An Interpretation of the Prehistory of the Eastern United States

Ford, James A.; Willey, Gordon R.

doi:10.1525/aa.1941.43.3.02a00010

Cited by 79 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, when we find that most settlements of a particular period are situated on hilltops and are often surrounded by fortification walls, such as those that occur in the southeastern United States (Ford and Willey 1941) or in the RivnbE culture of Bohemia (Ehrich, 1956b;MaSek, 1961), we have a legitimate reason for suspecting that the period may have been an unsettled one, particularly if additional archeological evidence suggests that other peoples with different cultures were in the area at the same time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

Further Reflections on Archeological Interpretation¹

Ehrich

1963

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HIS paper is a somewhat expanded version of an attempt to explain to T European colleagues some of the elements of anthropological method and theory that underlie and condition the thinking of American anthropologists. In its original form (Ehrich 1961) it appeared as a contribution to the issue of PamLtky ArcheologickC honoring the late Dr. Jaroslav Bohm, the Director of the Archaeological Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. Since Dr. Bohm was not only interested in methodological problems but had also contributed to the field (Bohm 1953;1961), this seemed an appropriate topic.I n the United States, archeology forms one of the subdivisions of that larger discipline which we call Cultural Anthropology, and the overwhelming majority of archeologists trained here today, with the exception of most Classical archeologists, Egyptologists, Medievalists, and a few other specialists, receive a thorough grounding in this subject.It thus becomes necessary to restate, in broad terms, the content of anthropology in the British and American sense, and the position of archeology within it (Ehrich 1950;1958a;1958b) before we explore the theoretical and methodological implications of this relationship in greater detail. Our summary definition of anthropology, then, is that it is the comparative study of man and his works. This of itself divides the subject into two major parts: Physical Anthropology, or man viewed as a biological organism in the meaning attached to the simple term anthropology in other European languages; and Cultural Anthropology, which comprises ethnology and archeology.If we accept "the comparative study of peoples and cultures'' as a valid description of ethnology, we can then subdivide it further into its two major orientations which respectively have historical and nonhistorical objectives. The goals of historical ethnology are to reconstruct the actual history of cultural development both in general and in particular instances and to gain an understanding of the laws and processes which may be involved. The nonhistorical schools of ethnology, on the other hand, are much more concerned with the actual functioning of individual cultures, the interrelationship of their parts, the differential effects of people on their own ways of life, and the effects that particular cultural outlooks and practices have on the development of people within a given society. The information for these nonhistorically oriented studies normally derives from the discipline of ethnography, which entails the detailed analysis of individual cultures. Although the ethnographer primarily describes directly observable phenomena or attitudes via informants, he is interested in current cultural processes, while analysis of multiple ethno-16

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 79%

Further Reflections on Archeological Interpretation¹

Ehrich

1963

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many of these original conceptualizations remain the basis upon which our current chronologies are structured (e.g. Ford and Willey 1941;Griffin 1952;Chapman 1952Chapman ,1980. J.…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cultural Resources Survey of Castor River Item Number 2, Parcel 1, Channel Clearing and Cleanout Stoddard County, Missouri.

H.¹,

Oates²

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Many of these original conceptualizations remain the basis upon which our current chronologies are structured (e.g. Ford and Willey 1941;Griffin 1952;Chapman 1952Chapman , 1980.…”

Section: Archeol0gical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%