Method and Theory

Question 1

Binford, Lewis R.
1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, pp. 313-341. Aldine, Chicago.

Answer 1

Main Point: In this chapter Binford is reexamining the Post-Pleistocene (Mesolithic) period and critiquing previous interpretations of this transitional period (e.g., Braidwood and Childe). He suggests that the emergence of agriculture in Europe was not the result of nuclear zones or an “oasis,” but rather population pressure. However, in a way, he is agreeing the Braidwood’s nuclear zones and Childe’s oasis theory which postulated that agriculture developed in specific areas that were primed for farming and that the Post-Pleistocene period was a period of dramatic climatic change, respectively. Binford suggests that in the Post-Pleistocene period aquatic resources were abundant and that populations clustered around estuaries filled with these resources. since this type of subsistence was popular during the period, the resulting tension zones must have as well been popular, accounting for the “rapid transmission and integration of contributing innovations from one cultural system to another.” Soon enough, people were forced to expand outside of these regions, and encountered areas without maritime resources, and thus, viola, the development of agriculture. In addition, this interpretation answers Braidwood’s critique of Childe (why now?), by suggesting that the selective pressures just had not existed yet (environmental and increased sedentism factors) for the development of agriculture.

Question 2

Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gather Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.

Answer 2

Main point: Binford uses ethnoarchaeology and ethnography to paint a picture of hunter and gather lifestyle. He suggests that ethnoarchaeology is the one of the only ways to gain a good understanding of what happened in the past. Binford examines the relation of foraging vs. collecting to the environment. He is interested if any environmental factors influence which strategy people use. Foragers operate on an encounter basis, meaning that they gather food as they find it, or in other words, they are not seeking particular foods, while collectors “supply themselves with specific resources through specially organized task groups.” “The point here is that logistical and residential variability are not to be viewed as opposing principles (although trends may be recognized) but as organizational alternatives which may be employed in varying mixes in different settings.”

Question 3

Binford, Lewis R.

1981 Behavioral Archaeology and the “Pompeii Premise”. Journal of Anthropological Research 37(3):195-208.

Answer 3

Main point: Schiffer accuses New Archaeology of treating the archaeological record as a Pompeii, arguing that processualism does not take into account transformational processes. Binford’s rebuttal: that’s what theory is for, facts do not speak for themselves; everything is based on the inferences of the archaeologist. Much of this debate results from their very divergent views of archaeology: Binford believes that the goal of archaeology is to interpret long-term events in relation to the environment (the organization and functioning of systems). Schiffer want to look at behavior and specific events and for this you need a Pompeii, here C-transforms and N-transforms are really that much more important!

Question 4

Binford, Lewis R.

1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.

Answer 4

Main Point: Middle range theory (MRT) is crucial to the development of archaeology. Binford argues that we cannot know the past without it because without MRT our reconstructions are based on the same principles that provided the construction in the first place. There needs to be an independent way to test general theory—this is middle-range theory. Specifically, Binford is arguing that inferences from associations between bones and stone tools at alleged living sites” and as a result have created a “myth” of early hominid behavior. He suggests that to minimize the likelihood of constructing false pictures of the past” we need to use MRT, which creates a dynamic picture from a static past. In addition, he is arguing that we need to separate MRT from general theory to avoid circular arguments. A common example of not separating MRT with general theory–analogies of the ethnographic present that make assumptions of essential cultural categories (bands, tribes, chiefdoms, states)–these are based on cultural models that fit all cultures into evolutionist categories, which in turn you use to evaluate theories that are based in the same categories. Therefore, Binford is saying that the real testing comes with the present not with the past.

Question 5

Binford, Lewis R. and Jeremy A. Sabloff

1982 Paradigms, Systematics, and Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38(2):137-153.

Answer 5

Main point: They are advocating a change in paradigm rather than a change to processual theory. Use Kuhn (incorrectly) to argue that we need to fight for a change in paradigm. Make a good point in the distinction between theory and paradigm—paradigms are composed of theories.

Question 6

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M.
1992 Distinguished Lecture in Archaeology: Breaking and Entering the Ecosystem—Gender, Class, and Faction Steal the Show. American Anthropologist 94(3):551-567.

Answer 6

Main point: The ecosystems approach has been beneficial in some area, but it has relied too much on the “interconnectedness of social and ecological variables,” making the study of social change difficult. Thus this paper argues three points: 1) The ecosystem’s approach on whole populations and behavior systems obscures the visibility of gender, class, and faction; 2) An approach that emphasizes gender, class, and faction can explain a lot that an ecosystems approach cannot; and 3) This approach leads up to reject the ecosystem notion that all cultures are adaptive systems. Culture is rather the outcome of negotiation between “social agents pursuing their goals under both ecological and social constraints.” Overall, We need to alternate between system- and subject-centered modes of analysis. (This statement is really made because Brumfiel began her career on system-centered modes of analysis, see her section in Early Mesoamerican Village.)

