Graz lecture – American settlement Functionalist paradigm in archaeology and “new archaeology” spatial and settlement studies: American settlement archaeology and New archaeology

Approaches in American archaeology which explicitly defined spatial and settlement perspective fully emmerged only after the WW2. Prior to that period the American archaeology was in many respects similar to the European archaeology, particularly in its emphasis on classification studies of material culture.

Particular feature of the tradition of american archaeology is its inclusion in wider discipline of anthropology, where archaeology was “given” the role of descriptive science, while interpretative tasks were up to anthropology. Here lies one of the major reasons why the American archaeology prior to the WW2 did not develop anthropogeographical approaches. Simply, its ties to geography and “Landeskunde”, as was the case in many European national archaeologies, were not existing. Indeed, the “landeskunde” tradition itself, did not exist in American tradition. The other major reason why there was no geographical component in the archaeological tradition was strong influence of boasian positivist culture-history anthropology on archaeology. Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology” Major change occurred with the emmergence of functionalist and neo-evolutionist concepts in American anthropology.

First attempt towards functionalist interpretation could be seen already in the 1930s when claims for more integrated observations in archaeology were proposed:

Archaeology should observe and interpret the finds in relevant (non-arbitrary) contexts of natural and social environment.

One of the pioneers of this new direction was anthropologist Julian Steward (1902-1972) with his essay on ecological aspects of prehistoric and suvb-recent societies in SW USA (J. Steward, Ecological Aspects of Southwestern Society. Anthropos 32, 1937, 87-104)

Steward was among the first who laid foundation to reaserches of settlement processes and their social and cultural dimensions in the context of natural environment (Pantzer

1995, 6). He tried to put together the so called comparative approach (typological, chronological and ethno-cultural classifications) with functionalist anthropology. The most promising reraearch field was, after Steward, subsistence and social organization and structure associated with subsistence; settlement and settlements were supposed to be the best context for such observations. Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

Similar ideas were also proposed by F. Setzler, I. Rouse, W. Taylor and others.

Steward and Setzler (Function and configuration in Archaeology. American Antiquity 4 (1), 1938, 4-10.) defined the subject of archaeology the recognition and definition of cultural elements which form cultural patterns (following the ideas of R. Benedict and her concept of culture as represented by major principles forming collective identity). As key to this the study of functional relations metween cultural elements was proposed.

Similarly, I. Rouse claimed that “culture does not consists of artifacts. The latter are merely the results of culturally conditioned behaviour performed by the artisan....culture cannot be inherent in the artifacts...It is a pattern of significance which the artifacts have.” (Rouse 1939, 15-16).

Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

W. Taylor proposed the conjunctive approach, which seeks integration of technological, stylistic, social and ecological aspects of culture (A study of archaeology. American Anthropological Association Memoirs 69, 1948. 95):

“The conjunctive approach...has as its primary goal the elicidation of cultural conjunctives, the associations and relationships, the”affinities”, within the manifestation under investigation. It aims at drawing the completest possible picture of past human life in terms of its human and geographic environment«.

According to W. Taylor, the archaeological observation should not ignore the fact, that culture is composed of a series of meaniungful wholes and only the observation of such wholes could lead to the understanding of its parts. Major mistake of the comparative approach was isolation/extraction of the artefacts from their authentic contexts and their insertion in taxonomic and other arbitrary contexts of extra-local significance. (Taylor 1948, 7).

J. Ford also opposed to the isolation of artefacts or any other single elements of culture and treating them as relevant units of observation, since the culture is organized and acts as continuum. (Ford 1954).

Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

Through the critique of comparative approach the American archaeology enterd the 1950s theoretically modernized. In particular, two major concepts bearing long lasting influence became well established:

- concept of cultural change (on diachronic level)

- concept of cultural patterns (on synchronic level)

Both concepts are integrative; they demanded observation and interpretation of archaeological finding in common context – most frequently in functional one. The functional context seemed to archaeologists universal and as such very suitable for developing frames of reference for archaeological interpretation. Stewards claim for functional study did not mean that functional typology should be studied instead of morphological one, but that the archaeological findings should be interpreted in the context of functiong of culture or of those units of observation where more information of this kind are available (Klejn 1988, 122). Taylor’s conjunctive approach also demanded conjunctive (integrative) units of observation, and for this reason the primary task of archaeology is to study variuous aspects of culture on one site (or geographic unit) rather than comparing individual cultural traits over wider wider areas (Taylor 1948, 147). cf. Klejn 1988, 368). Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

