HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF MATERIAL THINGS LELAND FERGUSON, Editor r .\ SPECIAL PUBLICATION SERIES, NUMBER 2 Society for Historical Archaeology Special Publication Series, Number 2 published by The Society for Historical Archaeology The painting on the cover of this volume was adapted from the cover of the 1897 Sears Roebuck Catalogue, publishedby Chelsea House Publishers, New York, New York, 1968. The Society for Historical Archaeology OFFICERS RODERICK SPRAGUE, University ofIdaho President JAMES E. AYRES, Arizona State Museum President-elect JERVIS D. SWANNACK, Canadian National Historic Parks & Sites Branch Past president MICHAEL J. RODEFFER, Ninety Six Historic Site Secretary-treasurer JOHN D. COMBES, Parks Canada ,,,, , , Editor LESTER A. Ross, Canadian National Historic Parks & Sites Branch Newsletter Editor DIRECTORS 1977 KATHLEEN GILMORE, North Texas State University LEE H. HANSON, Fort Stanwix National Monument 1978 KARLIS KARKINS, Canadian National Parks & Sites Branch GEORGE QUIMBY, University ofWashington 1979 JAMES E.. FITTING, Commonwealth Associates,Inc. DEE ANN STORY, Balcones Research Center EDITORIAL STAFF JOHN D. COMBES ,, Editor Parks Canada, Prairie Region, 114 Garry Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C IGI SUSAN JACKSON Associate Editor Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208 JOHN L. COITER Recent Publications Editor National Park Service, 143South Third Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 WILLIAM D. HERSHEY , , Recent Publications Editor Temple University, Broad and Ontario, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 KATHLEEN GILMORE. ....................................................... .. Book Review Editor Institute for Environmental Studies, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas 76201 LESTER A. Ross Newsletter Editor National Historic Parks & Sites Branch, 1600Liverpool Court, Ottawa, Ontario, KIA OH4 R. DARBY ERD Art Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina. Columbia, South Carolina 29208 EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE JOHN D. COMBES, Parks Canada, Chairman IVOR NOEL HUME, Colonial Williamsburg PAUL J. F. SCHUMAKER, Adan E. Treganza Museum STANLEY SOUTH, Institute ofArcheology and Anthropology Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Material Things HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF MATERIAL THINGS Papers ofthe Thematic Symposium, Eighth Annual Meeting ofthe Society for Historical Archaeology, Charleston, South Carolina, January 7-11,1975 edited by Leland Ferguson Special Publication Series, Number 2 published by The Society for Historical Archaeology John D. Combes, editor © 1977 by The Society for Historical Archaeology Historical Archaeology-Is It Historical or Archaeological? by Lewis R. Binford was previously printed in PopularArchaeology Vol. 4, no. 3-40. Contents Foreword I Stanley South Preface 3 Leland Ferguson Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Material Things 5 Leland Ferguson Material Culture and Archaeology-What's the Difference? 9 James Deetz Historical Archaeology-Is It Historical or Archaeological? 13 Lewis R. Binford Archaeology and Folklore: Common Anxieties, Common Hopes 23 Henry Glassie In Praise of Archaeology: Le Proiet du Garbage 36 William L. Rathje The New Mormon Temple in Washington, D.C. 43 Mark P. Leone The Structure of Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Material Things 62 James E. Fitting Foreword WHEN ROBERT L. STEPHENSON, host and final day of the conference. However, Leland general chairman for the eighth annual meeting Ferguson, whom I had asked to chair the of the Society for Historical Archaeology, asked thematic presentation, had a far better idea, that I act as program chairman for the Charles­ pointing out that a session hailed as exploring ton event, I welcomed the opportunity. He theoretical concepts would likelybe attended by knew of my concern and disappointment in the very few, whereas one dealing with the impor­ fact that the seven previous meetings of the tance of material things would attract a far wider Society for Historical Archaeology had focused audience. To insure as wide an audience as on historical-descriptive, particularistic topics, possible, including those who normally might with little concern shown for the idea-sets under be reluctant to attend a nondescriptive session, which such topics were explored. I saw this as an the thematic session was not concurrent with opportunity likelyto arise but once in a decade, another session. Our concern over a lack of to structure an SHA program around the belief support for such an idea session was at that system under which archaeology is undertaken, point a reflection of our awareness of the de­ rather than