Talk:Processual archaeology

Missing References
Somebody has pasted in sections of what looks like a third year essay on processualism, which is fine, but they've left out the References Cited section. Can this be added in? Otherwise I'll edit/re-write to remove them. Rattus 14:51 Jun 9 2005 UTC

Grammatical errors
The third paragraph has a few grammatical errors; the writing mentions "he" but there is no single person mentioned before that. Another sentence in the same paragraph does not make sense either. The words seem mixed up: "...since him has been..." This paragraph needs to be revised.

Removal of part of article
I have removed this part of the article, as it makes very little sense:


 * In other words, what he saw as his main goal as an archaeologist, and what the main goal of Processual archaeologists since him has been, is to get back to the people at the genesis of the artifacts. Through scientific studies of the archaeological record Processual archaeologists attempted to do this for some years. 

--Grumpy444grumpy 17:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Various Problems
"....Willey and Phillips' work, Method and Theory in American Archeology in which the pair stated that "American archeology is anthropology or it is nothing" (Willey and Phillips, 1958:2)."

The above attribution of this quote I believe is in error. I think it was Binford who said this, and generally he is recognized as the founder of "the New Archaeology" and therefore processualism. However, I will check on this.SheldonLB

-Nope. The citation is correct. Binford said something very similar elsewhere, though. Maybe he was just repeating them, but the phrase was coined by Phillips in 1955. 89.124.164.6 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement about "the Culture-Historical phase"
The intruction reads:
 * "...the Culture-Historical phase in which archaeologists thought that any information which artifacts contained about past people and past ways of life was lost once the items became included in the archaeological record"

What does that mean? Denispir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

It means that the author has swallowed the New Archaeology line that there was no interpretation before them. Indeed this first paragraph as a whole perpetuates the deliberate misrepresentation of previous work by New Archaeologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by European Prehistorian (talk • contribs) 12:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)