Archaeology As Anthropology Author(S): Lewis R

Archaeology as Anthropology Author(s): Lewis R. Binford Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Oct., 1962), pp. 217-225 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/278380 Accessed: 15-08-2017 04:16 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity

This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:16:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ARCHAEOLOGY AS ANTHROPOLOGY

LEWIS R. BINFORD

ABSTRACT ties and differences characteristic of the entire It is argued that archaeology has made few contribu- spatial-temporal span of man's existence (for tions to the general field of anthropology with regard to discussion, see Kroeber 1953). Archaeology has explaining cultural similarities and differences. One certainly made major contributions as far as major factor contributing to this lack is asserted to be the tendency to treat artifacts as equal and comparable traits explication is concerned. Our current knowl- which can be explained within a single model of culture edge of the diversity which characterizes the change and modification. It is suggested that "material range of extinct cultural systems is far superior culture" can and does represent the structure of the total to the limited knowledge available fifty years cultural system, and that explanations of differences and ago. Although this contribution is "admirable" similarities between certain classes of material culture are inappropriate and inadequate as explanations for such and necessary, it has been noted that archae- observations within other classes of items. Similarly, ology has made essentially no contribution in change in the total cultural system must be viewed in an the realm of explanation: "So little work has adaptive context both social and environmental, not been done in American archaeology on the ex- whimsically viewed as the result of "influences," "stim- planatory level that it is difficult to find a name uli," or even "migrations" between and among geographi- cally defined units. for it" (Willey and Phillips 1958: 5). Three major functional sub-classes of material culture Before carrying this criticism further, some are discussed: technomic, socio-technic, and ideo-technic, statement about what is meant by explanation as well as stylistic formal properties which cross-cut these must be offered. The meaning which explana- categories. In general terms these recognized classes of tion has within a scientific frame of reference is materials are discussed with regard to the processes of change within each class. simply the demonstration of a constant articula- Using the above distinctions in what is termed a sys- tion of variables within a system and the meas- temic approach, the problem of the appearance and chang- urement of the concomitant variability among ing utilization of native copper in eastern North America the variables within the system. Processual is discussed. Hypotheses resulting from the application of the systemic approach are: (1) the initial appearance change in one variable can then be shown to re- of native copper implements is in the context of the pro- late in a predictable and quantifiable way to duction of socio-technic items; (2) the increased produc- changes in other variables, the latter changing in tion of socio-technic items in the late Archaic period is turn relative to changes in the structure of the related to an increase in population following the shift system as a whole. This approach to explanation to the exploitation of aquatic resources roughly coincident with the Nipissing high water stage of the ancestral Great presupposes concern with process, or the opera- Lakes; (3) this correlation is explicable in the increased tion and structural modification of systems. It selective pressures favoring material means of status com- is suggested that archaeologists have not made munication once populations had increased to the point major explanatory contributions to the field of that personal recognition was no longer a workable basis for differential role behavior; (4) the general shift in later anthropology because they do not conceive of periods from formally "utilitarian" items to the manufac- archaeological data in a systemic frame of ture of formally "nonutilitarian" items of copper is ex- reference. Archaeological data are viewed par- plicable in the postulated shift from purely egalitarian to ticularistically and "explanation" is offered in increasingly nonegalitarian means of status attainment. terms of specific events rather than in terms of process (see Buettner-Janusch 1957 for discus- IT HAS BEEN aptly stated that "American sion of particularism). archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing" Archaeologists tacitly assume that artifacts, (Willey and Phillips 1958: 2). The purpose of regardless of their functional context, can be this discussion is to evaluate the role which the treated as equal and comparable "traits." Once archaeological discipline is playing in furthering differences and similarities are "defined" in the aims of anthropology and to offer certain terms of these equal and comparable "traits," suggestions as to how we, as archaeologists, may interpretation proceeds within something of a profitably shoulder more responsibility for fur- theoretical vacuum that conceives of differences thering the aims of our field. and similarities as the result of "blending," Initially, it must be asked, "What are the aims "directional influences," and "stimulation" be- of anthropology?" Most will agree that the inte- tween and among "historical traditions" defined grated field is striving to explicate and explain largely on the basis of postulated local or re- the total range of physical and cultural similari- gional continuity in the human populations.

