ADlericanist Culture History Fundamentals of Time, Space, and Form Americanist Culture History Fundamentals of Time, Space, and Form Edited by R. Lee Lyman Michael J. 0 'Brien University ~f Missouri-Columbia Columbia. Missouri and Robert C. Dunnell University ~f Washington Seattle. Washington PLENUM PRESS • NEW YORK AND LONDON Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Americanist culture history fundamentals of time, space, and form / edited by R. Lee Lyman, Michael J. O'Brlen, and Robert C. Dunnell. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-306-45539-0 (hardbound). -- ISBN 0-306-45540-4 (pbk.) I. Lyman, R. Lee. II. O'Brlen, Michael J. (Michael John), 1950- III. Dunnell, Robert C .. 1942- E77.9.A45 1997 930. 1--dc21 97-22167 CIP ISBN 0-306-45539-0 (Hardbound) ISBN 0-306-45540-4 (Paperback) © 1997 Plenum Press, New York A Division of Plenum Publishing Corporation 233 Spring Street, New York, N. Y. 10013 http://www.plenum.com All rights reserved 10987654321 No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher Preface Atbert C. Spaulding wrote in 1960 that newer paradigms and continue to be funda­ "archaeology can be defined minimally as mental within the discipline. the study of the interrelationship of form, With Spaulding's and Willey's concep­ temporal locus, and spatial locus exhibited tions as our guide, we have compiled what by artifacts. In other words, archaeologists we view as the benchmark papers in which are always concerned with these interrela­ the fundamental tenets of Americanist ar­ tionships, whatever broader interests they chaeology were developed. These papers may have, and these interrelationships are variously introduce and/or synthesize critical the special business of archaeology" (Spaul­ concepts and procedures for understanding ding [1960b:439]; references follow the In­ the archaeological record in terms of time, troduction). Gordon Willey (1953:361) said space, and form. We have been prompted to more or less the same thing, but he put it compile and reprint these papers because it more simply: "The objectives of archeol­ is our strong impression that most archae­ ogy . are approached by the study and ologists today appear to have forgotten or manipulation of three basic factors: form, tend to overlook many of the central tenets space, and time." The simplicity of this state­ of the discipline-tenets that underpin vir­ ment is beguiling. Unfortunately, there is no tually everything we do. Moreover, contem­ black box into which a piece of pottery or a porary knowledge of our discipline's past projectile point can be dropped to learn such often seems derived from secondary sources, things as when it was made, why it was made many of which often impart orientations and in one location over another, or why it took characteristics the original authors would not on the form it exhibits. Many of the means recognize. Finally, ignorance of the disci­ Americanist archaeologists use to address pline's past can result in "unnecessary origi­ questions of where, when, and why were for­ nality," as noted by Bohannan and Glazer mulated early in the twentieth century. (1988:xv), while detailed knowledge of it can These analytical tenets, or principles, were "give one a great many good ideas, for the formalized and axiomatized in later years, past never says things quite the way the pre­ and, by the middle decades of the twentieth sent needs them said" (Bohannan and century, they constituted the first formal Glazer 1988:xv). paradigm for Americanist archaeology-a All the items reprinted here were writ­ paradigm commonly termed culture history. ten by anthropologists and archaeologists That paradigm fell from favor in the 1960s, working and/or trained in the United States, yet many of its central tenets remain in and all were originally published in the Preface v twentieth century. Our coverage ends just tion of a document, references for that por­ after the birth of "processual" archaeology tion only appear at the end of the reprinted in the 1960s (see Binford [1972] and Leone portion. In several cases, the lists contain our [1972] for collections of relevant articles). corrections and updates of references. For This "processual," or "new," archaeology is example, we have indicated when and where seen by some as representing a major break a paper originally cited as "in press" was with previous archaeological epistemology published in order to enhance the value of (Willey and Sabloff 1993:214-231), while the references. This should ease the task of others see it as a continuation and elabora­ a citations analysis if one should choose to tion of much of what came before (Trigger perform such a task. We also have attempted 1989:294-303). The issue is not resolved, to keep the number of reprinted pages as but clearly something happened in the 1960s low as possible, without sacrificing