CONTEMPORARYARCHAELOGYAGuidetoTheoryandContributionsEditedbyMarkP.LeoneSOUTHERNILLINOISUNIVERSITYPRESSCarbondaleandEdwardsvilleFeffer&Simons,Inc.LondonandAmsterdam-iii-Copyright1972bySouthernIllinoisUniversityPressAllrightsreservedPrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaDesignedbyGaryGoreInternationalStandardBookNumber0-8093-0513-5LibraryofCongressCatalogCardNumber79-156779-iv-ContentsPrefaceix

NotesonContributorsxv

PART1TheScopeoftheChangesinContemporaryArchaeologyIntroduction1

1/TheRevolutioninArchaeology5PAULS.MARTIN

2/IssuesinAnthropologicalArchaeology14MARKP.LEONE

3/OldWineandNewSkins:AContemporaryParable28WALTERW.TAYLOR

4/InterpretiveTrendsandLinearModelsinAmericanArchaeology34RAYMONDH.THOMPSON

PART2TheOriginsofContemporaryChangeIntroduction39

5/TheUrbanRevolution43V.GORDONCHILDE

6/ConjecturesConcerningtheSocialOrganizationoftheMogollonIndians52PAULS.MARTIN

7/TheEconomicApproachtoPrehistory62GRAHAMECLARK

8/TheConceptualStructureinMiddleAmericanStudies78CLYDEKLUCKHOHN

9/ReviewofJamesA.Ford'sMeasurementsofSomePrehistoricDesignDevelopmentsintheSoutheasternStates85ALBERTC.SPAULDING

PART3TheTheoreticalBaseofContemporaryArchaeologyIntroduction89

10/ArchaeologyasAnthropology93LEWISR.BINFORD

11/CultureHistoryv.CulturalProcess:ADebateinAmericanArchaeology102KENTV.FLANNERY

-v-12/ArchaeologyasaSocialScience108JAMESF.DEETZ

13/HistoricalandHistoricSitesArchaeologyasAnthropology:BasicDefinitionsandRelationships118ROBERTL.SCHUYLER

14/ArchaeologicalSystematicsandtheStudyofCultureProcess125LEWISR.BINFORD

PART4TheMethodologicalBaseofContemporaryArchaeologyIntroduction133

15/ArchaeologicalSystemsforIndirectObservationofthePast135JOHNM.FRITZ

16/AConsiderationofArchaeologicalResearchDesign158LEWISR.BINFORD

17/AReviewofTechniquesforArchaeologicalSampling178SONIARAGIR

PART5ArchaeologicalStrategyfortheStudyofHunter-GatherersIntroduction193

18/LithicAnalysisinPaleoanthropology195EDWINN.WILMSEN

19/TheClovisHunters:AnAlternateViewofTheirEnvironmentandEcology206FREDERICKGORMAN

20/ArchaeologicalSystemsTheoryandEarlyMesoamerica222KENTV.FLANNERY

PART6ArchaeologicalStrategyfortheStudyofHorticulturistsIntroduction235

21/Post-PleistoceneAdaptations237LEWISR.BINFORD

22/TheEcologyofEarlyFoodProductioninMesopotamia255KENTV.FLANNERY

23/CarryingCapacityandDynamicEquilibriuminthePrehistoricSouthwest268EZRAB.W.ZUBROW

24/ExplainingVariabilityinPrehistoricSouthwesternWaterControlSystems280FREDT.PLUGandCHERYLK.GARRETT

25/ChangesintheAdaptationsofSouthwesternBasketmakers:ASystemsPerspective289MICHAELA.GLASSOW

26/TheHopewellInteractionSphereinRiverine-WesternGreatLakesCultureHistory303STUARTSTRUEVER

-vi-27/ArchaeologyasAnthropology:ACaseStudy316WILLIAMA.LONGACRE

28/APrehistoricCommunityinEasternAbrizona320JAMESN.HILL

29/TheOlmecWere-JaguarMotifintheLightofEthnographicReality333PETERT.FURST

PART7ArchaeologicalStrategyfortheStudyofComplexAgriculturalistsIntroduction355

30/SomeHypothethesesoftheDevelopmentofEarlyCivilizations359ROBERTM.ADAMS

31/PraisetheGodsandPasstheMetates:AHypothesisoftheDevelopmentofLowlandRainforestCivilizationsinMesoamerica365WILLIAML.RATHJE