217

This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:16:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 218 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 28, No. 2, 1962

I suggest that this undifferentiated andadapt un- the human organism, conceived generi- structured view is inadequate, that artifacts cally, hav- to its total environment both physical and ing their primary functional context in different social. operational sub-systems of the total cultural Within sys- this framework it is consistent to view tem will exhibit differences and similarities diff- technology, those tools and social relationships erentially, in terms of the structure of the cultur- which articulate the organism with the physical al system of which they were a part. Further, environment, as closely related to the nature that the temporal and spatial spans within and of the environment. For example, we would not between broad functional categories will vary expect to find large quantities of fishhooks with the structure of the systematic relationships among the recent archaeological remains from between socio-cultural systems. Study of these the Kalahari desert! However, this view must differential distributions can potentially yield not be thought of as "environmental determin- valuable information concerning the nature of ism" for we assume a systematic relationship social organization within, and changing rela- between the human organism and his environ- tionships between, socio-cultural systems. In ment in which culture is the intervening varia- short, the explanation of differences and similar- ble. In short, we are speaking of the ecological ities between archaeological complexes must be system (Steward 1955: 36). We can observe offered in terms of our current knowledge of the certain constant adaptive requirements on the structural and functional characteristics of cul- part of the organism and similarly certain adap- tural systems. tive limitations, given specific kinds of environ- Specific "historical" explanations, if they can ment. However, limitations as well as the po- be demonstrated, simply explicate mechanisms tential of the environment must be viewed of cultural process. They add nothing to the always in terms of the intervening variable in explanation of the processes of cultural change the human ecological system, that is, culture. and evolution. If migrations can be shown to With such an approach we should not be have taken place, then this explication presents surprised to note similarities in technology an explanatory problem; what adaptive circum- among groups of similar levels of social com- stances, evolutionary processes, induced the mi- plexity inhabiting the boreal forest (Spauld- gration (Thompson 1958: 1)? We must seek ing 1946) or any other broad environmental explanation in systemic terms for classes of his- zone. The comparative study of cultural sys- torical events such as migrations, establishment tems with variable technologies in a similar en- of "contact" between areas previously isolated, vironmental range or similar technologies in etc. Only then will we make major contribu- differing environments is a major methodology tions in the area of explanation and provide a of what Steward (1955: 36-42) has called "cul- basis for the further advancement of anthro- tural ecology," and certainly is a valuable means pological theory. of increasing our understanding of cultural pro- As an exercise in explication of the method- cesses. Such a methodology is also useful in ological questions raised here, I will present a elucidating the structural relationships between general discussion of a particular systemic ap- major cultural sub-systems such as the social proach in the evaluation of archaeological as- and ideological sub-systems. Prior to the initia- semblages and utilize these distinctions in an tion of such studies by archaeologists we must be attempted explanation of a particular set of able to distinguish those relevant artifactual ele- archaeological observations. ments within the total artifact assemblage which Culture is viewed as the extra-somatic means have the primary functional context in the so- of adaptation for the human organism (White cial, technological, and ideological sub-systems 1959: 8). I am concerned with all those sub- of the total cultural system. We should not systems within the broader cultural system equate "material culture" with technology. which are: (a) extra-somatic or not, dependent Similarly we should not seek explanations for upon biological process for modification or struc- observed differences and similarities in "material tural definition (this is not to say that the form culture" within a single interpretative frame of and process cannot be viewed as rooted in bio- reference. It has often been suggested that we logical process, only that diversity and processes cannot dig up a social system or ideology. of diversification are not explicable in terms of Granted we cannot excavate a kinship termin- biological process), and which (b) function to ology or a philosophy, but we can and do exca-

