B R U C E G.

T R I G G E R

A history

archaeological
thought

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE
NEW YORK PORT CHESTER
MELBOURNE SYDNEY
l'~~hlisl,cciby thc l'rcsa Syt~dicntcof rhc Uni\,crsitp of Calllbridgc
Thc I'itt Du~ldirlg,T ~ - ~ r n ~ p i l ~ Srrcct,
g t o r l Calmbridge c;e2 II<I>
32 E.1st 57th Street, NC\YYork, N Y toozz, USA
lo Sr.l~nti,rdRc,.ld, O.tklcigh, Mclbou~-ncit(>(,, Austl-.lli.~

First publisllcd 198s

Bntisi~Lil.i-nv cntalqpz;y it/ p l d d i ~ ~ t l data

~ll

Trigger, Bruce G. (Bruce G r a h ~ m )1937-

,
A hlstory of arch.~cologicalthought
I . AI-cliacolog)' to 1988
I. Titlc
9;0.1'09

I,l/>rllI? (q'c,'u/~~r~-,~,~
~ l 7 t l l ~ ~ ~ q111
~ /~~l lilll ll q
l l 1 ~ l 1lilltll
t~~~ll

Trigger, l3ruc.c C;.

A history ot'.~rchacoIogicalt l l ~ ~ ~/gBruce
h t G . Trlggcr
P. c111.
Uibliography: p.
Includcs index.
I S B N 0 321 32878 0 I S B N 0 521 33812 2 (fbk)
I . Arcl1acology - History.
2 . Archncology - l'hilosophy - History.
I. Titlc
c c l o o . ~ ; ~ry8y
930.1- tic19 88-16926C I i 7

ISu N o 521 32878 o h x d co\.crs

I S B N 0 521 33818 2 ~ d p ~ r h d ~ k
 CONTENTS

LIST O F ILLUSTRATIONS Page x

...
PREFACE Xlll

I Thc rclcva~lccof archncological history I

appro ache^ to the history of archaeology 4

The environment of archaeology 12
Archaeological interpretation 19
Challenge 25

2 Classical archaeology and antiquarianism

The ancient wovld
The mcdieval paradbm of history
Development oj'bistorical archaeology
A~ttiquarianismin Northern Europe
Recognition ofstone tools
The Enl&htenment paradbm
Scientijic antiquarianism
Antiquarianism and romanticism
The New World
The impasse of antiq2~arzanism

3 The beginnings of scientific archaeology 73

Relative datincq 73
The development and sprcad of Sca?zdinavian archa~ology 80
The awtiquity of humanity 87
Palacolithic archaeology 94
Reaction against evolution 102
Archaeology in North America 104
Co~~clusio~z 108

vii
 4 The imperial synthesis
8 Nco-evolutionism and the New Archaeology 2 8 9
Nco-cvolz~tzo~zism 289
Tdjc rise ofvacis~z
The Neiv Archaeology 294
Lubboch's yttbesis
Syste~nsthcovy 303
C,'olo~~inl
nrcl~ncolocq?~ i ~ A~wcrim
r
Anti-historicism 312
lcncist ni~cl/ncolrpp~ in Apicn
Catnclysrnic nrcl~ncolr~q-y 319
A ~ c 1 1 n ~ o291l ~NL.II~
q ~ Z~a1171ld
C,'o~zc/~~sio~~s 326
,4 ~ntl-nlini~pi-rl~isto~:v
L~ibbock's1i;qa~l
9 The explallation of diversity
- I?rtcrsocietal car1tact
5 Culture-historical archacology
Nco-historicism
Iliffiisio~ristrr
Idealism atzd taco-Marxism
TIYEMo~ztelinnqvrtljesis of Eziropeatl prchistoy
Contextual archacolo~y
Tlje cotzccpt oj'cztltzlre
Archaeol~qyas itself
IZossi~lnanizd the crllttlrc-l~istoricalnppronch
Conclusions
Cl?ildc ma' Thc Da\v11of Europcan Ci\lilizntion
Nntiorral nrcl~ncologp
10 Archaeology and its social context;
C~i/tzirc-/~i.~to~.icnl nrz/~acol~qj~ ivr Noi*tllA~lzcricn
TljcLqonlsoj-'archaeolo,qy
Tcc.111ricnl I ~ L - I ~ C / O / I I I I L . I ~ ~ S
Archncoh~qy:hutoi j arrd scrcrrcc
(~o~rcllrsiorrs
Rclativzst ci,ztzgues
Data collcctzon'atzd c~zpi~icalgc~zcvalizatiuns
6 Sovjct archaeology
Itftenzal dmluguc
A i*cl~ncol(~qy z 71 tsrrrzst Rzi~szn
Lz~nztatio~~s oj'bel~a~~rour~al
ivtfercnce
Al-c/~n~-o~o~qjf d1ir11gthe N C I IEJC O ~ I Ul'olzcy
MZC
T l ~ achzc~vmc~rts
c of'arcl~acolopy
T l ~ bzrtll
e ~ ' J o t v rnrc/';laeol~qy
t
Extenla1 dialogue
Cousolzdntzolr
Fzrtut*cprospects
I < C C E I Zdc~lclo~t~fictlt~
~
C:ollcll~szol~s
B I B L I O G R A P H I C A L ESSAY

7 Functionalism in Western archacology

REFERENCES
The dc11clop~r~errr of'social authl*opolr@1
r- Etl~~irotrilze~rtalfitlzctio1~n1is1.1.~ INDEX
Ecotlorrlic nppvu~~c/lcs'
Childc nird Soviet nrchaeolcqy
C l ~ i l kus n ~Cfarsirtnrcl~acol~qist
~;ral~au~rc Clai%.
Errl-(y fi~rrctio?znIi.r~11
ill thi- G'i~itedStntei
Tl7c co~rju~zcti~~c npproac/j
Ecolqicnl nrld scttlct~rciltn r c l ~ n c o l ~ ~ ~
C~o~~cli~sio~r~
 Illustrations

17 Grave Creek Mound, West Virginia, from Squicr and Davis Aircieirt
rl/loirrrnzclrtsc f t / ~Mississip/~i
r Vallry, 1848 107
13 John 1,ubbock (Lord Avcbury) (1834-1913) (Radio Times Hultoll
I'icturc Library) 114
19 'Cultural characterization areas' o f North America, based o n archaco-
logic'1l criteria, by Holmcs (Anaei-icarrA;ithropul(~~ist, 1914) 123
2 0 l)r.~\villgo f the C;rc.~tScl-pent Mound o f Ohio, from a popul.lr article
I)!. I'utl~.lln ( ( , ' L V I ~ I I ? Y I ~ i ~ ~ t ~ - n t ~ ~ i i l . l18yo)
npci~rc, 128
21 'Approach to the acropolis', from J. T. Bent's The Ruined Cities of
il?nsrsl,oimln~rd,1892 132
Pa%!" 22 'Native police dispersing the blacks', Westcrl-r Quccnsland, c . 1882

I Important movcn-rcnts in archaeology and some major figures associ- (C. L ~ ~ n i h o lAnzong tz Cairlribals, 1890) 142
ated with them 10 23 Oscar Montclius (1843-1921) 156
Relationships b c t w c c ~Ic\-cls ~ of gcncrtllizatio~ls 2 0 2 4 I ~ ~ O I I Z C -.~rtifilcts
age arranged according t o Montclius' system, 1881 159
2
; Merlin erecting Stonchcngc, from a fourteenth-ccntt~ry British manu- 25 Childc with a party ofworkme11at Sk;m Brae, Orkney, 1928-30 (Royal
script (British Library MS Egertoll 3028, f.3or.) 32 Commission on Ancient Monuments, Scotland) 169
+ lligging at tlcrculancum, 1782 ( S a i ~ ~ t - N OJ:C. I I , Voyngcpittovesyrrc et 26 Childc's first chart correlating the archaeological cultures o f Central
description du voyarrmc de Naplcs ct dc Sicile, l'aris 1781-6 3: Europe, fro111TIJCDanube in Pvcbistoiy, 1929 171
5 Layard's reconstruction of an Assyrian palace, from iMonurnents of 27 Kidder's profile of refuse stratigraphy and construction levels at Pecos
Nincoeh, 1853 41 Ruin, New Mexico, from A n I;ztvoductiovz to the Study of Soutl~western
6 Shang cast bronze ritual vessel, illustrated with rubbing of illscriptio~ls A ~~chacolu~y, 1924 189
and their transcl-iption into con\rentional characters, from twelfth- 18 Cl~ronologicalchart from Ford dncl Willey's synthesis of castern North
century A.D. catalogue Boyutu (Pcrcival Davici Foi~ndationof Chinese American prehistory (AmcvicanAnthropologist, 1941) 193
Art, London) +3 29 l'ctric's profile of Tell el-Hesy, 1890 (Tell cl Hcsy, 1901) 198
7 Aubrey's plan of Avcbury, from his Mu;r~imentaBvitarririca, c. 1675 3 0 Grave from Hallstatt ce~neter!., Austria, recorded by the painter Isidor
(Rodlcian MS Top. Gcn. C. 24, f.39~-40) 48 Engcl in the mid-nineteenth century 199
8 Engraving of t u n ~ u l i and rune stones at Jelling, Denmark, 1591 31 Pottery of successive periods in I'ctrie's predvnastic sequence, from
(Drawing cxccutcd for Henrik Ratzau and published in 1591) 50 Diospolis Pnrvn, 1901 201
Stukclcy's view of Avcbury, published in Abuvy, 1743 62 32 \'. I. lid\8do~~ik.ib (189.~-1976)(Institute of Archaeology, Leningrad) 217
9
10 Succcssi\~cstyles of ornamentation, from Thornsen's Guidebook (older 33 Plan o f Palaeolithic hut found at Buryet, reproduced in Antiquity by
forms at top) (C. J . Thornscn Lcdetvaad ti1 Nordisk Oldky?rdighcd, Childe, 1950 224
Copenhagen 1836) 77 34 Plan from cxca\rations dt Novgorod, 1977-83 (Institute ofArchaeology,
11 Thornsen s I i o \ v i ~ ~visitors g around thc Museuln of Northern Antiqui- Leningrad) 231
ties 79 35 Exca\rations at No\rgorod, 1977-82 (Institute o f Archaeology,
12 Worsaac boring into one of the large tumuli at Jelling; he explains the Leningrad) 232
procedure t o King Frcdcrik VII of Denmark ( D r a w i l ~ gby J. Korn- 36 Escavations at Novgorod (Institute of Archaeology, Leningrad) 233
crup, 1861) 81 37 1'1.1n .lnd section of Cutting 11, S t ~ Carr r (E.~cavntioizsat Star C a w ,
I; Achculcan handasc found by Frcrc at Hoanc, publ~shcdin Archa~olu- 19i-c) 268
qra, 1800 88 38 Structures o n mound platform, fro111Hi~vasseeIsland, by T. Lewis and
IJ Profile s l l o w i n"~locanon of Palacol~thic~n'~rcrlal, frocn Bouchcr dc M. Kneherg, 1946 273
Perthes' A ~ z t i q u i t sccltiljucs ct nirtcdtlu~~icn~~es, 1847 91 39 M'~cNcish's interpretation of suhsistencc-setclement pattern o f Ajucr-
15 hlortillet's epochs of prehistory, from Fov~rratio;~ dc la ~rationfian~aisc, cado PII~ISC(11,000-7,000 B . c . ) in Tchudcan Valley ( T l ~ eScience of
--
1897 Y7 Archncology ? 1978) 28 1
10 Plan of prehistoric carth~'orksat Portsmouth, Ohio, from Atwater's 40 Willcy's interpretation of community patterns in thc Viru Valley,
'Ilcscription o f the anticluitics disco\rcrcd in the St.~tcof Ohio' (Trails- Pel-u, in the EIu.1nc.ico I'criod ( A . n. 8oo-1000) (I'vcl~istovicScttlciirc~rt
I I I ~ A I I I C I ~ I L ~ I I I, I~ I I ~ I ~ I I , ~ I ' I I, ISI OI L . I ~ . ~ISZCI)
I T ~ - ~ ~ I o/.~/Jc. , 100 l'tzrtr7.11.r211 t l ~ rVil-~iVtrllcy, I'CYU, 195;) 283
 Illustrations

17 Grave Creek Mound, West Virginia, from Squier and Davis Aacieiit
rMo)rrrt?rcntsr f t / ~Mississippi
c Vallcy, 1848 107
18 John Lubbock (Lord Avcbury) (1834-1913) (Radio Tinics Hulton
I'icture Library) 114
19 'Cultural characterization areas' o f North America, bascd o n archaco-
logical criteria, by Holmcs (Antcrica~i Aizth~opol(~qist,
1914) I23
2 0 I)~-,iwi~ ol'thc
~ g C;rc.it Scrpcnt Mound o f Ohio, from a pop~il.lrarticle
by 1'11t n i m (<,'cnt~ty I I l ~ ~ t ~ Mqqaziirc,
flt~d 18yo) 128
21 'Approach to the acropolis', from J. T. Bent's The Ruined Cities of
M a s / ~ u n a ~ n t1892
~d, 132
page 22 ' N ~ t i v cpolice dispersing the blacks', Western Quccnsland, c. 1882
I Important ~novcmcntsin archaeology and some major figures associ- (C. Lumholtz Among Canizibals, 1890) 142
ated with them I0 23 Oscar Montcli~ls(1843-1921) 156
2 Relationships bctwccn lcvcls of gcncmlizations 20 2 4 Bronze-age artifacts arranged according t o Montclius' system, 18x1 139
3 Merlin erecting Stonchcngc, from a fourteenth-ccntury British manu- z.5 Childc with a party ofworkmen at Skara Brae, Orkney, 1928-30 (Roy;~l
script (British Library MS Egerton 3028, f.3or.) 32 Commission on Ancient Monunicnts, Scotland) 169
4 Digging at Hcrculancum, 1782 (Saint-Nan, J.-C. Voyngepittovesque ct 26 Childc's first chart correlating the archaeological cultures o f Central
descviptiort du voyaunze de Napla et de Sicilc, Paris 1781-6 37 Europe, from The Daizube in Prcbistoiy, 1929 171
5 Layard's reconstruction of an Assyrian palace, from Monuments of 27 Kidder's profile of refuse stratigraphy and construction levels at Pecos
Nincveh, 1853 41 Ruin, New Mexico, from A n Zi~t?*oduction to the Study of Soutr'~~veste~n
6 Shang cast bro~lzeritual vessel, illustratrd with rubbing of inscriptions Archaeolo~y,1924 189
and their transcription into conventional charactcrs. from twelfth- 28 Chronological chart from Ford and Willey's synthesis of eastern North
century A.D. cataloguc Bagutu (Pcrcival David Foundation of Chinese American prehistory (American Anthropologist, 1941) 193
Art, London) 43 29 l'etric's profile of Tell el-Hcsy, 1890 (Tell el Hesy, 1901) 198
7 Aubrey's plan of Avebury, from his Monzrmenta Britannica, c. 1675 30 Grave from Hallstatt cemetery, Austria, recorded by the painter Isidor
(Rodleian MS Top. Gcn. C. 24, f.39~-40) 48 Engel in the mid-nineteenth century 199
8 Engravillg of tuniuli and rune stones at Jelling, Denmark, 1591 31 Pottery of successive periods in Petrie's predynastic sequence, from
(Drawing executed for Henrik Raczau and published in 1591) 50 Diospolis Parva, 1901 201
y Stukclcy's view of Avcbury, published in Abury, 1743 62 32 V. I. lia\ldonikas (1894-1976) (Institute of Archaeology, Leningrad) 217
lo Successive styles of ornamentation, from Tho~ilsen'sGuidebook (older 33 Plan o f Palaeolithic hut found at Buryet, reproduced in Antiquity by
forms at top) (C. J. Thomscn Lcdetvaad ti1 Novdisk Oldkyndigged, Childc, 1950 224
Copenhagen 1836) 77 34 Plan from exca\lations at Novgorod, 1977-83 (Institute ofArchaeology,
11 Thomsen showing visitors around the Museum of Northern Antiqui- Leningrad) 231
ties 79 35 Excavations at Novgorod, 1977-82 (Institute o f Archaeology,
12 Worsaac boring into one of the large tumuli at Jelling; he explains the Leningrad) 232
procedure t o King Frederik VII o f Denmark (Drawing by J. Koi-11- 36 Excavations at Novgorod (Institute o f Archaeology, Leningrad) 233
crup, 1861) 81 37 Plan and section of Cutting 11, Star Carr (Excavatioizs a t Star C a w ,
13 Achculcan liandasc found by Frcre at Hoxnc, published in Avchaeolo- 1954) 268
@a, 1800 88 38 Structures o n mound platform, from Hiwassee Islaizd, by T . Lewis and
14.Profile showing location of Palaeolithic material, from Boucher de M. K~leberg,1946 273
Pertlies' Antiquitb ccltiques et antcdiluviennes, 1847 91 39 MacNcish's interpretation o f subsistence-settlenient pattern of Ajuer-
15 Mortillet's epochs o f prehistory, from Formation de la aationfianpisc, cado Phase (11,ooo-7,000 B . c . ) in Tchuacan Valley (TIJEScience of.
1897 97 A r c h n e o l g ~ ?1978) 28 1
16 Plan of prehistoric earthworks at P o r t s ~ ~ ~ o uOhio,
t h , from Atwater's 40 Willcy's interpretation o f community patterns in the Viru Vallcp,
'Description o f the antiquities discovered in the State of Ohio' ( T r a i ~ s - Pcru, in thc Mu.inc.ico I'criod ( A . I I . 800-1000) (I'rchistovic Scttlcnrcnt
irrtiorls c!ftl~c
A rrri.r?snri A~~tlqr~rzl.icl~r
Sosic?, 1S2o) 1'nftcr~r.rit^ t l ~ cVini Valley, I ' c r ~ ,1 ~ 5 3 ) 283
 Illustrations