32/StateSettlementsinTawantinsuyu:AStrategyofCompulsoryUrbanism393CRAIGMORRIS

33/Death'sHead,Cherub,UrnandWillow402JAMESF.DEETZandEDWINS.DETHLEFSEN

Bibliography413

Index451

-vii-

PrefaceTHEPURPOSEofthisvolumeistopresentinoneplacethecoherenttheoryandconcreteresultsofrecentdevelopmentsinanthropologicalarchaeology.Thisvolumeismeantasmuchforprofessionalarchaeologicaluseasitisforgeneralanthropologicaljudgment.Althoughthe volumeisnotacompleterepresentationofcontemporaryadvancesinarchaeology,Ihavetriedtoincludeenoughmaterialinittoallowittostandasacompendiumofcurrentissues,discussions,andsolutions.Thesemaybeusedashandbookandsourcebookbytheprofessionalarchaeologistinterestedinassessingwhatisnewinarchaeology.Ihavetriedtoincludeinthisbookthosestatementsoftheorythataremostimportantincreatingwhatisnowcommonlycalledthenewarchaeology.Takenasawhole,theyrepresentmostoftheideasthatmakecurrentarchaeologysomewhatdifferentfromthearchaeologymostanthropologistsgrewupwith.Alsowhentakenintoto,thesestatementsaremeanttooutlinethesharedassumptionswhichdifferentiatewhatisusualfromwhatisrecentinarchaeology.Theideaoftheoreticalcoherenceissignificantbecauseitisnecessarytoidentifytotheoutsideworldwhatitisthatisbehindtheconcretesolutionsonecanfindscatteredwidelythroughoutthearchaeologicalliterature.Recentarchaeologicalinnovationshavenotoccurredbychancenorthroughideosyncraticstrokesofimagination.Theyformaunifiedcorpusthatcanbeidentified.Forthearchaeologicalworld,ontheotherhand,Ifeeltwogoalsareaccomplishedbypresentinginoneplacethecoherenceofrecentarchaeologicaltheory.Manyclaimtherearenorealtheoreticaldifferencesbetweennewarchaeologistsandtheirintellectualfathers.Thisconclusioncomesaboutbecausethetheoreticalstatementsareoftenobscureandhidden.Italsocomesaboutbecauseitisoftenimpossibletotellwhenreadingapieceofcontemporaryarchaeologythatidentifiesitselfasnew,whatthereisaboutitthatdistinguishesitfromwhatisnotnew.Sincethedataofthedisciplinehavenotchangednorhastherangeofproblemsbeenexpandedinmanyinstances,areaderhasdifficultyinpickingoutelements,theoreticalorconcrete,thatwerenotpresentinsubstantialresearchpriortothearrivalofthenew,processual,orevolutionaryarchaeology.Asaresult,Ihopeoneofthefunctionsofthisvolumewillbetheunmistakabledelineationofthetheoreticalbaseofmuchofcontemporaryarchaeology.Withinthehousebuiltbynewarchaeologiststhereisvariabilityintheoryand,asaresult,inaims.Thehousehasnotalwaysbeenatpeacewithitself,andIthinkoneofthereasonsforthatproceedsfromourfailuretorecognizeourtheoreticaldifferences.Thedifferencesarenodoubtrealinsomecases.ButIthink,inothercases,theyresultfromourpossessinganewandverypowerfulbodyoftheorywhich,dependingonthearchaeologist,isindifferentstagesofassimilation.Ithinktheassumptionsaresharedbutaredifferentiallyinternalizedandused.Thatwouldreducemanydifferencesbetweenustofunctionsoftimeandproblemsaddressed.Thisbookisthenaimedatthreedifferentconstituencies,mycolleaguesinanthropology,inarchaeology,andthosewhodifferentiatethemselvesintotheneworprocessualarchaeology.Thereareusedaboveawholeseriesoftermstolabelthecontributionsinthisbook.-ix-It is commonly agreed that the new archaeology is least happy among these. But it is the most common term and I suspect no amount of posturing is going to make it go away. And it also needs to be said that the phrase is not used without some justification. I have tried to underuse the phrase in this book borrowing, instead, processual archaeology, evolutionary archaeology, and contemporary archaeology. The last phrase is used with a qualifier to signal that not all contemporary archaeology shares the same theoretical base. And indeed much contemporary archaeology is, to use a truly unhappy phrase, traditional as opposed to new archaeology. This is a lexical problem that is not easily solved and it is a function of the fact that some things really are new. The proper label to identify the different, while not irritating unnecessarily, is not in hand, however.The aims of this book are served in several organizational ways. I have tried to avoid producing a reader that forced the whole job of synthesis on the user. As a result the book has been about evenly divided between theory and its ramifications on the one hand, and substantive accomplishments tied to the theory on the other. The first half of this book provides the key theoretical statements in recent archaeology. These are accompanied by an attempt to discover the historical origins within archaeology for the outburst of the last decade and more. At the beginning of the book there are four essays, mostly of an interpretive sort, that attempt to assess the theory and contributions of the last ten years. They are both critical and complementary and serve to provide background for the core of the book. A section on method completes consideration of the ideas and sources that produced those papers found in the second half.Inevitably a movement within a discipline that raises a storm such as was done in the 1960s provokes a whole exegetical literature. The four original articles that open this book are such, and they take very varying approaches to the problem of understanding what is really going on. There is no doubt that all areamici curiae, and two consider themselves practitioners of the new paradigm. This section can not pretend any more than the section on origins can pretend to represent a comprehensive attempt to address all issues within the specific domain. Other archaeologists would undoubtedly approach these two topics differently, and I must own my own biases as well as the shortcomings resulting from them. As a result of these biases, I may have claimed a man, and possibly an idea, for the new archaeology that others will feel is improper and even unjustified. The factor that makes differing identifications possible is the differing degree to which people are willing to publicly own or practice this approach to archaeology. Since the field has had its share of recriminations as a result of pretty massive theoretical revisions, many have felt labels are better foregone while men simply do research and let that be interpreted as people care to. The wisdom of that approach can not be denied. Therefore, should anyone find himself an unwilling member of a group he is uncomfortable with in these circumstances, I assume the blame for putting him here and extend an early apology.It also needs to be said that all movements have their predecessors, and this one is not excepted. New archaeologists are berated for ignoring the processes and contributions that created them. I can not say that I have adequately represented the men and ideas that preceded the new archaeology either in the section on origins or in the substantive contributions. Only comprehensive research will outline the processes that created what we now have.The substantive half of the essays in this book is organized according to a scheme that uses as its chief criterion the complexity of the economic base of a culture. Such schemes are not infrequently used both by ethnologists and archaeologists. Service'sPrimitive Social Organizationand Cohen'sMan in Adaptationemploy ordering criteria ranked in-x-termsofcomplexityanddegreeofdifferentiation.Suchclassificatoryschemesareexplicitlyevolutionary,butbeyondthattheyappropriatelycomplementandaccuratelyrepresenttheassumptions,problems,andareasofsubstantiveworkwhichmuchrecentarchaeologicalresearchhasbeendirectedtoward.Thereareanumberoforiginalarticlesthatappearfirstwiththisvolume.ThemostimportantbookinwhichonefindsrepresentativesofrecentbreakthroughsinarchaeologyisNewPerspectivesinArchaeology,whichSallyandLewisBinfordbroughtoutseveralyearsago.Sincethenthefieldhasundergoneexpansionaswasinevitable.Ihaveattemptedtoselectsomeofthemorerecentcontributionsmadebytheircolleaguesandprintthemhere.Becauseofmyowntrainingandbecauseofthehighactivitythere,manyoftheoriginalarticlesandsomeofthosereprinteddrawondatafromtheprehistoricsouthwesternUnitedStates.Ithinkthereisminimumriskinnarrowingfocusbyusingthesesinceeveryauthorwhousesthatregionusesitexplicitlyasalaboratorywhereaspecificcaseofamoregeneralproblemisinvestigated.Theseessaysarenothistoricaltreatments.Theseoriginalsubstantivearticles,regardlessofwheretheydrawdatafrom,areattemptstopresentresearchthatbuildsexplicitlyontheinitialcontributionsmadebysomeoftheearliestoftherecentinnovators.Theoriginalessaysare2,3,4,15,24,25,31,and32writtenrespectivelybymyself,WalterW.Taylor,RaymondH.Thompson,JohnM.Fritz,FredT.PlogandCherylK.Garrett,MichaelA.Glassow,WilliamL.Rathje,andCraigMorris.Essay19byFrederickGorman,thoughpreviouslypublished,hasbeensubstantiallyrevisedforthisvolume.Toaidinunifyingthetheoryandaccomplishmentsoftheworkrepresentedhere,asinglebibliographyhasbeencreatedforthevolume.ThebibliographyistheworkofLouisA.Hieb.Andwiththat,referenceshavebeenunifiedthroughoutthebook.Althoughthereisnaturallyagreatamountofperipherainthecitations,thesecanstandasaworkingbibliographyforthefield.Thereisinadditionashortintroductiontoeachofthemajorsectionswithinthebook.Theseserveasmuchtointroducethearticlesastoidentifytheissuesdiscussedinthesectionorunderlyingthatparticulardomaininarchaeology.Importantly,thereareanumberofthemesrunningthroughthisbookthatarenotalwaysvisibleatthesurface.Twothatarecloselyalliedaretherelationshipbetweenarchaeologyandthecontributionsmadebyarchaeologytoitsconstituencies.Throughoutthenineteenthcentury,archaeologywasnottiedtoanthropologyorwastiedonlyinanacentway.Andsimultaneouswithitsautonomy,archaeologymadetwocontributionstogeneralknowledgethathadeffectsmoreprofoundthananyithasbeenresponsibleforsince.Archaeologydemonstratedtheantiquityofmanand,insodoing,providedtheempiricalbasisfortheradicalrevisionofWesternman'sconceptoftime.CertainlywetendnottodwellonthesecontributionsbecausetheyhavebeensocompletelyassimilatedintoWesternculture.Buttheireffects,oncecalledtomind,arereadilyrecorded.However,thesecontributionsandtheirramificationsoccurredatatimewhenarchaeologywasautonomousfromanthropologyandwasalliedwith,althoughnotasubdivisionof,thenatural,historicalsciences.Asanerawithinarchaeology,itisnotdealtwithinthisbook.Withinthetwentiethcentury,however,thesetwothemesplayoutdifferently.Inthetwentieth,notonlyhadarchaeologybeendifferentiatedwithinitselfintoclassicalandprehistoric,butthelatterbecamefirmlyattachedtoanthropology.IntheUnitedStatesandWesternEurope,prehistoricarchaeologybecameoneofthehistoricaldivisionsinasocialsciencewhereasclassicalarchaeology,inthecourseofmaintainingitsautonomy,becameafirmlyhistoricaldiscipline.Classicalarchaeologyisfundamentallyatvarianceinitsaimsfromanthropologicalarchaeology,andmostofthedataofthetwohavebeenmutuallyexclusive.Prehistoryasapartofanthropol-xi-ogylostitsautonomyasapurelyhistoricaldisciplineandreceivedinreturnasetofgoalswhichlinkeditfirmlytoanthropologyinrationale.Itthereforehadsomeobligationtobescientificorcomparativeaswellastoconcernitselfwithsocietyorculture.Yetasthislinkwasforgedandastheconstituenciesofarchaeologistschanged,theredevelopedagapbetweentheexpectationsforandaccomplishmentsofarchaeology.Inthenineteenthcentury,archaeologyhadestablishedthefactofman'sdomaininthepast.Butinthetwentiethcentury,archaeology'smajoraccomplishmenthasbeenthedescriptionanddelimitationofthatdomain.Thescopeofman'sexistenceinthepast,intimeandinspace--theoriginalgoalofarchaeology--continuedtobethegoalafterarchaeologyleftthecompanyofthenaturalhistoricaldisciplinesandbecamealliedwithsocialscience.Andithasgenerallybeenfeltthatthedescriptionanddelimitationofman'spastisafoundationforsocialscientificworkbutis,initself,aninsufficientend.Hencewhileautonomywasgivenupintheory,itwasnotinpractice.Asaresultofchangingconstituencies,archaeologycontinuedtosatisfyitsformerbutnotalwaysitsnewone.Henceonehastoassessquitecarefullythecontributionsmadebywhatisnowasubdisciplineinthetwentiethcentury.Someoftheunderlyingthemesintheessaysinthisbookprovidethebasisforsuchanassessment.Fromthepointofviewofhistory,thereisnodoubtthatarchaeologyinthetwentiethcenturyhascontributedinthemostmassiveandsuccessfulways.Certainlywhatweknowabouttheprehistoryofourownspeciesbiologicallyaswellasculturallyissoimmensethatitnearlydefiesassessment.Ithinkwemayjustifiablypointtoarchaeology'sroleinclarifyingman'spast,especiallywhenoneconsidersthemyths,frauds,andmisconceptionsthathavebeencounterbalancedasaresult.However,asapartofanthropologythecontributionsofanowdependentsubdisciplinearedifferent.Onesuchcontributionandthemeisprecision.Accuratedescriptionissoessentialtoknowledge,yetsooftenidentifiedasameans,thatwesometimesfailtorecognizetheimportanceofthemethodsandtechniquesthatenableprecisioninthefirstplace.Ethnologyhaslongbeenfamousforthecrudenessandimprecisionofitsdescriptivetools.Andlinguistics,bycontrast,aswellasgeneticshavebeenequallyrenownedfortheprecisionoftheirowndescriptiveconcepts.Ethnologistshave,ofcourse,borrowedheavilyfromlinguisticsformethodanddescriptivedevicesinthelasttwodecades.Partoftheenvironmentproducingademandforprecisionhascomefromarchaeology'soccupationwithmeansforobtainingdescriptiverigor.Thatpreoccupationhasbeenpartofarchaeologicalresearcheffortsfordecadesandhasbeenoneofthefield'sidentifyingtraits.Inadditiontotherangesoftechniquesfordating,palynology,stratigraphy,floatation,andthedescriptiveclassificationsfordatasopreciselyrecovered,archaeologypioneeredintheuseofstatisticsandcomputeranalysisinanthropology.Archaeologyalsohaditsdebateovertherealityofnativecategoriesandtherelationshipbetweenthemandanalyticalcategoriesfifteenyearsbeforeethnologyhaditsargumentoverwhoseheadheldmoretruth,thenative'sortheanthropologist's.Theauthorswhoseworkiswithinthisbookalltaketheuseofprecisionindescriptionasasinequanonforresearch.Thisrepresentsthecontinuityofrigorousdescriptionwithinarchaeologyandasagoalisoftenunspoken.Butasapartoftheanthropologicalworld,thishasalsobeenoneofarchaeology'sfrontierinterests.Whilearchaeologyhasbeenconsciousoftheneedfortechnicalaccuracy,ithasnotsooftenbeenawareoftheneedforrigorofthesamequalityinlinkingitsdatatoitsconclusions.Inductiveinferencehasusuallybeenusedasthelogicalmethodtoprovidesuchlinks.Itisrecentlyarguedthattheunalloyeduseofsuchadeviceisdebilitatingtoarchaeology.Itiswithinthedomainofthemethodsoflogic,methodswithinthephilosophyofscienceandverycloselylinkedtoconsiderationsofaccuracyandprecision,that-xii-archaeologycontinuestocontributetotheenvironmentofanthropology.Theoccupationinarchaeologynowwithproblemsoflogicalprocedureparallelsthecontinuingdebateamongotheranthropologistsoverthevalidityoftypesoftaxonomiesandtheproperplacesofinductionanddeductioninresearch.Manyoftheauthorswithinthisbookhavesuchaconcernandmanyothersactonrecentlysuggestedsolutions.Asecondareainwhicharchaeologyhasmadeandcontinuestomakenoteworthycontributionstoanthropologyisinitsabilitytoconsidernaturalfactorsandtheirrelationtoculturalcontext.Factorslikedemography,nutrition,andthenaturalenvironment,thelastoftenexpressedasecology,haveplayedimportantrolesinarchaeologicalresearch,andbyreflectionhavehadanimpactintheanthropologicalworld.Therearecertainlyareaswithinanthropologywhereecological,demographic,geographic,andahostofotherbiologicalandenvironmentalfactorsareconsideredascriticalvariablesindescribingandexplainingculturalbehavior.Archaeologistshavebeenresponsibleforprovidingmanyofthetestcaseswheretherelationshipbetweendemographicandecologicalvariables,ontheonehand,andculturalvariables,ontheother,havebeenworkedoutexperimentally.Andwithallofthis,archaeologyhasnotbeenguiltyofenvironmentaldeterminismalthoughithassometimesemphasizedtheimportanceofenvironmentalfactorsoverculturalvariables.Althougharchaeologistsarenotespeciallyresponsibleforfoundingculturalecology,theyareresponsibleforprovidingthatapproachwithmassivesupportintheformofperformingcriticalresearch,ofperfectingmethods,andofinventingtechniques.WhenoneconsiderstheworkofGordonChilde,GrahameClark,RobertBraidwood,thelongandcontinuingworkofScandinavianandBritisharchaeologistsinthedomainofbuildingmodelsincorporatingandmeasuringnaturalvariables,oneseesthehabitualregardofarchaeologistsforfactorsthatinfluence,ifnotgovern,largeportionsofhumanbehavior.Thatisalegacytoanthropologythatisneitherinconsiderablenorover.Thereareveryfewsubstantivearticlesinthisbookthatdonotconsidernaturalvariables,whetherthesebeecologicalordemographicorgeographic.Thereishardlyanarticleeitherthatdoesnotfollowtherulethatcultureistobeexplainedintermsofculture.Whatisrepresentedasaresultisacomplex,oftennon-deterministicstatementabouttherelationbetweenculturalandnonculturalvariables.Forthisdiscussion,thethirdandfinalareainwhicharchaeologyhascontributedtoanthropologyandanareawhichcanbeseenmovingthroughtheessaysinthisvolumeistechnology.Morethananyotherdisciplinearchaeologyhasprovideduswithanideaofhowobjectsreflecttheculturethatcreatedanddistributedthem.Ourideasofhowobjectsfunctionateconomictasksisremarkable.Theinformationderivedfromchippedstonetoolsfromthepaleolithic,forexample,coverstasksoffoodpreparationanduse,techniquesoftoolmanufactureanduse,typeoffooddealtwith,thedivisionsoftheeconomicbase,huntinghabits,andseveralmoredomains.Wehavedevelopedtheuseofsettlementpatternstoinformonkinshippatterns,landusepatterns,socialstratification,defenseandcompetition,populationgrowthanddeclineandpopulationproliferationandaggregation,andthesubdivisionandfunctionofurbancenterstogiveonlyanincompletelist.Hereistheuseofpatternedsetsofmaterialobjectstoimputetheformofseveralothersubsystemsinculture.Itisalistingofhowrangesofobjectsreflectandfunctionatotherlevels.Wehavecontributedenormousamountsofclearlyspecifiedinformationabouthowtechnology,initslargesense,reflectshumanbehavior.Thatisstilloneofourmajortasksinarchaeology,anditisundergoinganemphasisofunusualstrengthtoday.Theartifactsofprehistoricarchaeologyarebeingappliedtodemographic,social,andevenreligiousproblemsaswellastoacontinuinginterestinecologicalproblems.Archaeologistshavenotalwaysbeenawareoftheknowledgeabouttechnologyorma-xiii-terialculturethattheyhave.Theinformationabouthowitemsandartifactsreflectandinformonthelesspermanentaspectsofculturalsystemshasrarelybeencodifiedandidentifiedassuch.Theprinciplesoftechnology'sreflectivepropertieshaverarelybeenspecified.Theyareinhandnonetheless,andmoreimportantiseveryarchaeologist'sabilitytouseobjectsandpatternsofthemtotalkaboutthenonmaterialbehaviortheywereapartof.Thefullrangeofreflectiveabilitiesofobjects,ormaterialculture,ortechnology,willundoubtedlybeinhandoneday.Asacontinuingcontributiontoanthropology,thisdomainrepresentsamajorthemeexpressedinthevolume.Butexpressedalsoisanewquestionabouttechnology.Howdoestechnologyperformthetasksitdoes?Nothowdoesitreflect,buthowdoesitreinforce,enforce,andevendeterminethetasksandfunctionsthatitisinvolvedwith?Assumingtechnologicaldeterminismforamoment,weareallowedtoaskasarchaeologistshowitemsfromaxestovillageplanstomachinesinfluencebehavior.Thisisdifferentfromaskinghowecologicalarrangementsorsocialstructureareexhibitedinobjects;thequestionhereiswhatroledoitemsplayineconomics,socialorganization,andreligion.Andanotherquestion:whatarethepropertiesofspecificartifactsthatallowthemtobehaveastheydo?Inoutliningsomeoftheareasinwhicharchaeologyhasbeenpositivelyalliedwithanthropology,Ihaveemphasizedcontributionsintherangeoflargertheoreticalandnonhistoricalissues.Ihavenotdiscussedtheexemplaryachievementsoursubdisciplinehasmadeinaddressingsubstantiveissuesliketheoriginsofman,domestication,theriseofcities,andthepeoplingoftheNewWorld.Buthereareareaswherearchaeologyalonehascontributedtheonlyviablehypothesestoaddresstheproblemsandprovidedtheevidencetoverifythehypotheses.Theseareuniversallyrecognizedissuesonwhichtheonlysolutionsofferedhavecomefromarchaeologists.Someoftheseissuesareaddressedwithinthisbookandprovidesomeoftheexplicitorganizingproblemsaroundwhichmodernresearchisorganized.Theseareusuallyself-evidentproblemswhereasthoseImentionedearlierareoftenimplicitmotifsthatrunthroughmostarticleshere.Suchmotifsare,however,countedasthefirmcontributionsofarchaeologytoanthropology.Justasithasbeenimpossibletodealwithallofthecontributionsmadebymodernarchaeology,itisalsoimpossibletodealadequatelywiththereasonsforthoseIhavechosentoemphasize.Aswithanybookofsuchscope,therewasthenecessityofseekingmuchadvice.Manycolleaguessuggestedcontributionsaswellasdomainsthatwouldbeappropriatelycovered.InmanycasesIhavetakentheiradviceandamgratefulforit.InallcasesIhavemadethefinalchoicesandaccepttheerrorsthatmaybelatentinthose.SinceIhavewantedtocollectthemostimportantpiecesofrecentarchaeology,Ihavehadtoduplicatearticlesthathavebeenreprintedelsewhere.Presentedherearealsoafewpiecesreadilyavailableinmajorjournals.Myrationaleforwhatmayseemtoberedundanceisthedesiretopresentthenewparadigmasawholewithitstheoreticalstatementsandconcreteaccomplishmentsjuxtaposedinoneplace.Noneoftheseessayshasbeencut.Thebibliographyhasbeenmaintainedforallarticles,andnotesappearfollowingindividualessays.Wheretherehasbeenanyrewriting,ithasbeenminimalandfunctionedtoadaptanessaytoapresentationsuchasthis.Rewritingneverinterferedwithanauthor'sthoughtsasoriginallystatedinhisarticle.Thisbookhasbeentwoyearsintheplanningandexecution,andduringthattimeIhavebuiltupmanydebtsforassistancegivenbycolleagues.TothemIamgrateful.TwothatIwishtomentionparticularlyareThomasLewiswhosuggestedthephraseandtitle,"ContemporaryArchaeology,"andJeannetteMirskywhoprovidedcontinualencouragement.MarkP.LeonePrinceton,NewJerseyJanuary1972-xiv-

