Archaeologists And Anthropologists Codexery

Lewis Binford

American archaeologist who introduced processual archaeology.

Lewis Binford

Lewis Roberts Binford (November 21, 1931 – April 11, 2011) was an American archaeologist whose work reshaped archaeological theory, ethnoarchaeology, and the study of Paleolithic remains. He is often ranked among the most significant archaeologists of the late 20th century, largely because he introduced processual archaeology—also called the "New Archaeology"—in the 1960s, which fundamentally altered the field. A prolific writer, Binford had an extraordinary impact on ideas, methods, and behavioral research around the world, and his influence persists today. Yet his legacy stirred controversy: in the late 1980s and 1990s, theoretical work in archaeology often positioned itself either in opposition to or in support of the processual paradigm he championed. Recent assessments remain divided—some credit him primarily for his innovative ideas and approaches, while others note that his methods owed more to earlier work from the 1940s and 1950s than he acknowledged.

Binford was born in Norfolk, Virginia, on November 21, 1931. As a child, he was fascinated by animals. After graduating from Matthew Fontaine Maury High School, he studied wildlife biology at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Previously an average student, he excelled in college and considered a career in biology until a professor suggested he could be the first to study "a few species of blind cave salamanders"—a remark that turned him off the idea. His interest in anthropology and archaeology began during military service. After graduating, he was drafted as an interpreter and assigned to a group of anthropologists resettling people on Pacific islands occupied by the United States after World War II. He also helped recover archaeological material from tombs on Okinawa that were being cleared for a military base. Despite having no formal training, Binford excavated and identified artifacts, which were used to restock the destroyed museum in Shuri.

After leaving the military, Binford studied anthropology at the University of North Carolina (UNC). His military subsidy wasn't enough to cover costs, so he used construction skills learned from his carpenter father to start a small contracting business. He earned a second BA at UNC and, in 1957, transferred to the University of Michigan for a combined MA and PhD. His thesis used ethnohistorical and archaeological data to examine the dynamic interaction between Native Americans and early English colonists in Virginia, including the Powhatan (Wahunsonacook) Confederacy—a topic that had interested him since his time at UNC.

Binford first grew dissatisfied with archaeology as an undergraduate at UNC. He felt culture history reflected the same "stamp collecting" mentality that had driven him away from biology. At Michigan, he noticed a sharp contrast between the "excitement" of the anthropology department's cultural anthropologists (including Leslie White) and the "people in white coats counting their potsherds" in the Museum of Anthropology. His first academic job was as an assistant professor at the University of Chicago, where he taught New World archaeology and statistical methods. Shortly after arriving, he wrote his first major article, *Archaeology as Anthropology* (1962), spurred by methodological problems that radiocarbon dating had exposed—namely, its ability to verify dates and cultural typologies previously based on relative dating techniques like seriation. Binford criticized the tendency to treat artifacts as undifferentiated traits and to explain variation only through cultural diffusion. He argued that archaeology's goal was identical to anthropology's: to "explicate and explain the total range of physical and cultural similarities and differences characteristic of the entire spatio-temporal span of man's existence." This would be done by linking artifacts to human behavior, and behavior to cultural systems, as understood by his mentor Leslie White.

Several other Chicago archaeologists shared Binford's views, and critics began calling them the "New Archaeologists." In 1966, they presented papers at a Society for American Archaeology meeting, later collected in the landmark volume *New Perspectives in Archaeology* (1968), edited by Binford and his then-wife Sally, also an archaeologist. By the time the book appeared, Binford had left Chicago—dismissed, he said, due to growing tension with senior faculty, especially Robert Braidwood. He spent a year at the University of California, Santa Barbara, then moved to UCLA. Disliking the large faculty atmosphere there, he relocated to the University of New Mexico in 1969.

Binford stepped back from the theoretical debates that followed the rapid adoption of New Archaeology (also called processual archaeology) in the 1960s and 1970s, focusing instead on the Mousterian, a Middle Palaeolithic lithic industry found in Europe, North Africa, and the Near East. Interested in how human behavior could be inferred from archaeological patterns, he began ethnoarchaeological fieldwork among the Nunamiut in Alaska. He chose this group because their periglacial environment resembled that of Mousterian humans during the Pleistocene. The goal was to observe firsthand how hunter-gatherer behavior is reflected in material remains and to build a framework for interpreting the past.

born
November 21, 1931, Norfolk, Virginia
died
April 11, 2011, Kirksville, Missouri
field
Archaeology
nationality
American
known_for
Processual archaeology (New Archaeology), ethnoarchaeology, Paleolithic archaeol