It is in this way how the settlements became considered as the most appropriate unit of observation. Without a doubt, they represented one of the authentic social and functional contexts where various components of culture are integrated into a fuctioning whole – ecological, political, economic, religious and other components. Graz lecture – American settlement Gordon Willey, 1913 – 2002; see also this link archaeology and “new archaeology”

• Willey, G. R. (1953). Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 155. Washington, D.C. • Willey, G. R. (ed.). (1956). Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 23, New York. • Willey, G. R. et al. (1965). Prehistoric Maya Settlement in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 54, Cambridge, Mass.

a) Pioneering regional study (Viru valley, Peru) (The Viru Valley program in Northern Peru. Acta Americana 11, 1946, 224-238) b) Introduction and development of the settlement pattern concept. ("the way in which man disposed himself over the landscape on which he lived. It refers to dwellings, to their arrangement, and to the nature and disposition of other buildings pertaining to community life. These settlements reflect the natural environment, the level of technology on which the builders operated, and the various institutions of social interaction and control which the culture maintained. Because settlement patterns are, to a large extent, directly shaped by widely held cultural needs, they offer a strategic starting point for the functional interpretation of archaeological cultures." (1953, 1) ("...it is my assumption that in settlement patterning as revealed by archaeology we have a guideline of evidence that is most directly reflective of institutional development... [The concept of settlement pattern] is a consideration of total community integration, ecologically and culturally. The relation of man to his natural environment, the nature of population groupings, and the shifts of both of these through time - these are the bases of inference concerning the socioeconomic orientations of ancient societies“) (Willey 1951, Peruvian Settlement and Socioeconomic Patterns. In: S. Tax (ed.) The Civilisations of Ancient America. The University of Chicago Press 1951, 195-200.) Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

Soon, encouraged by success of the “settlement pattern” approach, a new school developed, freequently termed as “settlement archaeology” by its proponents in rthe

1960s. The goals of new school were very ambitious – settlement archaeology is not just one archaeological genre but it should become foundation of a new science – science of prehistoric society.

This idea was proposed by K.C. Chang (1968)

- 1956 “Habitat and animal-food gathering economy of the northeastern palaeo- Siberians: A preliminary study.” Paper prepared for Anthropology 216, Fall 1956, 60 pp. Department of Anthropology, Harvard University. - 1958 “Study of the Neolithic social grouping: Examples from the New World,” American Anthropologist 60: 298-334 - 1958 “The circumpolar settlement and community patterns.” Paper prepared for Anthropology 218, January 1958, 21 pp. Department of Anthropology, Harvard University. - 1960 Prehistoric settlements in China: A Study in Archaeological Method and Theory. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University. - 1967 Rethinking Archaeology. New York: Random House - 1968a (Editor) Settlement Archaeology. Palo Alto: National Press. - 1968b “Toward a science of prehistoric society,” in Chang 1968a: 1-9. - 1972a Settlement Patterns in Archaeology. Current topics in Anthropology. Readings, vol. 5, no. 24:1-26. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

The goal of new synthetic Science of prehistoric society was explaining the culture in social and cultural terms while analytical procedures (typology, chronology, distribution analysis...) are subject of descriptive archaeology.

> replacing anthropology from top hierarchical position in traditional american hierarchy of “anthropological” disciplines<

Crucial archaeologiocal concept around which the Science of prehistoric society was to be build was G. Willey’s settlement pattern; now further developed and reinforced by schollars like K.C. Chang. I. Rouise, B. Trigger and others.

Settlements were considered crucial intersections of various subsistence activities and strategies, and social and cultural components of individual and collective behaviour. On this basis it was hoped that studying the settlements properly it is possible to recognize principal social and cultural patterns much like anthropologists do it while studying living communities (Chang 1972, 1).

This marked the priorities of settlement archaeology: to study and reconstructsocial relationships, categories and institutions of past communities rather than way of life on a given settlement (see in Trigger 1967, 153, cf. Tringham 1972, xix,). Here, we can see the principal difference between American settlement archaeology and contemporary German iedlungsarchaeologie of H. Jankuhn and the circle around Archaeologia Geographica). Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

I. Rouse (1972, 98) defined 4 major questions of the new science: a) Who wer these people? b) Where and when they lived c) What were they like? d) How and why they have developed in way they did?

Settlement archaeology was given the responsability of answering the third question – to reveal socialnih and cultural forms and structures.

Crucial became the definition of a term settlement. Until recently, it was used very implicitly without clear definition. Chand attempted this clarification by defining it as a locational concept for which it is assumed that it was inhabited by a certain community doing there its every-day activities.