41 The settlement pattern o f the Basin o f Mexico for the Late Horizon
(Sanders et al., T h e Basin ofMexico, 1979)
42 Binford's plan o f a modern Nunarniut butchery .ma at Anavik Springs,
Alaska, showing where caribou wcrc dismembcrcd dncl waste prociucts
were disposcci (In Purstrit $the Past, 1983)
4 3 System flow chart for Shoshonean Indian subsistence cycle, by D. H.
Thomas (13. H. Thomas in 1). I*. Clarkc, cd., Modcls iu A r r t ~ n c o l q v ,
1972)
44 Flow diagram of prcsumed f o o d / m o n ~ ~ m c allocation
nt in the Classic
Maya civilization (J. A. Hoslcr, J . A. Sabloff .~nciD. liungc in N. This study is a conlbiilcd product of book-learning, archacological
Hammond, ed., Social Process il.1 M a y a Prehistory, 1977) cxpcricncc, and oral tradition. It grew out of a coursc on thc
45 Sampling at Broken K Pueblo, J. N. Hill, 1968 (J. N. Hill in S. R. and 'History of Arcl~acologicalTheory' that I havc taught annually sincc
L. R. Binford, New Perspectives i n Archeolofiy, 1968)
46 Modul'~r housing unit .lt Gl.istonbury Iron-agc site, as idcntificci by
1975. Since I began thc coursc, I intcndcd to writc a book on this
I). I,. Clarkc (Modcls in Alz/~aeof!qy,1972) subject. My first efforts rcsultcd in thc original essays published in
47 and 48 Hodder's recording of ethnographic distribution o f shield types Time and Traditions (Trigger 1978a) and Gordon Childe: Revolutions
and calabash motifs alllong different ethnic groups it1 the Baringo area inA~chaeology(Triggcr 198oa). While I continued to writc papcrs on
of Kenya (Sy~rzbolsi;z Action, 1982) various aspects of the history of archaeology (see cspccially Trigger
49 Eighteenth-centur~rWilliarn Paca Garden, Annapolis, Maryland; the
outlilies of the garden are archaeologically cietcrmincd (M.Leone in
1g8ob, 1981a, 1984a, 1984c, 1985a, rgSjc, 1986b), for various rcasons
D. Miller and C. T i l l e ~ cds.,
, Ideol~qy,I'ul~~crand l'rcl~istoly, 1984) two more attcrllpts in the carly 1980s to bcgin this book camc to
50 Model of drop and toss zones, as de\,elopcd by Rinford from his nothing. Onc of thc rcasons was my fccling that thc timc was not yet
ethnoarchaeologic31 study of the Nunamiut of Alaska (ITZPursuit of the propitious. Then, in the spring of 1986, I made a third attempt and
Past, 1983) found that thc book was 'writing itself. I bclicvc that this changc
rcflccts my growing satisfaction with currcnt dcvclopmcnts in
archacological intcrprctation. Many arcl~acologists,not only in thc
Wcst but '~pparcntly also in thc Soviet Union, arc cxprcssing
conccrn about what they pcrccivc as thc thcorctical fragmentation of
thcir discipline. On thc contrary, I bclievc that current develop-
ments are helping archacologists to transccnd thc limitations of
narrowly focuscd sectarian approachcs and resulting in more holistic
and fruitful intcrprctations of archacological data. Thcrc is alsc
growing rcalism in assessing thc limitations of archacological data at
the samc timc that there is grcatcr flcxibility in sccking ways to
ovcrcomc these limitations. Thcsc dcvclopmcnts draw upon past as
well as present archacological accornplishmcnts. It is therefore a
useful timc to review archacological thinking from a historical pcr-
spcctivc.
A brief statcmcnt of my own thcorctical position is in order. I
havc always rcgardcd a matcrialist outlook as bcing more productive
of an understanding of human behaviour than any other approach.
Iiltclligcntly applicd, it in no way diminishes an apprcciation of the

xii
 Preface

uniquc characteristics of thc human mind, whilc it facilitates the The history of archaeology is not a new subjcct. Hence anyone
inscrtion of social science thcory into a broader biological undcr- writing a general study is standing on the shouldcrs of his prcdeccss-
standing o f human origins and bchaviour. Yet I havc ncvcr found ors. Because of that, wherever it has seemed appropriate to d o so,
that ecological determinism, nco-evolutionary theory, or cultural I havc citcd authoritative secondary sourccs rather than cxtcndcd
materialism provide satisfactory explanations of the f ~ ~range ll of an already mammoth bibliography with rcfcrcnccs to still morc
variation found in human bchaviour or of the various complcxitics primary sources that arc impossible to obtain in most libraries. I
of concrctc scqucnccs of cultural changc. T l ~ r o ~ l g l ~my
o u tcarccr I havc, howcvcr, whcncvcr possiblc, cxamincd thcsc primary sourccs
Iiavc soi~glitto reconcile a materialist approach with efforts to and whcrc discrcpancics havc bccn found I have abandoncd dcfcct-
account for the historical diversity that cl~aractcrizcsthe archaco- ivc secondary oncs or drawn attention to thcir shortcomings. Whcrc
logical record. This has fostcrcd my growing appreciation of.his- old and inacccssiblc works arc casily available in reprinted form (and
torical materialism, to which I was initially attracted by my efforts to in English translation), I have cited the lattcr, adding thc date of the
understand thc past rathcr than as a result of dogmatic political original in squarc brackcts.
convictions. In particular, I havc found Gordon Childc's historically Rcsearch for this book was greatly assisted by a sabbatical leave
and co~ltcxtuallyoricntcd Marxism to bc infinitely prcfcrable to the from McGill University and a Canada Council Leave Fellowship in
more dctcrministic forms of evolutionary Marxism or the flirting 1976-7, while some further work was done during another sabbatical
with idealism that characterizes much so-called 1x0-Marxism. leave when 1 held a Social Sciences and Humanities Rescarch
Whilc this book has bccn writtcn as a unit, I havc drawn to vary- Council of Canada Lcavc Fellowship in 1983. I wish t o thank both
ing dcgrccs upon my previous writings. Thc outlinc of thc study of undcrgraduatc and graduatc students who havc takcn 'History of
the history of archaeology in tlic bibliographical essay for chaptcr Archaeological Thcory' for thcir many contributions to thc dcvclop-
one is bascd heavily 011 Triggcr (1985a). Many of the ideas uscd to mcnt of thc idcas expounded in this book. I also thank my daughters,
structure chapters four and fivc wcrc dcvclopcd in Triggcr (1978a) Isabcl and Rosalyn, for help with word-processing and encouraging
and (1984a), while the sections dealing with Childc in chaptcrs fivc maximum clarity of cxprcssion. Finally I dcdicatc this book to my
and scvcn arc bascd on Triggcr (198oa) and morc particularly Trigger wifc, Barbara.
(1984b) and (1986~). Chaptcr six is bascd in part on Triggcr (1984c),
although thc views that I havc cxprcsscd about Sovict archaeology in
that papcr havc bccn consicierably modificd. Chapter nine makes use
of idcas devclopcd in Triggcr (1982a, 1984c, 198sb, 198~d, 1988). Some
of the rcfcrcnccs citcd in chaptcr six wcrc located by Rosemarie
Bcrnard in thc course of writing hcr McGill undcrgraduatc honours
thesis 'Marxist Archacologics: A History of thcir Development in
the U.S.S.R., Europe, and the Americas' (1985). I am also gratcful t o
Peter Timmins for his advice in drafting the section of chaptcr ninc
dealing with site-formation pi-occsscs. For factual infor~liationand
bibliographical assistance I thank Chcn Chun, Margaret Dcith,
Brian Fagan, Norman Hammond, Fumiko Ikawa-Smith, Junc
Kcllcy, Philip ICohl, Isabcl McBrydc, Mary Mason, Valcrie Pinsky,
Ncil Silbcrman, Robcrt Vogcl, Alexander Iron Gcrnct, Michael
Woloch, and Alison Wylic, as well as many other collcagucs around
the world who have sent me reprints of thcir papers.

xiv
 CHAPTER I

The relevance of archaeological history

Though there exists one major academic industry . . . telling the

social scientists . . . how they can turn themselves into genuine
scientists, there exists another, with at least as flourishing an
output, putatively establislging that the study of man and society
cannot be scientific.
E R N EST G E L L N E R, Relativism nnd the SocialScicnces (1985), p. IZO

Since the 1950s archaeology, especially in North America and

Wcstern Europe, has shifted from a seemingly complacent culture-
historical orthodoxy to ambitious theoretical innovations. The
latter, far from producing an anticipated ncw consensus, have led to
growing disagreement about the goals of the discipline and how
these goals can be achieved (Dunnell 1983: 535). Increasing numbers
of archaeologists, following in the w ~ k of e historians and sociolo-
gists, have abandoned positivist certainty and begun to entertain
doubts about thc objectivity of their research. They see social factors
as dctcrnlining not only thc questions that they ask but also thc
answers that they judge to be convincing. Extreme versions of this
view deny that archaeologists can offer interpretations of their data
that are other than a reflection of the transient values of the societies
in which they live. Yet, if archaeology cannot produce some kind of
cumulative understanding of the past and a commentary that is at
least partially independent of specific historical contexts, what
scientific, as opposed to political, psychological, or aesthetic, justi-
fication can be offered for doing archaeological research?
This book examines the relations between archaeology and its
social milieu from a historical pcrspectivc. Such an approach pro-
vides a comparative viewpoint from which problems of subjectivity,
objectivity, and the gradual accumulation of knowledge can be
asscsscd. In recent years a growing number of archaeologists have
conic to agrcc with thc philosopher and archaeologist R. G.
 A history of archacological thought
The relevance of archaeological history
Collingwood (1939: 132) that 'no historical problem should be
studied Githout studying . . . the history of historical thought about Thc public reaction to archacological findings indicates the need
it' (Dunnell 1984: 490). Historical investigations of archacological to vicw the history of archacology in a broad social contcxt. Thc
i~ltcrprctationhavc multiplied and morc sophisticated methodolo- popular imagc of archacology is of an csotcric disciplinc that has n o
gies havc been adopted (Trigger 198sa). This approach is not, rclcvancc for thc nccds or conccrns of the prcscnt. Erncst Hooton
howcvcr, without its critics. Michael Schiffcr (1976: 193) has asserted (1938: 218) oncc dcscribcd archacologists as bcing viewed as 'thc
that graduate courses should ceasc to be 'histories of thought' and scnilc playboys of scicncc rooting in the rubbish heaps of antiquity'.
instcad should systematically expound and articulate currcnt the- Yet for almost 200 ycars a widesprcad conccrn for thc broader
orics. His position embodies the vicw that the truth o r falseness of implications of archacological discovcrics has contradictcd this
thcorctical formulations is independent of social influences and imagc of archacology. No onc would dcny thc romantic fascination
hence of history but can be dctcrmi~icdby applying scicntificallp arouscd by spectacular archacological finds, such as thosc by Austen
valid procedures of evaluation to adequate bodies of data. Taken to Layard at Nimrud or Hcinrich Schlicmann at Troy in thc ninctccnth
an cxtrcmc, this vicw implies that the history and philosophy of century, and thc more recent discovcrics of thc tomb of Tutankh-
archacology arc totally unrclatcd to each othcr. Ironically, historical amcn, thc Palacc of Minos, thc lifc-sizc ceramic army of the Chincsc
analysis provides a privilcgcd viewpoint from which thc rcspcctivc Emperor Qin Shihuangdi, and scvcral million-ycars-old fossil homi-
mcrits of thcse opposing positions can bc cvaluatcd. nids in East Africa. This docs not, howcvcr, cxplain the intcnsc
The followi~lgchaptcrs will survey the main idcas that have public intcrcst in thc controversics that havc surrounded the inter-
influcnccd the intcrprctation of archacological data, especially prctation of many morc routinc archacological findings, thc attcn-
during t l ~ clast 2 0 0 ycars. I will cxaminc in detail some of the social tion that divcrsc political, social, and religious movements
factors that havc helped to shape thc idcas that havc structured this throughout the world linvc p.iid to nrchacological research, and
work and the reciprocal impact that archacological intcrprctatiotls efforts by various totalitarian rcgimcs to control thc intcrprctation
havc had on othcr disciplines and on society. T o d o this it is of archacological data. During thc sccond half of thc nincteenth
necessary to compare the way in which archacological thought has century, archacology was lookcd to for support by both sidcs in thc
dc\rclopcd in \larious parts of the world. It is impossible in a singlc debate about whether cvolutionism or thc book of Gcncsis providcd
\lolunic to cxaminc cvcry archacological theory or even cvcry a morc reliable account of hun~anorigins. As rcccntly as thc 1970sa
regional archaeological tradition. I hope, howcvcr, that by concen- go\~cr~inicnt-cmploycd archaeologist found his position no longer
trating on a limited number of significant dcvclopmcnts it will be tcnablc wlicn hc rcfuscd to cast doubt on thc cvidcnce that stone
possiblc to lcarn something about the niajor factors that havc shaped ruins in Central Africa wcrc built by thc anccstors of thc modern
arcliaeological intcrprctation. Following L. R. Binford (1981), a Bantu.
distinction will be drawn bctwcc~iall intcr~laldialoguc, by which My adoption of a historical pcrspcctivc docs not mcan that I claim
archacologists have sought to dcvclop methods for inferring human any privilcgcd status for such an approach with rcspcct t o objccti-
bchaviour from archaeological data, and an cxtcrnal dialogue, in vity. Historical interpretations arc notoriously subjectivc, t o the
which they use thcsc findiugs to address general issues conccming cxtcnt that many historians havc vicwcd thcm as mcrcly cxprcssions
human bchaviour and history. While I d o not claim that thcsc two of personal opinion. It is also rccognizcd that, bccausc o f thc
lcvcls of discourse arc clcarly separable, the internal dialogue abundancc of historical data, cvidcncc can be marshalled t o 'provc'
embraces the distinctive concerns of archacology as a discipline, almost anything. Thcrc map bc some truth in William McNcill's
while the external one constitutes archaeology's contribution to the (1986: 164) argument that, even if historical intcrprctation is a form
social scicnccs. This is, howcvcr, a distinction that has only rcccntly of myth-making, thc myths hclp t o guidc public action and arc a
become clear to most archacologists. human substitute for instinct. If this is so, it follows that thcy arc
subject to thc operation of thc social cquivalcnt o f natural sclcction
 A history of archaeological thought The relevance of archaeological history