NotesonContributorsROBERTM.ADAMSisProfessorofAnthropologyintheOrientalInstituteandDepartmentofAnthropologyoftheUniversityofChicago.

LEWISR.BINFORDisAssociateProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofNewMexico.

V.GORDONCHILDE,1892-1957,wasDirectoroftheInstituteofArchaeologyattheUniversityofLondon.

GRAHAMECLARKisDisneyProfessorofArchaeologyatCambridgeUniversity.

JAMESF.DEETZisProfessorofAnthropologyatBrownUniversity.

EDWINS.DETHLEFSENisAssociateProfessorofAnthropologyatFranklinPierceCollege.

KENTV.FLANNERYisAssociateProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofMichigan.

JOHNM.FRITZisAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofCaliforniaatSantaCruz.

PETERT.FURSTisProfessorofAnthropologyattheStateUniversityofNewYorkatAlbany.

CHERYLK.GARRETTisagraduatestudentintheDepartmentofAnthropologyattheUniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles.

MICHAELA.GLASSOWisAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofCaliforniaatSantaBarbara.

FREDERICKGORMANisagraduatestudentintheDepartmentofAnthropologyattheUniversityofArizona.

JAMESN.HILLisAssociateProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles.

CLYDEKLUCKHOHN,1905-1960,wasProfessorofAnthropologyatHarvardUniversity.

MARKP.LEONEisAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyatPrincetonUniversity.

WILLIAMA.LONGACREisAssociateProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofArizona.

PAULS.MARTINisChiefCuratorofAnthropology,Emeritus,oftheFieldMuseumofNaturalHistory.

CRAIGMORRISisAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyatBrandeisUniversity.

FREDT.PLOGisAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles.

SONIARAGIRisAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyatRichmondCollegeoftheCityUniversityofNewYork.

WILLIAML.RATHJEisAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofArizona.

ROBERTL.SCHUYLERisAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyattheCityCollegeofNewYork.

ALBERTC.SPAULDINGisProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofCaliforniaatSantaBarbara.

STUARTSTRUEVERisAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyatNorthwesternUniversity.

WALTERW.TAYLORisProfessorofAnthropologyatSouthernIllinoisUniversity.

RAYMONDH.THOMPSONisProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofArizona.

EDWINN.WILMSENisAssociateProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofMichigan.

EZRAB.W.ZUBROWisAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyatStanfordUniversity.

-xv-

PART1TheScopeoftheChangesinContemporaryArchaeology

IntroductionThefollowingfouressaysrepresenttheagreementofmostcontemporaryarchaeologiststhatthechangesoccuringnowinarchaeologyareunlikethosemostrememberfromthepast.Whetherthepresentchangesaresummedupasarevolutionorsimplyasfasterthanordinarychange,thereisnosubstantialdisagreementthatarchaeologyintheUnitedStatesandwithinanthropologyis,toonedegreeoranother,beingtransformed.Thereisdisagreementovertherate,thenature,theorigins,andthetoneofthetransformation,butthereisnodisagreementthatatthemomentandforthelasttenyears,thepacehaschanged.Thereisanothercommonfeatureintheseessaysaswell.Noauthorregretsthechange,andnonecondemnsit.ThatisnottosaythatallAmericanarchaeologistsagreeonthebeneficialcharacterofthe,presentchanges.Butthedisciplineasawhole,whileperhapsflinchingattherhetoricandsquabbling,hasacceptedrecentinnovationswithincreasingequanimity.AnynumberofsociologistsandalliedanalystsofAmericanculturehavepointedoutthereceptivityAmericansshowtochangeandeventoradicalinnovation.Thefactthatarchaeologistsbelongtothelargercultureissurelyinpartresponsiblefortherapidrecognition,albeitatdifferinglevels,giventothenewarchaeology.Withinarchaeologyitself,thereasonsfortherapidityofthechangeanditsacceptancearenotsoclear.Manyofthereasonsareidentifiedandevaluatedbythefollowingessays.Inanattempttoidentifythecausesforchangeinarchaeology,theprinciplesthathavebeenchanged,andtheoriginsforwhatisnowgoingon,thefourauthorsherehaveuseddifferentmodelsdependingontheirpredispositions.W.W.Taylorhasassessedthenewarchaeology,orreallypartsofit,againsthismonumentalAStudyofArcheology.Taylor's1948workwasoneofthemostvaluableintellectualservicesAmericanarchaeologyhashadperformedforit.Amassivecollectionofevidenceclarifiedtheaimsandaccomplishmentsofarchaeologyuptothattimeandassessedthefitbetweenthetwo.Toremedythediscrepancyhefound,Taylorsuggestedanalternativetheoreticalapproachwhichhasitselfrarelybeenusedbyarchaeologists.Taylor'sworkbroughttoanewlevelofconsciousnessmattersofgoalsandmethodsinarchaeologyanditsrelationtoanthropology,history,andscience.Sincehisstudy,ithasnotbeenpossibleforarchaeologytobeunawareofanyofthemajorissuescenteringonitsrationale.Thelevelofcriticalawarenesshecreatedhasbeenpartofthebackdropinfrontofwhichthenewarchaeologyhasgrown.-1-Appropriately, W. W. Taylor examines here the fit between his own study of 24 years ago and several of the crucial theoretical innovations of the new archaeology. This assessment is especially useful because Taylor provides one of the ways for discovering the roots of contemporary change. The problem of the intellectual origins of the new archaeology has not yet been adequately addressed. It may also be impossible to do so for some time. But Taylor points an unambiguous finger at his own seminal study as one of the theoretical factors in the current scene. The claim can not be dismissed.Paul Martin, who is unquestionably the senior archaeologist in this section, exercises the rights of experience and seniority and calls current events in archaeology revolutionary. From the perspective of 40 years in the field, Martin sees both it and himself revitalized by the new archaeology. There is no contradicting the data of his personal experience. What remains to be seen is how widespread among other archaeologists that experience is. Paul Martin has voiced in the opening of his essay a sentiment that is not a part of the new archaeology but is found among a few of its members. Long before the word relevant became slang, he supported the idea that if archaeology were really linked to anthropology, and if anthropology were directed at problems that were truly pertinent to modern conditions, then archaeology need be neither moribund nor beside the point. Besides enunciating that idea, he argued for its logical corollary: archaeologists should address problems that have real significance for the larger society, that society being archaeology's sponsor in the first place. Martin argues that there should be some explicit fit between the world's problems and archaeology's. That thought is not so unacceptable as it is novel.As mediator in the assessments offered here, Raymond Thompson plays a significant role. Arguing justifiably that more claims are made by the sponsors of contemporary changes than are empirically verifiable, he further points out the position of many archaeologists on the issue of spontaneous invention versus gradual development for the new archaeology. Using a favorite archaeological device, the continuum of development, he argues that the new archaeology is not so divorced from traditional archaeology as some of its adherents have said. He further argues that fruitful research can most profitably occur when it is understood that there are not two archaeological strategies, but a series of exciting innovations-2-coupledwithessentialandolderpracticesthatwillenablethedevelopmentofarchaeologytoanewlevelofaccomplishment.AlthoughmanynewarchaeologistswoulddisagreewithThompson'sinterpretationoftheuninterruptednatureofarchaeology'sgrowthfromthepasttothepresent,nonewouldfailtorecognizethereasonablenessofwhatThompsonsuggestsontheplaneofsocialrelations.Infact,overthelasttwoorthreeyearstherehasbeenfarmorecooperationandfarlesscastigationbetweenthevarioussidesthanwasthecasejustearlier.TheunitythatThompsonsuggestsmaybebecomingareality.MyownessayiscomplimentarytoMartin's.Themajorpointisnotsimplytoagreewiththeotheressayshereandtheopinionstheyrepresent,butrathertosuggestthatthechangeseveryonewillinglyadmitshavehappenedarenotsomuchoverastheyareonlybeginning.-3-

