Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Process

Lewis R. Binford

American Antiquity, Vol. 31, No. 2, Part 1. (Oct., 1965), pp. 203-210.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7316%28196510%2931%3A2%3C203%3AASATSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2

American Antiquity is currently published by for American .

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/sam.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly , publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in . For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org Sat Mar 15 10:53:57 2008 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYSTEMATICS AND THE STUDY OF CULTURE PROCESS'

ABSTRACT general agreement that culture with a capital is argued that the normative theory of culture, widely C is the subject. In this the normative theorists held among archaeologists, is inadequate for the genera- are in agreement with others. It is in the defini- tion of fruitful explanatory hypotheses of cultural process. tion Of partitive concepts and the assumptions One obvious shortcoming of this theoretical position has collcerning the processes o,f between+ullit dy+ been the development of archaeologi,cal systematics that have obviated any possibility of multivariate namic~that normative theorists differ markedly phenomena and permit onlmy the measurement of unspe, from the position taken here. A typical norma- cified "cultural differences and similarities," as if these tive statement is given by Taylor (1948: 110): were univariate phenomena. As an alternative to this approach, it is proposed that culture be viewed as a sys. BY culture as a partitive concept, 1 mean a historically of subsystems, and it is sugges,ted that derived system of culture traits which is a more or less digerences and similarities between digerent classes of separable and cohesive segment of the whole-that& archaeological remains reflect different subsystems and culture and whose separate traits tend to be shared by hence may be expected to vary indepeildently of each all or by specially designated individuals of a group or other in the normal operation of the system or during society' change in the system. A general discussion of ceramic classification and the classification of differences and A similar view is expressed by WilleY and Phil+ similarities between assemblages is presented as an lips (1958: 18) when speaking of spatial divi- example of the multivariate approach to the study of sions of cultural phenomena: cultural variability. It is suggested that a multivariate approach in will encourage study of cul, In strictly archaeological terms, the locality is a geographi- tural variability and its causes and thereby enhance the cal space small enough to permit the working assumption study of culture process. of complete cultural homogeneity at any given time. The emphasis in these two quotations and in the WILLEY and Phillips (1958: 50) have ex- writings of other archaeologists (Ford 1954: 47; pressed do'ubts that current archaeological R~~~~~1939: 15-18; ~iff~~d1960: 346) is on the concepts such as "phase" have consistent mean- shared characteristicsof humall behavior. wivh+ ing in terms of human social units. It is the pur- in this frame of thougilt, is defined as all pose of this paper to explore some of the reasons abstraction from human bellavior. for this lack of congruence and to offer a theo- According to the concept of culture being developed here, retical framework more consistent with social culture is a mental construct consisting of ideas (Taylor reality. 1948: 101). In any gcneral theoretical framework there are at least two major components: (1) one that Or as Ford (1954: 47) has argued: deals with criteria for isolating the phenomenon First, it must be recalled that these buildings are cultural under study and with the underlyillg assump- products-not the culture. These arrangements of wood, tions about nature of the units or partitive bamboo, and grass are of interest to the ethnologists solely because they illustrate the aborigine's ideas as to the occurrences within the recognized generic class proper ways to construct dwellings, of phenomenon, and (2) assumptions concern- ing way in these partitive units are In Summary, a normative theorist is one who articulated in the operation of a system or during sees as his field of study the ideational basis for change. varying ways of human life -culture. Infor- Most of the analytical means and collceptLlal mation is obtained by studying cultural products of arc~laeo~ogicalsystematics have arisell or the objectifications of normative ideas about in the co,ntext of a body of tlleory whicll the PrOPer of life executed now extinct is referred to here as the "normative school." peoples. The archaeologist's task then lies in abstracting from cultural products the norma- Under this normative view the phenomenon tive concepts extant in the minds of men now being studied is variously defined, but there is -- dead. (For criticism of this general view see This paper was presented at the 29th Annual Meeting White 1954: 461-8.) of the Society for American Archaeology, Chapel Hill, In examinillg the problem of how we may North Carolina, 