Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 38 (2015) 67–71
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa
Binford versus Childe: What makes an archaeologist influential?
Robert L. Kelly
Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, United States article info abstract
Article history: This article asks whether Lewis Binford or V. Gordon Childe was the most influential archaeologist of the Available online 8 December 2014 twentieth century. This is, quite frankly, a question that has no objective answer, but asking it leads us to consider what makes an archaeologist influential. The answer lies in knowing the field widely and well, in Keywords: thinking about big questions, and in providing what the field needs, in its current historical condition, to Lewis R. Binford answer those big questions. V. Gordon Childe Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc. Influential archaeologists History of archaeology
1. Introduction gone for a long time so that we can see how their work stands the test of time. Coupled with my personal bias, this means that Soon after Binford’s death, Science asked if I would provide a I cannot resolve whether Binford or Childe was the more influential retrospective of him, and I was honored to oblige. Although there today. I suppose we could, with Solomon’s wisdom, simply divide was plenty about Binford that was controversial, I still thought it the century, giving the first half to Childe and the second to Bin- possible to claim in that retrospective that ‘‘Lewis Binford was ford. But Solomon never intended to cut the baby in two, so this the most influential archaeologist of the 20th century’’ (Kelly, would be cowardly. Therefore, I will tilt toward this particular 2011a: 928). windmill – not to find an answer but to see what it takes to be But a short time after the retrospective appeared, Michael Smith an influential archaeologist. wrote me and pointed out that only two years earlier he had writ- ten that ‘‘V. Gordon Childe (1892–1957) was the most influential 2. Balancing Binford and Childe archaeologist of the 20th century’’ (Smith, 2009: 3). Who is right? Certainly, Childe and Binford were both influential, of that there is Influence is difficult to measure. We cannot simply vote, no doubt. Both were prodigious authors, received accolades during because that would degenerate into a mere popularity contest – their lifetimes, and merited multiple obituaries in high profile out- and Binford would probably win today simply because he is the lets from various places in the world (e.g., Braidwood, 1958; Rouse, more recent. Another way might be to see if people remember a 1958; Meltzer, 2011; Fagan, 2012; O’Connell, 2012; Paddayya, person many years later, to see if his or her work has ‘‘legs.’’ Childe 2011; Rigaud, 2012), including the New York Times (Binford) and is clearly not forgotten, given the published biographies and retro- the London Times (Childe). But was one more influential than the spectives (e.g., Harris, 1994; Gathercole, 1971, 1987; Greene, 1999; other? Green, 1981; McNairn, 1980; Patterson and Orser, 2005; Peace, I have my bias. I studied under Lew in the late 1970s, listened to 1988; Shennan, 2011; Tringham, 1983). This issue of JAA is one him lecture in class and at conferences many times, and read such retrospective for Binford; but we’ll have to wait another nearly everything he wrote. Lew was interested in hunter-gather- 50 years to see if Binford is remembered as well as Childe is today. ers and so am I; he took a materialist perspective and so do I. Chil- Both Childe and Binford published prodigiously. They both began de (1892–1957), on the other hand, died when I was seven months their major period of publication at about age 30, and although Chil- old. I have read Childe, but I’ve not read all his work; and Childe de died at 65 and Binford at 79, Binford published relatively little was primarily interested in ‘‘complex’’ societies and ‘‘civilizations,’’ after the age of 69 (when he completed Frames of Reference). So, both had ‘‘a curious blind spot’’ for New World archaeology (Hawkes, scholars had about equal time to publish, although Childe has the 1982: 278; but see Peace, 1988), and he was an ardent Marxist. more extensive record (22 books and 225 articles; Binford’s CV lists Obviously, I lean toward Binford. about 100 papers, not including comments, replies, etc., and fewer Influence is a nebulous subject, one that is not easily measured, books, if we leave out edited books, three compilations of his papers, and one that we cannot truly consider until someone has been and translations). Is one cited more than another? A simple Google http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.09.009 0278-4165/Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc. 68 R.L. Kelly / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 38 (2015) 