Question 7

Dobres, Marcia-Anne and John E. Robb
2000 Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm of Platitude? In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M. Dobres and J. E. Robb, pp. 3-17. Rutledge, London.

Answer 7

Main point: Dobres and Robb are in a way arguing that agency might be better conceptualized as a focus within practice theory—arguing that ultimately archaeologists need to come up with their own version of agency. They are not concerned with selecting a specific definition, but simply stating the need to make sure that a clear statement is included by archaeologists who claim to work with agency.

Question 8

Dunnell, Robert C.
1982 Science, Social Science, and Common Sense: The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38(1):1-25.

Answer 8

Main point: We are modeling ourselves off the wrong science, we all like physics (space-like science) but we need to be evolutionary biology (space-like). Part of this is because he is advocating evolutionary archaeology. He is also frustrated in how we have uncritically borrowed concepts from other disciplines in the attempt to be scientific.

Question 9

Earle, Timothy K. and Robert W. Preucel

1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology 28(4):501-538.

Answer 9

Main point: Archaeology is continually borrowing from geography, but those concepts have been critiqued in geography and those critiques have not funneled into archaeology, therefore we need to be more in tune with the happenings of geography.

Question 10

Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus
1998 Cognitive Archaeology. In Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post-Processual and Cognitive Approaches, edited by D. S. Whitley, pp. 35-48. Routledge, New York.

Answer 10

Main Point: This paper defines cognitive archaeology. The 60s were dominated by positivist, materialist studies. Others at the same time argued that this process dehumanized the discipline and they sought to find values, ideas, beliefs, and other cognitive processes that make humans unique. Flannery and Marcus define cognitive archaeology as the study of all aspects of ancient culture that are the product of the human mind. The authors focus on four aspects of cognitive archaeology: cosmology, ideology, ideology, and iconography. They are really frustrated with most cognitive archaeologists and suggest that most of their work is fantasy. What Flannery and Marcus want is a cognitive archaeology that is more aligned with rigorous archaeological research. One of the only ways to attain this is with historical documents and ethnohistory. Overall, people are scared with cognitive archaeology, because it could all be made up, and they should be scared, but also realize that it should be done.

Question 11

Hegmon, Michelle

2003 Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity 68(2):213-243.

Answer 11

Main point: we are all interested in similar archaeological problems, so we should set our egos aside and understand that processualists are now studying many of the same things that postprocessualists are interested in. This doesn’t mean that we all using the same theories, just that many of the themes of postprocessualism are now being incorporated into processualism. Like the idea; critique: although we may be studying the same things, we have very different approaches that make the united term processual-plus misleading.

Question 12

Hodder, Ian
1982 Theoretical Archaeology: A Reactionary View. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 1-16. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Answer 12

Main Point: Here, Hodder attempts to create a contextual or symbolic archaeology but bridging the gap between the flawed concepts of structuralism and functionalism. In summary, there are 5 general criticisms of functionalism: 1) The dichotomy between culture and functionalism—materials are more than tools for survival; 2) Its inability to account for cultural variability; 3) Its ignorance towards the individual; 4) Its use of cross-cultural generalizations in a way that is unable to account for social and cultural behavior; and 5) Lack of integration into a coherent social and cultural theory. Structuralism has also been critiqued as lacking a theory of practice and invisible, meaning they are not directly observable to the archaeologist. To Hodder, structures are codes and rules, which produce the patterns and systems we observe. Overall, all of the critiques of structuralism and functionalism center around the “inability of the approaches to explain particular historical contexts and the meaningful actions of individual…” Therefore there is a need to develop a “contextual archaeology” that resolves this problem and the problem of the dichotomy between culture norm and societal adaptation. By looking at history and culture we see that symbols carry with them very specific meanings. In addition, Hodder argues that we need to look at the historical context of meaning, as “the achievements of society are not automatic responses to the environment.”