PART2TheOriginsofContemporaryChange

IntroductionArchaeologyhasbeencalledthescienceoforigins.Itseemsparticularlyappropriateinatimeofmorerapidthanusualchangetoacknowledgeourhistoricalpredecessorsinanthropologicalarchaeology.Therearemanypredecessorstothechangesthatnowcharacterizearchaeology,more,infact,thancanbeaccuratelyandintelligentlycited.Thearticlesinthissectionwerechosenbecauseeachpiecerepresentsaspecialandparticularglimpseofwhatitsauthorwantedarchaeologytobecome.Thoseglimpsesarerelevanttothepresent.Thenumberofpiecesinthissectioncouldbedoubledortripled.Butthereareprobablynotmorethanadozenarticlesbyahandfulofauthorsinthelastfewdecadeswhoaccuratelyreflectadissatisfactionwiththeusualchallengesofthefieldandwhothentookonataskunusualfortheirtime.ThesepiecesreflectsomeofthechangescurrentinAmericanarchaeologybecauseeachauthorhadsensedthenearingcompletionofthehistoricalistapproachandhadattemptedtoexperimentwithadditionalproblemsandapproaches.Thesearticlesareindicesandsignpostswhichoccurredinthe1940sandfiftiespointingtothepresentchangesinarchaeology.GordonChilderepresentssystemicevolution,anotionthatimpliesdirectionalchangeaffectingthepartsofaculturalsysteminpreciselyinterrelatedways."TheUrbanRevolution"appearsinthisvolumefortworeasons.Itisamuch-usedarticleinadifficult-to-obtainjournal.Butalsobecause,takenwithWhatHappenedinHistoryandSocialEvolution,itoutlinestheinterrelatedcriteriapresentasurbanismarises.Thearticleitselfdoesnotexplainthesystemicconnectionsbetweenthetraits.Someareobvious,somelessso.Butneverdoesthereadergettheimpressionthattheyarearandomcollectionofbitsandpieceswhichhappentomarkastageinhumanevolution.Childewitnessestheadventofevolutioninarchaeologyandtheerectionofstagetypologiesthatcategorizephenomena,fromsimpletocomplexandfromundifferentiatedtodifferentiated.Animportantadditiontothischaracteristic,however,ishisunderstandingthatdirectionalchangeoperatesthroughaffectingallpartsofasystem.Childewasalso,inshort,afunctionalist.PaulMartinalsorepresentsfunctionalismasheisreprintedhere.ItistheexplicitnonevolutionaryfunctionalismofRadcliffe-Brown,nottheimplicitfunctionalismofMarx."ConjecturesConcerningtheSocialOrganizationofthe-39-

Chapter5V.GORDONCHILDETheUrbanRevolutionTHECONCEPTof"city"isnotoriouslyhardtodefine.Theaimofthepresentessayistopresentthecityhistorically--orratherprehistorically--astheresultantandsymbolofa"revolution"thatinitiatedaneweconomicstageintheevolutionofsociety.Thewordrevolutionmustnotofcoursebetakenasdenotingasuddenviolentcatastrophe;itishereusedfortheculminationofaprogressivechangeintheeconomicstructureandsocialorganisationofcommunitiesthatcaused,orwasaccompaniedby,adramaticincreaseinthepopulationaffected--anincreasethatwouldappearasanobviousbendinthepopulationgraphwerevitalstatisticsavailable.JustsuchabendisobservableatthetimeoftheIndustrialRevolutioninEngland.Thoughnotdemonstrablestatistically,comparablechangesofdirectionmusthaveoccurredattwoearlierpointsinthedemographichistoryofBritainandotherregions.Thoughperhapslesssharpandlessdurable,thesetooshouldindicateequallyrevolutionarychangesineconomy.Theymaythenberegardedlikewiseasmarkingtransitionsbetweenstagesineconomicandsocialdevelopment.Sociologistsandethnographerslastcenturyclassifiedexistingpre-industrialsocietiesinahierarchyofthreeevolutionarystages,denominatedrespectively"savagery,""barbarism"and"civilisation."Iftheybedefinedbysuitablyselectedcriteria,thelogicalhierarchyofstagescanbetransformedintoatemporalsequenceofages,provedarchaeologicallytofollowoneanotherinthesameorderwherevertheyoccur.Savageryandbarbarismareconvenientlyrecognizedandappropriatelydefinedbythemethodsadoptedforprocuringfood.Savagesliveexclusivelyonwildfoodobtainedbycollecting,huntingorfishing.Barbariansonthecontraryatleastsupplementthesenaturalresourcesbycultivatingedibleplantsand--intheOldWorldnorthoftheTropics--alsobybreedinganimalsforfood.ThroughoutthePleistocenePeriod--thePalaeolithicAgeofarchaeologists--allknownhumansocietiesweresavageintheforegoingsense,andafewsavagetribeshavesurvivedinoutofthewaypartstothepresentday.InthearchaeologicalrecordbarbarismbeganlessthantenthousandyearsagowiththeNeolithicAgeofarchaeologists.Itthusrepresentsalater,aswellasahigherstage,thansavagery.Civilizationcannotbedefinedinquitesuchsimpleterms.Etymologicallythewordisconnectedwith"city,"andsureenoughlifeincitiesbeginswiththisstage.But"city"isitselfambiguoussoarchaeologistsliketouse"writing"asacriterionofcivilization;itshouldbeeasilyrecognizableandprovestobeareliableindextomoreprofoundcharacters.Note,however,that,becauseapeopleissaidtobecivilizedorliterate,itdoesnotfollowthatallitsmemberscanreadandwrite,northattheyalllivedin____________________ReprintedbypermissionfromTownPlanningReview,vol.21,1950,pp.3-17,andbypermissionoftheInstituteofArchaeologyoftheUniversityofLondon.Fifteenofseventeenfigureshavebeendeletedfromthetext.-43-

PART3TheTheoreticalBaseofContemporaryArchaeology

IntroductionThevastbulkoftheessaysinthesecondhalfofthisvolumearederivedimplicitlyorexplicitlyfromtheideasinventedandexplainedinthearticlesinthissection.Althoughtheassumptionsofprocessualarchaeology,aswellastherestofitstheoreticalframework,areincompletelysynthesizedyet,enoughexistsforaveryconvincingapproachtoproblems.AstheideasmotivatingmanyarchaeologistsarevoicedbyLewisBinford,theyrepresentanarchaeology-specificversionofmaterialist-basedculturalevolution.Whiteanevolutionorneoevolutionorculturalmaterialismhasbeenextantsincebeforethe1940sinanthropology.Butithasrequiredareadaptationofthoseconceptsbeforetheycouldbeutilizedbyarchaeologists.Thatreadaptationhasinvolvedtheincorporationofideasnotgivenexplicitemphasisinneoevolution,themostimportantofwhichissystemstheory.Buteventhatnotionproceedsnecessarilyfromprimaryconcernwiththeprocessesofculturalchange.Archaeologistsofanyeraarepredisposedtoculturalmaterialism,andalso,itcanbeargued,tonotionsoforderedculturalchange,likeevolution.Thematerialartifacts,nottheideas,ofculturessurviveandarethedata-baseofthesubdiscipline.Likewisethedataexistovertime,andsometimesoverenormousspansoftime.Thatthedatacanbeseentochangesystematicallywouldseemtopredisposearchaeologiststoideasofdevelopmentalprocess.Despitetheobvioustruthofthesetwostatements,archaeologistshaveonlybeenimplicitculturalmaterialistsandhaveforlongperiodsdecriedtheideaofculturalevolution.Amongthecontributionsmadeinrecenttheoreticalstatementsisexplicituseofmaterialisticdeterminism,ofevolution,and,crucially,ofthenotionthattechnologyinadditiontobeingacriticalvariablereflectsalltheculturalsubsystemsoperatingonit.Theideathatanitemofmaterialculture,anartifact,asaproductofacultureanditsvarioussubsystems,isalsoastatementaboutthosesubsystemsisnew.Thatpaintedpotterycouldbetiedtokinshipandresidencecameasarevelation.Archaeologistshavealwayssuspectedaconnectionbetweenobjectsandsocialorganizationandreligion.Muchoftheearly,provocativespeculationofnineteenth-centuryarchaeologistswasbasedonanassumedconnection.Buttheirimprecisionandspeculationdifferfromthemoresecureknowledgethatexistsnow.Andthatsecuritycomesnotfromassumingthatsomeartifactsoperate-89-