1964. observe and study cultural phenomena, a crucial 203 204 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL.31, NO.2, 1965 question arises: What types of units can be resolve into one general interpretative model. isolated for the meaningful study of culture? This model is based on the assumption of a For adherents of the normative school, the as- "culture center" where, for unspecified reasons, sumptions about units or the natural "packages" rates of innovation exceed those in surrounding in which culture occurs are dependent up011 areas. The new culture spreads out from the assumptions abo'ut the dynamics of ideational center and blends with surrounding transmission. Learning is the recognized b'asis of until it is dissipated at the fringes, leaving mar- cultural tral~smissionbetween generations and ginal cultures. Cultural relationships are viewed diffusion the basis of transmission between social as the degree of mutual or unilateral "influence" units not linked by regular breeding behavior. exerted between culture centers or subcenters. The corollary of this proposition is that culture This interpretative framework implies what I is transmitted between generations and across choose to call rhe aquatic view of culture. Inter- breeding populations in inverse proportion to the pretative literature abounds in phrases such as degree of social distance maintained between ll~~lt~ralstream'' and in references to the "flow- the groups in question. Since culture is viewed ing" of new cultural elements into a region. Cul- as a great "whole" transmitted thro~ugh tim~ ture is viewed as a vast flowing stream with and across space, any attempt to break up this minor variations in ideational norms concerning cultural "who~le" is considered arbitrary and appropriate ways of making pots, getting mar- thought of as a methodological expediel~st(Ford ried, treating one's mother-in-law, building 1954: 51; Brew 1946: 49). The partitioning of houses, temples (or not building them, as the culture is often termed a heuristic device for case may be), and even dying. These ideational measuring the degree of social distance between variations are periodically "crystallized" at dif- the groups whose cultural products are being ferent points in time and space, resulting in observed. (An excellent criticism of this view is distinctive and sometimes s,triking cultural cli- found in Spaulding 1957: 85-7). Spatial dis- maxeswhich allow us to break up the continuum co~ntinuitiesin the distributioll of slimilar formal of culture into cultural phases. characteristics are perceived as either the result One of the most elegant and complete criti- of (1) natural barriers to social intercourse, or cisms of the normative theorists to appear in (2) the presence of a system which pro- recent years is that of David Aberle (1960). vides a conservative psychological matr8ix that He has pointed out rhat adherents olf the norma- inhibits the acceptance of foreign traits, or (3) tive positiomn are forced to explain cultural differ- the migration or intrusioll into the area of n-w ences and similarities in terms of two factors, peoples who disrupt the previous pattern of historical and psychic. He summarizes the nor- social intercourse. Formal changes in the tem- mative position as follows: poral distribution o'f items are viewed as the No culture can be understood solely by reference to its result of innovations or the operation of a built- current situation. As a result of the accidents of history, in dynamics sometimes designated as "drift" it has had contacts with a varievy of other cultures. These (Ford 1954: 51; Herskovits 1948: 581-2). (For o'ther cultures provide the pool of potential cultural ma- criticism of this concept, see Binford 1963: 89- terial on which cultures can draw. Since there is no gen- eral basis for predicting what cultures will have contact 93.) Both innovati011 and drift are considered with what others, the historical factor has an accidental natural to culture and, as Caldwell (1958: 1) and fortuitous character. With respect to the psychic has said: "other things being equal, changes in factor, there are qualities of men's minds-whether through time and space will general tendencies to imitate or specific attitudes held by a particular group -which determine whether or not any tend to be regular." Discontinuities in rates of available cultural item will be borrowed. Although the change or in formal continuity through time contacts are unpredictable, the laws of psychology may are viewed as the result of historical events account for acceptance and rejection. Hence the laws of which tend to change the configuration of so- culture are psychological laws (Aberle 1960: 3). cial units through such mechanisms as exten- The normative view leaves the archaeologist in sions of trade, migration, and the diffusions of the positton of considering himself a culture his. "core" ideas such as religious cults (Ritchie tortan and/or a paleo-psychologist (for whlch 1955). most archaeologists are poorly trained). This Cultural differences and similarities are ex- leaves him competent to pursue the investigation pressed by the normative school in terms of "cul- of culture history, a situation which may