In search for archaeological / anthropological equivalents for categories of settlement archaeology Chang attempted to combine ethnographic and archaeological categories (e.g. Chang 1958) in order to compare social structure and settlement forms of agricultural communities and Neolithic community patterns on the basis of architecture and its social- funtional aspects on different levels of social organization in village settlements. He further developed this model until he reached the point when he equalled archaeological category of

“settlement” with sociological / anthroopological category of “community” in the context of living systems.

“Settlement....must subsitute for the community.” (Chang 1968, 3).

Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

Chang’s equivalents of village plans and community patterns (1958, 304-307):

homestead - non-lineage

unplanned village - multi-lineage

planned village - mono-lineage

segmented village - multi-lineage

Chang has also adopted Murdock’s definition of community as maximum number of individuals who live together and personally know each other. (Murdock 1949, 79; cf. Tringham 1972, xxi). To Chang this seemed universal and operable enough for archaeological study. Such definition of “community” more or less clearly defines and delineates the kind of activities and forms of behaviour. Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

Next, equally important issue was that of analytical systemization of settlement and habitation; these two processes run paralelly on different levels of social aggregations. This requires definition of relevant units of observation, study of nature of archaeological record with reference to these units, varying possibilities of generalization, and varying research strategies and interpretative models. Study of individual settlement may reveal fundamental functional patterns of habitation and related social structures, but only by taking into account similar phenomena on wider geographic scale it is possible to recognize and understand other components of prehistoric societies and acultures. Two levels, at least are required: - level of relationships within settlement - level of relationship between settlements Graz lecture – American settlement Major contribution in systemization of archaeology and “new archaeology” settlement archaeology was done by B. Trigger.

In his systemization he departed from the notion of settlement pattern as adaptative result of community to a series of determinants of natural and social environment which challenge the community and fluctuate in their significance and power on different levels of social aggregation.

He transformed K.C. Chang’s concept of two groups of archaeological types (micro- structural types which constitute archaeological settlement and macro-structural types which determine archaeological settlements as analytical units on higher level of aggreagtion and of observation) into three-level system (Trigger 1968, 55-70): a) level of single structure/house within settlement intersection of determinants of subsistence, technological development, accessibility of raw materials, family structure, micro-social hierarchy, economic specialization, household religion, and “household” politics; fashion, taste a) level of settlement of individual community social structure of communityadaptation to environment, social circumstances (location, size, storage of products, specialization, out / in concepts of demarcation, political organization, subsistence strategies, public religion and public representations a) level of distribution of communities across space (landscape, region) demography, settlement patterns, density of settlement related to economic and technological strategies, regional specialization, complementarity, communication across the space, political organization, military structures... Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

According to Trigger such sistemization is best suited for revealing the stable factors in settlement pattern.

However, since every single change of settlement pattern (its reconfiguration) is a result of social and cultural changes which pervade whole community or society, all changes must be reflected in one way or another on all three levels.

For this reason it is important also to take into account dynamic factors such as migrations, military movements, colonization processes etc.). Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

Issue of interpretation in settlement archaeology

Willey: settlement pattern is a heuristic tool for functional interpretation of settlement.

Chang, Rouse: interpretation must seek meaningful relations between settlement patterns and other aspects of culture.

Trigger: social structure and social change

Deetz: settlement aspects are linnks between artefacts and social logic of their distribution.

Direct Historical Approach Due to abundant data on recent and sub-recent communities (particularly in the SW USA) emphasis is turned to analysis of social structures).

Regional (adaptationist/economic) perspective W. Sanders, A. Kovar, T. Carlton in R. Diehl, The Teotihuacan Valley Project Final Report. Pennsylvania State University, Department of Anthropology 1970. J. Parsons, Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Texcoco Region. Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 3, University of Michigan Ann Arbor 1971. G. Willey, W. Bullard, J. Glass in J. Gifford, Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. LIV, The Peabody Museum, Cambridge 1965. Graz lecture – American settlement William Sears (1968) archaeology and “new archaeology” attemted one of the most difficult questions in archaeology – archaeological theory of state

He assumed 2 possible forms of early state in prehistoric society:

- the priest state - militaristic state

In order to recognize the elements of state organization it is necessary to identify the following phenomena in the archaeological record: a) Social groups composed of more communities b) Territory of such group c) Specialized suborganization capable of transferring state politics into social practice

A and B are associated with possibilities of identifying so called areal community patterns. The key to this (finding territories) is distribution of specific ceramic styles which mark the identity of the group (ceremonial ceramics). Recognition of social sub-organization is possible by finding those forms of social organization which are not primarily based on kinship. Such circumstances are possible only in stable economy (agricultural normally) and in case of larger population with distinctive social ranking.