67–71 scholar search (May 18, 2012) returned 15,500 hits for Childe and had their works translated, although Childe was never well known only 8,160 for Binford. (Childe also won a Google Fight – 5470 to in the U.S. (Trigger, 1980: 11) except perhaps among Mexican 1820 hits.) Childe wins in Google. Childe also wins in Google Ngram archaeologists, who were strongly influenced by Marxist theory (1920 to 2008; 10/14/2013, using V.G. Childe + V. Gordon Childe (Flannery, 1994). (In Google’s Ngram Childe’s mentions in Spanish versus Lewis Binford + Lewis R. Binford): his mention in Google’s books peak at 1969, later than in other languages; and his men- scanned books peaks at 1960, then declines; he and Binford have tions always beat those of Binford.) equal mentions by 1984, and they remain roughly equal, both On the other hand, papers in this number point to Binford’s beginning to decline about 1996. Binford’s mentions peak at 1980, influence on archaeology from the Lower Paleolithic to the origins and is less than twice as high as Childe’s peak (Binford is more com- of agriculture; from faunal analysis and site structure, to stone tool monly mentioned in American English books after 1979; in British microwear and ceramics (the last two being fields in which he literature, Binford’s mentions peak in 1986, and always remain just never published, discounting his paper on ceramic pipe stems as slightly below mentions of Childe. a chronological device). If we added more of his students to this However, using the software Publish or Perish, ‘‘VG Childe’’ issue we would expand this list of topics and geographic range returned 8312 and ‘‘LR Binford’’ 16,429 hits (June 1, 2012); Childe even further. Childe was not known for methodological contribu- has a contemporary h-index of 13, while Binford’s is 26. From the tions (though he could be a strong critic of methods, as a letter Web of Science we find that Binford has four articles in the top 10 he sent to Soviet archaeologists demonstrated; see Harris, 1994) cited articles from American Antiquity: numbers 1 and 2 (Binford, but Binford contributed to the methodology of the analysis of fau- 1980, 1962), and 8 and 9 (Binford, 1965, 1978a) – no other author nal assemblages (Binford, 1978b). even has two. (I checked Antiquity for Childe but found none of his Both men heavily influenced their students. Binford had access to articles cited in the top 10.) Also from the Web of Science, Childe’s graduate students at all of his academic appointments. Childe had most cited paper is his posthumously published 1958 retrospective only undergraduates at his first appointment at the University of (25 citations); Binford’s is his 1980 ‘‘Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Edinburgh (although influencing undergraduates should not be Tails’’ paper (556 citations). underestimated: Binford influenced Michael Schiffer, when Schiffer However, we cannot compare citation indices directly since was an undergraduate at UCLA [Schiffer, personal communication, there is an enormous difference in publication outlets between the 2011]). I can personally testify to Binford’s effect on his graduate stu- first and second halves of the twentieth century. There’s also a huge dents, and, although all accounts suggest that Childe was a shy, pri- difference in the size of the practicing population who could cite vate man, he too ‘‘inspired great affection among graduate students Childe or Binford when each was alive. And search engines make a at the Institute of Archaeology’’ (Trigger, 1980: 18). It may be signif- selective recording of citations (e.g., from newer publications and icant that almost half of the doctoral students listed on Binford’s CV selected journals) and therefore we might also expect citations are women. Childe was a great influence on Kathleen Kenyon (Dever, acquired through Google or citation indices to work against Childe. 2004) but he almost certainly, given the era, did not influence both Maybe popular references tell us who had more influence. Both genders equally. Still, photos show him with female students (see Binford and Childe have entries in Wikipedia. Binford merits a song Trigger, 1980); I know of no evidence that Childe rejected them on YouTube (‘‘Hey There Lew Binford’’), but Childe has a mention in (when many other contemporary male archaeologists did). the film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (the library Childe and Binford did different things. Childe was a synthesizer scene). But these may only tell us which individual has become a of archaeology, and a brilliant one at that, as demonstrated in New popular icon, a mysterious property of cultural systems; they do Light on the Most Ancient East (1934), The Dawn of European Civiliza- not necessarily say anything about influence (James Dean, for tion (1925), as well as Man Makes Himself (1936) and What