This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:16:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BINFORD J ARCHAEOLOGY AS ANTHROPOLOGY 219 vate the material items which functioned to- other into cohesive groups capable of efficiently gether with these more behavioral elements maintaining themselves and of manipulating within the appropriate cultural sub-systems. the technology. Artifacts such as a king's The formal structure of artifact assemblages crown,to- a warrior's coup stick, a copper from th: gether with the between element contextual re-Northwest coast, etc., fall into this category, lationships should and do present a systematic Changes in the relative complexity of the socioo and understandable picture of the total extinct technic component of an archaeological assem, cultural system. It is no more justifiable blagefor can be related to changes in the structure archaeologists to attempt explanation of certain of the social system which they represent. Cer- formal, temporal, and spatial similarities tainlyand the evolutionary processes, while corre- differences within a single frame of reference lated and related, are not the same for explain- than it would be for an ethnographer to attempt ing structural changes in technological and so- explanation of differences in cousin terminology, cial phenomena. Factors such as demography, levels of socio-cultural integration, styles presence of or absence of between-group compe- dress, and modes of transportation all with tition, the etc., as well as the basic factors which same variables or within the same frame of affect technological change, must be considered reference. These classes or items are articulated when attempting to explain social change. Not differently within an integrated cultural system, only are the relevant variables different, there hence the pertinent variables with which each is a further difference when speaking of socio- is articulated, and exhibit concomitant varia- technic artifacts. The explanation of the basic tion are different. This fact obviates the single form and structure of the socio-technic com- explanatory frame of reference. The processes ponent of an artifactual assemblage lies in the of change pertinent to each are different because nature and structure of the social system which of the different ways in which they function init represents. Observable differences and contributing to the total adaptive system. changes in the socio-technic components of ar- Consistent with this line of reasoning is the chaeological assemblages must be explained with assertion that we as archaeologists must face the reference to structural changes in the social sys- problem of identifying technomic artifacts from tem and in terms of processes of social change other artifactual forms. Technomic signifies and evolution. those artifacts having their primary functional Thus, archaeologists can initially only indirect- context in coping directly with the physical en- ly contribute to the investigation of social evo- vironment. Variability in the technomic com- lution. I would consider the study and estab- ponents of archaeological assemblages is seen lishment of correlations between types of social as primarily explicable in the ecological frame structure classified on the basis of behavioral of reference. Here, we must concern ourselves attributes and structural types of material ele- with such phenomena as extractive efficiency, ments as one of the major areas of anthropologi- efficiency in performing bio-compensatory tasks cal research yet to be developed. Once such such as heat retention, the nature of available correlations are established, archaeologists can resources, their distribution, density, and loci ofattack the problems of evolutionary change in availability, etc. In this area of research and ex- social systems. It is my opinion that only when planation, the archaeologist is in a position weto have the entire temporal span of cultural make a direct contribution to the field of anthro- evolution as our "laboratory" can we make sub- pology. We can directly correlate technomic stantial gains in the critical area of social anthro- items with environmental variables since we can pological research. know the distribution of fossil flora and fauna The third major class of items which archae- from independent data - giving us the nature ologists frequently recover can be termed ideo- of extinct environments. technic artifacts. Items of this class have their Another major class of artifacts which the primary functional context in the ideological archaeologists recover can be termed socio-tech- component of the social system. These are the nic. These artifacts were the material elements items which signify and symbolize the ideologi- having their primary functional context in the cal rationalizations for the social system and fur- social sub-systems of the total cultural system. ther provide the symbolic milieu in which in- This sub-system functions as the extra-somatic dividuals are enculturated, a necessity if they means of articulating individuals one with an- are to take their place as functional participants

