But, this is generally understood as a 'conditio sine qua non'. He consequently suggested that the wider circle of anthropology should develop new theories which then could be tested by the archaeologist's historical method. Now, this can be taken literally as a programme. A short discussion follows. The term 'anthropology' implies a 'periodisation scheme' quite different from the historistic periodisation system focussed on durable remains used to reconstruct prehistory.
Anthropology implies man in a much wider diachronical extension than prehistory.
In fact, this extension is also happening in the fields. The outlook is very different from that held by early archaeologists, e.g. by Schliemann, who was in search of the historically recorded Troja. Time scales too have changed. In the framework of millions of years, some thousand years can not be a decisive factor anymore for any methodological definition. This conception of interdisciplinary continuities is also gaining momentum within cultural anthropology.