Functionalist Paradigm in Spatial and Settlement Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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)