VJver forty years ago Gordon R. Willey (1953b:361) stated that "[t]he objectives of archeology ...are approached by the study and manipulation of three basic factors: form, space, and time. " A few years later, Albert C. Spaulding (1960b:439) repeated this thought using different words: "[AJrchaeology can be defined minimally as the study of the interrelation- ship of form, temporal locus, and spatial locus exhibited by artifacts. In other words, archaeologists are always concerned with these interrelation- ships, whatever broader interests they may have, and these interrelation- ships are the special business of archaeology. " Many of the means Americanist archaeologists use to examine formal variation in artifacts and the distribution of that variation across space and through time were formulated early in the twentieth century. The analytical tenets, or principles, underlying the various methods and techniques were formalized and axiomatized in later years such that by the 1930s they con- stituted the first formal paradigm for Americanist archaeology-a paradigm commonly termed culture history. This paradigm began with a very specific goal-to document the history of the development of prehistoric cultures in the Americas. Although it fell from favor in the 1960s, many of its central tenets were carried over to newer paradigms and thus continue to be fun- damental within Americanist archaeology. With Willey's and Spaulding's conceptions as our guide, we elsewhere reprinted (Lyman et al.

VJver forty years ago Gordon R. Willey (1953b:361) stated that "[t]he objectives of archeology ...are approached by the study and manipulation of three basic factors: form, space, and time. " A few years later, Albert C. Spaulding (1960b:439) repeated this thought using different words: "[AJrchaeology can be defined minimally as the study of the interrelation- ship of form, temporal locus, and spatial locus exhibited by artifacts. In other words, archaeologists are always concerned with these interrelation- ships, whatever broader interests they may have, and these interrelation- ships are the special business of archaeology. " Many of the means Americanist archaeologists use to examine formal variation in artifacts and the distribution of that variation across space and through time were formulated early in the twentieth century. The analytical tenets, or principles, underlying the various methods and techniques were formalized and axiomatized in later years such that by the 1930s they con- stituted the first formal paradigm for Americanist archaeology-a paradigm commonly termed culture history. This paradigm began with a very specific goal-to document the history of the development of prehistoric cultures in the Americas. Although it fell from favor in the 1960s, many of its central tenets were carried over to newer paradigms and thus continue to be fun- damental within Americanist archaeology. With Willey's and Spaulding's conceptions as our guide, we elsewhere reprinted (Lyman et al.

Americanist Culture History reprints thirty-nine classic works of Americanist archaeological literature published between 1907 and 1971. The articles, in which the key concepts and analytical techniques of culture history were first defined and discussed, are reprinted, with original pagination and references, to enhance the use of this collection as a research and teaching resource. The editors also include an introduction that summarizes the rise and fall of the culture history paradigm, making this volume an excellent introduction to the field's primary literature.

Publication Series No. 7, West Virginia Archeological Society.

Publication Series No. 7, West Virginia Archeological Society.

Systematics in Prehistory was originally published in 1971. It soon became an essential book for anyone who wished to understand the principles of classification and how they are applied in archaeology. The book clarifies differences among the various kinds of classification (paradigmatic, taxonomic) and discusses the appropriate uses of each. It also discusses groups and grouping devices and how they differ from classification. This continues to be an area of considerable confusion in archaeology. This book is as useful to graduate students and professionals in archaeology now as it was 30 years ago. Its materials have not become dated nor have they been superceded by more recent treatments. This work remains a crucial foundation for knowledgeable application of systematics in archaeology. Dunnell's primary goal was to develop a conceptual framework for the study of prehistory based on systematics. Part I of the book provides an introduction to systematics. Here Dunnell builds a precise and beautifully consistent structure of concepts applicable to phenomena in general. Part II proceeds to illustrate the application of systematics to prehistory. The treatment is concise and rigorous. From an original review of the book in Mankind: "This book makes two original contributions of considerable value to the literature of archaeological theory. First, it not only recognizes the debt which the "new" archaeology owes to the "old" archaeology but it attempts reconciliation between the two. Second, it examines with precision and rigor the basic concepts which prehistorians use implicitly and attempts to make both their usage and their definition explicit." After graduate work at Yale, Dr. Robert C. Dunnell was appointed Professor of Anthropology at the University of Washington, Seattle, where he remained for thirty years. He retains graduate training responsibilities at the University of Washington, where he is emeritus. The central intellectual theme of his career has been recreating archaeology as science. While he pursued this objective along traditional lines early in his career, by the late 1970s this recreation had led him to evolutionary theory and nearly all his published work since that time touches on evolution and its application to the archaeologic record. He is widely regarded as the principal exponent of evolutionary archaeology today.