Chapter12JAMESF.DEETZArchaeologyasaSocialScienceTHATPARTofanthropologyknownasarchaeologyisconcernedwithcultureinthepast--theextinctlifewaysofformerpeoples,howandwhytheychangedanddeveloped,andthesignificanceofthistodevelopmentalprocessandtoourunderstandingofculture.Inshort,archaeologyaddsavitaltimedimensiontothestudyofman.Assuchifitistoachievetheendswhichweclaimforit,archaeologymustremainascloselyandintimatelyboundupwithgeneralethnologyaspossibleandconstantlycontributetounderstandingsofsocialman.Thispointneedssomestresssincemuchofarchaeologyinthepublicmindisinvolvedwithradiocarbondating,pollenstudies,glacialgeologyandotherareasofthebiologicalandphysicalsciences.Whilemodernarchaeologycouldillaffordtoforegothesecontributionsofotherdisciplines,theyarestilljustcontributionswhichmakethearchaeologistbetterabletomakereasonedandvalidstatementsconcerninghumancultureinthepast.ToparaphraseWilleyandPhillips,then,"archaeologyisasocialscienceoritisnothing."Mostarchaeologistswouldagreethattheyarestrivingtoachievethreerelatedends:1)thereconstructionofculturehistory,oftenovermassivesegmentsoftime;2)thedetailingofthedailylifewaysofearliercultures;and3)theelucidationofculturalprocessinabroadersensewithemphasisonthedynamicaspectsofculture.However,thesethreegoalsofarchaeologyareinnosensemutuallyindependent,anditwouldseeminviewingtheirinterrelationshipsthattwoofthemareaspectsofonelargerentity.Ifwewereabletoderivearelativelycompletepictureoftheworkingofanearlycultureatonepointintimeanddetailtheinterrelationshipsbetweenthatculture'svariouscomponents,thenthesynthesisofalargenumberofsuchculturalstatementswouldatthesametimedelineateprocessinadynamicsenseaswellasprovideafarmoredetailedhistoricalstatement.Thus,sophisticatedhistoryandculturalprocessarebuttwoaspectsofthesamearchaeologicalgoal,differinginemphasisandperhapsinscope.Untilrelativelyrecently,culturehistoryasformulatedbyarchaeologistshasbeenquitecoarse-grained,withgreatstressonthemajoreventsofprehistorysuchastheevolutionoflithictechnologyovertensofthousandsofyears,theinventionandspreadoffoodproduction,thepeoplingofthenewworldortheriseofcivilization.Thisperspectiveisseenmostcommonlyinoverallsyntheses,summarystatementsineffect(ImeanheresuchbooksasGrahameClark'sWorldPrehistoryasanexample)oftheprehistoryofthisorthatportionoftheworld,orforthatmattertheentireworld.Atamorespecificlevelinspaceandtime,andhereI'mreallytalkingaboutsitereports,culturalhistorical____________________ReproducedbypermissionoftheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociationfromBulletins,vol.3,no.3(2),1970,CurrentDirectionsinAnthropology,pp.115-25.Thebibliographicalreferenceshavebeenplacedinthegeneralbibliographyforthisvolumebypermissionoftheauthor.-108-

Chapter14LEWISR.BINFORDArchaeologicalSystematicsandtheStudyofCultureProcessWILLEYANDPhillips(1958:50)haveexpresseddoubtsthatcurrentarchaeologicalconceptssuchas"phase"haveconsistentmeaningintermsofhumansocialunits.Itisthepurposeofthisessaytoexploresomeofthereasonsforthislackofcongruenceandtoofferatheoreticalframeworkmoreconsistentwithsocialreality.Inanygeneraltheoreticalframeworkthereareatleasttwomajorcomponents:1)onethatdealswithcriteriaforisolatingthephenomenonunderstudyandwiththeunderlyingassumptionsaboutthenatureoftheunitsorpartitiveoccurrenceswithintherecognizedgenericclassofphenomenon,and2)assumptionsconcerningthewayinwhichthesepartitiveunitsarearticulatedintheoperationofasystemorduringchange.Mostoftheanalyticalmeansandconceptualtoolsofarchaeologicalsystematicshaveariseninthecontextofabodyofculturetheorywhichisreferredtohereasthe"normativeschool."Underthisnormativeviewthephenomenonbeingstudiedisvariouslydefined,butthereisgeneralagreementthatculturewithacapitalCisthesubject.Inthisthenormativetheoristsareinagreementwithothers.Itisinthedefinitionofpartitiveconceptsandtheassumptionsconcerningtheprocessesofbetween-unitdynamicsthatnormativetheoristsdiffermarkedlyfromthepositiontakenhere.AtypicalnormativestatementisgivenbyTaylor(1948:110):Bycultureasapartitiveconcept,Imeanahistoricallyderivedsystemofculturetraitswhichisamoreorlessseparableandcohesivesegmentofthewhole-that-is-cultureandwhoseseparatetraitstendtobesharedbyallorbyspeciallydesignatedindividualsofagrouporsociety.AsimilarviewisexpressedbyWilleyandPhillips(1958:18)whenspeakingofspatialdivisionsofculturalphenomena:Instrictlyarchaeologicalterms,thelocalityisageographicalspacesmallenoughtopermittheworkingassumptionofcompleteculturalhomogeneityatanygiventime.Theemphasisinthesetwoquotationsandinthewritingsofotherarchaeologists(Ford1954:47;Rouse1939:15-18;Gifford1960:346)isonthesharedcharacteristicsofhumanbehavior.Withinthisframeofthought,cultureisdefinedasanabstractionfromhumanbehavior.Accordingtotheconceptofculturebeingdevelopedhere,cultureisamentalconstructconsistingofideas.(Taylor1948:101).OrasFord(1954:47)hasargued:First,itmustberecalledthatthesebuildingsareculturalproducts--nottheculture.Thesearrangementsofwood,bamboo,andgrassare____________________ReprintedfromAmericanAntiquity,vol.31,no.2,1965,pp.203-10.BypermissionoftheauthorandtheSocietyforAmericanArchaeology.-125-

PART4TheMethodologicalBaseofContemporaryArchaeology

IntroductionAdistinctionshouldbemadebetweenmethodandtechnique.Inscience,methodisgenerallyaseriesoflogicalandprocedualdevicesinsuringrigorinthematchbetweendataandthevariablethosedatameasure.Techniqueisamuchmoreparticularandnarrowsetoftoolsusedinobtainingandmeasuringdata.Archaeologyisfamousforthetechniquesituses:stratigraphy,dendrochronology,radiocarbondating,palynology,paleoethnobotany,andawholelitanyofothers.Archaeologyisnotsofamousforitsmethods.Someoftheseareethnographicanalogy,thedirecthistoricalapproach,andavarietyoftaxonomicprinciplesdichotomizedbetweennativecategoriesthoughttorepresentwhatthe"reallyrealisreallylike"ontheonehandandarbitrary,problem-designedcategoriesontheother.Themajorflawinarchaeologicalmethod--aflawmanifestlyabsentinitstechniques--isimprecision,lackoflogicalrigor,andageneralinsecurityoftheknowledgetherebyproduced.Thisinsecurityintheknowledgeweobtainismanifestintherhetoricalorderofarchaeology'swork.Volumesendwithsectionsentitled"Speculations"insteadofbeginningwithasectiondescribingthehypothesisthebookwillreallyexamine."Conclusions"occupytotallyminimalanddisproportionatelyminorpartsofvolumesotherwisepopulatedbydescriptivedataoftenunrelatedtotheendinginanyway.Itiswiththismajorflawinarchaeologicalmethodthatthearticlesinthissectionareconcerned.Therearetworealmsofactiontoimproveonthesecurityoftheknowledgethatweasarchaeologistsproduce.Thefirstrevolvesaroundthelogicorargumentsofrelevancewherebyavariablethatistobemeasuredislinkedtothedataactuallycollected.Aclassicmoderncaseofthisisthelogicconnectingceramicstylevariationtoaspectsofsocialorganization:painteddesignelementsmeasuredresidentialunitsofkingroups.Itisthestrengthandimaginationofthelogicappliedtoarchaeologicaldatathatopenanenormouslywiderrangeofproblemstocontemporaryarchaeologiststhanwasformerlythecase.Theargumentswhichfashionthatlogicbetweendataandvariablearedrawnfromthesubstantivedomaininwhichaproblemresides.Ifthedomainiskinship,theecologyofhunter-gathers,nutrition,domestication,settlementpattern,economics,ordemography,thentheargumentsofrelevancelinkingtheartifactstotheproblemcomefromtheliteratureofthatsubstantivedomainandfromethnographiccaseswheresimilaritiesarepertinent.Thesesourcesoftendefinenewrangesofdataandprovidethelogicmakingthedatapertinenttotheproblem.Theexpansionofarchaeology'sdata-133-

Chapter15JOHNM.FRITZArchaeologicalSystemsforIndirectObservationofthePastTHISESSAYmightbetterbetitled"TowardtheConstructionofReliableIndicatorsinArchaeology."Theconcernspresentedherereflectmyconvictionthatarchaeologistsseekingtoincreasethereliability,i.e.,credibility,ofourknowledgeofthepast,andseekingalsotoexpendanthropologicaltheoryasitrelatestothepastcanborrowprofitablyfromthemethodologicaltheoryandvocabularyofpsychologyandsociology.Isuggestthatjustastheanswerstopsychologicalquestionnairesareconsideredasindicatorsofinnerpsychologicalfactorsorstates(Boring1961;Stevens1951;Thurstone1959),andjustastheanswerstocensusoropinionsurveysareconsideredindicatorsofsocialphenomena(LazarsfeldandRosenberg1955:1-18),e.g.,classoreconomicfactors,thecharacteristicsofthearchaeologicalrecord(heretermedarchaeologicaldata)canbeconsideredasindicatorsofpastphenomena.Inthisessay,Ireferonlytopastsocioculturalphenomena,althoughpastenvironmentalandhumanbiologicalphenomenacouldequallywellbeused.Itisheuristicallyusefultoisolatethosearchaeologicalactivitiesthatcanbetermed"naturalhistoriography"fromthosethatareconsideredsubsequently.ThephilosopherF.S.C.Northrup(1947:35-58)arguesthatclassificationandtypologyareessentialcharacteristicsofnaturalhistory.Scholars,confrontedwithmassesofempiricaldata,attempttoreducetheircomplexitiesbyplacingtheminsmaller,moreeasilyhandledcategoriesthatmaybegrouped,inturn,intoevenfewerclasses.TheLinnaeansystemfortheclassificationofanimalsisarchetypical.Suchclassificationinarchaeologycanbetermed"time-spacesystematics"(cf.Chang1967a),or"culture-historicalintegration"asbyWilleyandPhillips(1958:4).Itconsists,first,oftheclassificationofartifactsandfeaturesrecoveredinexcavationandsurveyintotypes;second,ofthegroupingoftypesintoassemblages,i.e.,classeshavingsimilarsetsoftypes;andthird,ofthegroupingofassemblagesinto"cultures,"or"culture-types."Culturesareconceivedofashavingspatialandtemporalboundaries--eithernaturalorarbitrary(cf.WilleyandPhillips1958:14-17)--andareassignedtoareasandperiodsonthebasisofthespatialandtemporaloccurrenceofthesimilarassemblagesofwhichtheyarecomposed.Naturalhistoricalarchaeologydoesnot,indeedshouldnot,venturebeyondthedescriptionofthearchaeologicalrecord.Nodoubttherearesomearchaeologistswhollydevotedtoobservationandclassificationandtherearemanyotherswhoseworkentailsalmostasmuchdevotion.However,almostallarchaeologistsaspirebeyondnaturalhistoriography.Almostallarchaeologistshopetoknowthepast.-135-