Question 13

Hodder, Ian and Scott Hutson

2003 Reading the Past. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Answer 13

Main Point: This book is arguing for three things: 1) material culture is constituted meaningfully; 2) any account of material culture and social change must take recognize the individual; 3) archaeology is historical. To properly explain something we must be able to understand it prior, we must understand its historical precedents. He also addresses the sociopolitical basis of our discipline, including a fundamental acknowledgement that archaeology as practiced today often serves to reproduce established power relations, and in so doing cannot be seen to be isolated from or irrelevant to social issues of wider local or global significance. Hence the rise of new directions in archaeology (e.g. ‘feminist’, ‘indigenous’ etc.), which form a crucial link between contemporary social movements and archaeology, as the Issue becomes one whereby different social groups manage their own affairs. The book also argues: Ideas, beliefs and meanings interpose themselves in between people and things—therefore to understand people we must go back to understanding the ideas and symbolic contents “fossilized” within the material record. We therefore need to interpret the archaeological record; it does not just exist, but rather is a reflection of society.

Question 14

Johnson, Matthew

2010 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Answer 14

Main Point: See notes.

Question 15

Kirch, Patrick V., and Marshall Sahlins

1992 The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii. 2 vols. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Answer 15

Main Point: This book is the result of archaeology and archival ethnography in hopes to construct “an integrated history of the Anahulu Valley. Archaeological work in this area has focused on the area’s early prehistory, while ethnographies have focused on the post-contact period, and have often relied on European documents to reconstruct history. As a result, this book represents an attempt to integrate documentary analysis with archaeology. It tracks two major changes see in Hawaii, the introduction of native Hawaiians into the area and Europeans. It illustrates how these foreigners changed the area environmentally, biotically, politically, architecturally, and materially (native vs. European goods).

Question 16

McGimsey, Charles R. III

2003 The Four Fields of Archaeology. American Antiquity 68(4):611-618.

Answer 16

Main Point: Increases in funding after the passing of new legislation in the late 1960s and the introduction of CRM has led to the development of the four fields of archaeology: research and report writing, teaching, management, and outreach.

Question 17

Neff, Hector

1992 Ceramics and Evolution. Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 4.

Answer 17

Main Point: The article attempts to write Darwinian theory in a way that it has empirical representation in the archaeological record. Neff suggests that different activities involved in pottery making are shaped by Darwinian processes. Neff’s main argument is that we can consider ceramics as directly observable parts of the phenotypes of past peoples. According to evolutionary theory, phenotypic variation is configured over time by the differential persistence of inherited information (genetic or cultural). Differential persistence is brought on through selection, chance, and large-scale historical processes.

Question 18

Pauketat, Timothy R.

2001 Practice and History in Archaeology. Anthropological Theory 1(1):73-98.

Answer 18

Main point: In this article, Pauketat advocates for a new paradigm, historical processualism. HP is based on practice theory and suggests that practice makes history, or that people create their own actions and that understanding history is a matter of understanding the negotiations of people. Historical processualism pursues how change occurred. We need to look at technology (his case study) in terms of practice theory and historical processualism.

Question 19

Preucel, Robert W.

1995 The Postprocessual Critique. Journal of Archaeological Research 3(2):147-175.

Answer 19

Main point: There is no way to categorize postprocessualism into a single definition. Rather, it is a collection of sometimes conflicting approaches. The varieties of approaches come from the 3 different epistemologies: analytic, hermeneutic, and critical. We should reconstruct archaeology as a social practice–not only in practice but in theory and archaeology as a society–archaeologists as activists (such as feminism).

Question 20

Steward, Julian
1949 Cultural Causality and Law: A Trial Formulation of the Development of Early Civilizations. American Anthropologist 52(3):1-27.

Answer 20

Main Point: Steward’s attempt here is not to illustrate regularities but to spurn up interest in them and what exactly regularities mean. He wants to show that we need to look through the differences to ascertain the similarities. He suggests that we can no longer depend on evolutionism or diffusion, rather we need to look deeper and analyze the history of the emergence of social complexity. Steward attempts to make the search for cultural similarities by suggesting that there are primary and secondary features. This makes the search for regularities easier, as we can locate really broad similarities (such as agriculture) and make any variations a secondary feature. The search for cross-cultural similarities depends on establishing a “master sequence” using similar terminology and suggesting cause and effect relationships.

Question 21

Taylor, Walter W.

