Archaeologist Lew Binford has died at the age of 79 at his home in Kirksville, Mo. He died of a a heart attack.
I knew Lew a little, having spent some time with him while I was in graduate school, and having met him at the occassional conference (he was famous for NOT going to conferences very often by the time the 1980s rolled around).
Lew was a dick, a very smart guy, and probably had as much influence on archaeology as any other individual. Those who have taken classes from me know that I've got a few stories to tell about him. But not now.
RIP Lew Binford. May your bones be dug up some day by someone with a strong grounding in Middle Range Theory.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
... or should I say "Archeology."
Analytical Archaeology by David Clarke is a medium size blue book about methods in archaeology that, during the 1970s and 1980s was probably required reading in all graduate level method and theory archaeology classes. It may still be in many cases. Clarke was…
Today, I took out the trash. I may or may not have taken the trash out last week, but I can tell you that the last time I did take it out, whenever it was, I had to drag the trash barrel across ice. Yesterday I went to the gym without a coat or jacket. That made me have to decide if I wanted to…
Yesterday I was reading an article about anti-gay protests at a gay pride parade. One of the protestors was holding a large sign that said, "Got AIDS yet?"; another had one that said "AIDS: Kills Fags Dead". My first thought was that it's too bad there isn't a disease that afflicts the ignorant and…
In discussing the relevance of archeology to anything, there is an easy answer provided by my friend Peter Wells, a specialist in Culture Contact and the Central European Iron Age. Peter tells his students on the first day of class that "Archaeology is the study of everything that happened…
I heard about this a few days ago via John Hawks and I am stunned that there seem to be so few obituaries for him.
Like him or loathe him his work has been a key component of every undergraduates experience of archaeology and I was sad to hear he had gone.
As much as Archaeological theory was supposed to have 'moved on' from him and his ilk, as someone who studies the Lower Pal, his work is still of much more use in the data poor context of this period.
Aww, I loved him. His theories may have been dickish, but if nothing else he induced some excellent research in the mad scramble to prove him wrong.
I'm sorry to hear that. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but I certainly have a deep respect for him. He had a profound (and overall positive) effect on archaeology as a field.