Chapter16LEWISR.BINFORDAConsiderationofArchaeologicalResearchDesignITSEEMSfairtogeneralizethatarchaeologistsarebecomingmoreinterestedintheexplanatorypotentialwhichstudiesofpaleoecology,paleodemography,andevolutionofferforincreasingourunderstandingofformalandstructuralchangeinculturalsystems.Severalanthropologistshaverecognizedagrowinginterestinquestionsdealingwiththeisolationofconditionsandmechanismsbywhichculturalchangesarebroughtabout(Adams1960a;Braidwood1959;Haag1959;Steward1960).Inshort,weseekanswerstosome"howandwhy"questionsinadditiontothe"what,where,andwhen"questionssocharacteristicallyaskedbyarchaeologists.Thisessayisconcernedwithpresentingcertainmethodologicalsuggestions,someofwhichmustbeadoptedifwearetomakeprogressinthestudyofprocessesandmovearchaeologyintothe"explanatorylevel"ofdevelopment(WilleyandPhillips1958:4-5).Inanygeneraldiscussionofmethodandtheorythereisinevitablyanargumentativebiasonthepartofthewriter.ItshouldbepointedoutthatIbelievetheisolationandstudyofculturalsystems,ratherthanaggregatesofculturetraits,istheonlymeaningfulapproachtounderstandingculturalprocesses(Steward1960:173-74).Aculturalsystemisasetofconstantorcyclicallyrepetitivearticulationsbetweenthesocial,technological,andideologicalextrasomatic,adaptivemeansavailabletoahumanpopulation(White1959:8).Theintimatesystemicarticulationoflocalities,facilities,andtoolswithspecifictasksperformedbysocialsegmentsresultsinastructuredsetofspatialformalrelationshipsinthearchaeologicalrecord.Peopledonotcooperateinexactlythesamewaywhenperformingdifferenttasks.Similarly,differenttasksarenotuniformlycarriedonatthesamelocations.Astasksandcooperatinggroupsvary,sodotheimplementsandfacilities(Wagner1960:88-117)oftaskperformance.Theloss,breakage,andabandonmentofimplementsandfacilitiesatdifferentlocations,wheregroupsofvariablestructureperformeddifferenttasks,leavesa"fossil"recordoftheactualoperationofanextinctsociety.Thisfossilrecordmaybereadinthequantitativelyvariablespatialclusteringsofformalclassesofartifacts.Wemaynotalwaysbeabletostateordeterminewhatspecificactivitiesresultedinobserveddifferentialdistributions,butwecanrecognizethatactivitiesweredifferentiatedanddeterminetheformalnatureoftheobservablevariability.Ihavearguedelsewhere(Binford1962:219)thatwecanrecover,bothfromthenatureofthepopulationsofartifactsandfromtheirspatialassociations,thefossilizedstructureofthetotalculturalsystem.Thearchaeologicalstructure____________________ReprintedfromAmericanAntiquity,vol.29,no.4,1964,pp.425-41.BypermissionoftheauthorandtheSocietyforAmericanArchaeology.-158-

PART5ArchaeologicalStrategyfortheStudyofHunter-Gatherers

IntroductionFormostofman'shistory,hiseconomyhasbeenbasedonhuntingandcollecting.Andalthoughfewsocietieshavesuchaneconomicbasetoday,thearchaeologicalrecordconsistsingreatpartofremainsthatcharacterizethatlongestofhumaneconomiceras.Itisoftensuggestedthatbecausehunter-gatherersarebothsimpleandnearlyextinct,anthropologicalconcernwiththemismyopicandirrelevant.Theirstudycanbedefended,however,sinceknowledgeofthemexpandsourcomprehensionofthetotalrangeofculturalvariationintimeandspace.Butamoresolidargumentresidesinouruseofthatpartoftheprehistoriclaboratorytounderstandthelong-termeffectsofecologicaladjustment,populationdynamics,economicexchange,andtechnologicalgrowth.Thebehavioroforganismsenteringanemptynicheisaparticularlyusefulsubjecttousnow,especiallysinceweasaspeciesareconcernedwithoverpopulationandthepotentialuseofhithertoemptyareas.ThewholeoftheprehistoricNewWorldprovidesalaboratoryfortestingideasaboutpopulationdynamicsandculturalchangeinanemptyzone.Likewise,theprinciplesofecologicalmanagementandadjustmentusedbyPaleolithicandMesolithichuntersandgathererscanbeusedtoaugmenttheprecisionofourpresentknowledgeofecologicalchange.Thelaboratoryofprehistorichunter-gatherersisaparticularlyunexploitedone,andonehavinggreatpromise.Asawhole,hunter-gatherershavealessdifferentiatedandmorehomogeneousculturethanagriculturalistsandindustrializedpeoples.Thatisnottosaytheircultureiseitherrudimentaryorinsomesensesimplistic.Thesophisticationandcomplexityinthedomainsofkinshipandecologicalorchestrationareadequatecitationsofthesystemicprecisionhunter-gatherersuseinadjustingtotheircircumstances.Oneofthebestarchaeologicalillustrationsofourimprovedknowledgeofhunting-gatheringculturescomesfromtheworkofLewisandSallyBinfordontheMousterianculturesoftheMiddlePaleolithic.MousterianisthedesignationforassemblagesoftoolsfoundwiththeNeanderthalpopulationsthroughouttheOldWorld.TheMousteriancoincideswiththeclimaxandameliorationofthelastmajorglaciation.TheBinfordsdemonstrated(BinfordandBinford1966:2:2:238-95)thatspecifictoolkitsverylikelycorrespondedtospecifickindsofactivities,e.g.,killing-butchering,shredding-cutting,manufactureoftoolsfromnonflintmaterials:wood,antler,etc.TheydemonstratedfurtherthatMousteriansitespresentedavarietyofdistinguishableactivitiescarriedonatthem.-193-

PART6ArchaeologicalStrategyfortheStudyofHorticulturists

IntroductionTheinventionofagricultureanditseffectsonculturearethespecialdomainofarchaeology.Thecircumstancessurroundingdomesticationaswellasthesimultaneousandlong-termresultsofithavebeenappropriatetopicsinanthropologysincethe1870s.Inarchaeologydetailedinvestigationsconcerningdomesticationmustgobacktotheseconddecadeofthetwentiethcentury.ButitwasprobablyGordonChildewhogavethefilliptosuchstudies.Henotonlyoutlinedtheso-calledoasistheory,butprovidedthedetailedlogicmakingtheriseofurbanismdependentontheuseofdomesticates.ChildesuggestedthatastheNearEastdriedupattheendofthePleistocene,men,plants,andanimalswereforcedintogreaterproximityandinterdependenceononeanother.Andattheremainingplaceswherewaterwasavailable,propinquityandinterdependenceresultedinmenharnessingtheenergyofhithertowildplantsandanimals.Braidwooddemonstratedthehypothesistobewrongbyshowingthatthepost-PleistocenehadlittleeffectontheclimateofsouthernMesopotamia,thepostulatedtheatrefordomestication.ButtheinaccuracyofthehypothesisisnotsoimportanthereasisChilde'slegitimationofthetopic,outliningaresearchdesignforstudiesofdomestication,aswellasconnectingthatecologicalinnovationtotheoriginofcities.ManyofthefollowingpiecesspeakdirectlytotheproblemChildefirstoutlined.Itisinthestudyofdomesticationandofagriculturaliststhatarchaeologyhasdemonstrateditsgreatestinventivenesswithtechniques.Theprecisemeasurementanddescriptionofdata,usingdevicesfromthenaturalsciences,hasobtainedforusanunbelievablerangeofdatathroughwhichtheoriginsandeffectsoftheuseofdomesticatedplantsandanimalshavebeenaddressed.Borrowingdescriptivetechniquesfromdisciplinesrangingfromphysicstogeographyhasbeenoneofourstrengthsandhaspermittedaninfinitelymorefine-grainedexaminationofsomeaspectsofextinctagriculturaldevelopments.Inadditiontocontainingtwoarticlesdevotedtohypothesesconcerningtheadventofdomesticationitself,thissectionattemptstoshowthatarchaeologistshavebecomeconcernedinamoreprecisewaywiththeinterrelationshipsbetweenagricultureasaneconomicbase,ontheonehand,anddemography,technology,socialorganization,andreligiousconceptionsontheother.Domesticatedplantsandanimalsprovideacompletelynewsourceofenergyand,insodoing,fostera-235-