and hcncc may morc closely approximate reality ovcr long periods of 1982: 42). In the past most of thcse frameworks were not formulated
time. This, howcvcr, is a tenuous basis on which to base our hopes explicitly or even consciously by archaeologists. Today, especially in
for thc objcctivity of historical intcrprctations. thc contcxt of Amcrican archacology, many thcorctical propositions
I do not claim that thc historical study prcscntcd hcrc is any morc are systematically elaborated. Yet it is surely misleading to restrict
objcctivc than arc thc intcrprctations of archacological or cthnologi- the status of thcory to the self-conscious formulations of rccent
cal data that it cxanlincs. I bclicvc, howcvcr, as do many others who dccadcs. Morcovcr, a closc examination of thc history of archaco-
study thc history of archacology, that J historical approach offcrs a logical intcrprctation suggcsts that carlicr thcorics wcrc not always
spccial vantagc point fro111 which thc changing relations bctwccn as implicit or disjointed as thcy arc oftcn bclicvcd to have bccn.
arch~cologicalintcrprctatio~~ &~ncl
its soci.11 snd cultur.11111ilic~1
can be Others acccpt that arch;lcologists cmploycd thcorics in thc past
cxamincd. The timc pcrspcctivc providcs a diffcrcnt basis for study- but maintain that until recently there was not ,enough consistency in
ing the ties betwccn archaeology and socicty than d o philosophical this process for thcse thcorics to havc constituted what Thomas
or sociological approachcs. In particular it pcrmits the researcher to Kuhn has called a research paradigm. Kuhn (1970: 10)has defincd a
idcntify subjcctivc factors by obscrving how and undcr what circum- paradigm as an accepted canon of scientific practice, including laws,
stances intcrprctations of thc archacological rccord havc changcd. thcory, applications, and instrumentation, that providcs a modcl for
Although this docs not climinate the bias of the observer, or the a 'particular coherent tradition of scientific research'. Such a tradi-
possibility that thcse biases will influcncc the intcrprctation of tion is sustained by a 'scientific community' and is propagated in
archacological data, it almost certainly incrcascs thc chanccs of journals and textbooks that arc controlled by that community. D. L.
gaining morc rounded insights into what has happcncd in thc past. Clarke (1968: xiii) dcscribcd archacology as an 'undisciplined cm-
pirical disciplinc' and suggcstcd that its thcorctical dcvclopmcnt, at
least until very rccent times, must be rcgarded as being in a pre-
Approaches to the histoy of archaeolo~y paradigmatic state. Until the 196os, archacological theory remained
Thc nccd for a morc systcmatic study of the history of archacological a 'disconncctcd bundlc of inadcquatc subtheories' that had not bccn
interpretation is indicated by scrious disagrccmcnts about thc structurcd within a con~prchcnsivcsystem. H c also implied that only
nature and significancc of that history. A major controvcrsy ccntrcs approaches that arc recognized internationally can qualifjr as para-
on the role playcd by explanation in thc study of archaeological data digms (ibid. 153-5). Yet detailed studies of earlier phases in the
over the last two ccnturics. G . R. Willcy and J. A. Sabloff organized devclopment of archaeology are revealing much more comprehen-
their A History ofAmerican Archaeology (1974, 1980) in terms of four sive and internally consistent formulations than were hitherto
succcssive periods: Spcculativc, Qassificatory-Dcscriptivc, Classi- believed to have cxisted. This is especially true of studies that respect
ficatory-Historical, and Explanatory, the last of which began in the integrity of the past and judgc the work donc in terms of the
1960. This schcmc implics that archacology in thc wcstcrn hcmi- idcas of the pcriod rather than modern standards (Meltzer 1983;
sphcrc cxpcricnccd a long gestation during which dcscriptivc and Grayson 1983, 1986).
classificatory objcctivcs prcdominatcd, prior to dcvcloping sig- Some archaeologists combine Kuhn?sidca of scientific revolutions
nificant thcorics to cxplain i'ts data. Yct, as thc British historian with an evolutionary view of thc development of their disciplinc.
E. H. Carr (1967: 3-35) has rcmindcd us, the mere characterization They maintain that successive phases in the devclopment of archaeo-
of data as bcing relevant or irrclcvant, which occurs cvcn in the most logical thcory display enough intcrnal consistency to qualify as
dcscriptivc historical studics, implics thc cxistcncc of somc kind of paradigms and that thc rcplaccmcnt of onc paradigm by anothcr
thcorctical frarncwork. It can furthcr be argucd in opposition to thc constitutes a scicntific revolution (Sterud 1973). According to this
idca of a ncutral observational language, that not even thc simplcst view, successive innovators, such as Christian Thomsen, Oscar
fact can bc constituted indcpcndently of a thcorctical contcxt (Wylic Montelius, Gordon Childc, and Lcwis Binford, rccognizcd major
 A history of arcl~acologicalthought
The relevance of archaeological history
I

anomalies and. inadequacies in convcntional intcrpretations of are treated as the gradual elaboration, rcfinemcnt, and modification
of an existing corpus of thcory. This vicw docs not, howcvcr, takc
archaeological data and shaped new paradigms that significantly
account of thc frequent failurc of archacologists to dcvclop thcir
changcd tlic dircction of archacological rcscarch. Thcsc paradigms
idcas in a systematic fashion. For cxamplc, whilc ninctccnth-ccntury
not only altcrcd the significancc that was accorded to arcl~acological
data but also dctcrmincd what kinds of problcms wcrc and wcrc not naturalists with archaeological intcrcsts, such as Japctus Strccnstrup
(Morlot 1861: 300) and WiIliam Buckland (Dawkins 1874: 281-4)
rcgardcd as important.
carried out experiments to dctcrminc how faunal rcmains wcrc
Yet archacologists d o not agrcc about the actual scquencc of
introduced into sites, rcscnrcli of this sort did not bcconic routilic in
major paradigms th.it .ire supposcd to have ch,iractcrizcd thc dcvcl-
archacology until thc 1970s (Binford 1977, 1981).
opmcnt of arch~cology(Scllwartii 1967; cssdys in Fitting 1973).This
A third vicw treats the dcvelopmcnt of archacological thcory as a
may partly rcflcct a I ~ c kof clarity in Kuhn's conception of a para-
digm (Mcltzcr 1979). Somc critics havc assumed that a discipline process that is lion-linear and frequently unpredictablc. Changcs arc
may bc cliaractcrizcd simultaneously by a number of f~~nctionally vicwcd as causcd not so much by new arcliacological data as by novel
idcas about 11~1manbehaviour that arc formulated clscwlicrc in the
different typcs of paradigms. Thcsc may be only looscly related to
onc anothcr and may altcr at difErcnt rates to produce an ovcrall social scicnces and may reflect social valucs that exhibit fluctuations
in popularity. Bccausc of this, archacological intcrprctation docs not
pattcrn of changc that is gradual ratlicr than abrupt. Margaret
change in a linear fashion, with data bcing construed evcr more
Masterman (1970) has differentiated thrcc main typcs of paradigm:
comprehcnsivcly and satisfactorily. Instcad, changing pcrccptions
metaphysical, relating to the world vicw of a group of scientists;
sociological, that dcfinc what is acccptcd; and construct, that supply of human behaviour can radically altcr archacological intcrprcta-
tions, rendering information that previously secmcd important of
the tools and mcthods for solving problems. No onc of thcse typcs
relatively little interest (Piggott 1950, 1968, 1976; Danicl 1950;
alone constitutes 'thc' paradigm of a particular cra. Kuhn has also
bccn accuscd of ignoring thc importance of compctition and mobil- Hunter 197s).This view accords with Kuhn's (1970: 103) obscrvation
ity bctwccn rival 'schools' for bringing about changc in a disciplinc that shifting paradigms not only sclcct ncw issucs as bcing important
but also dcflcct attention fro111problcms that othcrwisc might havc
(Barnes 1974: 95). It n1.1y JISO be that, ~ C C ~ I L I Sof
C the complexity of
been thought worthy of further study. This vicw, unlike the evolu-
thcir subjcct-matter, thc social scicnccs havc morc such schools and
tionary ones, does not regard it as ccrtain that most changes in
competing paradigms than d o the natural scicnccs and perhaps
theoretical orientation result in thc forward movcmcnt of archaeo-
bccausc of this individual paradigms tcnd to cocxist and rcplace one
anothcr relatively slowly (Binford and Sabloff 1982). logical rcsearch.
An altcrnativc vicw, which is morc in accord with thcsc critiques Some archaeologists doubt that thc intcrcsts and conccpts of thcir
discipline changc significantly from one pcriod to anothcr. Bryony
of Kuhn and with Stephcn Toulmin's (1970) thesis that scicnccs d o
Ormc (1973: 490) maintains that the archacological intcrpretations
not cxpcricncc revolutions but rather gradual changcs or progress-
offcrcd in thc past wcrc morc likc thosc of thc prcscnt than is
ions, holds that the history of archacology has involvcd a c~~mulativc
commonly belicvcd and that archaeological preoccupations havc
growth of knowlcdgc about tlic past from carly timcs to the prcscnt
changed little. A remarkable antiquity can be demonstrated for some
(Casson 1939; Hcizcr 1962a; Willey and Sabloff 1974; Meltzcr 1979).
ideas that arc commonly bclicvcd to bc modcrn. Archaeologists
It is maintained that, although various phascs in this dcvclopmcnt
argucd that growing population dcnsitics Icd to thc adoption of
may be delineated arbitrarily, archacology changes in a gradual
more labour-intensive forms of food production long before thcy
fashion, with no radical breaks or suddcn transformations (Danicl
rediscovered this idea in the work of Estcr Boscrup (Smith and
1975: 374-6). Somc archacologists view the dcvclopment of thcir
Young 1972). AS carly as 1673, the British statesman William Temple
disciplinc as following a coursc that is unilincar and incvitablc. The
had adumbrated this thcory with his obscrvation that high popu-
data base is seen as c ~ n t i n ~ l o ~expanding
~sIy and new intcrprctations
 A history of arcl~acologicalthought The relevance of archacological history

lation dcnsitics forcc pcoplc to work hard (Slotkin 1965: IIG-11). 111 (Triggcr 1984a). Tl~cschave rcplicatcd thcmsclvcs in thc archac-
1843 the Swedish archacologist Svcn Nilsson (1868: Ixvii) argued that ology of countries that arc gcographically rcmotc from onc anothcr
increasing population had brought about a shift from pastoralism to and the archacology of a particular nation may switch from onc type
agriculture in prehistoric Scandinavia. This concept was also impli- to another as its political circumstanccs change. Such approachcs to
cit in the 'oasis' thcory of the origin of food production, as cxpoun- archacological intcrprctation will bc cxamincd in dctail in later
dcd b!. Raphael Pumpclly (1908: 65-6) and adopted by Harold Pcakc chapters.
and H. J. Flcurc (1927)and by Gordon Childc (1928).They proposed Yet studics of rcgional traditions, with a few notable exceptions
that postgl.~cialdesiccation in the Near East Il.ld compcllcd pcoplc (12crn;il 1980; Chakrabarti 1982), havc failed to take account of the
to cluster around surviving- sources of water, whcrc they had to vast intcllcctual exchange that has charactcrizcd thc dcvclopmcnt of
innovate in order to fccd higher population dcnsitics. Yet, while arc11acology in all parts of thc world during thc ninctccntl~and
idcas persist and recur in the history of archacology, this docs not twentictl~ccnturics. This is dramatically illustrated by the carly
mean t11;it there is nothing new in the intcrprctation of archaco- d ys11cll mounds. Reports of the pioneering studies by Danish
s t ~ ~ of
logical data. Such idcas must be examined in relation to the diffcrcnt scholars, who bcgan thcir work in thc 184os, stimulated a large
conceptual frameworks of which they wcrc a part at each period. It is number of investigations of shcll hcaps along the Atlantic and latcr
from these framcworks that tl~cscconcepts derive thcir significance the Pacific coasts of North America in thc latter half of the nine-
to the discipline and, as the frameworks change, thcir significancc teenth century (Triggcr 1986a). When the Amcrican zoologist
docs also. According unduc importru~ccto particular idcas and not Edward Morse went to tcach in Japan, aftcr analysing matcrial from
paying enough attcntion to their changing c o ~ ~ t cwill
x t lead archac- shcll 111ounds along - thc coast of Maine for thc Harvard University
ologists to undcrcstimatc the amount of significant changc that has archaeologist Jcffrics Wyman, 11c discovcrcd and cxcavatcd in 1877 a
characterized the clcvclopnlcnt of arcl~acologicalintcrprctatio~l. large Mesolithic shcll deposit at Omori, near Tokyo. Some of his
Many archaeologists note that one of the principal characteristics zoology students dug another sl~cllmound by thcmsclvcs and it was
of archacological intcrprctation has bccn its rcgio~lal diversity. not long bcforc Japancsc archacologists who had studicd in Europc
David Clarkc (1979: 28, 84) nnil Leo Klcjn (1977)llavc both trc;ltccl cstablishcd the s t ~ ~ dofp the Mcsolitl~icJomon culture on a pro-
the I~istoryof archacology as one of rcgional scl~ools.Clarkc main- fessional basis (Ikawa-Smith 1982). The Scandinavian studics also
tained that archacology had only recently begun to ccasc being a stimulated the carly invcstigation of shcll mounds in Brazil (Ihcring
series of divergent traditions, each with its own locally cstccnlcd 1895) and Southcast Asia (Earl 1863). Even thc ideologically opposed
body of thcory and prcfcrrcd form of description, intcrprctation, archacological traditions of Wcstcrn Europe and the Soviet Union
and explanation. It is clear that there have bccn, and still arc, have significantly influc~lccdcach other, dcspitc dccadcs whcn
rcgional traditions in archacological intcrprctation (Daniel 1981b; scientific contact of any sort was very difficult and cven dangerous.
-
Evans ctnl. 1981:11-70; Trigger and Glover 1981-2). What has not yet For all these reasons it s c e r ~ ~
unwise
s to over-estimate thc indcpcn-
been studicd adequately is the nature of thcir divergences. T o what dcncc or thcorctical distinctivcncss of thcsc rcgional archaeologics.
dcgrcc do they rcprcscnt irrcconcilablc differences in the under- Less attention has bccn paid t o thc cffccts of disciplinary special-
standing of human bchavioi~r,differences in the questions being ization within archacology on the ways in which archacological data
asked, o r the same basic idcas bcing studicd undcr thc guise of arc intcrprctcd (Rousc 1972: 1-25)> Yet diffcring oricntations along
different tcrminologics? Cultural diffcrc~lccsarc important. Yet, on these lines may account for as many diffcrenccs as d o regional
closer inspection, most interpretations bv archacologists working 1 traditions. Classical archacology, Egyptology, and Assyriology have
within different national traditions can bc assigned to a limited been strongly committcd to studying epigraphy and art history
nu111bcr of gcncral
- orientations. Elscwhcrc I havc identified thrcc within a historical framework (Bietak 1979). Medicval archaeology
types: colonialist, nationalist, and imperialist or world-oriented has dcvclopcd as an invcstigation of matcrial rcmains that corn-
 A history of archaeological thought The relevance of archaeological history