This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:16:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 220 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 28, No. 2, 1962 in the social system. Such items as figures ofcorrelations of the structure of artifact assem- deities, clan symbols, symbols of natural agen- blages with rates of style change, directions of cies, etc., fall into this general category. Formal style-spread, and stability of style-continuity. diversity in the structural complexity and in Having recognized three general functional functional classes of this category of items must classes of artifacts: technomic, socio-technic, generally be related to changes in the structure and ideo-technic, as well as a category of formal of the society, hence explanations must be stylistic attributes, each characterized by differ- sought in the local adaptive situation rather ing functions within the total cultural system than in the area of "historical explanations." Asand correspondingly different processes of was the case with socio-technic items, we must change, it is suggested that our current theoreti- seek to establish correlations between generic cal orientation is insufficient and inadequate for classes of the ideological system and the struc- attempting explanation. It is argued that ex- ture of the material symbolism. Only after such planations of differences and similarities be- correlations have been established can archae- tween archaeological assemblages as a whole ologists study in a systematic way this compon- must first consider the nature of differences in ent of the social sub-system. each of these major categories and only after Cross-cutting all of these general classes such of evaluation can adequate explanatory hy- artifacts are formal characteristics which can bepotheses be offered. termed stylistic, formal qualities that are not di-Given this brief and oversimplified introduc- rectly explicable in terms of the nature of tion, the I will turn to a specific case, the Old Cop- raw materials, technology of production, or vari-per complex (Wittry and Ritzenthaler 1956). ability in the structure of the technological andIt has long been observed and frequently cited social sub-systems of the total cultural system. as a case of technological "devolution" that dur- These formal qualities are believed to have their ing the Archaic period fine and superior cop- primary functional context in providing a sym- per utilitarian tools were manufactured, where- bolically diverse yet pervasive artifactual envir- as, during Early and Middle Woodland times onment promoting group solidarity and serving copper was used primarily for the production of as a basis for group awareness and identity. This nonutilitarian items (Griffin 1952: 356). I will pan-systemic set of symbols is the milieu of exploreen- this interesting situation in terms of: culturation and a basis for the recognition (1) of the frame of reference presented here, social distinctiveness. "One of the main func- (2) generalizations which have previously been tions of the arts as communication is to reinforce made concerning the nature of culture change, belief, custom, and values" (Beals and Hoijer and (3) a set of hypotheses concerning the rela- 1955: 548). The distribution of style types and tionships between certain forms of socio-technic traditions is believed to be largely correlated artifacts and the structure of the social systems with areas of commonality in level of cultural that they represent. complexity and in mode of adaptation. Changes The normal assumption when thinking about in the temporal-spatial distribution of style types the copper artifacts typical of the Old Copper are believed to be related to changes in the struc- complex is that they are primarily technomic ture of socio-cultural systems either brought (manufactured for use in directly coping with about through processes of in situ evolution, or the physical environment). It is generally by changes in the cultural environment to which assumed that these tools were superior to their local socio-cultural systems are adapted, thereby functional equivalents in both stone and bone initiating evolutionary change. It is believed because of their durability and presumed super- that stylistic attributes are most fruitfully iority in accomplishing cutting and piercing studied when questions of ethnic origin, migra- tasks. It is a common generalization that within tion, and interaction between groups is the sub- the realm of technology more efficient forms ject of explication. However, when explana- tend to replace less efficient forms. The Old tions are sought, the total adaptive context ofCopper case seems to be an exception. the socio-cultural system in question must be Absolute efficiency in performance is only one investigated. In this field of research archaeolo- side of the coin when viewed in an adaptive gists are in an excellent position to make major context. Adaptive efficiency must also be contributions to the general field of anthro- viewed in terms of economy, that is, energy ex- pology, for we can work directly in terms penditureof versus energy conservation (White

This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:16:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BINFORD ] ARCHAEOLOGY AS ANTHROPOLOGY 221