Chapter27WILLIAMA.LONGACREArchaeologyasAnthropology:ACaseStudyRECENTLY,certainarchaeologistshaveexpressedconcernoverthefewcontributionsthatarchaeologyhasmadetothegeneralfieldofanthropology(Taylor1948;WilleyandPhillips1958;Binford1962).Acombinationofadvancesinmethodologyandtheadoptionofculturalmodelswhichfocusonculturalprocesseshasresultedincontributionsthatgobeyondmeretaxonomyandinventoriesofstylistictraits.Manyaspectsofextinctculturalsystems(forexample,socialorganization)arenotdirectlyreflectedinmaterialobjectsandarethereforedifficultfortheprehistoriantointerpret.Thisessay1indicatesonewayinwhicharchaeologycanelucidatesomeofthefeaturesofsociallife.SelecteddataobtainedduringtheexcavationofoneprehistoriccommunityineasternArizonawereusedtoanswerquestionsconcerningaspectsofitssocialsystem.Thepurposesofthisstudywere:1)toaugmenttheculturalhistoryoftheupperLittleColoradoareaandtoprovideaclearerunderstandingoftheroleoftheregionintheprehistoricSouthwest,2)todemonstratethevalueofcombiningsystematicsamplingprocedureswithtraditionalaswellasnewmethodsofdataprocessing(forexample,computerprocessing),and3)tomakespecificcontributionstothegrowingbodyofanthropologicalknowledgeandtheory(forexample,todemonstratethepresenceoflocalizedmatrilineagesintheSouthwestbyA.D.1200).InthisreportIdescribetheanalysisofonecommunity,theCarterRanchSite,locatedineasternArizonaandoccupiedapproximatelyfromA.D.1100to1250.Thisareatodayissemiaridwithmostofitsprecipitationoccurringduringthesummermonthsastorrentialstorms.Palynologicalstudies,whichpermitinferencesconcerningthepastclimate,indicatethattherehavebeennogreatclimaticchangesinthepast3500years.Thereisevidencethataminorshiftintherainfallpattern,fromoneofroughlyequalwintersummerprecipitationtothepresentpattern,2tookplacebyaboutA.D.1000.ItwasafterthisshiftbecamepronouncedthattheCarterRanchPueblowasoccupied.ByA.D.1000,theareawascoveredbyanetworkofsmallvillages(pueblos)consistingofoneortwomultiroombuildings.By1250,mostoftheregionwasabandoned;verylargePueblovillageswerelocatedontwopermanentstreamsinthearea.Theareawastotallyabandonedby1500.TheCarterRanchSiteconsistedof39dwellingroomsbuiltasamainblockwithtwowingssurroundingaplazawhichcontainedtwokivas(undergroundceremonialstructures).AdetachedGreatKiva(alargeceremonialbuildingbuiltpartlyaboveground)wassituatedabout10metersnorthwestoftheroomblock.Thesitewaslocatedinavalleycontainingabout60sitesroughlycontemporarywithit.Duringthecourseoftheoccupationofthe____________________ReprintedfromScience,vol.144,19June1964,pp.1454-55.BypermissionoftheauthorandtheAmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience.Copyright1964bytheAmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience.-316-

PART7ArchaeologicalStrategyfortheStudyofComplexAgriculturalists

IntroductionIftheinventionofdomesticationhasalwaysbeenrecognizedastheproperdomainforarchaeology,thensohasitscorollary,theriseofcities.Thephenomenonofcivilizationanditsprincipalcharacteristic,urbanism,areunderstoodtobefoundedonagriculture.Andthisusuallymeansatypeofagriculturemadepossiblebycomplextechnology.Hereresides,forexample,theirrigationhypothesis.ThisisthepropositionmadebyWittfogelthatirrigationundersomecircumstancesleadstoasocialorganizationcharacterizedbyelitesandpyramidallyarrangedpower.Sincethefirstcitiesareallfoundedonagriculturesupportedbycomplexirrigationpractices,itisreasoned,andnotlightly,thatagriculture,irrigation,autocracy,andcitiesarelinkedfactors.Asidefromthecomplextechnologythatcomesintoexistencewithcertainkindsofagriculture,areeconomicandsocialformsandradicallynewformsofreligiousorganization(Bellah1970:9-15).ThereareinthissectionsomeofthesignificanteffortsinAmericanarchaeologytocopewithaspectsofurbanismanditsalliedtraits.CertainlythetheoreticalfoundationforthestudyofurbanismhadbeenlaidbyGordonChildeandJulianSteward.Thesemenhadpointedouttheissueswithintheproblem-domainoftheriseofcitiesandeachhadcontributedhisshareofcompetenceandpublicitytoaseriesofprovocativesolutions.Whatweseenow,however,acknowledgesandbuildsuponChildeandStewardasabaseandgoesonaswell.WhetherornotRobertAdamswouldfeelcomfortablebeingcalledanewarchaeologistisanopenquestion.Thatheismentor,initiator,andguidefornumbersofthemisnotsuchadebatableissue,however.Adamsbeganinthemiddle1950stoaddresstheproblemoftheriseofcities.Hetooktheremarkablestepofmakingageneralcomparativestatementaboutthefactorsbehindtheriseofcitiesandtheirearlytransformationsasseeninthearchaeologicalrecord.ThearticlereprintedhereisoneofhisearlieststatementsandcitesevidencefromancientMesopotamiaandpre-ColumbianMesoamerica.ThismodelofpresentationundoubtedlyenjoyedinspirationfromJulianSteward.Buttohaveanethnologist,evenonetrainedinarchaeology,discusstheuniformqualitiesincivilizationandtohaveanarchaeologistdothesamethingarenotparallel.Stewardcouldstandsafeinacomparativefield.Adamsfacedtheparticularistsintheirownhouse.(SeeAdams1966forthemostup-to-dateandcomprehensivestatementonthissubject.)-355-

BibliographyAbelLelandJ.1955PotterytypesoftheSouthwest.CeramicSeries,no.3.Flagstaff:MuseumofNorthernArizona.

AberleDavidF.1960Theinfluenceoflinguisticsonearlycultureandpersonalitytheory.In"Essaysinthescienceofculture:inhonorofLeslieA.White".GertrudeDoleandRobertCarneiro,eds.NewYork:ThomasY.Crowell.

AberleKathleenGough1967Anthropologyandimperialism.Paperpresentedatthe1967SouthwesternAnthropologicalAssociationmeetings.ReissuedbytheRadicalEducationProject,AnnArbor.

AdamsRichardE.W.1964TheceramicsequenceatAltardeSacrificiosanditsimplications.InternationalCongressofAmericanists,Mexico,D.F.,1962.ActasyMemorias35(3):371-78.

1969Mayaarchaeology1958-1968,areview.LatinAmericanResearchReview4(2):3-45.

AdamsRobertM.1956Somehypothesesonthedevelopmentofearlycivilizations.AmericanAntiquity21:227-32.

1960aTheevolutionaryprocessinearlycivilizations.In"Theevolutionofman:mind,culture,andsociety",SolTax,ed.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

1960bTheoriginofcities.ScientificAmerican203(3):153-68.

1962AgricultureandurbanlifeinearlysouthwesternIran.Science136:109-22.

1965LandbehindBaghdad:ahistoryofsettlementontheDiyalaPlains.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

1966Theevolutionofurbansociety.Chicago:AldinePublishingCompany.

1968Archeologicalresearchstrategies:pastandpresent.Science160:1187-92.

AlcockL.1951Atechniqueforsurfacecollecting.Antiquity25:75-98.

AlexanderH.L.,Jr.1963TheLeviSite:aPaleo-IndiancampsiteincentralTexas.AmericanAntiquity28:510-28.

AlleeW.C.,etal.1949Principlesofanimalecology.Philadelphia:W.B.Saunders.

AndersonEdgar1952Plants,man,andlife.Boston:Little,Brown.

AndrsFriedrich1938DieHimmelsreisedercaraibischenMedizinmnner,ZeitschriftfrEthnologie70:331-42.

AndrewsE.W.1965ArchaeologyandprehistoryinthenorthernMayalowlands:anintroduction.In"HandbookofMiddleAmericanIndians,vol.2:ArchaeologyofsouthernMesoamerica",GordonR.Willey,ed.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.

AntevsErnst1962LatequaternaryclimatesinArizona.AmericanAntiquity28:193-98.

ArkinH.,andColtonRaymond1957Tablesforstatisticians.NewYork:BarnesandNoble,Inc.

ArmillasPedro1951aTecnologia,formacionessocio-econmicasyreligionenMesoamerica.In"ThecivilizationsofancientAmerica",SolTax,ed.Twenty-ninthInternationalCongressofAmericanists,Selected

-413-