Method and Theory in American Archaeology

Method and Theory in American Archaeology GORDON R. WILLEY and PHILIP PHILLIPS A rchaeology and Anthropology meet in thi&stud^ of the prehi$iQTy\ of the Americas^ P88 $1.50 (U.K. 10/6 n.et» PLEASE HANDLE WITH CARE University of Connecticut Libraries •Q* «^0 f^» «^9 <^» 3 =1153 013523bl D GAYLORD RG Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/methodtheoryinam1958will S < C oO Method and Theory in American A rchaeology Method and Theory BY GORDON R. WILLEY AND PHILIP PHILLIPS in American Archaeology PHOENIX BOOKS 4£fc THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO & LONDON Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 57-11215 The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London The University of Toronto Press, Toronto 5, Canada © 1958 by The University of Chicago. Published 1958 First Phoenix Edition 1962 Third Impression 1963 Composed and printed by The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. To JAMES ALFRED FORD Preface In the summer of 1952, as a result of numerous discussions, we de- cided to set down our thoughts on certain methodological and theoretical questions in American archaeology. The original plan was an article in two parts : the first, a statement of what we believed to be the minimal aims of archaeology and the basic operations di- rected toward the achievement of these aims, and the second, some theoretical formulations about New World prehistory. The first part was subsequently published under the title "Method and Theory in American Archaeology: An Operational Basis for Cul- ture-Historical Integration." 1 The second part followed a year and a half later as "Method and Theory in American Archaeology II: Historical-Developmental Interpretation." 2 The comments and criticism which these papers drew from colleagues and students have kept us interested in the subject, and, as a result, we have re- written both original papers and combined them, along with an introduction, originally published as a brief journal article, 3 in the present volume. A good many of the revisions and additions we have made to the original papers are the result of second thoughts, which we trust are better than the first ones. Others, by no means the least sub- stantial, are the direct result of critical comments and suggestions on the part of colleagues in archaeology and anthropology. To list them all would provide a roster of impressive proportions. We would, however, like to single out Albert C. Spaulding and Irving Rouse for the time, interest, and advice they have expended in our behalf. 1. Phillips and Willey, 1953. 2. Willey and Phillips, 1955. 3. Phillips, 1955. Vll Finally, a word about the restrictive connotation of the qualify- ing term "American" as used in our title and throughout the book. Obviously, the methods, theories, and ideas in general which are propounded and discussed in this work are not limited to the Ameri- cas any more than archaeology is so limited. Many, or most, of them have originated in the Old World with Americanists as late borrowers. We have used the qualification inasmuch as our own experience is in the American field and all the examples and subject matter are so confined. There is another reason for using the term. In no other large part of the world does archaeology stand so com- pletely on its own feet as in the New World. The historic con- tinuities and documentation binding past to present are infinitely weaker here than in the European, Middle Eastern, and Asiatic areas where archaeology has been carried forward. American archaeology complements, but is in no sense an adjunct of, history; hence its methodology stands in somewhat sharper relief than the methodology in many parts of the Old World. This is not a denial of the vital importance of historical and ethnological data in inter- preting the American past, but such considerations lie outside the scope of this book. Gordon R. Willey Philip Phillips vm Contents Introduction: American Archaeology and General Anthropological Theory / PART I. AN OPERATIONAL BASIS FOR CULTURE- HISTORICAL INTEGRATION 1, Archaeological Unit Concepts 11 2. Archaeological Integration 44 Summary 57 PART II. HISTORICAL-DEVELOPMENTAL INTERPRETATION 3. The Historical-Developmental Approach in American Archaeology 61 4. Lithic Stage 79 5. Archaic Stage 104 6. Formative Stage 144 7. Classic Stage 182 8. Postclassic Stage 193 Summary 200 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography 209 Index 259 IX Introduction American Archaeology and General Anthropological Theory It has been said that archaeology, while providing data and general- izations in such fields as history and general anthropology, lacks a systematic body of concepts and premises constituting archaeological theory. According to this view, the archaeologist must borrow his theoretical underpinning from the field of study his work happens to serve, or do without. Whether the latter alternative be an admis- sible one does not seem to be an arguable