plements research based on written records (M. Thompson 1967; the investigator. Other arcl~aeologistsbclievc that, because their
D. M. Wilson 1976; Barley 1977).Palacolithic archaeology developed discipline's findings concerning the past are consciously or
alongside historical geology and palacontology and has maintained unconsciously seen to have implications for thc present or about
close ties with these disciplines, while the study of later prehistoric human nature generally, changing social conditions influence not
periods frequently combines data from numerous other sources with only the questions archacologists ask but also thc answers that they
archaeological findings. Thcsc include linguistics, folklore, physical ,Ire prcclisposcd to find acceptable.
anthropology, and comparative ethnolog!~(11. McCa111964;Trigger David Clarke (1979: 8s) had these external tictors in mind when he
r968a; Jcnnings 1979). Yet, while several of thcsc types of archac- described archaeology as an adaptivc system 'related internally to its
ology 11a\.e developed in considerable intcllcctual isolation fro111 changing content and cxtcrnally to the spirit of the times'. Elsewhere
each other over long periods and havc been further estranged as a 11c wrote: 'Tl~rough exposure to life in general, to educatio~lal
result of the balka~~izatioll of their respective jargons, historical processes and to the changing contemporary systems of belief we
coiincctions, sporadic interaction, and common mctl~odological acquire a general pl~ilosophyand an arcl~acologicalphilosophy in
interests have bccn sufficient for all of them 10 sharc numerous particular - a partly conscious and partly subconscious system of
intcrp rctativc concepts. beliefs, concepts, values and principles, both realistic and meta-
In an effort to avoid at lcast some of the problems outlined above, physical' (ibid. 25). Still earlicr Collingwood (1939: 114) had
tlic present study will not survcy trcnds in archaeological intcrprcta- observed that every archaeological problem 'ultiniatcly arises out of
tion from a specifically chronological, geographical, or sub-discipli- "real" life . . . we study history in ordcr to see more clearly into the
nary perspccti\~e(Schuylcr 1971).Illstcad it will investigate a number situation in which we are called upon to act'.
of interpretative trends in rougl~lythe chronological order in which In recent years arcl~aeologyhas been powerfully influenced by the
they originated. These trends frequently overlapped and interacted attacks that relativists have launched against the concept of science
with cach other, both temporally and geographically, ~ n the d work 'IS a rat~onaland objective entcrprisc. These attacks have their roots
of many illdividual archaeologists reflects several trends, either at in the anti-positivism of the para-Marxist Frankfurt School, as
diffcrcnt stages of their careers or in somc combination. This represented 111ostrecently in thc writings of Jiirgcn Habcrmas (1971)
appro~challows a historical study to take account ofchanging stylcs and Herbert Marcuse (1964). These scholars stress that social con-
of arcl~acologicalinterpretation which cannot be fitted into clearly ditions influence both what data arc regarded as important and how
defined cl~ronologicalor geographical pigconholes but which reflect they arc interpreted (IColakowski 1978~:341-95). Their views have
waves of iniiovatio~ithat have transformed archaeology. been strengthened by Kuhn's paradigmatic concept, by the argu-
ments of the sociologist Barry Barnes (1974, 1977) that scientific
lu~owledgeis not different in kind from any otller forms of cultural
The envi~onmentof a~chaeo1og;y belief, and by the anarchistic claims of the American philosopher of
No one denies that arcliacological researcl~is influenced by many science Paul Feyerabend (1975) that, because objective criteria for
different kinds of factors. At present the most controversial of these evaluating theories do not exist, sciencc should not be fettered by
is the social context in which"archaeologists live and work. Very few rigid rules and that personal preferences and aesthetic tastes should
archacologists, includillg those who favour a positivistic view of be relied on to evaluate rival theories. Ideas of this sort have
scientific research, would deny that the qucstions arcl~aeologistsask attracted a considerable following in recent years among self-styled
are influenced at lcast to somc degree by this milieu. Yet positivists critical archacologists, especially in Britain and the United States.
maintain that, so lollg as adequate data arc available and these data While some argue that in the long run greater awareness of social
are analpsed using proper scientific methods, the validity of the biases will promote more objectivity (Leone 1982), others maintain
resulting conclusions is independent of the prejudices or beliefs of that even basic archacological data are mental constructs and hence
 story of a ;ical thou; relevance of archac

arc nor ~nacpc~ldent -r A-L" ,.,-

UL LUC X J I L L ~~ I Lin
~~Uwhich
~ they
~ are utlllzc if the miduLLL l a a a u d l l u L" LIY.. *-
LU U L ~ C O to
A:"" V ~WML
~ cxtcat change,- ---
(Gallay 1986: 5s--61). Thc morc extreme formulations ignore tf rchaeological interpretatio n reflect the altcring fort1ines of that
qualifications of Habcrmas and Barncs that 'knowledgc arises out ( roup.
our encounters with reality and is continually subject t o feedbacl This is not to cla~mthat the middlc classes are a unitary p11t-11~ lm-
-..

correction from thcsc cncountcrs' (Barncs 1977: 10). Instcad, thc non. The bourgeoisie of the Ancicn Regime, composcd largely, of
concludc that ar&acological intcrprctatio~lsarc dctcrmincd cntire Ierics, professionals, and royal administrators, has to be dist.in-
by thcir social context r ~ t h c rthan by any objective cvidcncc. Tht uishcd from the cntrcprcncurial bourgcoisic of thc Indust]rial
statcmcnts d b ~ i the
~ t P.IS~ cdnnot be cv.ilu.ltcci by m y critcri.1 othcr 1 (Darnton 1984: 113). Thc intcrcsts and dcgrcc of dcc,el-

than the ~ntcrnalcohcrcncc of any particular study 'which can only f the middle classcs also have varicd grcatly from c)nc
be criticiscd in terms of intcr~lalconceptual relations and not in 3unri-y ro another and within cach country they havc been divialed
tcrms of externally imposcd standards or crltcria for "measuring" ( ito various strata, while individuals who prefer eithcr more radi cal
"dctcrmining" truth or falsity' (Millcr and Tillcy 1984: 151).A broa r morc conservative options arc found in cach stratum. It is aIs0
spectrum of altcrnativcs separates those hypcr-positivistic archac ~idcntthat archaeology has not been associated with the whc3lc
ologists who believe that only the quality of archacological data an liddlc class but only with that part of it, 1argcly cc)mposcd
of analytical techniques determines the value of archaeological inte rofessionals, which is inclined to bc interested in schola rship (Kr
prctations and the hyper-rclativists who arc incli~ledto accor ansen 1981; Lcvine 1986).
archacological data no role, but instead explain archacological intc Relations bctween intcrcsts and idcas arc contextually mediat
prctations cntirclp in tcrms of thc social and cultural loyalt~csof tl- a largc number offactors. Archaeologists therefore cannot expc
rcscarchcr. 1 establish a onc-to-one c o r r c s p o ~ ~ d c bctwccn
~ ~ c c spccific archac
While the influcrlccs that socictics cxcrt on archaeological intc gical intcrprctations and particular class intcrcsts. Instead th
( prctations arc potentially very diverse, the dcvclopment of archat ust analysc the ideas influencing archacological intcrpretations
ology has corrcspondcd temporally with the risc to power of ti 01s with which social groups seck to achicvc thcir goals in p;
mi ddlc clas,scs in Wcstcrn society. Although many of the car ticular situations. Among thcsc goals arc to cnhancc the groul
Pa trons of classical archaeology belonged to the aristocracy, sin(
I sclf-confidcncc by making its success appcar natural, prcdcstinc
Ci riaco dc' Pizzicolli in the fifteenth century archaeologists ha1 and inevitable, to inspire and just@ collective action, and to d
becn predominantly men~bcrsof thc middlc class: civil servant guise collective interests as altruism (Barncs 1974: 16); in short,
clergymen, merchants, country squires, and, with increasing prc provide groups and whole societies with mythical charters (McNe
fcssionalization, university teachers. In addition, much of the pub1 1986). Without denying the significance of individual psychologic
interest in archaeological findings has bcen found among the edi tr;kits and cultural traditions, the relations betwc:en archa eology ar
cated middlc classcs, includi~lgsometimes political leaders. A thle middle classes provide an important focus; for exatnining tl
branches of scientific investigations that have developed since ti re1ationship between archacology and society.
scvcntccnth century havc donc so under thc aegis of the midd Most professional archaeologists also bclicve their discipline to t
classcs. Yct archacology and history arc rcadily intclligiblc disc ,ignificantly influcnccd by a largc numbcr of otllcr intcrnal ar
plincs and thcir findings have strong implications concernir bxternal factors. All but the most radical relativists agree that one (
human naturc and why modcrn socictics havc come to be as they al thc:sc is the archaeological data base. Archaeological data have bec
(Levine 1986). This transparent relevance for current politica acc:umuIating continuously for several centuries and ncw data ai
economic, and social issues makes relations bctween archaeolog tra ditionally held to constitute a test of earlier interpretations. Y c
. -
and society especial,ly complex and important. It therefore seen wnlat data are collected and by what me1thods are influence
'
:d by eve1
reasonable to cxamiric archaec in cxprcs.sion of th arc of what i int, whiclh in turn reflects h
 A history of archaeological thought The releva~lceof arcl~aeologicalhistory

or her theoretical presuppositions. This creates a reciprocal relation- spread interest in numismatics played an important role in the
ship bctwccn data collection and i~ltcrprctatio~l that lcavcs both d e v c l o p ~ n cof
~ ~typology
t and striation by Christian Thomsen, John
open to social influences. Moreover, the data recovered in the past Ev.uis, and othcr early archacologists (McICay 1976). In thc nine-
arc often ncitlicr adcquatc n o r appropriate to solve the problems teenth century a growing number who took up the study of archac-
that arc considered important at a latcr timc. This is not simply ology 1i.td been ccl~ic~~ted in tlic physical and biological scicnccs.
because archacologists were ~~nfamiliar with tcchniqucs that bccamc Even now it 1s cl,limccl that signific.int diffcrcnccs can be noted in thc
importa~ltlatcr and therefore failed to prcscrvc charcoal for radio- \vo~-l< donc by professional .~rcl~,~cologists wliosc early training was
carbon dating or soil samplcs for phytolith analysis, although such in the humanities or natural scie~lccs(Chapman 1979: 121). More
gaps in documc~ltatio~l can be cstremcly limiting. New perspectives recently, a large number of prehistoric arcl~acologistshave bcci~
frequently open up whole new lincs of investigation. For example, trained in anthropology o r history dcpartmcnts, dcpenditlg on local
Grahamc Clark's (1954) interest in the ccolaolny of the Mesolithic preferences. The role played by particularly successful tcaclicrs o r
period led him to ask questions that simply could not be a~lswcrcd charismat~carchacologists as cxc~liplarsin shaping the practicc of
using data collcctcd when the main intcrcst 'of Mcsolithic studies /arcliacology 011 a national and an intcrnatio~lalscalc is also sig-
was typological (Clark 1932). Likewise, the dcvclopn~c~it of an n~ficnnt.Younger arcliacologists map striltc off in new directions .uid
i~ltcrestin scttlcment archaeology rcvol~itionizcdarchacological site plonccr novel techniques of analysis or i~ltcrpretatio~l in ordcr to try
surveys (Willep 1953) and provided a stronger impetus for the to establish a reputation for thcmselvcs. This phcnomc~ionis par-
recording and a~lalysisof intrasitc distributio~lsoE features and ticularly comnlon during periods of rapid growth and a broadcni~ig
artifacts (Millon et al. 1973). Hcncc, whilc archacological data are range of cmploy~ncntopportunities.
being collected constantly, the rcsults are not nccessar~lyas cumu- Archacological interpretation has also been influcnccd by dcvcl-
lative as many archacologists believe. Indeed, archacologists ofteB opments in the physical and biological sciences. Until recent
secm t o build more on what their predecessors c o ~ ~ c l u d cabout
d thc! decades, whcn collaborative rcscarch involvi~lgarchacologists and
past than on the evidence on which these co~lclusionswere based.- ~laturalscicnt~stsbccamc routine, with rare cxccptions the flow of
What archacologists can study is also influenced by.thc resources infomlation bctwec~i these disciplincs was unidirectional, with
that are madc available for archaeological research, the i~lstitutio~lal archacologists being the recipients. Hcncc rcscarch in the ~iatural
contexts in which rcscarch is carried out, and the kinds of investi- scie~lccswas only fortuitously rclatcd t o the needs of archaeologists,
gations societies or governments arc prepared to let archaeologists although from time t o time discovcries were madc that were of
u~ldertake.T o obtain support archaeologists must please their spon- trcnicndous lmportallce for arcl~aeology.T l ~ c ~ d c v c l o p mofe ~radio-
~t
sors, whether these be wealthy patrons (Hinsley 1985), colleagues carbon and othcr geochronomctric dating tccl~niqucsafter World
and politicians managing the allocation of public funds (Patterson War I1 provided archacologists for the first timc with a universally
1986a), or the general public. There map also be social restrictions on applicable c h r o ~ ~ o l o gand
y onc that allowed the duration as well as
excavating certain kinds of sites, such as cemeteries or religious the relative order of archaeological rnanifestatio~~s to bc determined.
localities (Roscn 1980). In thcse ways considcrablc constraint may Pollen analysis has providcd valuable new insights into prehistoric
be exerted on the rescarc11"archaeologists d o and how they interpret climatic and c~lvironn~ental changes, whilc trace-clement analysis
their finds. has added an important dimension t o the study of thc prehistoric
Until the twentieth century, few archaeologists were educated in n~ovemcntof certain kinds of goods. I ~ l ~ l o v a t i oderived
~ls from the
the discipline. Instead they brought to arehacology a variety of skills phys~caland biological scienccs have generally bee11 incorporated
and viewpoints acquired in Inany different fields and avocations. All Into archacological rcscarch throughout the world rapidly and with
of them had studied a curriculum in which 'classical and biblical little resistance. The maill obstacle t o their sprcad is thc lack of funds
material was c~i~phasizccl. Basic principles derived from 3 wide- and tr'lincd scientific pcrs01i11e1in smaller and poorcr countries, a
 A history of archae:ological thought .e of archaeological history