Verified Timeline

193119571962196619681969199120012011

Lore & Background

Binford was born in Norfolk, Virginia, on November 21, 1931. As a child he was interested in animals, and after finishing high school at Matthew Fontaine Maury High School studied wildlife biology at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Previously a mediocre student, Binford excelled in college and considered pursuing an academic career in biology. It was during his time in the military that Binford first became interested in anthropology and archaeology. After graduating he served in the U.S. Army as a paratrooper and medical corpsman. After leaving the military Binford went to study anthropology at the University of North Carolina (UNC). The military subsidy he received was not enough to fund his study completely, so Binford used the skills in construction he learned from his father (a carpenter) to start a modest contracting business. He gained a second BA at UNC and then transferred to the University of Michigan, earning both his MA in 1957 and his PhD in 1964 from the University of Michigan. His MA thesis was titled 'Archaeology as Anthropology', a subject he became interested in while still at UNC.

Reader's Guide

Binford is mainly known for his contributions to archaeological theory and his promotion of ethnoarchaeological research. As a leading advocate of the "New Archaeology" movement of the 1960s, he proposed a number of ideas that became central to processual archaeology. Binford and other New Archaeologists argued that there should be a greater application of scientific methodologies and the hypothetico-deductive method in archaeology. He placed a strong emphasis on generalities and how human beings interact with their ecological niche, defining culture as the extrasomatic means of adaptation. This view reflected the influence of his PhD supervisor, Leslie White. Binford's work can largely be seen as a reaction to the earlier culture history approach to archaeology. New Archaeology was considered a revolution in archaeological theory. Binford was involved in several high-profile debates, including arguments with James Sackett on the nature and function of style and on symbolism and methodology with Ian Hodder. Binford spoke out and reacted to a number of schools of thought, particularly the post-processual school, the behavioural school, and symbolic and postmodern anthropologies. Binford was also known for a friendlier rivalry with French archaeologist François Bordes, with whom he argued over the interpretation of Mousterian sites. Binford's disagreement with Bordes over the interpretation of Mousterian stone artifacts provided the impetus for much of Binford's theoretical work. Bordes interpreted variability in Mousterian assemblages as evidence of different tribes, while Binford felt that a functional interpretation of the different assemblages would be more appropriate. His subsequent inability to explain the Mousterian facies using a functional approach led to his ethnoarchaeological work among the Nunamiut and the development of his middle-range theory.

Did You Know?

The Birth of Processual Archaeology

Binford first became dissatisfied with the present state of archaeology while an undergraduate at UNC. He felt that culture history reflected the same 'stamp collecting' mentality that had turned him away from biology. At Michigan, he saw a sharp contrast between the "excitement" of the anthropology department's cultural anthropologists (which included Leslie White) and the "people in white coats counting their potsherds" in the Museum of Anthropology. His first academic position was as an assistant professor at the University of Chicago, where he taught New World archaeology and statistical methods in archaeology. Shortly after his appointment he wrote his first major article, Archaeology as Anthropology (1962), which was stimulated by problems in archaeological methodology that had become apparent with the use of radiocarbon dating to verify the dates and cultural typologies generated with relative dating techniques such as seriation. Binford criticised what he saw as a tendency to treat artifacts as undifferentiated traits, and to explain variations in these traits only in terms of cultural diffusion. He proposed that the goal of archaeology was exactly the same as that of anthropology more generally, viz. to "explicate and explain the total range of physical and cultural similarities and differences characteristic of the entire spatio-temporal span of man's existence." This would be achieved by relating artifacts to human behavior, and behavior to cultural systems (as understood by his mentor, cultural anthropologist Leslie White). Several other archaeologists at Chicago shared Binford's ideas, a group their critics began calling the "New Archaeologists." In 1966 they presented a set of papers at a meeting of the Society for American Archaeology which were later collected in the landmark volume New Perspectives in Archaeology (1968), edited by Binford and his then wife Sally, also an archaeologist.

