考古学家尼古拉斯·大卫非常清楚地描述了粘性问题：民族考古学试图跨越概念秩序（人类思维的不可观察的思想，价值观，规范和表征）与现象秩序（文物，受人类行为影响的事物）之间的界限。按物质，形式和背景区分）。民族考古学研究真正彻底改变了考古学的研究，因为科学进入了二战后的科学时代。考古学家现在可以假设这些工件所代表的行为（后处理考古学），而不是简单地找到更好和更好的方法来测量和采购和检查工件（也就是考古过程）。在20世纪70年代和80年代的大部分时间里，你是否可以在考古遗址上实际研究人类行为的辩论使这一职业两极分化：虽然辩论已经结束，但很明显这场比赛并不完美。一方面，考古学作为一项研究是历时性的 – 一个考古遗址总是包含可能在该地点发生数百年或数千年的所有文化事件和行为的证据，更不用说发生在它上面的自然事物了。那段时间。相比之下，民族志是同步的 – 正在研究的是在研究过程中发生的事情。并且始终存在着这种潜在的不确定性：在现代（或历史）文化中看到的行为模式是否真的可以归结为古代考古文化，以及多少？ 19世纪末/ 20世纪初考古学家使用人种学数据来了解考古遗址（Edgar Lee Hewett的想法），但现代研究的根源在于20世纪50年代和60年代的战后繁荣。从20世纪70年代开始，文学的蓬勃发展探索了这种实践的潜力（过程/后处理辩论推动了其中的大部分）。今天，民族考古学是大多数考古学研究的公认，也许是标准的实践。
新加坡国立大学考古学Essay代写：现象秩序
Archaeologist Nicholas David clearly described the problem of cohesion: ethnic archaeology attempts to cross conceptual order (unobservable thoughts, values, norms and representations of human thinking) and phenomenal order (relics, things affected by human behavior) The boundary between them. Distinguish by substance, form and background). The study of ethnic archaeology has revolutionized the study of archaeology because science entered the scientific era after World War II. Archaeologists can now assume the behavior represented by these artifacts (post-processing archaeology) rather than simply finding better and better ways to measure and procure and inspect artifacts (ie archaeological processes). For most of the 1970s and 1980s, whether you could actually study human behavior on archaeological sites made the profession polarized: although the debate was over, it was clear that the game was not perfect. On the one hand, archaeology as a study is diachronic – an archaeological site always contains evidence of all cultural events and behaviors that may have occurred at the site for hundreds or thousands of years, not to mention the nature that occurred on it. Things are gone. that period of time. In contrast, ethnography is synchronous – what is being studied is what happens during the research process. And there is always this potential uncertainty: Does the pattern of behavior seen in modern (or historical) culture really boil down to ancient archaeological culture, and how much? Archaeologists used ethnographic data to understand archaeological sites (Edgar Lee Hewett’s ideas) in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, but the roots of modern research were the postwar prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s. Since the 1970s, the flourishing development of literature has explored the potential of this practice (the process/post-processing debate has driven most of it). Today, ethnic archaeology is recognized by most archaeological studies and may be standard practice.