Hap- example, had speaking roles in only three movies, and yet remains pened in History (1942), though the latter two were popular a cultural icon more than 50 years later; and he is remembered more works with Marxist leanings, and many professionals did not take for capturing the beat generation’s angst, as well as for his untimely them seriously (Tringham, 1983). Nonetheless, Childe put prehis- and horrific death than for his contributions to the field of acting). tory together, revealing its grand narrative. He gave us the concept Being known and read by members of other disciplines is also a of ‘‘revolutions’’ (Neolithic and Urban) – which for Childe, a socia- signal of influence. Childe may win here as he influenced the list, really were revolutions; they are less so today, but they are historian Arnold Toynbee (Trigger, 1980). Childe’s death notice nonetheless important concepts to organize prehistory textbooks appeared in The Labour Monthly (November 1957), hardly an and they drew attention to certain periods of rapid and pervasive archaeological publication, calling attention to his application of change. Childe was interested in progress, and he used the archae- Marxist ideas to prehistory. And one of his most influential papers ological record to demonstrate it. (see Smith, 2009), ‘‘The Urban Revolution’’ (1950) was published Binford was also interested in the big picture, as demonstrated not in an archaeology outlet, but in the Town Planning Review.I in his final book, Frames of Reference (2001) and in the lectures he am not familiar with links Binford had outside of archaeology. gave in England and Europe that were transcribed for In Pursuit of Childe lived at a time when academics (perhaps especially, Brit- the Past (1983). But Binford was not a prehistorian per se. Instead, ish ones) were expected to be part of larger intellectual discus- he was concerned with how we interpret the archaeological record, sions, and conversant in many different subjects, which was with middle-range theory. He argued that the meanings of things possible when the literature was considerably smaller than it is were not self-evident, and that we needed to give explicit attention today. Maybe that fact gives him an unfair advantage (but should to the basis of our interpretations of archaeological data. His focus not detract from Childe’s accomplishments), but it’s probably can- turned out to be faunal remains, and so taphonomy, hunting, and celled out by the communication systems of the latter half of the butchering. In his work, he focused on what he called ‘‘organiza- twentieth century – the internet, proliferation of journals and tion,’’ an idea that was most notably developed in matters of presses, and the relative ease of travel (Childe never had to deal technology and settlement patterning. Binford envisioned ‘‘organi- with the TSA, but he did live through two world wars). Born in zation’’ as how energy moved through a system. For example, the Australia, Childe traveled widely, perhaps more than other archae- key difference between foragers and collectors, his two ‘‘types’’ ologists of his time, including Europe, the UK, the US, Iraq, and the (and I use that word loosely) of hunter-gatherer settlement sys- Indus Valley (Tringham, 1983). However, I suspect Binford traveled tems, was that foragers moved consumers to food and collectors even more (e.g., Australia, the UK, South Africa, Tanzania, Argen- moved food to consumers. Binford saw that changes in how energy tina, China, India, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Japan). Both have flowed through systems over time were what prehistory recorded. R.L. Kelly / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 38 (2015) 67–71 69
I don’t think Binford was interested in prehistory itself, but in how odological one (what flake attributes really tell us about lithic it provided a laboratory to test hypotheses about system organiza- reduction sequences?), or a theoretical one (does agency have a tion. Binford was not concerned with whether prehistory demon- place in a field that cannot routinely track the actions of individu- strated the world had made progress (in fact, I doubt whether he als?). Doing so guarantees that one will play a role, no matter how thought it had). small, in advancing the field. But we’re not just talking about play- Neither Binford nor Childe were real fieldworkers. Binford prob- ing a role, but about being influential, about having a career like ably did more fieldwork in his lifetime than Childe, but he had that of Childe or Binford (one that earns you a mention in a sum- ceased doing so by the early 1970s, after completing his ethnoar- mer blockbuster film!). chaeological field research with the Nunamiut. Both men had dis- If there is a prescription the first element is that you cannot sit tinctive ‘‘character’’ – and that certainly helps