around the data base addressed by velopmental background of historical archae­ that faith. ology, and our recognition that the field was not I envisioned a thematic framework emphasiz­ traditionally oriented to the testing of ideas. We ing theory on the first day, method on the sec­ had not yet discussed the session in terms of the ond day, and the usual descriptive papers on the participants, and as it turned out, those who Foreword agreed to join Leland in an examination of the The rare happening recognized here in this spe­ importance of material things brought to the cial volume by the Board of Directors of the session credentials enough to insure a full au­ Society for Historical Archaeology and its ditorium under any conditions. Our fears re­ editor, John D. Combes, is seen as a pivotal garding the reception of such a session are re­ event in historical archaeology. The Society for corded here as a matter of historical record Historical Archaeology is indebted to special monitoring attitudes present in January 1975. volume editor, Leland G. Ferguson, and pro­ The strategy we had was that ifwe could bring duction editor, Susan Jackson, for seeing this together in one room an idea-set composed of work to press. Leland G. Ferguson, David L. Clarke, Lewis R. It is difficult to say when another such event Binford, Henry Glassie, James Deetz, William as the Charleston meeting will come about, Rathje, Mark Leone, and James Fitting, each given the depth to which particularism is en­ bringing his own vibrant concepts, that some­ demic in historical archaeology. However, a thing might happen similar to when drops of revolution in thought is underway in the field, mercury are brought close together; a sudden and its seeds are clearly seen in these papers. coalescence might occur to produce a result From such conceptual roots a new vitality will larger than any of the parts. Those who at­ evolve in the decades to come through the pro­ tended the Charleston meeting are well aware cess of exploring and testing our ideas about the that such a happening did occur. past. As the reader enjoys the enclosed papers of Stanley South Ferguson and his colleagues, an awareness of Institute of Archeology the importance of the Charleston meeting will and Anthropology begin to emerge in the image of the future of University of South Carolina historical archaeology that these papers mirror. 2 Preface IN THE SPRING OF 1974 when Stanley South, were convinced that there was a special value to program chairman for the 1975 meeting of the be gained by studying the things people create. Society for Historical Archaeology, asked me to With this approach we felt that the variety of develop a thematic symposium on theory for people attending the meetings would feel an the meeting we were both excited. Our excite­ affinity to the thematic symposium. There ment stemmed from the opportunity of plan­ would be room for those of us religiously in­ ning a general session for such a large group of volved with science, for those who were histori­ archaeologists who dealt with historic sites. cal particularists, for the humanist in us all and However, my excitement was somewhat curbed for the structuralists. The structuralists? by apprehension. Sessions on "theory" were When this symposium was conceived there often stilted and polemic. They often proved were no archaeologists that I knew of who were divisive. The ideal, I thought, was a session that seriously involved with structuralism as an drew the variety of interests in the Society into analytical approach to archaeology, True, an atmosphere of constructive interaction. The James Dectz had alluded to a kind of structural solution? We decided to have a symposium that approach in his introductory book, Invitation would stress the most common interest of all to Archaeology. Yet, no archaeologists had ever archaeologists-material things. We would in­ used and published a structural analysis. vite people, who regardless of their philosophy Nevertheless, when the symposium occurred 3 Preface and we all reflected on what had happened, we and cogent, and I sincerely thank him for ac­ realized that three of the sixinvited participants cepting and completing this difficult task. explicitlyacknowledged the value of a structural In concluding these prefatory remarks I approach to archaeological materials. Indeed, would like to thank several people. Stanley Mark Leone's paper was a seminal structural South's inspiration and encouragement are di­ analysis of a significant piece of American ar­ rectly responsible for the existence of this vol­ chitecture. Subsequent to the symposium, ume. He and John Combes were instrumental Henry Glassie has published a structural in securing the necessary funds from the state of analysis of eighteenth century houses