Ethnoarchaeology and the Mousterian

Binford withdrew from the theoretical debates that followed the rapid adoption of New Archaeology (by then also called processual archaeology) in the 1960s and 70s, instead focusing on his work on the Mousterian, a Middle Palaeolithic lithic industry found in Europe, North Africa and the Near East. Interested in how to translate human behavior from patterns in the archeological record, he began ethnoarchaeology fieldwork among the Nunamiut in Alaska, a research choice based on periglacial environments similar to those occupied by Mousterian humans during the Pleistocene. The objective was to see first hand how hunter-gatherer behavior is reflected in material remains and to build interpretive methodologies from this kind of experience. Conducting ethnographic fieldwork to establish firm correlations between behavior and material culture is known as ethnoarchaeology, and while not being invented by Binford, was shaped significantly by his incorporation with Processual (New) Archaeology. Most of Binford's later work was focused on the lifeways of Palaeolithic humans, and in parallel the diversity of hunter-gatherer societies in the historic and prehistoric periods.

An Unlikely Path to Archaeology

Binford was born in Norfolk, Virginia, on November 21, 1931. As a child he was interested in animals, and after finishing high school at Matthew Fontaine Maury High School studied wildlife biology at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Previously a mediocre student, Binford excelled in college and considered pursuing an academic career in biology until he was put off the idea when a professor suggested that there were "still a few species of blind cave salamanders" that he could be the first to study. It was during his time in the military that Binford first became interested in anthropology and archaeology. After graduating he was drafted as an interpreter and assigned to a group of anthropologists tasked with resettling people on the Pacific islands occupied by the United States during World War II. He also became involved with the recovery of archaeological material from tombs on Okinawa that were to be removed to make way for a military base. Though he had no training in archaeology, Binford found himself excavating and identifying these artifacts, which were then used to restock the destroyed museum in Shuri. After leaving the military Binford went to study anthropology at the University of North Carolina (UNC). The military subsidy he received was not enough to fund his study completely, so Binford used the skills in construction he learned from his father (a carpenter) to start a modest contracting business. He gained a second BA at UNC and then in 1957 transferred to the University of Michigan to complete a combined MA and PhD.

Legacy and the Ongoing Debate

Binford is widely considered among the most influential archaeologists of the later 20th century, and is credited with fundamentally changing the field with the introduction of processual archaeology (or the "New Archaeology") in the 1960s. Binford, a highly productive writer, who achieved an extraordinary level influence in ideas, methodology, and behavioral research internationally, a legacy that continues to the present. His influence was controversial, however, as he seemed to pit theoretical work in archaeology in the late 1980s and 1990s as either a reaction to or in support of the processual paradigm. Recent appraisals remain split, some judging his contributions mainly in terms of his innovative ideas and approaches, and others focusing on the fact that his approach owed more to prior work in the 1940s and 50s than he recognized. Binford joined the Southern Methodist University faculty in 1991, after teaching and training students for 23 years as a distinguished professor at the University of New Mexico. Binford's last published book, Constructing Frames of Reference (2001), was edited by his then wife, Nancy Medaris Stone. His wife at the time of his death, Amber Johnson, has said that she and a colleague will finish editing a book Binford had in progress at the time of his death. He died on April 11, 2011, in Kirksville, Missouri, at the age of 79.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Lewis Binford?

Lewis Roberts Binford (1931–2011) was an American archaeologist born in Norfolk, Virginia, who became one of the most transformative thinkers in the discipline during the latter twentieth century. He is best remembered for reshaping how the field approaches evidence, behavior, and theory.

What is the "New Archaeology" and how did Binford introduce it?

In the 1960s Binford argued that archaeology should stop at cataloguing artifacts and instead test hypotheses about past human behavior using systematic, science-based methods. This shift, widely called processual archaeology or the "New Archaeology," reoriented the entire field toward explanation rather than mere description.

Besides theory, what research areas was Binford known for?

He conducted influential work in ethnoarchaeology, examining how modern foraging groups produce material patterns that can be traced back into the Paleolithic. His Paleolithic research helped link ancient stone-tool assemblages to specific subsistence strategies and social behaviors.

When and where did Lewis Binford die?

Binford passed away on April 11, 2011, in Kirksville, Missouri. He had been born on November 21, 1931, in Norfolk, Virginia, and was a remarkably prolific writer whose ideas kept shaping the discipline long after his death.

Why do fans of archaeology consider Binford so important?

By insisting that archaeology function as a genuine science—formulating testable hypotheses, drawing on comparative data from living cultures, and explaining behavioral processes—he gave the field a methodological backbone it had previously lacked. Even scholars who later critiqued processualism had to engage with the standards he set, making his influence inescapable in the discipline.

More in Archaeologists And Anthropologists 1-23

Spotted an error? Know more?

This is a living reference — every entry is fact-audited, and reader corrections feed straight into our audit queue. Suggest an edit · See this site's audit record

Comments

Loading…
Open in the interactive codex →