1959: 54). For one tool to be adaptively tion moreof copper tools than in the production of efficient than another there must be either their a functionallow- equivalents in either bone or ering of energy expenditure per unit of stone. energy of conservation in task performance, or Turning an in- now to the problem of energy con- crease in energy conservation per unit servation of per- in task performance, we may ask what formance over a constant energy expenditure differentials existed. It seems fairly certain that in tool production. Viewed this way, copper we may was probably more durable and could question the position that copper tools have were been utilized for a longer period of time. technologically more efficient. The production As far as what differentials existed between cop- of copper tools utilizing the techniques per em-and stone, as regards cutting and piercing ployed in the manufacture of Old Copper functions, speci- only experiments can determine. mens certainly required tremendous Consideringexpendi- all of the evidence, the quality of tures of both time and labor. The sources of durability appears to have been the only possi- copper are not in the areas of most dense bleOld realm which could compensate for the differ- Copper implements (Wittry 1951), hence travel entials in expenditure of energy between stone to the sources, or at least the establishment and of bone as opposed to copper in the area of logistics networks based on kin ties extending procurement and processing of the raw material. over large areas, was a prerequisite for the pro- What evidence exists that would suggest that curement of the raw material. Extraction of the durability was in fact the compensatory quality copper, using the primitive mining techniques which made copper tools technologically more exemplified by the aboriginal mining pits on Isleefficient? Royale and the Keewenaw Peninsula (Holmes All the available evidence suggests the con- 1901), required further expenditure of time and trary interpretation. First, we do not have evi- labor. Raw materials for the production of dencethe that the raw material was re-used to any functional equivalents of the copper tools was great extent once an artifact was broken or normally available locally or at least available "worn out." If this had been the case, we would at some point within the bounds of the normal expect to have a general lack of battered and exploitative cycle. Extraction was essentially "worn a out" pieces and some examples of re- gathering process requiring no specialized tech- worked pieces, whereas evidence of use is a com- niques, and could be accomplished incidental mon characteristic of recovered specimens, and to the performance of other tasks. Certainly into my knowledge reworked pieces are uncom- terms of expenditures of time and energy, mon as if not unknown. regards the distribution of sources of raw ma- Second, when found in a primary archaeologi- terials and techniques of extraction, copper calre- context, copper tools are almost invariably quired a tremendous expenditure as opposed part of burial goods. If durability was the com- to raw materials of stone and bone. pensatory factor in the efficiency equation, cer- The processing phase of tool production ap- tainly some social mechanism for retaining the pears to present an equally puzzling ratio with copper tools as functioning parts of the tech- regard to expenditure of energy. The processing nology would have been established. This does of copper into a finished artifact normally re- not appear to have been the case. Since dura- quires the separation of crystalline impurities bility can be ruled out as the compensatory fac- from the copper. Following this processing tor, we must conclude that copper tools were phase, normal procedure seems to have been to not technologically more efficient than their pound and partially flatten small bits of copper functional equivalents in both stone and bone. which were then pounded together to "build" Having reached this "conclusion," it remains to an artifact (Cushing 1894). Once the essential explore the problem of the initial appearance shape had been achieved, further hammering, of copper tools and to examine the observation grinding, and polishing were required. I suggest that there was a shift from the use of copper for that this process is more time consuming than the production of utilitarian tools to nonutili- shaping and finishing an artifact by chipping tarian items. flint, or even the pecking and grinding technique It is proposed that the observed shift and the employed in the production of ground stone initial appearance of copper tools can best be tools. It follows that there was a much greater explained under the hypothesis that they did expenditure of time and energy in the produc- not function primarily as technomic items. I

