LESLIE SPIER, 1893-1961 WALTER W. TAYLOR T ESLIE SPIER died on December 3, 1961. ing and concurrent variation, and to Nelson for A-> One of the most Boasian of Boss's students, stratigraphy. But by using all of these tech­ he had written on topics covering virtually the niques in conjunction with his own scientific entire range of anthropology and had consistent­ self-discipline and clarity of thought, Spier ly reiterated the importance of a broad, inte­ developed his particular method and established grated, not a narrowly atomistic view of human a basic precept of archaeological theory. He was culture and the discipline of anthropology. In well aware (An Outline for a Chronology of a letter written in June of 1946, he said, "Thank Zuni Ruins, p. 281) that he was making expo­ God that at last we have someone . who sees sition of an important new method and that his that anthropology is a whole." Still earlier in work was fundamentally historical reconstruc­ another letter, he had written: "... they teach tion (Ruins in the White Mountains of Ari­ anthropology, not sociology . nor pseudo- zona, p. 385). psychology. It's good straight anthropology and But like Linton, Steward, and not a few I honor them for sticking to it." Such opinions, others, Spier turned from his early interest in strongly held and often bluntly presented, were archaeology. Twelve of his first eighteen pub­ typical of the man and help to explain the im­ lished papers are on archaeological subjects, pact he had upon those of us who were lucky while from 1919 to the end of his life he pub­ enough to have him as teacher and friend. lished only six more. The last of these (N. C. Spier's publications in archaeology came early Nelson's Stratigraphic Technique in the Recon­ and were relatively few. Yet both of his major struction of Prehistoric Sequences in South­ studies are basic to much of later archaeological western America, 1931) is another basic work in theory in the United States, although my ex­ American archaeological theory and criticism perience indicates that they are strangely neg­ and, in my opinion, deserves much wider read­ lected in present-day archaeological pedagogy. ing and appreciation than it appears to have I refer, of course, to his work on the Trenton today. gravels and his papers dealing with the pre­ One hesitates to speculate on why Spier aban­ history of the Zuni region. In the former, he doned archaeology, and I regret never having employed the devices of intra-deposit distribu­ asked him his reasons for doing so. But certain tion and statistical probability to demonstrate fundamental changes in his viewpoint regarding that the artifacts had been deposited by geologic anthropological goals, made explicit in his eth­ action, as had the gravels themselves, and that nographic writings and even more strongly evi­ therefore there was no such thing as an "argillite dent in his classroom and interpersonal com­ culture." This method was a distinct forward munications, may provide insight into this mat­ step in archaeological research at the time of ter. I wish to say that I shall attempt this rather its publication. In a secondary paper on the personal and somewhat nebulously supported same topic (review of A Pre-Lenape Site in New analysis, not as a specific revelation of Leslie Jersey, p. 564), he gave us a typically "Spierian" Spier, but because he is representative of a comment: "Catchword errors have at least the strangely widespread occurrence: the abandon­ virtue of rendering class characteristics con­ ment of archaeology for other subfields of an­ spicuous. Such an error in the work under re­ thropology by persons who were first drawn to view serves then to point out that the 'argillite anthropology through archaeology. Perhaps an culture' at Trenton cannot be used as a class understanding of his case may have import for caption to designate a dumping-ground for an understanding of our discipline, its person­ heterogeneous data." nel, and their reasons for becoming anthropolo­ The importance of Spier's Zuni work lies in gists of differing stripes. the demonstration that, through seriation, col­ From the very first, Spier's approach to his lections of potsherds from the surface could anthropological work, both archaeological and provide data "on a par" with those obtained by ethnographical, seems to have been strongly stratigraphic digging. He gives credit to Kidder culture-historical. Specifically, he was in­ for the concept of seriation, to Kroeber for rank­ terested in historical reconstruction. He based 379 380 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY I VOL. 28, No. 3, 1963 his analyses on geographically wide-ranging dis­ archaeological publication. Just as he was for­ tribution studies of minutely detailed cultural ever denying, in more formal utterances, the entities. Apparently, however, he gradually be­ value of the strictly theoretical and, at the same came dissatisfied with