to build an audience on ideas; you have to put them out there in writing, lectures, and (Binford always lectured to packed rooms at conferences because conferences. Binford was certainly no shrinking violet, and neither attendees knew they could expect a show). Childe, with his was Childe. They both said what they were thinking, and both were broad-brimmed hat, cape, shorts and often shabby clothing was prolific authors. Both of those qualities can come at a cost. Childe the more eccentric. But Binford was charismatic almost to a fault; ran into quite a bit of trouble during and after the First World students were drawn to him in an almost cult-like fashion. War, even losing a post for his ‘‘Bolshevik’’ sympathies, and he In other ways, they were very different men: Childe never mar- was persona non grata to the U.S. State Department, which pre- ried; Binford did so six times. Childe was shy and modest, while vented a post-Second World War visit to the U.S. (Peace, 1988). Binford was most certainly not. Childe also had strong political Binford once said that he had been fired from the best universities leanings and was, early in life, involved in Australian politics in the country, and he had to wait for James Griffin (who told more (Childe, 1923); his interest in Marxism was strongly and proudly than one person that Binford was a pathological liar) to step off his displayed in his writings. He was also involved in the politics of doctoral committee before the degree could be awarded. And archaeology and administration, and his last post was as director though a primary architect of a scientific archaeology, Binford of London’s Institute of Archaeology (though Jaquetta Hawkes had to wait until certain individuals had passed away before he (1982: 321) recounted that Sir Mortimer Wheeler thought Childe could be elected to the National Academy of Sciences at the age had an ‘‘astonishing incapacity’’ for administration). of 69. To the best of my knowledge Binford was never involved in pol- But more to the point, putting your ideas out there means being itics. And he was proud of the fact that his contracts contained willing to be wrong. Childe had the origins of agriculture wrong clauses excusing him from any administrative responsibilities and, for a Marxist, was surprisingly quiet about the role of conflict (those who worked with him probably breathed a sigh of relief and warfare (Flannery, 1994; Childe saw change as more consen- at this news). When I became president of the Society for American sual (Sherratt, 1989)). Binford was probably wrong about the Archaeology, Binford reminded me of this fact and said that anyone importance of carcass scavenging in human evolution and about who would take on such a position was a fool. I do not think he where agriculture originated; he also rejected the paradigm of realized what he was saying or, at least, to whom he was saying human behavioral ecology, something that always puzzled me it. A child of the beat and hippie generations, Binford probably dis- since his own work is so closely in line with it. trusted all authority. (But administration is one way to influence Second, if you want to be influential, you have to give the the field: the groundwork for CRM was laid by the 1906 Antiquities archaeological audience what it wants. And what archaeologists Act, which exists largely because of the effort of Edgar Lee Hewitt, want is to know the past (see Kelly, 2011b); Binford’s (1983) and who also helped create Mesa Verde National Park and the School Childe’s (1942) book titles say it all: In Pursuit of the Past and What for Advanced Research in Santa Fe; and yet, many American Happened in History. Binford contributed by commenting on key archaeologists may not even know Hewitt’s name). problems in prehistory, e.g., the origins of agriculture and the role Remembering someone’s name is important for an icon, but it’s of hunting in human evolution. He also did so by compiling the not necessary to be influential. As Childe (1956b: 130) put it: ‘‘In cre- enormous amounts of environmental and ethnographic data to ating ideas that are thus accepted, any mortal member of Society demonstrate the links between the behavior of foragers and their attains immortality – yes, though his name be forgotten as com- environments (Binford, 2001). Childe really shone here, by synthe- pletely as his bodily form dissolve. Personally I desire no more.’’ In sizing existing data and putting it into a narrative that made sense. other words, when your contributions – your ideas, concepts, and (And this may be why he was often ignored by New World archae- terms – become so common that no one knows who first invented ologists: despite his communications with important figures in them, then you know you’ve truly influenced the field. Both the most American anthropology (Peace, 1988) he penned barely a word and the least influential will be forgotten, though in different ways. about New World prehistory. And when he did, well, as a reviewer In this regard, Binford and Childe are equals. Students talk about the pointed out, he once wrote that ‘‘the minimum definition of a city, Neolithic or Urban revolution (both of which have Wikipedia the greatest factor common to the Old World and the New will be entries) without realizing that the concepts were developed by substantially reduced and impoverished by the inclusion of the Childe (or that there was a time when the concepts did not exist). Maya’’ (Childe, 1950:9). Childe was most interested in the prehis- Likewise, today’s students use terms such as site furniture, techno- toric formation of Europe.) Childe saw patterns and processes in logical organization, curation, foragers and collectors (and more) the data where others saw only temporally-ordered facts. As Kent without knowing that those terms, and all that they imply, came Flannery (1994: 110) put it, Childe ‘‘had a vision of evolution at a from Binford (they do not, however, appear in Wikipedia). time when other archaeologists had only chronology charts.’’ Like- wise, Binford saw patterns in environment and behavior that sug- 3. Influencing archaeology today gested explanations of hunter-gatherer behavior when others were still thinking only of seasonal rounds and functional interpreta- So what do we learn from this exercise? What should one do if tions of stone tools. Whether Childe or Binford turns out to be right one wants to be an influential archaeologist? I am tempted to give matters less than that their syntheses made sense to practitioners some vague aphorism that could fit any field such as ‘do something at the time and helped others move ahead with their work. I do not useful and do it well.’ I always tell my students to look for the hole know how either man saw the patterns that he did, or how to in our knowledge and then fill it – whether that hole be an empir- guarantee that someone could – I suppose that is like asking how ical one of prehistory (there are fewer and fewer of those), a meth- Beethoven came up with a symphony or Shakespeare with a son- 70 R.L. Kelly / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 38 (2015) 67–71 net. I do not know how to write a symphony or a sonnet, but I do humanity; one (although not me) might even say that we’ve know that you cannot see patterns in prehistory if you approach reached the end of archaeology. And we are now well-aware of archaeology myopically, focusing on just one region, time period, the need for accurate methods of inference: we know when we or problem. So, the careers of Binford and Childe tell us to read know something and, more importantly, we know when we do widely and to think widely – and to write it down. not know something. What’s left for archaeology to do but fill in Childe saw the grand narrative that is, in my opinion, the some (relatively minor) holes of prehistory? strength of archaeology. He asked: what is the story? Binford Actually, what’s left is exactly what Childe and Binford set out saw the need to think about how we make inferences from to do: explain prehistory. The grand narratives of prehistory are archaeological data. He asked: how do I know that the story is just the beginning, for they are not explanations of prehistory. Bin- true? They both gave archaeology what it needed at the time, even ford and Childe both knew this, and Binford was always heading if other practitioners did not know what they needed. there, as demonstrated most forcefully by Constructing Frames of Reference. One thing that the field needs now is to use the massive 4. Conclusion amounts of data we have available (especially in the U.S. and Eur- ope) to test explanations of prehistory. The patterns in archaeolog- There are many ways to be a good archaeologist. But there are ical data over vast reaches of time and space are the strength of relatively few ways to be an influential archaeologist. Childe and archaeology (Childe knew this, describing prehistory as ‘‘a pano- Binford both demonstrated them. They not only gave the field rama of human history ten thousand times wider than that what it wanted, but they also gave it what it needed. There had reflected in written records and at the same time disembarrassed been grand narratives of prehistory before Childe. The nine- of irrelevant ‘accidents’ and temporary distortions’’ (Childe, teenth-century evolutionists, such as Lewis Henry Morgan (in 1956a: 160)). Today’s computing technology allows us to go far Ancient Society, 1877) and John Lubbock (in Prehistoric Times, beyond Childe’s ability to synthesize data. We can use patterns 1865) wrote perhaps the grandest of all narratives. These were in time and space to test hypotheses of the operation of cultural generated by speculation, ‘‘theory,’’ and wishful thinking; they