point. Acceptable field work can perhaps be done in a theoretical vacuum, but integration and interpretation without theory are inconceivable. The above remarks apply to archaeology in general, but the sole concern of this study is American archaeology. It seems to us that American archaeology stands in a particularly close and, so far as theory is concerned, dependent relationship to anthropology. Its service to history in the narrower sense, i.e., as the record of events in the past with the interest centered on those events, is extremely limited, because for pre-Columbian America there is in effect no such history. The use of traditions derived from native informants and other documentary sources of the contact period as starting points for pushing back into the unrecorded past—the "direct historical approach"—is not archaeology serving history, but the re- verse. As a technique of investigation, American archaeology, like archaeology generally, provides useful data for geology, paleon- tology, climatology, etc., and it recovers valuable material for art museums and the study of aesthetics, but it is not involved theo- INTRODUCTION retically with any of these subjects. To paraphrase Maitland's famous dictum: American archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing. The American archaeologist, unless he thinks he can dis- pense with theory altogether, is therefore obliged to take a stand on some of the basic questions of general anthropological theory. This we shall do briefly in the following pages. The methods outlined in this study, and our arguments in their behalf, are predicated on two general theoretical assumptions: (1) that anthropology is more science than history, and (2) that the subject matter of anthropology is both society and culture. The first part of this statement appears to settle out of hand the position of anthropology in respect to the dichotomy science-history, a question that has vexed philosophers ever since the emergence of anthropology as a field of study. It seems to us that the force of this antithesis is largely spent. There is now considerable agree- ment among theorists that the world of anthropology is a mixture of recurrent and unique events acting and reacting upon each other in a tremendously complex fashion. The only serious disagreements are in respect to the role and importance of the two components of the mixture. Our view is that the part played by recurrent events, though it may be the smaller, is the more significant; and that this is just as true for an archaeology devoted to the service of anthropology as it is for anthropology itself. Archaeology, in the service of anthropology, concerns itself necessarily with the nature and position of unique events in space and time but has for its ultimate purpose the discovery of regularities that are in a sense spaceless and timeless. 1 And, since it appears that a comparative method will be most likely to disclose such regularities, it follows that the archaeologist is faced with the responsibility of finding, in the seemingly endless flow of cultural and social events, forms and 1. This we hope will not be taken to mean that the events referred to take place outside space and time. In this and all subsequent references to space and time in this study, it is of course geographical space and chronological time that are denoted. METHOD AND THEORY IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY systems of forms that are not only comparable to each other but also comparable to, or at least compatible with, the forms and systems of forms of cultural or social anthropology.2 We shall return to this point later. The second article of belief referred to above is that the subject matter of anthropology is both society and culture, another polarity that is not standing up under analysis. The interpenetration of social and cultural facts now seems to be taken as axiomatic. Following Kroeber and others, we have chosen to regard them here as aspects of the same basic reality. Definition of this basic reality is fortu- nately outside the scope of the present inquiry. It is sufficient for our purposes to characterize it loosely as patterned human behavior. Archaeology, of necessity, deals very largely with patterned human behavior in its cultural aspect. In American archaeology especially, we have tended to suppress the social aspect altogether. Some Americanists have been drawn into the extreme position that sees in culture an independent order of phenomena, in- telligible in terms of itself alone—the "cultural superorganic." Most of us, without subscribing to the superorganic view of culture, have nevertheless operated "as if" it were a fact. In our opin- ion even this moderate position, though operationally expedient and to a certain extent inevitable, is ultimately detrimental to the main task of archaeology, which is to organize its data in terms of a real world, a world in which cultural and social phenomena (to name only these) are inextricably mingled.

Load more