factor t hat probs~blycrcatces more d.isparity bctwecn t he archae -ic forn~ulatedin accordance vvith a ger
-..L -.- - .
v ~ c wtnat bas bccn rcjcctcd. For cxamplc, whcn K. S.
-~
MacNcish
~

of rich and poor countrlcs that1 any othcr. Yet cvcn now, wllcll 11lurc
pllysical and biological rcscarch is being undcrtakcll spccific; (1952) uscd pottery striations to demonstrate that local dcvclopme~~t
solvc archacological problems, discovcrics in these fields r explained the origin of thc Northern Iroquoian culturcs of eastern
some of the least predictable happenings that influence arclldcv- North A111crica bcttcr than did migration, hc continucd to acccpt
logical intcrprctation. small-scale migrations as accounting for the origins of a few specific
The proliferation of electronic fc ata processing has groups. H e and other archaeologists forgot that these mi cro-
. .I..-:.
I
lutionizcd archacological analpsls ILU Icaa than did radiocaLuv.. migrations wcrc not bascd on sound arcl~acologicalevidcncc
dating. It is now possiblc to corrclatc in a routine fashion vast had bccn part of the largcr-scale migrationary theorizing that A
I ~ Iof dat a, which in thc past only an exceptional archae-
~ I I I O L ts Neish himsclf had disproved. In this fashion specific vicws about
I
ologist, sucn as W. M. F. Pctric, would havc attempted t o analyse past can persist and influcncc arcl~acologicalintcrprctation 1ong
(Kcndall 1969, 1971).This allows archaeologists t o usc the abundant ~ f t cthe
r reasoning that led 1-o tllcir for~i~ul.~tion
llas bcc11discrcd i tcd
data at their disposal to search for morc detailed patterning in thc ~ n dahnndoncd (Trigger 19,78b).
arcl~acological rccord and to test morc complex hypo+'-+~~.c LLIbOL.0

(Hodson e t al. 1971; Doran and Hodson 1975; Hoddcr 1978; 1Orton
1980; Sabloff 1981).New theoretical oricntations have been er
agcd by spccific dcvclopmcnts of a mathcmatical naturc. GbLXGLu. hocial scien~c111 rnc scnsc that it trics to cxplaln
I I C ~ L ~ C U I U15
~Y

systems thcory (Flanncry 1968; Stcigcr 1971; Laszlo 1972a; Bcrlinski hat has happcncd to spccific groups of human bcings in thc past
1976) and catastrophe theory (Thorn 1975; Rcnfrcw 1978; Renfrew ~ n dto gcncralize about processes of cultural changc. Yct, unlikc
and Cookc 1979; Saundcrs 1980)arc both n~athcn~atical approaches :thnologists, gcographcrs, sociologists, political scientists, and
to the study of change, cvcn if thcir strictly rnathcmatical aspects :conomists, archaeologists cannot obscr\~cthc bchaviour of thc
have bccn emphasized less than the underlying concepts in applying )eople they arc studying and, unlikc historians, most of thcm d o not
them to archacological problems. lavc direct acccss to the thoughts o f these people as they are
Thc intcrprctation of arcl~acological data has also bee n sig- ecorded in written texts. Instead archaeologists must infer hul;nan
nificantly affected by thc changing theories of hun~anbeh,aviour )ehaviour and ideas from the illaterial rcmains of what hurl11an
cspoused by the social scicnccs. It has bccn cspccially influcn~ ced bv, )cings have madc and usccf .~ndof their physical inlpact on +I. ,.
concepts dcrivcd from cthnclogy and history, the two disciplines nvironmcnt. The interpretation of archaeological data dcpel
with which arcl~acoiogyhas maintained thc closest ties. Theoretical [pon an understanding of how human bcings bchavc at the prcs
concepts dcrivcd from geography, sociology, economics, and poli- ime and particularly of how this behaviour is reflectcd in mate
tical scic~lcchavc also influenced archacology, either directly or ulture. Arcl~acologistsmust also invoke uniformicaria~lprinci~
through anthropology and history. Yet, inasmuch as all these disci- I order to use an understanding of modern geological and E
plincs have becn shaped by many of the same social nlovcrncnts that 3gical processes to infer how such processes have helped to sh;
have influc~lcedarchaeologp, it is often difficult to distinguish social le archacological record. Yet they are far from agreed how sl
science influc~lceson archacology from those of society at lar'ge. nderstandings can be applied legitimately and comprehcnsively
Thc intcrprctation of archacological data is also significantly erive an understanding of past huma~?behaviour from their d
influcnccd by established bclicfs about what has bccn learned from Binford 1967a, 1981; Gibbon 1984; Gallay 1986).
thc archaeological record. It often happens that spccific interpreta- Archaeologists have begun to follow thc example of philosopl~ ers
-
t i n l i c nf the past arc uncriticallv accon~n~odatcd
LL.,.." to challgi~lggencral f scicnce (Nagcl 1061) and othcr social-sciencc disciplines In
vicws, rather tl Ian carcf cd, cvcn when assifying tllcir thc gcncraliz to high, Imiddle, a

19
 or)?of arc 'hc rclc\~anccof archacologicRI history

L ~ V G I ~
sort. TI dc most typological classif ications c)f artifact
Theory identifications of spccific archacological cultures; the dc~llonstration
by means of stratification, seriation, or radiocarbon dating that one
High
archacological manifestation dates earlier, or later, than a ~ ~ o t h cand r;
. .
crvation that in an individual culture all humans arc buried in
ular position accomp.illicd by spccific typcs of.~rtiticts.Tlicsc
t/,,ltIons arc b.lscd o n observations that spccific attributes or
.lrtIr,lct typcs occur rcpc,ltcdly in a particular association wit1i cach
other, correlate with a specific geographical locality, or datc:to a
certain period. The dinlcnsions of such gcncralizations ar,c the
classical ones ofspacc, time, and form (Spaulding 1960; Gardill 1980:
62-97). Archaeologists also map assume that spccific types ofprojcct-
Low
ilc points served particular functions and that cach archacological
culturc was associated with a spccific people. Thcsc infcrcnccs, \1J.;rl,
refer to human bchaviour, differ substa~~tially from gcncraliz:
which arc bascd on empirical obscrvatiolls of correlations bet
Archaea two or more categories of archacologically tangible data. In Inany
instances the bc11'1vioural assumptions turn out to be intorrcct,
unprovccl, or m~slc.lding. Uccausc of the nature of archacolc
."=.--. data, low-lcvel gcncralizations never rcfcr to human beha\
1 coherence I correspondence
. -~ -

From the point of view of such bel~aviour,they arc rcgularitics

(length of arrow indicates explained rather than explanations in their own right.
relative importance of relationship) Middle-lcvcl theories have been defined as gcncralizations
ships betwm attempt to account for the regularities that occur betweell t v
more scts of variables in multiple instances (Raab and Gooddycar
. .
1984). Social-science ge~lcralizatio~ls should have cross-cul*----'
validity and also make some refcrcllcc to human bchaviou
984). Thi1s schcmc addition they must be sufficiently spccific that they can bc tcstc
low categoric
c--:1 ...-,.,."- -.
I~CIIIL~LC
tb and Gc
d SI I I C I ~ C3 y 3 L C l l l l l L 1 C U l l d c r ~ t a ~ l d o ~t the
- .
~ l gnature 01 arcllaco- applying them to particular scts of data. An cxamplc of a mil C L U I L -

logical theory and of tl.lc proccs scs of rea at charactcrizc the level anthropological gc~lcralizationis Ester Boscrup's (1965)pr'ope-
discipline. sition that among agricultural cconomics populatio~lpressure leads
. .-
....,, 1-uccll . .
,.,. u,.LI,a.*c "k .l.h;,v.c,d as e~nplrical to situations that require more labour for each unit of food - y,
lv --
OW-1evcItheories I.ldvc research with -a

gcn(:ralizations (IClejn rd77: 2 ) . Thcsc appear to be the same as duccd in ordcr to derive more food from each unit of arable land.
E r ncst Nagcl's (1961: 79-105) cxpcrimcntal laws, ofwhich hc gives as This theory would be archacologically tcstablc if archaeologists
aIi cxamplc the proposition that all fcmalc whales suckle their young.
could establish rcliablc measures of absolute or relative changes in
Suclh gcneralizatiolls arc normally bascd on rcgularities that arc population, the labour intcnsivcncss and productivity of spc
rcpc:atcdly observed and which can be refuted by the observation of agricultural rcgimes, and a sufficiently prccisc chronology to spccify
- .- .
cull;rar)r
,-
cases. The vast ~najority , of - generalizations on which further the temporal rclatio~ishipbetween c h a ~ ~ g in c s population and fnnJ
arch 11 intcrprct.ltions arc bascdI are cmp :s of this on. l3oi1i g this 1~oulclre
 A history of arcllaeological tnougnc ,
- ..: relevance of archaeological ...-.-.

calls middle-range thcory, which attempts to use middle-range theories may have significance for distinguishing
bctwccn materialist and non-materialist modcs of explanation,
ologically obscr\.ablc phenomena and archacologically untobscrv- social scientists exhibit much ingenuity in dismissing rcsults that d o
able human bchaviour. Althougl~'middle-level' and 'middlc not agrcc with thcir presuppositions as cxceptions and even in
thcorics arc not idc~ltical,in that middle-level thcoql can rerer reinterpreting them as unexpected confirmation of what they
cnclusi\lcly to 1i~11ii;un
bcha\~io~tr,
wliilc ~iiicidlc-r;~ngc
ones must refer bclicvc. Givcn the c0111pIcxity of human bchaviour, thcrc is con-
both to h~lmanbchaviour nncl archacologically obscrvablc traits, all sidcrablc scopc for such mcnt.11 gymnastics. It is cvcn morc difficult
of I{infi)rd's ~niddlc-rangetheory can be regarded ns n type of For archaeologists to distinguish anlong thc three matcrialist posi-
middle-lc\lcl thcory. Middle-range thcory is vital for thc tcstir~gof all tions listed above. Bccausc of the indircctncss of tcsts, thc risc and
middle-lcvcl thcory rclating to arcl~acologicnldata. Fall in the popularity of spccific high-level gcneralizations seems to
,.
?,L -\ JC influcnccd morc by social proccsscs than by thc scientific cxamin-
High-level, or general thcorics, which Marvin Harris (1979. Lv-/l
calls 'rcscarch strategies' and David Clarke (1979: 25-30) labelled %tionof logically rclatcd middle-level' theories. Between 1850 and
'controlling modcls', have been defined as abstract rules that explain 945 a strong emphasis was placed on biological, and morc spccific-
the rclationsl~ipsamong the thcorctical propositiolls that arc rcle- illy racial, explanations of variations in human bchaviour. Scientific
vant for understailding major categories of phenomena. Darwinian icmonstratiins that explanations of this sort did not hold in spccific
evolutionism and morc rcccntly the synthetic thcory of biological nstances were inadequate to undermine the widespread faith of
cvolution, which combines Darwinian prii~ciplcswith genetics, arc icholars in the general validity of a racist approach (Harris 1968:
cxamplcs of gcncral thcorics relating to the biological scicnccs. In $0-107). Yet racial theories were almost totally abandoned as a
the human domain, general thcorics refer exclusively to human ,cientific explanation of human behaviour following the military
bcl~aviour;hcncc there arc no thcorctical formulations at this level iefeat of Nazi Germany in 1945 and the consequent revelation of the
that pertain spccifically to archaeology rathcr than to the social ull extent of its racist-inspired atrocities.'
scicnccs in gcncral. There arc also no general theories that have ever Ideally it should be possible to establish a logica~llycohelrent
been as universally accepted by social scientists as thc synthetic rlationship among high, middle, and low 1~ zvels of t.heory an~d a
thcory of evolution has bccn by biologists. Examples of rival high- :orrespondence between middlc- and low-level gencralizations and
lcvcl theories that currently influence archaeological rcscarch arc )bservablc data. In recent years American archaeologists have
Marxism (or historical materialism), cultural n~aterialisn~, and cul- ierccly debated whether middle-levcl thcory should be derived
tural ecology. Thcsc arc all matcrialist approaches and hcncc overlap ieductivcly as a coherent sct of intcrrclated c o ~ ~ c cfrom
~ t s high-lczvcl
to varying degrees. Although idealist approachcs, such as were hcories or may also be constructed inductively from data ;and
inherent in Boasiail anthropology earlier in the twentieth century, ow-level gcneralizations. Thosc who support the deducltive
arc less elcga~ltlyarticulated than are thcir materialist counterparts, pproach argue that explanations of human bchaviour, as opposed
this orientation still inspires much of the work that is done in the o empirical gencralizations about it, can only bc based o n covcr,ing
social scicnccs (Coc 1981; Conrad 1981). Bccausc these bodies of aws statcd as hypothcscs and tcstcd against indcpcndent sets of clata
theory attempt to interrelate concepts rathcr than to account for Watson et al. 1971: 3-19; Binford 1972: 111). Those who favour a
spccific observations thcy cannot be confirmed or falsified directly leductivc approach seek to establish explicit, logical connections
(Harris 1979: 76). In that respect thcy rcscmblc religious dogmas or ctwcen high- and middle-level thcory. Generally, however, they
creeds. Their credibility can, howcvcr, be i;nflucnccc :pcated ~ndercstimatcthe tcnuous, complcx, and intractable nature of thc
success or failure of middle-lcvcl theories Ithat arc I( .epend- elationship between thcsc two Icvels. O n the othcr hand, hyper-
cnt on them. qductivists tend to view gcncral thcory as an ultimate goal that can
such inc ting is n plc mattt ~cconsidcrcd only after .I large corpus of rcliablc generalizations has
 A history of archacological thought The relevance of archacological history