systems. Binford spent a large portion of his life compiling the data could not have used the empirical record since that record was to develop the ‘‘frames of reference’’ that would allow us to do all but unexplored. Childe produced some of the first narratives exactly that. based on empirical data, and he could do so not only because the And compiling the data is what matters here. To be useful, we record had been explored, but also because of his compulsion to will eventually need databases not of projects, regions or countries, read widely, to recall details, and to see how objects related to but of continents (see, e.g., see Shennan, 2013 and their use of a one another historically, functionally, and socially. As Robert European 14C database). This will require a high level of commit- Braidwood (1958:734) wrote in his obituary of Childe: ‘‘Childe’s ment and cooperation, as well as a great deal of time – and we’ll natural gift for seeing the woods as well as the trees, his incredible need a veritable army to mine the thousands of reports and publi- grasp of detail, his wide acquaintance with colleagues in all corners cations. We will also need to consider data comparability, from 1 of Europe, and his industriousness in pursuing their works in odd recovery biases (were screens used, or not? =4’’?, water-screening?) journals, was coupled with his great good fortune in appearing at to typologies and nomenclature (is an artifact classified as a a time when synthesis was badly needed and to a fair degree pos- ‘‘biface’’ in one report the same as a ‘‘biface’’ in another?). sible.’’ Archaeologists knew there had to be a ‘‘story,’’ and Childe It also requires that we change the way we think about what it gave it to them. They also needed to know that the story mattered. is that archaeologists do – we are not simply people who dig up old And Childe also gave them this; for example, by arguing that things and give lectures on the archaeology of the northwest Plains Bronze Age Europe with its movement of people and ideas among or the Indus Valley. We must convince Science and Nature that good different cultural communities laid the foundation for modern Eur- archaeology is not simply the discovery of the oldest pottery, bas- ope, and that the blending of ideas produced by such movement ketry, or stone tools (and, in this task, we can start by encouraging created the idea of scientific freedom (Childe, 1925; Gathercole, them to put archaeologists on their editorial boards). The public 1971). Childe believed that archaeology recorded progress, and may continue to think of us as Indiana Jones, but funding agencies that progress was a good thing, something that made ‘‘human life must recognize that the construction of comprehensive databases richer and more diversified’’ (Childe, 1944:115). is what archaeology needs (and that their construction is expen- Binford asked whether the grand narrative was correct. To do sive). We have the data, just not in one place, and we have various so, he did not challenge the empirical record so much as he did inferential means to interpret it, and the technology to analyze it. how archaeologists go about interpreting it. He sought to remove Doing so is what the field needs now. the blinders that tradition and rules of thumb had placed on our But what then? What would happen if we were to explain pre- ability to discern the narrative of history. Many other archaeolo- history? Would we simply backfill our trenches, slap the dirt from gists took the same approach, e.g., see Patty Jo Watson, Richard our hands, and declare that archaeology is over? No. The second Gould, John Yellen, and Alison Wylie on the use of analogy and thing an influential archaeologist today would recognize is that the role of ethnoarchaeology. That they did so tells us that a critical knowledge is useless if it does not lead to action, and an under- examination of our inferential methods was what archaeology standing of the 99% of human history that is encompassed by pre- needed. history, that is only accessible through archaeological study, must So, to be an influential archaeologist one must decide what it is certainly have something to tell us about the future. And that may that the field needs today. Is it more historical synthesis? Is it fur- be where an influential archaeologist will go: from the past to the ther development of inferential methods? Certainly, these are future. What does the past tell us, for example, about human pro- always needed, just as we always need better field methods of data clivities and organization that lead to war or to peace, to economic recovery, better methods of dating, better methods of counting the justice or exploitation, to competition or cooperation? Archaeolo- objects of archaeology (flakes, bones, sherds, etc.), and more gists will not find a quick solution for the economic woes of the