par- tural relationships" which, if treated rigo'rously, tially account for failure to develop the explana- BINFORD] SYSTEMATICS AND CULTURAL PROCESS 205 to8ry level of archaeological theory noted by temporally discrete manifestations. Similarly, Willey and Phillips (1958: 5). such units as the phase (Willey and Phillips It is argued here that a new systematics, one 1958: 50; Rouse 1955: 713-14) are groupings of based on a different concept of culture, is needed archaeological complexes o'n the basis of shared to deal adequately with the explanation of cul- traits. tural process. If we define culture as man's This emphasis on shared traits in our system extrasomatic means of adaptatio'n (White 1959: of classification results in masking differences 8), in the partitive sense culture is an extraso- and in lumping together phenomena which matic adaptive system that is employed in the would be discrete under another taxonomic integration of a society with its environment and method. Culture is not a univariate phenome- with other sociocultural systems. Culture in this non, nor is its functioning to be understood or sense is not necessarily shared; it is participated ineasured in terms of a single variable -the in by men. In cultural systems, people, things, spatial-temporal transmission of ideas. On the and places are components in a field that con- contrary, culture is multivariate, and its opera- sists of environmental and sociocult~iralsubsys- tion is to be understood in terms of many caus- tems, and the locus of cultural process is in the ally relevant variables which may function inde- dynamic articulations of these subsystems. This pendently or in varying combinations. It is our complex set of interrelationships is not expli- task to isolate these causative factors and to seek cable by reduction to a single component- regular, statable, and predictable re~lationships ideas-any more than the functioning of a between them. motor is explainable in terms of a single com- Our taxonomies should be framed with this ponent, such as gasoline, a battery, o'r lubricat- end in mind. We should partition our observa- ing oil. tional fields so that we may emphasize the na- It was stated above that in our definition cul- ture of variability in artifiact populatio'ns and ture is not necessarily shared; it is participated facilitate the isolation of causally relevant fac- in. And it is participated in differentially. A tors. Our categories should be justifiable in basic characteristic of cultural systems is the in- terms of possessing common structural or func- tegration of individuals and social units per- tional properties in the normal operation of cul- forming different tasks, frequently at different tural systems. These categories sho'uld then be locations; these individuals and social units are analyzed in ternls of their behavior in various articulated by ineans of various institutions into systems and in situations of systematic change. broader units that have different levels of cor- By such a method we inay achieve our aim of po~ratein~lus~iveness. Within any one cultural expressing the laws of cultural process. Archaeo- system, the degree to which the participants logical systeinatics should be an aid in accom- share the same ideational basis should vary with plishing analytical tasks. As an example of the the degree of cultural complexity of the system suggested method of partitioning our observa- as a whole. In fact, a measure of cultural coin- tional framework, two general pro~blemswill be plexity is generally considered to be the degree discussed: ceramic classification and the classi- of internal structural differentiation and func- fication of archaeological assemblages. tional specificity of the participating subsystems Formal variation in ceramics occurs because (White 1959: 144-5). Within any given cultural of differences in either the techniques of manu- system, the degree to which all the participants facture or in the general design of the finished share common ideational preferences should product; both kinds of variation may occur inde- vary inversely with the complexity of the sys- pendently of each other. (This distinction is tem as a whole. The sharing of cultural ele- analogomus to Rouse's [1960: 3141 distinction ments by distinct systems will be a function of between procedural and co~~ceptualmodes). the nature of the cultural means of articulating One example is the production of an abrupt distinct groups with each other. shoulder as opposed to a gently sloping shoulder At present our explicitly stated systematics is while continuing to execute the same basic set based on the degree to which cultural traits are of manufacturing techniques. Such variation is shared. The Midwestern taxonomic system (Mc- termed morphological variation. In addition to Kern 1935: 70-82; and 1939: 301-13) is a morphological variation, there is decorative vari- hierarchical arrangement of archaeologically de- ation or modifications that are made as discrete fined culture traits as they appear in spatially or steps in the terminal phases of the manufactur- ing process. Painted and incised designs are variables can tell us much about the nature of examples of decorative variation. We