been established at the low and middle Ie\~cls(M. Salmon 1982: 33-4; arc fundamentally altered by c\rolutionary processes (Polanyi 1944,
Gibbon 1984: 35-70; Gallay 1986: 117-21). Yet, because numerous 1966; Polanyi e t al. 1957; Dalton 1961). Thc substa~ltivistapproach
i~nplicitassumptions about the naturc of human bchaviour colour implies that novel properties can and d o cmcrgc as a result o f
what is believed to be a sound expla~latio~l of archacological data, sociocultural change and that hu~llallnaturc can be transformed as a
high-level concepts can be ignored only at tlie risk that implicit ones consequence of it (Childc 1947a).This distinction betwccn universal
unwittingly will distort archacological interpretations. Most suc- generalizations and more rcstrictcd oncs may not be as far-reaching
ccssf~~l scie~itificthcory-building in\rolvcs a combination of both or absolute as its proponents maintain. SOIIICgcncralizatiolls that
approaches. 111 the first instance, expl;~natio~is call be for~iiulatcd apply only to specific types of socictics can be rcwrittcn in tlic form
citlicr inductively or deductively. Yet, howcvcr they arc formulated, of universal gcncralizations, while universal oncs may bc rcformu-
their status as scientific theories depends both on their logical cohcr- latcd, usually in grcatcr detail, so that they apply spccifically t o a
cncc, intcmally and with other acccptccl explanations of human particular class of society. Yet thosc who stress the importance o f
bchaviour, and o n establishing a sutisf.~ctory correspondcncc be- restricted generalizations argue that all o r most of thcm cannot be
tween t11cm and any logically rclatcd empirical gcncralizatio~ls,and transformed into universal gencralizatio~lswithout a scvcrc loss in
finally with an adcquatc corpus of factual evidence (Lowthcr 1962). content and significance (Triggcr 1982a).
Archaeologists also disagree about the formal naturc of the gcn- The third typc of generalization is specific to an individual culture
cralizations tliat they seek to elaborate. In modern American archac- or to a single group o f historically rclatcd cultures. An cxamplc
ology, as within the positivist trnclition gcncrally, it is assumed that would be the dcfin~tionof the canons that governed ancient Egypt-
311 luws must be ~~ni\,crsul in nnt~lrc.'l'liis mcuns thnt thc)~provide i,un o r c1,lssical GI-cck.lrt (Childc 1947.1: 43-9; Montane 1980: 130-6).
st.ltcmcnts about relations bctwccn i~a~-i;~blcs that arc assumed to This kind of gcncr,ll~zat~o~i is potc~lti~llly
very iniportant inasn~uch,IS
hold true rcgardlcss of the tc~iiporalperiod, region of the world, or most cultural patterning is probably of this sort. Yct no convincing
specific cultures that are being studiecl. These ge~lcralizationsvary in way has been found to move b e y o ~ ~speculation
d in interpreti~lgthe
scale from ni;ljor ass~~iiptions about historical processes t o regulari- meaning of such patterning in the archaeological record in situ-
tics dealing wit11 relatively tl-i\,inl aspects of h ~ ~ m ahclin\liour
n (M. ations wlierc supp1cmentar)r historicnl documentation or cthno-
-
Suln~on 1982: 8-30), Illis ;I~F)SO;ICII is cxc~ii~liticdb y fi)snl;~list gr,~phicci.~ta'u-c not available. Where thcy 'Ire not, si~chrcgularitics
economics, ~ ~ h i c rnLlint.lins
li that the rules used to csplnin the remain at the level of e m p ~ r i c gcncrali~~ltions.
~l
ceononlic bcha\,iour of Western societies explain the bcliaviour of a11
human beings. Such an approach accounts for significant variations
in human beliaviour in diffcrcnt societies by viewi~lgthem as the
rcsults of novcl co~iibi~iations and permutations of a fixed set of A final question is whcther a historical study can measure progress in
111tet-a cting variables (Burling 1962; Cancia111966; Cool< 1966). Uni- the interpretation of arcl~acologicaldata. Arc steady advanccs bcing
vcrsul generalizations arc frequently interpreted as reflecting an ~iladctowards a niorc objcctivc and c o n ~ p r c l ~ e ~ ~undcrstanding
sivc
invari ant human nature. of archaeological findings, as many archaeologists assume? O r is tlie
Otl1cr arcliacologists ~%aintaintliat general laws of this sort con- interpretation of such data largely a matter of fashion and the
ccrni~ ~g Iiu~iiannature arc rc1ativeIy f e r ~in numbcr. A much largcr accomplishments of a later period not necessarily morc comprchen-
numb,cr of gcncralizatio~isapplies only to societies that share the sive or objcctivc than thosc of an carlicr onc? I11 cxamining the
SaIlle Ior closcly rclatcd modes of production. This position is si~nilar successive patterns that Iiavc influenced tlic intcrpretatio~i of
in its general orientation to that of the cconomic substantivists. In archacological data, I shall attempt t o dctcrminc t o what extent an
r n st
lltr. to the positio~ladopted by the for~nalists,substantivists undcrstanding of human history and bchaviour has bccn irrcvcrsibly
ain that the rules, as well as tlic forms, of economic bchaviour altered as a result of archaeological activity. Yet it is likely that thc
 A history of arcl~aeologicalthought

social influenccs that have shapcd a scicntific tradition in the past are
rcvcalcd morc easily aftcr social conditions have changed, while
current influenccs arc much hardcr to recognize. This malccs prcscnt
interpretations of archaeological data gc~lerallyappcar to bc morc
objcctivc than those of the past. Hcncc, by tliemsclvcs liistorical
observations do not necessarily distinguish objcctivc progress from Classical archacolog)~and antiquarianism
changing culturally shared fantasies. T o do that, historical invcsti-
gators must scck to cliscovcr to what extent this irrc~crsibilityhas
-
bccn assurcd not o n l ~by thc logical appeal of archacological inter- I<nowzvg the past is as astonishing a
prctations but also by their continuing factual corrcspo~ldcncewith performance as knoning the stars.
a growing data base. If this can be done, wc may hope to lcarn 6 t O R G L K U H L L R, ~ / J CSbapr of T C M ~ P.
(IY~z), 19

something about the objectivity or subjectivity of arcl~aeological

interpretations; to what extent archaeology can be morc than tlie Somc recent treatments of the history of arcl~acologyhavc suggcstcd
past relived in the prcscnt, in the scnsc Collingwood defined that that the current conccrn with explanation is a modern dcvclopmc~lt
process; the degree to which any sort of understanding is communi- (Willcy and Sabloff 1980: 9-10). It is alleged that prior to tlic 1960s
cable from onc age or culture to anothcr; and tlic cxtcnt to which an there was no established body of thcory. Instcad each scholar was
understanding of thc history of archaeology can influcncc archaco- frcc to build his disciplinc ancw on thc basis of his owl1 ideas. Yct
logical intcrprctation. general bclicfs about human origins and dcvclopmc~~t that are
T o d o justicc to thcsc topics, I will scclc to avoid writing a history potentially tcstablc using archacological data long antcdatc any
of archacological interprctation that is unduly prcsentistic and strivc recognizable disciplinc of arcl~acology.It is conccpts such as thcsc
to understand thc intellectual history of each major trend in its social that either implicitly or explicitly constituted thc carlicst high-level
contcxt. In order to keep this boolc within reasonable limits, thcor~csthat gave purpose and direction to tlic collcction and study
however, I rcfcr more to works that have contributed to the long- of arcli~cologicaldata. Hcncc ,~rchacologp,no morc than any othcr
term dcvclopmcnt of archacological interpretation than to un- scientific discipline, passed through n stagc in which data wcrc
successful and repctitious studies or to the many publicatio~lsthat collected cntircly for their own saltc or in thc hope that in the future
havc mainly addcd to our factual k~~owlcdgc of tlic remains of the enough would be lulown for serious questions to be asked. From the
past. In his survey of the history of the interpretation of Stonclicngc, time when archacological data bccanic an objcct of serious study,
Chippindalc (1983)has shown that works of thcsc lattcr sorts consti- scholars examined them in the liopc that they would shed light on
tute the bulk of archacological literature. problcnis that wcrc significant from a philosophical, historical, o r
scicntific point of view.

The ancient 147odd

All human groups appcar to have somc curiosity about the past. For
much of human history, liowcver, this intcrcst has bccn satisfied by
myths and legcnds concerning tlie crcation of thc world and of
humanity, and by traditions cl~roniclingtllc advcnturcs ofindividual
ethnic groups. Anlong tribal pcoplcs thcsc accounts frequently refcr
to a continuing supernatural rcalm and scrvc as a mythical charter

27
 A history of archaeological tl~ouglnt Classical archaeology and antiquarianism

for present-day social and political relations, as is thc case with the Tcnochtitlan (Matos 1984). Yet t o idcntify such activities as archac-
Australian Aborigine co~lccptof dream-time (Isaacs 1980). In other ology, even 'indigenous archaeology', is t o dilutc thc mcaning of the
cascs oral traditions claim t o prcscrvc accurate accounts of human word beyond u s c f ~ limits.
~l
activities ovcr many gcncrations (Vansina 1985). In later stagcs of thc ancic~ltcivilizations artifacts came t o be
A diffcrcnt approach developed in those early civilizations whcrc valued both as thc relics of spccific rulers o r periods of national
Ivritten records provided a chronologicul fi-31ucworicand inforrna- grcatncss and as SOLISCCS of informntion about the past. In Egypt,
tion ; I ~ O L I\\{hat
~ had happened in the past that wns independent of consc~ous,~rch.lism w,ns alrc.ldy displayed in thc construction of
human memory. Even so, the compiling of annals did not givc rise t o royal tombs beginning in the Twclfth Dynasty (1991-1786 B .c .)
the writing of clct,lilcd histories of the past o r narratives of current (Edw,~rds1985: 210-17). In the Eigl~tccnthDynasty (1552-1305 B.c.)
c\~entseither in the Mediterranean region or in China until after 500 scribcs left graffiti t o record thcir visits t o ancient and abandoned
B.C. (Van Sctcrs 1983; Kcdford 1986).Moreover, thc dcvclopnnc~ltof s , a fragmentary prcdynastic palcttc has been found
m o n ~ ~ m c n twhile
history as 3 literary gcnrc did not ensure the concurrent growth of a ~nscnbcdwit11 the nmnc ol' Quccn Tiyc (14-05-1367 B.c.). In thc
disciplinccl intcrcst in the material remains of carlicr timcs. Ninctcctntl~Dynasty (1305-1186 B.c.), I<hacmwcse, a son of Ram-
Artifacts from an unlcnown past havc bein collcctcd by at least csscs I1 whose fame as a sagc and magician was t o last into Grcco-
some tribal societies. Projectile points, stonc pipes, and native Roman timcs, carcf~illystudicd thc cults associated with ancicllt
copper tools madc thousands of years carlicr arc found in Iroquoian monuments near thc capital city of Memphis as a basis for rcstoring
sites of thc fifteenth and sixtecntln ccnturics A . D . in eastern North these observances (Icitchen 1982: 103-9) and by the Saite Period
America. Thcsc objccts must havc been discovered in thc course of (664-525 B. c.) knowlcdgc of Old Icingdom relief carving was suffi-
c\~erpdayactivities and ltcpt by the Iroquoians (Tuck 1971:I;+), just ciently dctailcd for an attcmptcd stylistic rcvival (W. Smith 1958:
as 'thundcrstoncs' (stonc cclts) and 'elf-bolts' (stonc projcctilc 246-52). A collection of ancient Babylonian artifacts, including
points) wcrc collcctcd by European peasants in the mcdicval period inscriptions, amassed by Bcl-Shalti-Nannar, a daughter of King
(European stonc cclts wcrc also sold t o goldsmiths who used them Nabonidus, in the sixth century B.C. has bccn dcscribcd as the first
for burnishing [Hcizer 1962a: 631). While \ve lna\lc no direct record lunown ~ n u s c u ~ofn antiquities (Woolley 1950: 152-4). This growing
of how the Iroquoians regarded thcsc finds, they map have treated interest in the physical rcmains of thc past was part of a hcigl~tcncd
then1 as charms, as they arc said to havc done various types of preoccupation with f o r ~ ~ l tinlcs
er among thc litcratc classes. Such
pcculiarlp shaped stoncs, which they belicvcd bclo~lgcdt o spirits intcrcsts had a strong religious component. It was believed that the
who lnad lost thcm in the woods (Thwaitcs 1896-1901, 33: 211). I11 gods or a scrics of culturc hcrocs had cstablishcd civilization in a
many culturcs such artifacts wcrc bclicvcd to havc a supcrnatural perfect form at the beginning of timc. Latcr gcncrations of human
rathcr tlnan a human origin and were credited with magical powers, beings had failed to maintain this ideal form. The monuments as
which may havc bccn the main rcason thcy wcrc collcctcd. wcll as the written records of the past therefore constituted tangible
The rc~nainsof the past wcrc also used in the religious obscrvanccs links to eras that were closer to the timc of crcation and hcncc were
of thc carly civilizations. In the sixteenth century thc Aztecs pcr- the lncans by which the sacred prototypc of civilization could be
formed rituals at regular intervals in tlnc ruins of Tcotihuacan, a city more nearly approximated. Bccausc of thcir greater proximity t o the
that lnad bccn inhabited in t11c first millcnniunn A . D . and which was cosmic drama of creation these artifacts werc probably also thought
bclicvcd to be whcrc the gods had rc-cstablishcd the cosillic order at to bc endowed with unusual supcrnatural powcr.
the beginning of thc nnost recent cycle of cxistcncc (Heyden 1981). In the classical civ~lizationsof Grcccc and Rome thc production o f
They also included much older Olrncc figurines, as wcll as valuable substantial narrative histories based on written records and oral
goods from many parts of thcir cnnpire in the ritual deposits that traditions, as well as an interest in ancient religious practices, local
\verc periodically buried in the walls of thcir Great Tcmplc in customs, and civil institutions, wcrc accompanied only by a sporadic
 nlsrury of archaeological thc _ Clas:xca, alLllaL"l"sy arid antiq~atbattta11t

