BOOKS Culture histolY (J.cultural process: a debate in American archaeology coffee table of the archaeological fra­ ology: the question of whether archaeol­ ternity, at least until an inexpensive pa­ ogy should be the study of culture his­ by Kent V. Flannery perback edition can be produced. tory or the study of cultural process. In Willey's archaeological career is re­ view of this debate it is interesting to flected in monographs and articles on note that in practically the same para­ AN INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN AR­ every major land mass of the New graph Willey can brand his book "cul­ CHAEOLOGY, VOLUME I: NORTH AND World, from the region of the Woodland ture history" and yet argue that he is MIDDLE AMERICA, by Gordon R. Wil­ culture in the U.S. Northeast to the "not championing any one point of ley. Prentice-Hall, Inc. ($16.95). Maya area, the shell mounds of Panama view." and the coastal border of the Andean Perhaps 60 percent of all currently dominant characteristic of Ameri- civilization. He is a perennial favorite ambulatory American archaeologists are A can archaeology has been its long who for a variety of reasons has never concerned primarily with culture history; history of reaction to American . come under attack. One reason is his this includes most of the establishment ethnology. When ethnology was little avoidance of any one polarized theoreti­ and not a few of the younger generation. more than the collecting of spears, bas­ cal position; the other is his adaptability Another 10 percent, both young and old, kets and headdresses from the Indians, in the face of continual change. While belong to what might be called the archaelogy was little more than recovery other members of the establishment have "process schoo!." Between these two ex­ of artifacts. 'When ethnology increased clenched their fists and gritted their tremes lies a substantial group of archae­ its attention to community structure, ar­ teeth when their formerly useful theories ologists who aim their fire freely at both chaeology responded with studies of set­ dropped from favor, Willey has shown history and process. And although Wil­ tlement pattern-an approach in which no such hostility; younger archaeologists ley himself belongs to this group, his 1n­ Gordon Willey was an innovator. Publi­ sense he would rather join them than lick tmduction to American Archaeology also cation of works by Julian H. Steward and them. And he is always free to join them consWutes a massive restatement of the others on "cultural ecology" was an­ as long as he maintains no vested interest accomplishments of the culture-history swered by great archaeological emphasis in any comprehensive theory that needs schoo!. on "the ecological approach." When the defending. Most culture historians use a theOl'eti­ concept of cultural evolution emerged This book, well organized from the cal framework that has been described triumphant after years of suppression, primary literature and from constant as "normative" (the term was coined by archaeology showed great interest in conversations with Willey's colleagues, an ethnologist and recently restressed by evolutionary sequences and in the classi­ is no exception. It is unlikely to stir up an archaeologist). That is, they treat cul­ fication of "stages" in the human career. controversy except where vVilley com­ ture as a body of shared ideas, values The interaction of these two disciplines mits himself to one of a series of possible and beliefs-the "norms" of a human has been increased by the fact that in the theories proposed by others-for ex­ group. Members of a given culture are U.S. both are housed in departments of ample, siding with Emil W. Haury rath­ committed to these norms in different de­ anthropology; as Willey remarked some er than Charles C. Di Peso on the inter­ grees-the norm is really at the middle 10 years ago, "American archaeology is pretation of the U.S. Southwest, or with of a bell-shaped curve of opinions on anthropology or it is nothing." Henry B. Collins rather than Richard S. how to behave. Prehistoric artifacts are And now, in 1967, Willey-Bowditch MacNeish on the American Arctic. It is viewed as products of these shared ideas, Professor of Mexican and Central Amer­ not Willey's aim to intrude his own the­ and they too have a "range of variation" ican Archaeology and Ethnology at ories into the synthesis. Indeed, he tells that takes the form of a bell-shaped Harvard University-has written a monu­ us that he is "not demonstrating or cham­ curve. mental synthesis of New World prehis­ pioning any one process, theory or kind In the normative framework cultures tory. There is nothing like it. Recently of explanation as a key to a comprehen­ change as the shared ideas, values and we have had several edited volumes on sive understanding of what went on