Abstract
In their comments, Bleed and Roper acknowledge the profound effects routine research practices have had on the conceptual development of Plains archaeology, though both disagree with aspects of my analysis. Bleed disputes my characterization of current theory in Plains archaeology but fails to appreciate the extent to which Plains archaeology continues to emphasize culture historical research. Bleed further argues that there are few connections between the research practices established by the Missouri Basin Project (MBP) and those of more recent Plains archaeologists. However, such a stance discounts the powerful influence of construct paradigms or exemplars on the development of method and theory. Roper provides valuable insights into the role played by direct historic analogy in the development of theory in Plains archaeology. However, her analysis glosses over the fact that all aspects of archaeological research are informed by theoretical propositions, whether explicitly stated or merely assumed.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Museology,Archeology,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),History
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献