I i thc physical rcn thc past. T11c Grcck histo~ rian hcirloom S, as thcy wcrc in 1thc classic:a1 civiliz the Mcd itcr-
l'hucydldcs noted that sonic of t ~ l cgravcs dug up on Delos, w hen rancan rcgion.
that island was purificd in thc fifth ccntury B . c . , belonged to While a few scholars of thc ancient world occasionally us1
Carians, sincc tlicy contailled armour and wcapons rcscniblilig th10SC artifacts to supplc~iic~itwhat could bc lcarncd about thc past fro
of the Carians of his day. In his opinion this confirmed a tradit ion written records, thcy did not dcvclop spccific tcchniqucs for recovc
that Carians had oncc lived on thc island (Casson 1939: 71). In his ung or studying such artifacts and uttcrly failcd to cstablish a tr adi-
Description of Greece, written in thc scco~ldcc~lturyA.D., thc ph ysi- tion of such research. Nothing resembling a discipline of arc1hac-
cian Pausanins s!~stcmatically dcscribcd thc public buildings, art logy can be said to liavc csistcd in any of thcsc civilizatitons.
\vorks, rites, and customs of diffcrcnt regions of that c o ~ l n i2ltho~1gliphilosophers rcpl.1ccd religious bclicfs with various st,
togcthcr with tlic historical traditions associatcd with thcm. 1 :yclical, and cvcn evolutionary cxplanatiol~sfor thc origin:
\vhile he bricfly described the cclcbratcd Brol~zcAge ruins at Tir urnan bcings , ~ n dcivilizatio~i,thcsc rcmaincd purely speculati\
and Mpccnac, for him and othcr classical \vritcrs of guide boc>ks,
ruined buildings were 'hardly worth mentioning' (Lcvi 1979, I: 3).
Thc Greeks and Romans prcscrvcd valucd rclics'of the past as voltivc
offerings in tlicir temples and gravcs were somctimcs opcncd1 to In mcdicval Europe prehistoric tumuli and megalithic monumc:11ts
recover the relics of 'hcrocs'. In support of literary cvidence that thc were objects of local intcrcst and priests occasionally rccordcd thc
warriors of thc Honicric agc had all uscd bro~izcwcapons, Pausaxlias folk tales that surroundcd thcm. Few of thcsc monuments cscaped
~lotcdthat the blade of the alleged spear of Achillcs in tlic temple of >lundcring by lords or pcasants who bclicvcd thcm to con
Athcna at Pliasclis was made of bronzc (Lcvi 1979, 2: 17). Yct such xasurc (Klindt-Jcnscn 1975: 9). Ancicnt buildings wcrc also pl
historical infcrcnccs arc notable for their rarity. Ancient bronzes and icred in search of building matcrial, holy rclics,and trcasurc (K
pottcry vcsscls that were accidc~itally~ilic:~rtllcdor plii~~dcrcd lrick 1950: 18; Sklcn6I 1983: 16-18). The only ccrtain k n o w l c d ~
dcalcrs sold for high prices to cvcalthy art collectors (Wacc 194 >ast times was thought to bc what was rccordcd in thc Bible,
Nc\~crtl~clcss, sc1iol;lrs maclc n o effort to recover such artifacts i ,urviving histories of Grcccc and Romc, and historical rccc
svstcmatic fashion, nor, cicspitc sonic classicists' claims to the cl ncorporating traditions going back into thc Dark Ages. O n
trary (Wciss 1969: z), did these artifacts bccomc a special focu: ,asis a mcdicval Christian vicw of thc past was cvolvcd tha~
study. Thcrc was absolutely no awarcncss that thc,matcrial rcmz :crtain ways has colltiliucd to influe~lcc thc intcrprctation
of the past could be uscd to test thc IIUIIICSOUS co~lflicti~lg ph110- ~rchacologicaldata to the prcscnt. This vicw can bc sum111arizcn 111
sophical speculations about human origins and thc gcncral outlincs erms of six propositions:
of hun~anhistory that charactcrizcd classical civilizatio~ij
Si-ma Qicn, the first great Chincsc historian, who wrote in tllC ' Tlic world was thought to DC or rcccnr, supcrnamra~o r p n ann
sccotld ccntury B . c . , visited ancient ruins and csamincd rclics of the ulllikcly to last morc than a few thousand ycars. Rabbi11ical
past as well as tests wlicn compili~lgmaterial for thc Shi Ji, his authoritics cstimatcd that it had bccn crcatcd about 3700 B .C.,
influential account of ancicnrChincsc history. Thc systcrnatic st1 whilc Pope Clement VIII datcd the creation to 5199 B.C. an('
of the past was valued by Confuciall scholars as a guide to mc late as tlic scvcntce~~tliccntury Archbishop James Usshcr wa:
bchaviour and, by stressing a common hcritagc going back at lcas~ set it at 4004 B.C. (Harris 1968: 86). Thcsc dates, which n
thc Xia D y n a s t ~(2205-1766
~ B.c.), it pla)lcd a powcrful role co~ilputcdfrom biblical gencalogics, agrecd that thc world was
unifying Chinese cultural and political life (Wang 1985). Yet only a fcw thousand ycars old. It was also bclicvcd that thc prcs,cnt
almost a millcnlii~i~n Chilicsc historians co~ltinucdto base tl- world would cnd with thc return of Christ. Although thc prcc
books on written records, \vhilc bronzc vessels, jadc carvings, : timing of this cvcnt was unknown, thc carth was zcncr
olther anc tcd as curiositics bclicvcd to bc in its last d aps (Slotkin 1965:

3"
 ysical wc~ r l dwas i n an advalnccd stat.c of dcge and
most narural cnangcs rcprcscnrcd the decay or,- b o a s original
I I ,-.
crc;ltion. Since the c;lrtl~was intended t o c ~ l d ~ for ~ r collly a few
thousand years thcrc was littlc nccd for divinc provision t o
counteract depletions resulting from nitural processes and human
cxploitatio~l of its resources. Thc biblical documcntatior
~ I . L X ~ C Ihuman
- longevity in ancient times providcci a warrant
I>clic\,ingth.lt human hcings ;IS \vcIl as the cn\liro~-imcnthad I.
~lc.~csio~-.l~ ills pll!~sic.~ll!~
.11lcI i n t ~ l l c ~ t ~ ~
sincc
n l l ytlicir creation.
d c i a \ and impovcrishmcnt ofthc ph!lsical \\~or-lcialso bore wit1
t o h;ln,anit!I of thc transicncc of all material things (Slotkin 11

37; 'l'oulmin and Goodfield 1900: 75-0).

; Humanity was created by God in the Garden of E d c11, ~ which was
located in the Ncar East, and spread from thcrc t o otncr part s of
the world, first aftcr the expulsion of the original humans from
Garden of Edcn and again following Noah's flood. The sect
dispersal was hastcncd by the difkrcntiation of languages, wl
IS imposed o n h~uuanity as divinc retribution for their prcsul
tion in building the To\vcr of l<alfcl.The centre of c\lc.rld hist
long rcm;iincd in the Ncar East, whcrc the Riblc chronicled
dc\~clotxncntof Juduism and from \vhcrc Christianity was car1ried
to Europe. Scholars sought to link Northern and Western Eur ope
to the recorded history of tlic Ncar East and the classical worlciby
constructing f i ~ n c i f pedigrees
~~l that idcntificd biblical personages
or individuals known from other historical accounts as the foun-
ders of European natlons o r early kings in that region (Kcndrick
1950: ;). These cl~inis,which \Ircrc often based o n folk etymc
glcs, h ~ thc d Goths desccndcd fro111 Gog, one of Noah's gra
sons (I<lindt-Jcnscn1975:I O ) , and Brutus, aTrojan princc, bccc
ing the first Icing of Britain aftcr hc dcfcatcd a race of giants v
had previously lived tlierc. P.lgan deities wcrc often intcrprctcc
deified mortals who could bc idcntificd with minor biblical f i ~
or their descendants (Kcndrick 1950: 82). Continuing links w'crc
sought with the Near East, such as the claim first made by thc
monks of Glastonbury in A. D . 1184that Joseph o f Arimathca 1lad
brought the Holy Grail thcrc in A . D . 63 (Kcndrick 1950: IS).
It was bclicvcd t o be natural for standards of human conduct
:rccting Stc from n fou
dcgcncratc. TIlc Bible affirnied t l i ~ Adam t and his dcsccnda
had bee Iand hcrc d that irc ng had bc
 A history of archaeological thougl~t Classical archaeology and antiquarianism

practiscd in thc Ncar East only a few gcncratio~lslater. The Middle Ages. Whcn statues of pagan deities wcre discovered, they
earliest humans sharcd in God's rcvclatio~lof himself to Adam. wcrc often dcstroycd or mutilated as objccts of devil worship or
Knowlcdgc of God and his wishcs was subsequc~ltlymai~ltaincd indcccncy (SklcnG 1983: I S ) . Almost universally, biblical tirncs
and claboratcd through succcssivc divine rcvclations made to were viewed as culturally, socially, and intcllcctually identical to
Hebrew patriarchs and prophets. These, togcthcr with the rcvela- thosc of ~ncdicvalEuropc.
tions contai~ledin the New Testament, became the propcrty ofthc
Christian Church, which henceforth was I - C S ~ O I I S ~ ~ I for
C ~~phold- l>uring the Middle Age5 an interest in the matcr~.ilremains of the
i11g standards of hunlan conduct. 0 1 1 the other hand, groups who past was even more restricted than 'it had bccn in classical tirncs;
11;1ci mo\rcd aw,ly horn thc Nc.lr East and fi.~ilccito have tllcir i~litli b c ~ n g1,lrgcIy 111n1tcdto the coll~ctionand prcscrvdtlon of holy relics.
rc~lcwcdby divine revelation or Christian teaching, tended to This did not encourage thc dc\~clopme~it of a systematic study of thc
degenerate into polytheism, idolatry, and immorality. The theory m.1tc1-1'11remains of the p.~st.Yet the view of the past t h ~WAS
t held at
of dcgcncration was also used to account for the primitive tech- this time formed the conceptual basis on which the study of archac-
nologics of hunter-gatherers and tribal agriculturalists when thcy ology was to dcvclop in Europe as social conditions changed.
wcrc cncountcrcd by Europeans. Whcn applied to the spheres of
tcch~iologyand matcrial culture, the concept of dcgencratio~l
Development of l.listorica1 a~chaeology
found itsclf in co~npctitionwith the altcrnativc view, promotcd by
Roman historians such as Cornelius Tacitus, that material pros- By the fourtccnth ccntury A.D., the rapid social and economic
perity cncouragcd ~noraldepravity. Medieval scholars wcre pri- changes that marlced the end of feudalism in northern Italy led
~iiarilyconcer~lcdwith explaining moral and spiritual rather than scholars to try to justify polirical innovations by demonstrating that
technological progrcss and decay. thcrc were precedents for them in earlicr times. Rcnaissancc intcl-
5 The history of the world was interpreted as a succcssion of unique Icctuals turncd to tlic surviving litcraturc of the classical era to
cvcnts. Christianity cncouragcd a historical vicw of human affairs provide a glorious past for the cmcrging Italian city states and to
in t l ~ cscnsc that world history was seen as a series of happenings justifjr the increasing secularization of Italian culture (Slotkin 1965:
that had cos~llicsignificance. Thcsc events were interpreted as the x). T h c ~ views
r generally reflected thc intcrcsts of thc rising nobility
rcsults of God's prcdctcr~ni~lcd intcrvcntions, the final one of and bourgeoisie upon whosc patronagc thcy depended. Whilc thc
which would ternlinatc the struggle between good and evil. Thcrc use of h~storicalprcccdcnts to justify innovation had its roots in
was tlicrcforc no sense that change or progress was intrinsic to medic\ial thinking thc cxpanding scarch for thcsc prcccdcnts slowly
human history or that human beings, unaidcd by God, were led to a realization that colitcmporary social and cultural life did not
capable of achieving anything of historical significance (Kcndrick rescmble that of classical antiquity. As a result of growing familiarity
1950: 3; Toulmin and Goodficld 1966: 56). Between God's inter- with the historical and litcrary texts of ancicnt Grcece and Romc,
ventions, human affairs conti~lucdin a static or cyclical fashion. which had rcmaincd unknown or unstudicd in Wcstern Europc
6 Finally, medieval scholars wcrc even less conscious of historical since the fall of thc Roman Empirc, scholars canic to rcalizc that the
changes in material culturc than ancient Grccli and Roman ones past was scparatc from thc present and different from it, that each
had been. A few popes and emperors, such as Cl~arlemagncand period in the past had to bc understood on its own tcrms, and that
Frederick Barbarossa, collected ancient gems and coins, reused the past should not be judged by thc standards of the present (Rowc
clcmcnts of Roman architecture, and imitated Roman sculpture 1965).The cultural achic~ementsof ancient Greece and Romc were
(Wciss 1969: 3-15). Yet, in general, there was no cxplicit awareness ~nterpretcdas evidencc of cultural degeneration since that time,
that in classical and biblical tirncs human'bcings wore clothes or wh~chin turn rcinforccd the traditional Christian vicw of human
lived in houses tIi,lt \vcrc signific;untly difkrcnt fsom thosc of the history. The ,lim o f Rcna~ss~uicc scIiol,~rswas to undcrst,und and try
 A history of ~ r c l i a e o l o ~ ~L cI IaO~L I E ~ ~ ~

3 c~nulatc I C could thc gloric us acliic )f antiqui

~t
~
first tlicrc was ~ ~ t t belief
lc
.
.
that ill tilclr present acgclicratc st,
uman bcings could cvcr hope to cxccl those acliicvcnic~its.Only i~
.s possession o f a religion based o n divinc revelation could th
lodern age be vicn~cd;is ~ ~ t ~ ; i n ~ b i g u osi~~~s Jpyc r i to
o r n~icic~lttinics
Tlic appreciation of classicnl anticluity was not restricted t o lite 1-.I-
. ~ r cbut rapicily cstcndcd into the fields of 31-t 2nd architcct~~ re.
'licsc \\,ere of pal-ticular concern to the Italian nobility 2nd \vcalt l!'
~c~.cliants, \vho \ircl.c ri\~,llli~ig
c,l~-Iiothcr .is patrons of the a1
;otliic styles wcrc rejected ,ind an effort \V;IS 1ii;1c1cto c111~1;ltcthe
11' arcliitccturc o f ancient Rome. This dcvclopn~cntsrndually nia
clear that not only the \v 3rd but also ~natcrialobjcl
~r\,i\.ingfrom the past caul' ort;l~itsources of inforniati~
lout c1;issical ci\~ilizatiori.
Both currclits of intcrcst arc csprcsscd in the \vorIc o f Cyriacus
ncona (Ciriaco dc' l'izzicolli, A . D . 1391-1+52), I V ~ O S C ~ e s e a r
ltitlcs him t o be considered the first archaeologist. H c nl;is
alian rncrch;uit \\rho travcllcd cstcnsivcly in Gscccc and thc caste
Icditcrrancan over ;i period of 25 \~c;I~s, o f t c ~spccific;i11y
i in order
)Ilcct ciat;~; ~ b o.11icicnt
~ ~ t monuments. In t l ~ c~ O L I I - S Cof his travels
)pied hundrcds of iiiscriptions, mitdc dru\vings of m o ~ i ~ r m c ~ nl its,
)Ilcctcd books, coins, ancl w o r b ofart. tlis chief intcrcst, howc\,c
as public inscriptions. While his six volumes of commcntnrics c
lcsc inscriptions \\7crcdestroyed in a fire in irl+, some of his oth
orks survi\~c(Casson 1939: 93-9; Wciss 1969: 137-42).
By the late fifteenth century, popes, such as Paul I1 anc
I, cardinals, and other mc~iibcrsof the Italian nobility \yere co~lcc
g; and displaying ancicnt worlts of art. They also began to spolis
c systematic search for and rccovc~-yo f such objects (Taylor 194
-10). As early as 14-62Pope Pius 11 passed a law t o preserve alicie
lildings in the papal states and in 14-71Sistus IV forbade the cspc
'stone blocks o r statues from his domains (Wciss 1969: 99-IOC
par a long time thcrc \\{as lio excavation in the niodcr~isense b
mcrcly digging in seurcli o f objects that had acstlictic and conimc
cia1 value. The cscat.ations that bcgan at the \ilcll-prcscrvcd ROIII;
sites o f Hcrcula~ieurnand Pompcii in the first half of the ciglitccn
century were treasure hunts of this sort, although a desire to rccov
statucs and othcr \vorlts of art gradually came t o bc accornpa~iicdI
I ilitcrcst in Koniii~idonicstic 21-cliitcct~~rc. Tlicrc was. howcvc
 A history of archaeological thought Classical archaeology and antiquarianism