can there- the changes within the systems in question. An fore speak of two major classes of variation or example of this can be seen by comparing the analytic dimensions, in terms of which ceramic Havana of Illinois with the Scioto forms can be studied -technical and design tradition of Ohio. dimensions. Morphological and decorative vari- Containers of the Havana tradition are ure- ation may be observed along either dimension. dominantly large, open-mouthed cauldrons, but With regard to the sociocultural context of there are occasional flat-bottomed "flowerpot" formal variability, two broad classes of variation forms. This suggests that food was prepared in can be recognized which crosscut the categories these societies for relatively large groups of peo- mentioned above. Primary fzinctional variation ple -larger than nuclear fainihes -and that is that which is directly related to the specific food was stored corporately. This pattern of use made o'f the vessel in question; for example, and storing was common to essentially the difference between a plate and a storage jar. all the societies participating in the Havana tra- Secondary functional variation is a by-product ditio~n. Secondary functional variation, on the of the socimal context of the manufacturers of the other hand, with respect to both decoration and vessel or o~f the social context o'f the intended design exhibits differences through space and use of the item, or both. This variation may arisz time, suggesting that among the participan,ts from a traditional way of doing things within in the Havana tradition social con~tacts and a family or a larger social unit, or it may serve as generational continuity were changing. a conscious expressio~lof between-group soli- Container forms of the Scioto tradition in darity. Certain design characteristics may be- Ohio, which is believed to be contemporaneous come standardized as symbols appropriate to with the Havana tradition, were smaller vessels vessels used in specific social contexts. At this with rounded bottoms; the large cauldron is an level of analysis we may recall Linton's (1936: infreauent form. Nevertheless. there are com- 403-21) statement that any given cultural item mon design and technical attributes in the ce- may vary with regard to form, meaning, use, ramics of both . This suggests that, in and function in variable cultural contexts. Such the Ohio groups, the social units for which food

distinctions are particularly important if the was ureuaredA A were smaller and that modes of social context of manufacture and use are not food storage were correspondingly different. isomorphic, as in the case of items circulated In the traditional view, the elements in co~me widely through exchange systems, or are used Inon between the Havana and Scioto traditions primarily in the context of institutions func- would be intervreted as indicating- "cultural rela- tioning for intersocietal articulation. tionships," and at present the two are grouped Formal variation in artifacts need not and, in into the "Hopewell phase," with each group most cases, probably does not have a single sharing different traits of the "Hopewell cul- meaning in the context of the functioning cul- ture." It is suggested here that the sociocultural tural system. The study of primary functional systems represented in the two traditions may variation is essential to the understanding of the be and probably are totally different, and that sociocultural systems represented by the arti- the common ceramic elements reflect patterns of facts, in this case ceramics. The nature and coininon regional interaction facilitated through number of occurrence's of functionally differ- different institutions. This view differs markedly entiated co~ntainertypes can yield valuable infor- from oile which pictures the flowing of "Hope- matio'n about the size of social segments per- well culture" out of a "culture center." forming different tasks. Even in cases where The comparative study of secondary func- specific functions cannot be determined for the tional variation within one class of containers recognized types, the spatial configuration of makes it possible to determine the degree of their occurrence tells so~nethingabout the spatial work specialization in discrete social segments as structure of differentiated activities within or well as the degree of craft specialization in the between sites. manufacture of specific container classes. Em- Variables of primary function may remain pirical demonstration of the validity of the stable, change abruptly, or change at rates differ- assun~ptionsunderlying sociological interpreta- ent from variables of secondary function. The tion of variability in craft products is accumu- relative rates of change in these two classes of lating, and a number of recent studies show that BINFORD] SYSTEMATICS AND CULTURAL PROCESS 207

