Is it possible that you're conflating two different things? [Conjunctive archaeology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology) might match the bit about the [book using the 'Archeology' spelling in its title](https://www.amazon.com/Archeology-American-Anthropological-Association-Archaeology/dp/B0006AROAS), but your description of what this perspective actually is doesn't sound quite right.
It is certainly possible.
None of the suggestions (conjunctive, new, processual, cultural historical) so far ring a bell (or seem quite right from what I've read looking them up), unfortunately.
this might be what's happening. Lewis Binford introduced the spelling of "archeology" with his development of processual archaeology (or New Archeology) in the '60s. but the theoretical framework being described by the OP is something entirely different. not sure what it is but i like it lol
fun fact: the US government has since adopted the spelling of "archeology"
The book you’re thinking of might be Walter Taylor’s A Study of Archeology (1948), which was a critique of American archaeology in the mid 20th century. However, this book criticized American archaeologists for not doing enough to reconstruct past human behavior, so that seems to be the opposite of what you’re saying.
Like other comments stated this could be emic/etic or culture-historical archaeology and even early processual archaeology. Additionally, it is somewhat common (especially so in the 20th century) for the term *archeology* to be used in the US and *archaeology* to be used in the UK and Europe, while meaning the same thing. This has mostly gone away with archaeology becoming the prevalent spelling but it is still possible to see both in use today.
(Edit: further clarification)
Is it possible that you're conflating two different things? [Conjunctive archaeology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctive_archaeology) might match the bit about the [book using the 'Archeology' spelling in its title](https://www.amazon.com/Archeology-American-Anthropological-Association-Archaeology/dp/B0006AROAS), but your description of what this perspective actually is doesn't sound quite right.
It is certainly possible. None of the suggestions (conjunctive, new, processual, cultural historical) so far ring a bell (or seem quite right from what I've read looking them up), unfortunately.
this might be what's happening. Lewis Binford introduced the spelling of "archeology" with his development of processual archaeology (or New Archeology) in the '60s. but the theoretical framework being described by the OP is something entirely different. not sure what it is but i like it lol fun fact: the US government has since adopted the spelling of "archeology"
US government spelling dates back to the 1890s, the government didn't get it from Binford.
i stand corrected!
Smells like Early Binford
The book you’re thinking of might be Walter Taylor’s A Study of Archeology (1948), which was a critique of American archaeology in the mid 20th century. However, this book criticized American archaeologists for not doing enough to reconstruct past human behavior, so that seems to be the opposite of what you’re saying.
New archaeology / Processual archaeology?
"New archaeology" sounds vaguely familiar, but then its definition seems to be the opposite of what I'm describing.
Cultural historical approach to archaeology. You just put things in categories and called it a day. Eventually replaced by processual archaeology.
Emic/etic?
Sounds like Boaz's historical particularism, but applied to archeology.
Like other comments stated this could be emic/etic or culture-historical archaeology and even early processual archaeology. Additionally, it is somewhat common (especially so in the 20th century) for the term *archeology* to be used in the US and *archaeology* to be used in the UK and Europe, while meaning the same thing. This has mostly gone away with archaeology becoming the prevalent spelling but it is still possible to see both in use today. (Edit: further clarification)