beliefs change. Change may be temporal the New World with contributions by re­ in prehistoric America." Clearly Willey (as the ideas alter with time) or geo­ gional specialists, but this book is written feels that it would be misleading to do graphic (as one moves away from the cover to cover by one man. Thus the in­ more than present the student with the center of a particular culture area, com­ evitable lack of firsthand familiarity with facts as most of his colleagues agree on mitment to certain norms lessens and certain areas is partially offset by the them in 1967. Hence "the intent of this commitment to others increases). Hence advantage of having one consistent ap­ book is history-an introductory culture culture historians have always been con­ proach and writing style throughout. Al­ history of pre-Columbian America." cerned with constructing "time-space though aimed at the student, the book's This statement by Willey makes it ap­ grids"-great charts whose columns show costly format almost prices it out of the propriate to consider one of the current variation through the centuries. Some student range. It is a centerpiece for the theoretical debates in American archae- have focused an incredible amount of 119 © 1967 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC attention on refining and detailing these fact populations cannot go beyond what ponents does the system have, what en­ grids; others have been concerned with Binford calls "paleopsychology"-they ergy source keeps it going, what mech­ discovering "the Indian behind the arti­ cannot cope with systemic change. And anisms regulate it and so on? Often the fact"-reconstructing the "shared idea" where Willey says that "archaeology fre­ first step is an attempt to discover the or "mental template" that served as a quently treats more effectively of man role of the trait or implement by de­ model for the maker of the tool. in his relationships to his natural en­ termining what it is functionally asso­ While recognizing the usefulness of vironment than of other aspects of cul­ ciated with; some process theorists have this framework for classification, the ture," Binford would protest that most run extensive linear-regression analyses process school argues that it is unsuit­ culture historians have dealt poorly with or multivariant factor analyses in order able for explaining culture-change situ­ these very relationships; their model of to pick up clusters of elements that vary ations. Members of the process school "norms," which are "inside" culture, and with each other in "nonrandom" ways. view human behavior as a point of over­ environment, which is "outside," makes When such clusterings occur, the analyst lap (or "articulation") between a vast it impossible to deal with the countless postulates a system-tools X, Y and Z are number of systems, each of which en­ systems in which man participates, none variables dependent on one another, con­ compasses both cultural and noncultural of which actually reflect a dichotomy be­ stituting a functional tool kit that varies phenomena-often much more of the lat­ tween culture and nature. The concept nonrandomly with some aspect of the ter. An Indian group, for example, may of culture as a "superorganic" phenom­ environment, such as fish, wild cereal participate in a system in which maize is enon, helpful for some analytical pur­ grains, white-tailed deer and so on. By grown on a river floodplain that is slowly poses, is of little utility to the process definition change in one part of a system being eroded, causing the zone of the school. produces change in other parts; hence best farmland to move upstream. Simul­ As a convenient example of the dif­ the process theorists cannot view arti­ taneously it may participate in a system ference in the two approaches, let us ex­ facts X, Y and Z as products of cultural involving a wild rabbit population whose amine three different ways in which norms, to be accepted or rejected freely density fluctuates in a 10-year cycle be­ American archaeologists have treated at way stations along diffusion routes. cause of predators or disease. It may also what they call "diffusion"-the geograph­ When such elements spread, it is because participate in a system of exchange with ic spread of cultural elements. It was the systems of which they are a part have an Indian group occupying a different once common to interpret the spread of spread-often at the expense of other kind of area, from which it receives sub­ such elements by actual migrations of systems. sistence products at certain predeter­ prehistoric peoples (a view, still common Thus the archaeologist James Deetz mined times of the year; and so on. All in Near Eastern archaeology, that might recently presented evidence that the these systems compete for the time and be called the "Old Testament effect").