classes based on unspecified kinds of likeness or - difference, or are hierarchically arranged traits Morphological va~iation Decorative variation presumed to reflect generic relatiol~ships(Willey Technical and Phillips 1958: 31; Rouse 1960). We suggest dimension that classification should proceed independently Design with regard to technical and design attributes dimension and that crosscutting categories should be used - - to express ~norphologicaland decorative varia- tion (Table 1). this kind of "meaning" is recoverable from The result of such an analysis would be the ceramic data. For example, Cronin (1962: 109) recognition of numbers of classes of variables, has demonstrated greater similarity in the con- referable to one or more of the column-and-row ventional use of decorative design elements be- contingency boxes in Table 1. Analysis would tween types at a single site than between then proceed to the question of the cultural con- types of the same pottery from different sites. text of the observed classes or variables dis'tin- Comparable results are suggested by recent dis- guished in the four categories above. This step cussions of taxonomic problen~sencountered by is schematically diagrammed in Table 2. Each others (Sears 1960: 327-8; Smith 1962). I have column and row contingency box would contain recently proposed a processual model for this the fo'rmal classes of demonstrable variables type of phenomenon (Binford 1963). Several derived from the initial classification. recent studies have utilized the measurement The next step would be the definition of pop- and spatial distributions of stylistic minutiae in ulations of artifacts in terms of recognizab~leand the construction of sociological models for pre- demonstrably different cultural factors. Discus- historic colnrnunities (Deetz 1960; Longacre sions of differences and sin~ilaritieswould be 1963; Freeman and Brown 1964). based on independent and dependent variables If we expand our analytical perspective to and no~t0811 an undifferentiated conglomeration include the problem of formal variability in cone of multivariate phenomena. temporaneous sociocultural systems and socio- cultural systems through time, then our analysis The current systen~aticsof archaeological as- must be even more critical. What is ideosyn- semblages also stresses the quantity of shared cratic secondary functional variation in one traits. Assemblages are referred to a phase or group may symbolize political ties in another. a focus without due allowances for either sea- Primary functional variation in one social system sonal or functional variability. Although it is may be partially incorporated as secondary func- premature to attempt a final presentation of tional variation in another. assemblage systematics since sucl~a presenta- The complexities facing the archaeologist who tion should be based on more complete knowl- attempts this kind of analysis necessitate the use edge of the range of classes of variability, we of multiple taxonomies framed to express multi- feel that at least three major types of broad varlate attributes. Such taxonomies should re- cultural alignments can be distinguished which place the conventional ones, which are either may vary independently of one another.

Primary f~*nctionalva~iafioii Secondary functional variation Context of Context of uce P~oduction

Techno- morphological Morphological design Decorative techniques Decorative designs The first such category is the tmdltlon, whose archaeologists, but I have not been able to find meaning we choose to make somewhat narrower it in the literature. Caldwell (1962) has pointed than is conventional in archaeological literature. to the essential characteristics of the interaction (For a discussion of the concept as generally sphere: used, see Willey and Phillips 1958: 34-40.) We An interaction sphere is a kind of phenomenon which define tradition as a demonstrable continuity can he regarded as having properties different from a through time in the formal properttes of locally culture . . . the various regional traditions were present manufactured craft items, this continuity being before there was a Hopewellian situation. The term culture would he better applied to each of these separately seen in secondary functional variability only. than to the overall situation with which they are inter- There may or may not be such continuity with acting. respect to primary functional variability. To put it another way, the tradition is seen in continu- What is essential to the concept of an inter- ity in those formal attributes which varv with action sphere is that it denoltes a situation in the social context of manufacture exclusive of which there is a regular cultural means of insti- the variability related to the use of the item. tu'tionalizing and maintaining intersocietal inter- This is termed stylistic variability (Binford 1962: action. The particular forms of the institutions 220), and on a single tiine holrizon such a tradi- and the secondary functions which may accrue tion would be spatially defined as a zone. to them will be found to vary widely in the Through tiine we may study the areal extent spectrum of history. Interaction spheres may and stability of style zones and the comparative crosscut both traditions and culture areas. The history of local traditions within the framework sharing of symbols and the appearance of siini- of the macro'tradition. Historical continuity and lar institutions are less a function of the tradi- social phylogeny are particularly amenable to tional enculturative milieu of indsividual