Richard Gould has built a substantial literature treating the subject of archaeological method with an emphasis on ethnoarchaeology. His writings have been received with mixed feelings by the field and have recently sparked an interesting “debate.” Much of Gould's criticism of the recent literature stems from his misunderstanding of that material. In similar fashion, I suspect that much misdirection in the current “debate” stems from Gould's naivete regarding his own philosophy. Therefore, I have attempted an analysis of Gould's works that will, I hope, clarify his position as well as the character of the points he raises that are in need of debate.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.