1948 A Study of Archaeology. Memoir Series of the American Anthropological Association No. 69, Wisconsin.

Answer 21

Main Point: It begins with a critique of the archaeology of the 1940s (cultural historical). Taylor asks the question: how do actual archaeological contributions differ from what archaeologists set out to do. His first victim is Kidder who he argues gets nowhere close to his goal (developing a history of man). Instead, Taylor contends that Kidder’s work as purely descriptive and interpretation of his descriptive finds produces no picture of the culture as a whole and reduces sites, groups of sites, and even entire cultures to artifact classifications and description. He argues that culture history has three faults: description is necessary but it has been used as a means to an end; focuses only on the elite; and argues that it cannot interpret until all the data are in, making us wait forever. Taylore then attempts to create a new way of doing archaeology: the conjunctive approach. It is made up of six parts: Problem→Data→Local Chronology→Synthesis and Context→Comparative→Study of Culture and its Workings. Taylor’s method to get his message across was not the best to put forward a new way of looking at archaeology–Taylor constructed his argument as an attack on archaeology and archaeologists, although it was meant as a transformative piece–Taylor was seen by processualists as a normative thinker and a culture historian, and therefore tot move beyond him, his work could not be used directly and extensively. Essentially, Taylor wanted to get at the Indian behind the artifact and Processual archaeology wanted to get at the system behind the Indian.

Question 22

Watkins, Joe

2000 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek.

Answer 22

Main Point: The once marginal and weak indigenous cultures are now “flexing their political muscles” about the protection and repatriation of material wealth and human remains. This chapter is an examination of the relationships between indigenous communities and archaeologists around the world.

Question 23

Whitley, David S.

1998 Reader in Archaeological Theory: Postprocessual and Cognitive Approaches. Routledge, New York.

Answer 23

Main Point: This is an edited volume that explores the uses of interpretive and cognitive archaeologies. In the volume, Shanks and Hodder define interpretive archaeology as basically postprocessual archaeology, suggesting that the term postprocessual is no descriptive at all except that it tells us that it comes after processual archaeology. Cognitive archaeology is defined as an approach that seeks explanations of human behavior at least in part by explicit reference to the human mind. To Whitley, behaviorism is what unites postprocessual and cognitive archaeologies. Behaviorism is a sociological concept and one allied with positivism; it holds that people and the things they create can be understood best in terms of stimulus and response relationships. Instantly, processualists used this to argue that external forces (e.g., the environment) were the primary cause of culture change. See book notes for specific article notes.

Question 24

Willey, Gordon R., and Phillip Phillips

2001 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Answer 24

Main Point: This chapter presented a historical-developmental interpretation for New World archaeology. This approach takes descriptive archaeology to a level of interpretation and synthesis. But it really appears to be a culture historical approach on a big picture question (continental archaeology). The authors suggest that for large syntheses, we must use a historical-developmental sequence, or a series of cultural stages that we can line up across space. (Very similar to what Steward 1949 said.) This view suggests that we look less at chronological development, and more to developmental stages. A more in this direction can be seen by Roberts who reformulated the Pecos Classification System to include developmental terms such as Developmental, Great Pueblo, etc. One of the most important distinguishing features of this approach is its use of the term stage rather than period. A stage is a segment of a historical sequence in a given area dominated by a particular economic pursuit. A period is dependent on chronology. The authors also address the issue of cultural lag: so what if one culture is behind the other one in regards to stage. They argue that there are essentially two types of lag: belated and marginal. Belated: a culture shows the characteristics of a previous stage (hunter-gatherers next to agriculturalists). Marginal: a culture shows some characteristics but not all.

Question 25

Wright, Rita P.
1996 Technology, Gender, and Class: Worlds of Difference in Ur III Mesopotamia. In Gender and Archaeology, edited by R. P. Wright, pp. 79-110. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Answer 25

Main Point: In this chapter, Wright attempts to associate weaving during Ur III to women. She uses archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence to demonstrate that men only had three roles in weaving male children of female weavers who worked at a workshop until a certain age; supervisors; and weaving professionals (did the final trimmings, etc. to make it ready for the elite). Wright shows that women weavers were dramatically underpaid and were not allowed to produce textiles on their own time, unlike other craft producers who enjoyed time off for their own private production and could own land.

Question 26

Wylie, Alison

1985 The Reaction against Analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8:63–111.

Answer 26

Main point: Makes distinction of formal vs. relational analogy (although originally done by Hodder 1982). She argues that we need to strengthen our analogies in two ways–finding more examples in space and time and finding more similarities between your source and archaeological record. Analogy is good for archaeology. Critique: Distinction not new, implicitly continues the notion that relational analogies are supreme and doesn’t show us exactly how to strengthen our analogies–are 5 similarities not as good as 10? In the end she repeats something that we know in contemporary archaeology (analogy is useful) and relives an old debate.

Question 27

Wylie, Alison

1992 Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings: Middle Ground in the Anti-/Processualism Wars.

Answer 27

Main point: There is some common ground between the postprocessualism and processualism. Both know that theory is necessary and that we can do a postprocessual science. She identifies a common ground (we can all agree archaeology does this) but still processualism and postprocessualism have epistemological differences.