content. and early 1970s. Whatever that something Thus, cover pages, title pages, and other might have been, we have taken that time relatively superfluous material are not re­ period to define the upper limit of our cov­ printed. We reprint the papers in mostly erage. As a result, the items reprinted here chronological order so that one might track represent much of the thinking of a group the intellectual development of the culture­ of archaeologists characterized by proces­ history paradigm. Exceptions comprise two sual archaeologists as "culture historians." cases in which we judged the content of the To enhance the volume both as a ref­ reprinted items to be a more significant or­ erence and as a research tool, we have re­ tained the original format and pagination of dering criterion than the date of publication. all but one of the 39 papers included. The The elements of time, space, and form single exception (Ford and Griffin 1938) was have, in various guises, assumed center stage originally produced as a mimeographed in Americanist archaeology from at least the typescript that was not acceptable for repro­ beginning of the twentieth century. That duction. Many papers are reprinted in full, stage has been crowded with actors-some including illustrations and references. In with meaty roles, others with only bit parts. other cases we have chosen to reprint only Here, we assume some familiarity on the portions of monographs or books-those part of the reader with the basic elements portions which present statements of method of the story. Elsewhere, we present a de­ or logic essential to an understanding of the tailed essay written from a critical viewpoint subject. that seeks not only to document the history References for the reprinted articles are of the culture history paradigm but also to given as they were in the original-as foot­ demonstrate why that paradigm flourished notes or as a reference list following each for a time and why it ultimately was dis­ article. In cases where we reprint only a por- carded (Lyman et al. 1997). vi Preface Acknowledgments Many societies, publishers, and individuals Archeological Nomenclature. American Anthro­ granted us permission to reprint the materi­ pologist 11:114-119. als published here. In particular, for their courtesy, the following were most helpful: American Museum of Natural History (and Valerie Wheat), for permission to reprint: American Anthropological Association (and Spier, Leslie. 1917. An Outline for a Chronology Terry Clifford), for permission to reprint: of Zuni Ruins. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers 18(3):207-33l. Ford, James A. 1954. Comment on A. C. Spauld­ Ford, James Alfred. 1949. Cultural Dating of Pre­ ing's "Statistical Techniques for the Discovery historic Sites in Virli Valley, Peru. American of Artifact Types." American Antiquity 19:390- Museum of Natural History Anthropological Pa­ 39l. pers 43(1):29-89. Holmes, W[illiam] H. 1914. Areas of American Ford, James A. 1952. Measurements of Some Culture Characterization Tentatively Outlined Prehistoric Design Developments in the South­ as an Aid in the Study of Antiquities. American eastern States. American Museum of Natural Anthropologist 16:413-446. History, Anthropological Papers 43(3):313-384. Kidder, M[adeleine] A. and A[lfred] V. Kidder. 1917. Notes on the Pottery of Pecos. American Louisiana Geological Survey (and William Anthropologist 19:325-360. E. Marsalis), for permission to reprint: Nelson, N[els] C. 1916. Chronology of the Tano Ruins, New Mexico. American Anthropologist Ford, James A. 1936. Analysis of Village Site Col­ 18:159-180. lections from Louisiana and Mississippi. Depart­ Phillips, Philip and Gordon R. Willey. 1953. ment of Conservation, Louisiana State Geo­ Method and Theory in American Archeology: logical Survey, Anthropological Study 2. An Operational Basis for Culture-Historical In­ tegration. American Anthropologist 55:615-633. Museum of Northern Arizona (and Kathryn Rouse, Irving [B.] 1955. On the Correlation of S. Sibley), for permission to reprint: Phases of Culture. American Anthropologist 57:713-722. Colton, Harold Sellers and Lyndon Lane Har: Steward, Julian H. 1929. Diffusion and Inde­ grave. 1937. Handbook of Northern Arizona Pot­ pendent Invention: A Critique of Logic. Ameri­ tery Wares. Museum of Northern Arizona can Anthropologist 31:491-495. Bulletin 11. Flagstaff. Wright, John H., J. D. McGuire, F[rederick] W. Hodge, W[ arren] K. Moorehead, and C[harles] National Academy of Sciences, for permis­ Peabody. 1909. Report of the Committee on sion to reprint: Acknowledgments vii Kidder, A[lfred] V. 1917. A Design-Sequence nomic Classification in the Type-Variety Sys­ from New Mexico. National Academy of Sci­ tem. American Antiquity 34:278-285. ences, Proceedings 3:369-370. Spaulding, Albert C. 1954. Reply to Ford. Ameri­ Kroeber, A[lfred] L.