This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:16:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 222 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 28, No. 2, 1962 suggest that in both the Old Copper and ated laterand/or painstakingly manufactured. I do cultural systems to the south, copper was not implyutil- that the items could not or were not ized primarily for the production of socio-tech- used technomically, simply that their presence nic items. in the assemblage is explicable only in reference Fried (1960) discusses certain pertinent dis- to the social system. tinctions between societies with regard to sys- Within such a system the structure of the tems of status grading. Societies on a low gen- socio-technic component as regards "contextual" eral level of cultural complexity, measured relationships in should be simple. Various status terms of functional specialization and structural symbols will be possessed by nearly all individ- differentiation, normally have an "egalitarian" uals within the limits of age and sex classes, system of status grading. The term "egalitarian" differentiation within such a class being largely signifies that status positions are open to allquantitative and qualitative rather than by for- persons within the limits of certain sex and age mal exclusion of particular forms to particular classes, who through their individual physical status grades. The degree to which socio-technic and mental characteristics are capable of greater symbols of status will be utilized within an egali- achievement in coping with the environment. tarian group should largely be a function of Among societies of greater complexity, status group size and the intensity and constancy of grading may be less egalitarian. Where ranking personal acquaintance among all individuals is the primary mechanism of status grading, composing the society. Where small group size status positions are closed. There are qualifica- and general lack of interaction with nearby tions for attainment that are not simply a func- groups is the normal pattern, then the abun- tion of one's personal physical and mental capa- dance of status symbols should be low. Where bilities. group size is large and/or where between-group A classic example of ranking is found among interactions are widespread, lowering the inti- societies with a ramage form of social organiza- macy and familiarity between interacting indi- tion (Sahlins 1958: 139-180). In such societies viduals, then there should be a greater and more status is determined by one's proximity in general use of material means of status com- descent from a common ancestor. High status munication. is accorded those in the direct line of descent, Another characteristic of the manipulation calculated in terms of primogeniture, while of status symbols among societies with essen- cadet lines of descent occupy positions of lower tially egalitarian systems of status grading would status depending on their proximity to the direct be the destruction at death of an individual's line. symbols of status. Status attainment being egali- Another form of internally ranked system is tarian, status symbols would be personalities and one in which attainment of a particular status could not be inherited as such. Inclusion as position is closed to all except those members grave accompaniments or outright destruction of a particular kin group who may occupy a would be the suggested mode of disposal for differentiated status position, but open to all status items among such groups. members of that kin group on an egalitarian Among societies where status grading tends basis. to be of a nonegalitarian type, the status sym- Other forms of status grading are recognized, bols should be more esoteric in form. Their but for the purposes of this discussion the major form would normally be dictated by the ideologi- distinction between egalitarian and ranked sys- cal symbolism which rationalizes and empha- tems is sufficient. I propose that there is a di- sizes the particular internal ranking system or rect relationship between the nature of the sys- the means of partitioning the society. The struc- tem of status grading within a society and the ture of the socio-technic component of the as- quantity, form, and structure of socio-technic semblage should be more complex, with the components of its archaeological assemblage. complexity increasing directly as the complexity It is proposed that among egalitarian societies of the internal ranking system. Possession of cer- status symbols are symbolic of the technological tain forms may become exclusively restricted to activities for which outstanding performance is certain status positions. As the degree of com- rewarded by increased status. In many cases plexity in ranking increases there should be a they will be formally technomic items manufac- similar increase in the differentiation of con- tured of "exotic" material or elaborately decor- textual associations in the form of differential

