K. (ed.) (1985).Archaeological Formation Processes: The Representativity of Archaeological Remains from Danish Prehistory, Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockyear, K. (1993). Coin hoard formation revisited. In Andresen, J., Madsen, T., and Scollar, I. (eds.),Computing the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, Denmark, pp. 367–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, B. J. (1989). Integrating functional analysis of vessels and sherds through models of ceramic assemblage formation.World Archaeology 221: 133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Needham, S., and Spence, T. (1997). Refuse and the formation of middens.Antiquity 71: 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oetelaar, G., (1993). Identifying site structure in the archaeological record: An Illinois Mississippian example.American Antiquity 58: 662–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orton, C. R. (1993). How many pots make five? An historical review of pottery quantification.Archaeometry 35: 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauketat, T. R. (1989). Monitoring Mississippian homestead occupation span and economy using ceramic refuse.American Antiquity 54: 288–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, J. (1995). Inscribing space: Formal deposition at the later Neolithic monument of Woodhenge, Wiltshire.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61: 137–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, P. B. (1992). Middle-range theory, ceramics, and capitalism in 19th-Century Rockbridge County, Virginia. In Little, B. (ed.),Text-Aided Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyszczyk, H. (1984). Site occupation span as a factor in artifact assemblage variability and frequency. In Burley, D. (ed.),Archaeology in Alberta 1983, Occasional Paper, No. 23, Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton, pp. 60–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J., Schiffer, N., Whittlesey, S., Hinkes, M., Sullivan, A., Downum, C., Longacre, W., and Tuggle, H. (1989). Perception and interpretation in contemporary Southwestern archaeology: Comments on Cordell, Upham, and Brock.American Antiquity 54: 802–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlanger, S. H. (1990). Artifact assemblage composition and site occupation Duration. In Minnis, P., and Redman, C. (eds.),Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, Westview, Boulder, CO, pp. 103–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (1989). Diversity, organization, and behavior in the material record: Ethnographic and archaeological examples.Current Anthropology 30: 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (1989). On tool class use lives and the formation of archaeological assemblages.American Antiquity 54: 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skibo, J. M., Walker, W. H., and Nielsen, A. E. (eds.) (1995).Expanding Archaeology, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steponaitis, V. P., and Kintigh, K. W. (1993). Estimating site occupation spans from dated artiface types: Some new approaches. In Stoltman, J. (ed.),Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, Archaeological Report, No. 25, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, pp. 349–361.

  • Stern, N. (1993). The structure of the Lower Pleistocene archaeological record: A case study from the Koobi Fora Formation.Current Anthropology 34: 201–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, M. G. (1982). Toward an understanding of site abandonment behavior: Evidence from historic mining camps in the southwest Yukon.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 237–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varien, M. D., and Mills, B. J., (1997). Accumulations research: Problems and prospects for estimating site occupation span.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 141–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villa, P. (1983).Terra Amata and the Middle Pleistocene Archaeological Record of Southern France, University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandsnider, L. (1989).Long-Term Land Use, Formation Processes, and the Structure of the Archaeological Landscape: A Case Study from Southwestern Wyoming, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R. A. (1990). Ozymandias, king of kings: Postprocessual radical archaeology as critique.American Antiquity 55: 673–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Western, D. (1980). Linking the ecology of past and present mammal communities. In Behrensmeyer, A., and Hill, A. (eds.),Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willey, G. R., and Sabloff, J. A. (1980).A History of American Archaeology, 2nd ed., Freeman, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shott, M.J. Status and role of formation theory in contemporary archaeological practice. J Archaeol Res 6, 299–329 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02446082

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02446082

Key Words