04-20-2004, 07:06 AM
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Marvin Harris is kinda past tense now in the US. Harris was a response to the old school archaeologist "If we don't know it is... it's a religious artifact". Harris argued all things are ultimately materialistic, and any cultural mythology was developed to shine on the blue-collar folks. Plain and simple.<hr><br>
<br>
Decius,<br>
<br>
The book I mentioned is just a general introductory textbook, and as such it’s very broad (treating the different branches of anthropology, for instance) and it's still in print - now in it’s umpteenth edition. So I suppose (I could be wrong) it’s still used in that capacity.<br>
As for his relatively simple materialism, I noticed that long ago (and is not as prominent in the book I mentioned). It’s basically a further development / elaboration of elements of Marxist thought. I enjoyed Harris’ popular books, but even I recognised the relatively crude materialism in it. My favourite was the explanation of the ritual cannibalism of the Aztecs.<br>
But anyway, I thought Binford’s ideas were mentioned in Harris’ book. I have to look it up, though.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Binford argued all artifacts found in a dispositional or cultural context functioned at one time within the system of that culture. The occurrence is in a meaningful pattern that has a systematic relationship with the economy, social structure and ideology within their use. <hr><br>
<br>
I’m talking here as somebody with a history background with a slowly evolving interest in, and knowledge of, archaeology and anthropology. But I think the answer to your question is “yesâ€ÂÂ
<br>
Decius,<br>
<br>
The book I mentioned is just a general introductory textbook, and as such it’s very broad (treating the different branches of anthropology, for instance) and it's still in print - now in it’s umpteenth edition. So I suppose (I could be wrong) it’s still used in that capacity.<br>
As for his relatively simple materialism, I noticed that long ago (and is not as prominent in the book I mentioned). It’s basically a further development / elaboration of elements of Marxist thought. I enjoyed Harris’ popular books, but even I recognised the relatively crude materialism in it. My favourite was the explanation of the ritual cannibalism of the Aztecs.<br>
But anyway, I thought Binford’s ideas were mentioned in Harris’ book. I have to look it up, though.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Binford argued all artifacts found in a dispositional or cultural context functioned at one time within the system of that culture. The occurrence is in a meaningful pattern that has a systematic relationship with the economy, social structure and ideology within their use. <hr><br>
<br>
I’m talking here as somebody with a history background with a slowly evolving interest in, and knowledge of, archaeology and anthropology. But I think the answer to your question is “yesâ€ÂÂ
Andreas Baede