historical reconstruction time, giving vast amounts of (some of the best) as a research goal (Problems Arising from the theory in his more informal communications, Cultural Position of the Havasupai, 1929) and just so was he constantly presenting to his stu­ developed a strong doubt as to the rigor, the dents informal yet most cogent advice on all precision, and the breadth of the distribution sorts of archaeological matters, while no longer studies which were the foundation of a large making any formal contributions to that field. proportion of the culture-historical inferences Speaking for myself, I know very well that he being made in anthropology. In a letter of 1956, had a profound influence on my archaeological he wrote: "... the general works — and even thinking and on that of many of my contem­ the particular ones ... — are not worth much: poraries, not merely in the form of anthropo­ they are not true, careful histories." logical generalities, but in many very specific and Another characteristic of Spier's approach to uniquely archaeological ways. As a dedicated archaeology was his bent toward statistical treat­ disciple of Franz Boas, Leslie Spier was a "whole ment. But here again he evidently became dis­ man," both personally and professionally, as an­ illusioned, perhaps not with the method itself thropologist and as friend. David Mandelbaum but with the way in which it was being applied. has said (The Eastern Anthropologist, in press) I have evidence of personal communication that that he was "an anthropologist's anthropolo­ this was induced by his scepticism as to the gist." I should like to say with every sincerity validity of the culture-element tabulations be­ that he was, in my own fortunate experience, a student's archaeologist. ing made at that time by the University of Cali­ fornia. In a letter of November, 1936, he wrote: "Look out, statistical devices are tricky things. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LESLIE SPIER Unless one is a mathematician who has special­ 1913 Results of an Archaeological Survey of the State of ized in this particular field, it is not wise to go New Jersey. American Anthropologist, Vol 15, No. beyond the simple presentation of graphs and 4, pp. 675-9. Lancaster. Review. On the Shell Heaps of Maine. F. B. calculation of averages and variabilities. All Loomis and D. B. Young. American Anthropologist, work in correlations, probabilities, etc., — even Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 346-7. Lancaster. the most simple seeming — is so tricky that it Location of Archaeological Remains on Man- is wise to steer clear. This is just the trouble hattan Island. In "The Indians of Manhattan Island and Vicinity," by Alanson Skinner. American Mu­ with Kroeber's recent use of such methods in seum of Natural History, Guide Leaflet Series, No. ethnology." 41, pp. 42-52. New York. Thus we see a growing discontent with all the Indian Remains near Plainfield, Union County, fundamental factors of his approach to archae­ and along the Lower Delaware Valley. Geological Survey of New Jersey, Bulletin 13, pp. 75-99. Union ology and even, perhaps, with historical recon­ Hill, N. J. struction itself as a goal of anthropological re­ 1916 New Data on the Trenton Argillite Culture. Ameri­ search. If, therefore, as he seems to have done can Anthropologist, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 181-9. Lan­ when he began his career, he believed that ar­ caster. chaeology was largely a matter of historical re­ Review: Compositions of California Shellmounds. Edward Winslow Gifford. American Anthropologist, construction and that the statistical manipula­ Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 282-4. Lancaster. tion of detailed distribution studies was the most Review: A Pre-Lenape Site in New Jersey, E. W. likely and productive method, then it is not Hawkes and Ralph Linton. American Anthropolo­ difficult to see how and why he became disen­ gist, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 564-6. Lancaster. chanted with the field of archaeology. Evidence 1917 Zuni Chronology. Proceedings of the National Aca­ of the same sort of reaction can be seen in the demy of Sciences, Vol. 3, pp. 280-3. Washington. writings and actions of other archaeologically An Outline for a Chronology of Zuni Ruins. An­ thropological Papers, American Museum of Natural disillusioned anthropologists: uncertainty as to History, Vol. 18, Pt. 3, pp. 207-331. New York. the value of the only goals envisaged and doubt 1918 Notes on Some Little Colorado Ruins. Anthro­ as to the efficacy of the only methods employed. pological Papers, American Museum of Natural His­ But let it not be supposed that Leslie Spier's tory, Vol. 18, Pt. 4, pp. 333-62. New York. influence on archaeology ended or even appre­ The Trenton Argillite Culture. Anthropological Papers, American Museum of Natural History, Vol. ciably diminished with the termination of his 22, Pt.