This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:16:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BINFORD ] ARCHAEOLOGY AS ANTHROPOLOGY 223 treatment at death, differential access aquatic to resourcesgoods is demonstrable in the initial and services evidenced in the formal andappearance spatial of quantities of fish remains in the differentiation in habitations and storage sites ofareas, this period and in the sites of election etc. We would also expect to observe for differen- occupation, adjacent to prominent loci of tiation among the class of status symbols availability them- for exploiting aquatic resources. It selves as regards those which were utilizedis proposed on that a with the increasing population custodial basis as opposed to those density,that were the selective pressures fostering the sym- personalities. Similarly, we would bolic expect communication to of status, as opposed to the see status symbols more frequently inherited dependence at on personal recognition as the bases death as inheritance increases as the mechanism for differential role behavior, were sufficient to of status ascription. result in the initial appearance of a new class of Certainly these are suggestions which must be socio-technic items, formally technomic status phrased as hypotheses and tested against eth- symbols. nographic data. Nevertheless it is hoped that The failure to perpetuate the practice of the this discussion is sufficient to serve as a back- manufacture of copper tools on any extensive ground against which an explanatory hypothesis basis in the Great Lakes region should be ex- concerning the Old Copper materials can be plicable in terms of the changing structure of the offered as an example of the potential utility of social systems in that area during Woodland this type of systemic approach to archaeological times. The exact type of social structure charac- data. teristic of Early Woodland period is at present I suggest that the Old Copper copper tools poorly understood. I would suggest that there had their primary functional context as symbols was a major structural change between the Late of achieved status in cultural systems with an Archaic and Early Woodland periods, probably egalitarian system of status grading. The settle- in the direction of a simple clan and moiety ment patterns and general level of cultural basis for social integration with a corresponding development suggested by the archaeological re- shift in the systems of status grading and the mains is commensurate with a band level of obsolescence of the older material means of socio-cultural integration (Martin, Quimby, status and communication. Collier 1947: 299), that level within which The presence of copper tools of essentially egalitarian systems of status grading are dom- nonutilitarian form within such complexes as inant (Fried 1960). The technomic form, ap- Adena, Hopewell, and Mississippian are most parent lack of technomic efficiency, relative scar- certainly explicable in terms of their socio- city, and frequent occurrence in burials of cop- technic functions within much more complex per artifacts all suggest that their primary func- social systems. Within the latter societies status tion was as socio-technic items. Having reached grading was not purely on an egalitarian basis, this "conclusion," we are then in a position to and the nonutilitarian copper forms of status ask, in systemic terms, questions concerning symbols would be formally commensurate with their period of appearance, disappearance, and the ideological rationalizations for the various the shift to nonutilitarian forms of copper items ascriptive status systems. among later prehistoric socio-cultural systems of This explanatory "theory" has the advantage eastern North America. of "explaining": (1) the period of appearance I propose that the initial appearance of for- of copper and probably other "exotic" materials mally "utilitarian" copper tools in the Great in the Late Archaic period; (2) the form of the Lakes region is explicable in terms of a major copper items; (3) their frequently noted contex- population expansion in the region following the tual relations, for example, placement in burials; Nipissing stage of the ancestral Great Lakes. (4) their disappearance, which would be an The increase in population density was the re- "enigma" if they functioned primarily as tech- sult of increases in gross productivity following nomic items; and (5) the use of copper for the an exploitative shift to aquatic resources during almost exclusive production of "nonutilitarian" the Nipissing stage. The increased populations items in later and certainly more complex cul- are generally demonstrable in terms of the in- tures of the eastern United States. This ex- creased number of archaeological sites ascribable planatory theory is advanced on the basis of to the post-Nipissing period. The shift to currently available information, and regardless