soci- analysis through the study of stylistic attributes. ties than of complex articulation of societies of It should be noted that the concept of tradition different ethnic backgrounds, levels of cultural as it is used here may refer to either a single complexity, and social types. class of artifactual materials. such as ceramics. The comparative structural and functional or to several classes of artifacts of a single- socio- analysis of interaction spheres is suggested as an whicsh exhibit continuity through approach which allows us to define, quantify, time. It is assumed that formal variability in and explain the ob'servation of Redfield (1941: secondarv function is directlv related to the 344) that rates of cultural change may be social matrix of production and use. In the case directly related to rates of social interaction. of stability through time in the social matrix of The distinction between the "shared" culture production, we would expect to observe tem- of a s'tylistic nature and the "shared" culture poral conttnuity and a regular rate of change. of a sociopolitical nature is the basis for dis- In the case of a changing social matrix of pro- tinguishing the tradition from the interaction duction, we would expect to find discontinuities sphere. in rates of change and in the spatial and tem- Examples of the interaction sphere come poral distribution of formal properties. readily to mind. The presence of Mississtppian A second broad class of sociocultural relation- "traits" in local traditions on the Pledmont of ships is reflected in items that are widelv ex- the southeastern United States is one. Another changed and which occur in a context of social is the coinmon "Hopewellian" items in tombs distinctiveness, that is, sociotechnic items (Bin- of Illinois (the Havana tradition) and in the ford 1962). Such items would be analvzed in charnel houses of Ohio (the Scioto tradition). terms of their primary functional variability as The nature of the cultural processes responsible inferred through correlation with other archae- for the widespread occurrences of similar cul- ological remains which define the context of tural items in these two cases cannot be ex- social relations. Through the study of the spatial plained by the simplistic reference to sharing of distributions of such items on a single time hori- similar ideas concerning the proper ways to zon we tnay define interaction spheres -the manufacture items. areal matrices of regular and institutionally The third category we wish to discuss is that maintained intersocietal articulation. This term of the ada~tivearea. An ada~tivearea is one is adopted from Caldwell (1962). It is my iin- which exhibits the coinmon occurrence of arti- pression that I have seen the term used by other facts used primarily in coping directly with the BINFORD] SYSTEMATICS AND CIJLTURAL PROCESS 209 physical environment. Such spatial distribu- played by my wife, Sally Binford. She has been a severe tions would be ex~ectedto coincide broadly critic of my logic as well as of my syntax, and I grate- fully acknowledge her editorship of this manuscript. with culture areas as they are conventionally defined; however, this concept differs from the ABERLE,DAVIDR. culture-area concept in that stylistic attributes 1960 The Influetlce of Linguistics on Early Culture and Personality Theory. In Essays in the Science are excluded from the definition. The adaptive of C~iltztre: In Honor of Leslie A. White, edited means of coping with changes in physical en- hy Gertrude Dole and Robert Carneiro, pp. 1-49. vironment need not coincide with those which Thomas Y. Crowell, New York. are designed to cope with changes in the social ISFO FORD, LEWISR. environment. Therefore, we need to study tra- 1962 Archaeology as . American An- ditions (based on styles), interaction spheres tiquity, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 217-25. Salt Lake City. (based on intersocietal relations), and adaptive 1963 Red Ocher Caches from the Michigan Area: A spheres (based on common means of coping Possible Case of Cultural Drift. Solithwestern with the physical environment), and treat these Jolirnnl of Anthropology, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 89- three isolates as independent variables. 108. Albuquerque. Summary. It has been argued that the nor- IJREW, JOI~OTIS 1946 Archaeology of Alkali Ridge: Southeaster11 mative theory of culture is inadequate for the Utah. Papers of the Peabod? M~is?i*nzof Anier- generation of fruitful explanatory hypotheses of icniz Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvnrd Uni- cultural process. An approach is offered in versity, Vol. 21. Cambridge. which culture is not reduced to normative ideas CALDWELL,JOSEPH R. about the proper ways of doing things but is 1958 Trend and Tradition in the of the Eastern United States. Memoirs ot the Anier- viewed as the system of the total extrasomatic icniz Anthropological Association, No. 88. means of adaptation. Such a system involves a Menasha. complex sets of relationships among people, 1962 Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. Unpublished places, and things whose matrix may be under- paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the stood in multivariate terms. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Philadelphia 1962. The steps in such an analysis proceed by means of the partitioning of demonstrable vari- CKONIN,COXSTANCE 1962 An Analysis of Pottery Design Elements Indi- ability into a multidimensional framework. Use cating Possible Relationships between Three of such a framework will facilitate isolation of Decorated Types. 111 "Chapters in the Prehistory the causes of various kinds of changes and of Eastern Arizona I," by Paul S. Martin and others. Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 53, pp. 105- differences and provide the basis for studying 41. Chicago Natural History h/Iuseum, Chicago. comparatively the rates and patterns of change DEETZ,JAMESD. F. in different classes of cultural phenomena. Such 1960 An Archaeological Approach to Kinship Change an approach would, it is argued, facilitate and in Eighteenth Century Arikara Culture. Unpub- increase our understanding of cultural processes. lished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Aclinoec~ledgments. I would like to acknowledge the FORD,JAMES A. intellectual stimulatioll of many of my colleagues in the 1954 The Type Concept Revisited. Anzericnn An- formulation of the ideas presented in this paper. Stuart thropologist, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 42-57. Menasha. Struever, Joseph Caldwell, Howard Winters, James Brown, Melvin Fowler, and the author have had frequent discus- FREEM~N,L. G., JR. AND JAMES A. BRO\\N sions over the past three years in an attempt to increase 1964 Statistical Analysis of Carter Ranch Pottery. our understanding of the prehistory of the Midwest. 111 "Carter Ranch Site" bty Paul S. Martin and Although illdividually all of the participants in our own others. Fieldiana: Anthropology (in press). Nat- ural History Museum, Chicago. "interaction sphere" have contributed to the formulation of the argumellts presented here, I accept full responsi- GII;I.ORD,JAMES C. bility for the particular form in which the ideas are pre- 1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classlfi- sented. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude cation as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena." to Carl-Axel Moberg of the Goteburg h/Iuseum, Sweden, Anierlcnn Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 341-7. who participated in the joint teaching of a class along Salt Lake City. with Robert J. Braidwood and me. Moberg's arguments HERSKOLITS,MELVILLE J. and rebuttals have aided appreciably in definition of the 1948 Man anti HIS Works Alfred A. Knopf, New ideas presented. LjIy students over the past three years - York. particularly William Longacre, James Hill, Leslie Free- man, and Robert Whallon -have been a constant source LINTOS,RALPH of stimulation and have initiated agonizing reappraisals of 1936 ?'he Stztdy of Man. Appleton-Centi~ry-Crofts, my own thinking. Of particular importance is the role New York. 210 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

LONGACRE,WILLIAM A. SEARS,WILLIAM H. 1963 Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study. 1960 Ceramic Systems and Eastern Archaeology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 324-9. Chicago, Chicago. Salt Lake City. MCKERN,W. C. SMITI-I,WATSON 1935 Certain Culture Classification Problems in Mid- 1962 Schools, Pots and Pottery. American Antlzro- dle Western Archaeo~logy.In "The Indianapolis pologist, Vol. 64, No. 6, pp. 1165-78. Ljlenasha. Archaeological Conference," pp. 70-82, issued by the Committee on State Archaeological Sur- SpAuLDING,AL~ER~ C. veys. National Research Council, Circtilnr No. 17. Washington. 1957 Review of h4ethotl cind Theory in An~ericciil Archaeology, by Gordon W. Willey and Philip 1939 The Midwestern Taxotlomic Method as a11 Aid Phillips. Americcin Antiquity, Val. 23, No. 1, to Archaeological Culture Study. American An- pp. 85-7. Salt Lake City. tiquity, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 301-13. Menasha. TAYLOR,WALTER W. REUFI~LD,ROBERT 1948 A Study of Archeology. h4emoirs of the Anzer- 1941 The Follc Culture of Yucntan. Universiry of ican Antl~ropologicalAssociation, No. 69. Chicago Press, Chicago. Menasha. RITCHIE,WILLIAM A. WHITE,LESLIE A. 1955 Recent Discoveries Suggesting an Early Wood- land Cult in the Northeast. New Yorlc 1954 Review of "Culture: A Critical Review of Con- State Museum and Science Service, Circular No. cepts and Definition," by A. L. Kroeber and 40. Albany. Clyde Kluckhohn. Anzericctn Anthropologist, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 461-8. Menasha. ROUSE,IRVING 1959 Tlze Evolution of Culture. McGraw-Hill, New 1939 Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method. Yale York. University Publications in Anthropology, No. 21. New Haven. WILLEY,GORDONR. AND PHILIPPHILLIPS 1955 On the Correlation of Phases of Culture. Amer- 1958 Method and Theory in American Arclzneology. ican Anthropologist, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 713-22. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Menasha. UNIVERSITYOF CHICAGO 1960 The Class'ification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 313-23. Chicago, Illinois Salt Lake City. October, 1964