accountability to and inclusion of descendant groups. There is US or the EU in time for the next election cycle. This is not because plenty of good work being done in archaeology today that needs we are incapable of contributing, but because that is not the time to continue. scale of archaeology – we study the processes of centuries or mil- But what do we need that we currently do not have? We actu- lennia, not years. We ask what generates competition or coopera- ally know much about prehistory, about the grand narrative of tion in the long term? Doing so would direct us to test ideas from R.L. Kelly / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 38 (2015) 67–71 71 our historical dataset as to what practices put people on a path that Fagan, B., 2012. Lewis Roberts Binford (1931–2011). Am. Anthropol. 114, 173– values cooperation over competition. And if you do that you will 175. Flannery, K.V., 1994. Childe the evolutionist: a perspective from Nuclear not only be an influential archaeologist, but also an influential America. In: Harris, D.R. (Eds.), The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe: human. Contemporary Perspectives, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria, pp. 101–112. Gathercole, P., 1971. Patterns in prehistory: an examination of the later thinking of Acknowledgments V. Gordon Childe. World Archaeol. 3, 225–232. Gathercole, P., 1987. Childe after 30 years. Antiquity 61, 450–451. I thank Michael Smith for providing the impetus for this essay; I Green, S., 1981. Prehistorian: a Biography of V. Gordon Childe. Moonraker Press, Bradford-on-Avon. also thank him, Pei-Lin Yu, Lin Poyer and an anonymous reviewer Greene, K., 1999. V. Gordon Childe and the vocabulary of revolutionary change. for reading drafts. I am also grateful to Nicholas James for his Antiquity 73, 97–109. thoughts on Childe and for giving me a perspective from the other Harris, D.R. (Ed.), 1994. The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe: Contemporary Perspectives. Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria. side of the pond. Hawkes, J., 1982. Adventurer in Archaeology: The Biography of Sir Mortimer Wheeler. St. Martin’s Press, New York. References Kelly, R.L., 2011a. Lewis R. Binford (1931–2011). Science 332, 928. Kelly, R.L., 2011b. Why Did Binford’s middle-range program outcompete Schiffer’s formation process program? J. Archaeol. Method Theory 18, 284–290. Binford, L.R., 1962. Archaeology as anthropology. Am. Antiq. 28, 217–225. McNairn, B., 1980. The Method and Theory of V. Gordon Childe. Edinburgh Binford, L.R., 1965. Archaeological systematic and the study of culture process. Am. University Press, Edinburgh. Antiq. 31, 203–210. Meltzer, D., 2011. Lewis Roberts Binford, 1931–2011. National Academy of Sciences Binford, L.R., 1978a. Dimensional analysis of behavior and site structure: learning Biographical Memoir. from an eskimo hunting stand. Am. Antiq. 43, 330–361. O’Connell, J.F., 2012. Remembering Lew Binford. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Binford, L.R., 1978b. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. Urgeschichte, Tübingen. Binford, L.R., 1980. Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: hunter-gatherer settlement Paddayya, K., 2011. Obituary: lewis roberts Binford. Man Environ. 36 (1), 124– systems and archaeological site formation. Am. Antiq. 45, 4–20. 128. Binford, L.R., 1983. In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, London. Patterson, T.C., Orser, C.E., Jr. (Eds.), 2005. Foundations of Social Archaeology: Binford, L.R., 2001. Constructing Frames of Reference. University of California Press, Selected Writings of V. Gordon Childe. Oxford, Berg Publishers. Berkeley. Peace, W., 1988. Vere gordon childe and american anthropology. J. Anthropol. Res. Braidwood, R.J., 1958. Vere Gordon Childe, 1892–1957. Am. Anthropol. 60, 733–736. 44, 417–433. Childe, V.G., 1923. How Labour Governs: A Study of Workers’ Representation in Rigaud, J.P., 2012. Lewis Roberts Binford 1931–2011. Paleoanthropology 2012, 63– Australia. Labour Publishing Company, London. 66. Childe, V.G., 1925. The Dawn of European Civilization. Kegan Paul, London. Rouse, I., 1958. Vere Gordon Childe, 1892–1957. Am. Antiq. 24, 82–84. Childe, V.G., 1934. New Light on the Most Ancient East: The Oriental Prelude to Shennan, S., 2011. Social evolution today. J. World Prehistory 24, 201–212. European Prehistory. Kegan Paul, London. Shennan, S., Downey, S.S., Timpson, A., Edinborough, K., Colledge, S., Kerig, T., Childe, V.G., 1936. Man Makes Himself. Watts, London. Manning, K., Thomas, M.G., 2013. Regional population collapse Followed initial Childe, V.G., 1942. What Happened in History. Pelican Books, London. agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe. Nat. Commun., 4:2486 doi: Childe, V.G., 1944. Progress and Archaeology. Watts, London. 10.1038/ncomms3486