This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:16:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 224 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 28, No. 2, 1962 of whether or not it can stand as the correct ex-BEALS, RALPH L. AND HARRY HOIJER planation of the "Old Copper Problem" when 1953 An Introduction to Anthropology. The Mac- more data are available, I suggest that only millan Company, New York. within a systemic frame of reference could such an inclusive explanation be offered. Here lies BUETTNER-JANUSCH,the JOHN 1957 Boas and Mason: Particularism versus Generali- advantage of the systemic approach. zation. American Anthropologist, Vol. 59, No. Archaeology must accept a greater responsi- 2, pp. 318-24. Menasha. bility in the furtherance of the aims of anthropology. Until the tremendous quantities of CUSHING,data F. H. which the archaeologist controls are used in the 1894 Primitive Copper Working: An Experimental solution of problems dealing with cultural evo- Study. American Anthropologist, Vol. 7, No. 1, lution or systemic change, we are not only failing pp. 93-117. Washington. to contribute to the furtherance of the aims of FRIED, MORTON H. anthropology but retarding the accomplishment 1960 On the Evolution of Social Stratification and the of these aims. We as archaeologists have avail- State. In "Culture in History: Essays in Honor able a wide range of variability and a large sam- of Paul Radin, edited by Stanley Diamond, pp. ple of cultural systems. Ethnographers are re- 713-31. Columbia University Press, New York. stricted to the small and formally limited extant cultural systems. GRIFFIN, JAMES B. Archaeologists should be among the best 1952 Culture Periods in Eastern United States Ar- qualified to study and directly test hypotheses chaeology. In Archaeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 352-64. concerning the process of evolutionary change, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. particularly processes of change that are rela- 1960 Climatic Change: A Contributory Cause of the tively slow, or hypotheses that postulate tem- Growth and Decline of Northern Hopewellian poral-processual priorities as regards total cul- Culture. Wisconsin Archeologist, Vol. 41, No. 2, tural systems. The lack of theoretical concern pp. 21-33. Milwaukee. and rather naive attempts at explanation which HOLMES, WILLIAM H. archaeologists currently advance must be modi- 1901 Aboriginal Copper Mines of Isle Royale, Lake fied. Superior. American Anthropologist, Vol. 3, No. I have suggested certain ways that could be 4, pp. 684-96. New York. a beginning in this necessary transition to a systemic view of culture, and have set forth a spe- KROEBER, A. L. cific argument which hopefully demonstrates 1953 Introduction. In: Anthropology Today, edited by A. L. Kroeber, pp. xiii-xv. University of Chi- the utility of such an approach. The explana- cago Press, Chicago. tory potential which even this limited and highly specific interpretative approach holds MARTIN, PAUL S., GEORGE I. QUIMBY AND DONALD COLLIER should be clear when problems such as "the 1947 Indians Before Columbus. University of Chi- spread of an Early Woodland burial cult in the cago Press, Chicago. Northeast" (Ritchie 1955), the appearance of the "Buzzard cult" (Waring and Holder 1945) RITCHIE, WILLIAM A. 1955 Recent Suggestions Suggesting an Early Wood- in the Southeast, or the "Hopewell decline" land Burial Cult in the Northeast. New York (Griffin 1960) are recalled. It is my opinion that State Museum and Science Service, Circular No. until we as archaeologists begin thinking of our 40. Rochester. data in terms of total cultural systems, many such prehistoric "enigmas" will remain unex- SAHLINS, MARSHALL D. plained. As archaeologists, with the entire span 1958 Social Stratification in Polynesia. University of Washington Press, Seattle. of culture history as our "laboratory," we cannot afford to keep our theoretical heads buried SPAULDING, ALBERT C. in the sand. We must shoulder our full share of 1946 Northeastern Archaeology and General Trends responsibility within anthropology. Such a in the Northern Forest Zone. In "Man in North- change could go far in advancing the field of eastern North America," edited by Frederick Johnson. Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foun- archaeology specifically, and would certainly ad- dation for Archaeology, Vol. 3, pp. 143-67. Phil- vance the general field of anthropology. lips Academy, Andover.

This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:16:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BINFORD ] ARCHAEOLOGY AS ANTHROPOLOGY 225

STEWARD, JULIAN H. WILLEY, GORDON R. AND PHILIP PHILLIPS 1955 Theory of Culture Change. University 1958 of Method Illi- and Theory in Archaeology. University nois Press, Urbana. of Chicago Press, Chicago.

THOMPSON, RAYMOND H. WITTRY, WARREN L. 1958 Preface. In "Migrations in New World Culture1951 A Preliminary Study of the Old Copper Com- History," edited by Raymond H. Thompson, plex. pp. Wisconsin Archeologist, Vol. 32, No. 1, v-vii. University of Arizona, Social Science Bulle- pp. 1-18. Milwaukee. tin, No. 27. Tucson. WITTRY, WARREN L. AND ROBERT E. RITZENTHALER WARING, ANTONIO J. AND PRESTON HOLDER 1956 The Old Copper Complex: An Archaic Mani- 1945 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the festation in Wisconsin. American Antiquity, Southeastern United States. American Anthro- Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 244-54. Salt Lake City. pologist, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 1-34. Menasha. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO WHITE, LESLIE A. Chicago, Illinois 1959 The Evolution of Culture. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. April, 1962

This content downloaded from 128.227.133.130 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 04:16:26 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms