My background is in archaeology, so that's what I'll discuss. The other social sciences had similar debates around the same time, plus or minus a few years. If

My background is in archaeology, so that's what I'll discuss. The other social sciences had similar debates around the same time, plus or minus a few years. If you're looking to understand one perspective from this period, I'd actually recommend Binford's Debating Archaeology [1]. This book summarizes a whole slew of arguments Binford had in the 80s with a number of other archaeologists, including his famous spate with Gould over the limits of empiricism. As it's a summary, it was obviously written after all of this was settled. Selected works from the era might be Hodder's Symbolic and Structural Archaeology[2] or kohl's "Limits to Post-Processual Archaeology" [3]. The former was essentially an opening salvo for this debate and the latter is an example of a the reactions to it. [1] Binford, L. R. (2016). Debating Archaeology: Updated Edition. Routledge. [2] Hodder, I. (1982). Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. [3] Kohl, P. L. (1993). Limits to a post-processual archaeology (or, The dangers of a new scholasticism). Archaeological Theory: who sets the agenda, 13-19.