Integration of society into state organization in prehistoric society are capable two elites – priestly and military elites which can dominate the mechanisms of social control in relation to divine or by physical force, and so maintain the necessary level of social cohesion and mobilization. Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

PRIEST STATE MILITARISTIC STATE Nuclear-centred community pattern More developed form of state (centralised settlement pattern with Existence of middle-ranked settlements. religious center on the top and with Military elite closely associated with the smaller, equally or similarly low ranked state cult. 2 possible patterns: communities around the center). a) Paramount urban-ceremonial center Uniromed cultural patterns are typical for maintaining the monopoly over the b) Pattern with specialized military interpretation of religion. settlements and fortified settlements

The second condition – large population – can be seen in large public works: ramparts, ceremonial centers, irrigation systems and other large communal infrastructural works. Graz lecture – American settlement NEW ARCHAEOLOGY archaeology and “new archaeology”

Lewis Binford New Perspectives in Archaeology (1968, 1972) Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology (1978) Bones, Ancient Men and Modern Myths (1981) In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record (1983)

Culture is extrasomatic mean for human systemic adaptation on environment. It serves for integration of certain community with its environment and with other socio-cultural systems. In cultural systems the People, things and places are components of the field which is composed of subsystems of environment and socio-cultural subsystem. .... Fundamental characteristic of cultural systems is integration of individuals and social units, which perform different tasks on dofferent locations. Individuals and social units are articulated through various institutions into units of higher order with different levels of corporative inclusion. (for more detailes see in Binford 1968, 1972)

In short: a) space (environment) should be considered within the context of system theory of culture, b) space is made of locations where individuals or groups are integrated, c) setlement is just one specifik for of integration of artefacts in the archaeological record. Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

Research agenda of New archaeology clearly reflects the influence of neoevolutionist and functionalist anthropology. Neoevolutionism offered frame of reference for materialist definition of culture (...culture is system pof adaptation to environment...) and for explaining changes on dichronic in za razlago kulturnih sprememb in diachronic perspective (...change of environment triggers change in culture...) while functionalism equipped with system theory provided frame of reference for studying and explaining the functioning of culture in synchronic perspective. In their texts the New archaeologists have freequently used term “behaviour” instead of “culture” – it seemed to them more universal and less burdened with historic meanings. They considered behaviour as system of repeating regularities which reflect universal (historically independent) rules. System theory was also very attractive for New archaeologists because of its insistence on studying the associations between the elements of the system. For this theory only the study of this associations and relationships can provide the information on processes of energy and information flows and so the true nature of the systems. The (outer) mover of the system, the principal trigger of the dynamics, was adaptation to the environment. Graz lecture – American settlement archaeology and “new archaeology”

OPTIMAL FORAGING STRATEGY: Optimal balance between 3 interdependent variables: optimal diet size of group locational behaviour

Whole concept is based on assumption of rational behaviour. People are constantly using those strategies which tend to minimize energy expenditure and maximize the outcome/product.

Frequently the models from etology and systemic ecology were used. Common denominator which connected all 3 variables was net quantity of energy brought into community (Jochim 1983, 139). In short: more net energy and more efficient use of it resulted in population / group size growth.

CARRYING CAPACITY CONCEPT Connects cultural ecology and system theory. Based on two prepositions: a) selfregulation within limited territory b) Constant maintaining of balance between the components of the system (Glassov 1978, 31). Similarly as in studies of optimal foraging strategies, also here the space was reduced to some simple basic parameters. It was freequently reduced to a territorial unit containing limited quantity of natural resources (reservoir). As such it posed a threshold or logistic limit until which a cultural system could explit it. The quantity of natural resources have been frequently presented as biomass. Demography was frequently the goal in such studies.

Graz lecture – American settlement BINFORD’S CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY archaeology and “new archaeology” HOME BASE (camp, residence place) – starting point of Binford’s concept of cultural geography organized in concentric circles according to the distance. All units or areas in space have meaning which is relative to home base.

Visiting zone

Extended range

Logistic radius

Foraging radius

locations Max. 6 Campground (secondary miles sites) from (residential residence activities) temporary camps

Daily trips / returns

Special task groups

Group informed about resources, but not exploiting them permanently

Territory of other groups, occasional visiting, e.g. marrital partners, exchange...