little concern for undcrstandi~lgthc context in which finds wcre systematically investigated using only literary sources. While it was
madc. The owners of the land undcr which Pompeii was buricd not an independent discipline, art history, as a properly constituted
rented the right to cntrcprcncurs to dig thcre by the cubic yard branch of classical studics, did more than illustrate what was already
(Lcppmann 1968). understood from written records.
An interest in classical antiquity gradually sprcad throughout the Classical studics provided a model for the development of Egypt-
I-csto f ELII-ope. In d11e c o ~ ~ r mcmbcl-s
sc ot'tlic nohility became :l\?id ology .und Assyl-iology. I n the I,nte cightccntli century almost
collectors ol'C;l-ecknnci Komun art, which tlicil- :~gciitsp~ll-cIi,~scd fol- nothing was known c~lbouttlic ancient civilizations of Egypt and tlic
them in thc Mcciitcrl-anc,un region. Early in the sc\,cntccnth century Near Edst cxccpt what had bcc~irecorded about them in the Biblc
(;liarlcs I , the 1)~llicof I<~lckingh.un,nnci the ELI-lof-Arundcl wcrc and by the ancicnt Greeks and Ron~ans.Their scripts could not be
friendly rivals in importing such works illto E~igland.In 1734 a read and tlicir writings and works of art wcrc unstudied and largely
group of English gcntlcmcn who had travcllcd in Italy formed a remained buried in thc ground. The systematic invcstigation of
Society of Dilettanti in Lolldoll to encourage a tastc for classical art. ancient Egypt began with observations by the French scholars who
Ovcr the next 80 years this society sponsored archacological research accompanied Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Egypt in 1798-9 and
in the Acgcan rcgion (Casson 1939: 202-5). Classical inscriptions, produced the multi-volume Description de L'Ejypte beginning in 1809.
monuments, and works of art found it1 England, Francc, West Another result of this military campaign was the accidental dis-
Gcrmany, and othcr lands that had been part of the Roman Empire covery of the Rosetta Stone, a bilingual inscription that played a
were bciilg studied systcrnatically by local antiquarians, such as major role in Jean-Fransois Champollion's (1790-1832) decipher-
Williani Cnmdcn (1551-1623) in England, as early as the sistccnth ment of the ancicnt Egyptian scripts, which began to produce
century. Yet thc great monctnl-p vzluc placed o n high-clunlity works substantial rcsults by 1822. Egyptologists, such as Champol',ion and
of art tc~idcdto restrict the invcstigation of such ~liatcrial~ n of d thc Karl Lcpsius (1810-84), visited Egypt recording temples, tombs, and
classical archacolog!~of thc Mcditcrranenn region to the nobility or the m o n u m c ~ ~ t ainscriptions
l associated with them. Using these
those scholars wlio c~ijoycdtheir patronage (Casson 1939: 141). inscriptions, it was possible to produce a chronology and skeletal
Thc cstablishmcnt of art history as a distinct branch of classical history of ancient Egypt, in terms of which Egyptologists could
studics was thc work of the Geriiian scholar Johann Wi~lckclma~l~i study the development of Egyptian art and arcl~itecture.At the same
(1717-68). His Geschichte deu Icunst des Altevtuvns (Histoy ofAncient time adventurers, including the circus performer and strong man
Ayt) (1764) and other writings providcd thc first pcriodization of Giovanni Belzoni and the agents of the French Consul-General
Grcck and R o ~ i i a ~ sculptural
l styles, as well as meticulous descrip- Bernardino Drovctti, were locked in fierce competition to acquire
tions of individual ~vorltsand discussio~lsof factors influc~lcingthe major collections of Egyptian art works for public display in Frante
dcvclopmcnt of classical art, such as climate, social conditions, and and Britain (Fagan 1975). Their plundering of ancient Egyptian
craftsmanship. H c also attcmptcd t o dcfinc ideal, and in his opinio~l tombs and temples was halted only after tlic French Egyptologist
ctcrnally valid, standards of artistic beauty. Winckelmann's work Auguste Mariette (1821-81), wlio was appointed Conservator of
shaped thc future dcvclopmc~~t of classical studics, which until Egyptian Mo~iumentsin 1858, took steps t o stop all unauthorized
modem times have continucd~tobe based on the dual invcstigation work. Even his own cxcavations were designed t o acquire material
of writtcn documents and art history. Writtcn rccords wcrc viewed for a ~iationalcollectio~irather than t o record the circumstances in
as psoviding an indispensable accoulit of the history atid develop- which it was found.
~ n c ~ofi t thought of ancicrtt Grcccc and liomc. Art history, whilc Although rcports of cuneiform inscriptions reached Europe as
dcpc~idingupon written records to provide the chronological and early as 1602, the first successfid attempt t o translate such writing
contextual data required t o study changes in art styles, cxtc~ldcdthc was madc by Gcorg Grotefcnd (1775-1853) in 1802. I t was not until
study of the past into .I spIic~-eof 1i13tc1-i.11C L I ~ ~ Lthat
I ~ C co~lld11ot he 1849 that Henry Rawl~nson(1810-95) s~~ccccded in publishing a
 A history of archaeological thought

thorough study o f the Old Persian version of the long trili~lgualtext

that the Achae~~lenid king Darius I (reigned 522-486 B.c.) had
carved o n a cliff at Bisitun in Iran. By 1857 he and other scholars had
dcciphercd the \rersion of the text that was conlposed in the older
Babylonian language, tlicrcby providing the means t o unravel the
1iisto1-yof vicicnt Rub!rlonia ;uid Assyl-ill. S ~ 0 1 - a d digging
ic in seal-cli
of CI-CASLII-e i l l Iraq galre w;ly i l l the 18+os to l'aul-E~nilc Rotta's
(~Soz-70) cscn\r,~tionsin the ruins of Ninc\~ch2nd I<lior-snbad ;lnd 1
Austcn Layard's (1817-94) at Nimrud ;111ci 1\;~1!~~11ijik. Tliesc exc;~-
vations of elaborate neo-Assyrian palaces yielded vast amounts of 'u
ancient sculpture 2nd textual niatci-ial. Tlic latter ~ r o i ~ s eg~-c;lt d
intcrcht hccai~scsome ol'thcni pnrnllclcd early htol-ics in the liihlc.
E \ ~ c n t ~ ~ a as
l l yfor
, Egypt, an outline chronology was established for
Mesopotamian civilization that allowed scholars t o study changcs in
thc st!~lcs of art and monumental arc11itcct~11-c from tlie earliest stages
of writing onward.
The dc\~elopmentof Egyptology and Assyriology in the course of
the nineteenth century added 3,000 years of history t o two areas of
thc wc>rld that \\rcrc of pnrticul,lr i~itcrcstin terms ol'hiblicul s t ~ ~ d i c s ,
but for \vIiich no direct d o c - ~ ~ m c n t a t ihadm hccn ,~\,ailnhlc.130th
disciplines mociclled tllcmselvcs o ~ classical i studies. They relied on
written records to supply chronology, historical data, ;lnd infor-
mation 3 b o ~ 1 the t belief~ m d \,alucs of tlic pLlst, but also were
consel-nccl with the dc\,clopmcnt of ,lrt a n d m o n ~ ~ m c n t nrchitcc-
al
t~11-c;IS r ~ ~ c a lby ~ carcIi;~col~gy.
i 130th Eg!ytology ,lnd Assyriology
depended c w n more heavily or1 archaeology than classical studies
did, since the vast majority of tests they studied had to be d u g o u t of
the ground. Thus, \vhile the in\.cstigation of art history continued to
depend 011 written records for the chro~~ological ordering o f its data,
the extension of this method t o earlier periods made a g r o w i ~ ~ g
number of archaeologists more aware of thc extent t o which archac-
ologically recovered objects constituted important sources of infor-
mation a b o ~ l It I U I ~ I ~ I;~chievcnic~it.
~ TOthis dcgrcc the dcvclopmcnt
of classicai archacolog!~, which began in the Renaissance, helped to
point tlie way towards a niorc purely archaeological stucly of pre-
histol-ic times. Nc\,crthelcss, classical arcliaeologists, such as D. G.
Hogarth (1899: vi), continued t o regard prehistoric archaeology as
g r c ~ t l yinferior t o the urc1i;lcological study of pcriocls that can be
illuminntcd by \\.I-ittc~itests.
 A history of archaeological thought Classical archaeology and alltiquaria~iisrn
In China, as we have already noted, the writing of history had
emerged as a significant literary genre with the work of Si-ma Qien
early in the Han Dynasty. In the Song Dynasty ( A . D . 960-1279) a
new interest in antiquity was stimulated by thc unearthing of bronze
vessels of the Shang Dynasty, following a displacement in the course
of the Ycllo\v River. These vcsscls for11icd the nucleus of an imperial
collection of antiquities still preserved in Bcijing (Elissceff 1986:
37-9). Song scholars began t o publish dctailed descriptions and
studies of ancient bronze and jadc objects, especially o ~ i e sbcaring
inscriptions. The carlicst surviving work of this sort, Kaojzttu by LLI
Dalin, describes in words and line drawings 210 bronze and 13 jadc
artifacts dating from the Shang to the Han Dynasties which were
kept in the Imperial collcction and in 3 0 privatc ones. The inscrip-
tions on these objects were studied as sources of information about
ancicnt epigraphy and historical matters and the artifacts themselves
wcrc minutcly categorized in an cffort t o acquire information about
early forms of rituals and other aspects of culture that was not
supplied by ancient texts. Inscriptions, decorative motifs, and the
gcnual shapes of objects WCI-c also used .IS criteria for dating them
and assuring thcir authenticity and in due course scholars wcrc able
to assign dates to vcsscls on thc basis of formal criteria only.
Although traditional unticluarianisn suffcrcd a severe clcclinc after
the Song Dynasty, systematic studics of this sort revived in thc latc
Qing Dynasty ( A . D . 1644-1911) and arc viewcd as providing an
indigenous basis for the dcvelopmcnt of archaeology in modern
China. This i~lcludedearly studics of inscriptions on Shang oracle
~ O I I C S that wcrc unearthed at Anyang beginning in 1898 (Chang
1981). Until the rgzos, howcver, Chinese scholars madc n o cffort to
recovcr data by carrying out excavations, and arltiquarianism
remained a branch of traditional historiography rather than devcl-
6 Shang cast bronze ritual vessel, illustrated with rubbing of inscriptions and
oping into a discipline in its own right, as classical studies, Egppt- t h c ~ tr~~iscrlptlon
r into convent~onalcharacters, from twelfth-century A.D.
ologp, and Asspriology had done in thc Wcst. catalogue Bogutu
In Japan, during the prosperous Tokugawa period ( A . D . 1603-
1868) gentleman-scholars of the samurai (warrior) and merchant
classes collected and described ancient artifacts and recorded burial
mounds and other ancient monuments as data relating t o local and
national history. By the end of the Tokugawa period these scholars
wcre engaged in careful surveys of sites and artifacts even in areas
that wcre remote from the urban centres of learning where such
 A history of arcliaeological tl~ouglit Classical archaeology and antiquarianism

studies had begun (Ikawa-Smith 1982).Michael Hoffman (1974) has know more about civilizations that had fcaturcd promi~lcntlyin the
suggested that these activities were a response to European influence Old Tcstamcnt. A scnsc of tlic discontinuity and diversity of origins
but this is by no means certain. It is possible that in Japan, as in of European civilization cncouragcd rcscarch that rclicd cver morc
China and Italy, an interest in material remains of the past dcvclopcd heavily on archacology as a sourcc of tcxtual data as well as artifacts.
as an extension of historical studics beyond the use of written texts. This situation, wli~cli contrasted with the greater continuity in
0 1 1 the other hand, systematic anticluarianism did not develop in Ch~ncscand Japalicsc history, may have hclpcd t o stimulate thc
India prior to the colonial period. Despite imprcssivc intellectual dcvclopmcnt of archaeology as a major source of inforniation about
achicvcmcnts in other fields, Indian ci\rilizntion did not evolve a the litcr,itc c~vilizationsof dncicnt times.
strong tradition of historical studies (C1l;llirabarti 1982), perhaps
because the Hindu religion directed efforts to understand the
Antiquarianism in Noytbem Europe
meaning of life and of historical events Inore towards cos~nology
(Pandc 1985). Antiquarianism also failed to develop in the Ncar East, Yet what did the development of text-aided archaeology signify for
where Isla~nicpcoplcs lived in the midst of impressive monuments most of Central and Northern Europe, where historical rccords
of antiquity. Yet in that region there was a strong interest in history usually d ~ not
d antcdatc the Roman pcriod and in somc areas bcgan
and efforts had been made to explain history in naturalistic terms, only after A . D . ~ o o oAs
? long as people believed that the world had
especially by Abu Zayd Abd ar-Rahman ibn Ichaldun (A.D. 1332- been created about 4000 B .C . and that the Bible provided a reliable
14-06), that modern historians judge to have bcc~lin advance of chronicle of events in tlic Ncar East for thc whole of human history,
l~istoricalresearch a n ~ ~ w l ~ else
e r c in the world (Masry 1981). The relatively little appeared to lic beyond the purview of written records
failure of antiquariailisnl to develop in the Arab world may be or folk traditions. In the course of the Middle Ages chroniclers, who
attributed to its rejection of pagan pre-Islamic civilizations and their were often priests, had co~lstructcda colourful picturc of the remote
works as an Age of Ignorance, t o a tendency to view many features of past for each of the peoples of Europe. These accounts wcre based
Islamic history as cyclical, and t o a religiously based disdain for 011 legends and sheer invention as wcll as documents. In an uncritical
works of art that i~lvolvcdthe portrayal of human forms. India and clinlatc of scholarship cvc~lwritten records wcre often succcssfully
the Arab world indicate the highly particularistic factors that must forged (SlilciiliF 1983: 14). English scholars proudly claimed that
be taken into account in explaining the origins of archaeological Arthur and before him Icing Brutus had conquered much of the
researcli in any specific culture. world (Iccndrick 1950: 36-7). Individual chroniclcs wcne frequently
Nevertheless the parallels between Europe, China, and Japan composed to support o r oppose particular ruling groups. For
suggest that, where traditions of historiography are wcll established, example, Gcoffrey of Monmouth, who wrote in the twelfth century,
the chances are - good that studies of written documents will come to stressed England's earlier British, rather than its Anglo-Saxon past
be supplemented by systematic research 011 palacography and art in order t o please his Norman mastcrs (ibid. 4). Prehistoric
history. The much more extensive and systematic dcvelopme~ltof rnoliuments werc sometimes mentioned in these chronicles. Geof-
such studics in Europe, although they began there later than in frey of Monmouth associated Stonehcnge with Arthurian legend,
China, can at least partly be ittributcd to the particular importance whilc in Germany megalithic graves and tumuli werc often ascribed
that medieval Christian thought attached to schemes of human to the Huns, who had invaded Europe in thc fifth century A.D.
history as a basis for understanding the human condition. The (Sklenii 1983: 16).
rediscovery of classical antiquity was seen as providing i ~ l f o r ~ n a t i o ~ l The stirrings of patriotism in Northern Europe, which led t o the
about the glorious past of Italy, which received little attention in Reformation, stimulated a new and more sccular interest in the
traditional biblical accounts, whilc the study of Egypt and Mcsopo- history of these countries that was alrcady cvidcnt by tlic sixteenth
t:umia in the ninctccntli century was largely moti\.:~tcd by a desire to century. This p.1triotism w ~ espcci,llly
s strong among thc urban
 A history of archaeological thought Classical arcliaeology and antiquarianism

middle class, whose growing prosperity, whether based on royal legends and traditions relating t o these sites. In addition, some anti-
service o r profcssio~lal training, was linked to the decline of quarians made collections of local (as well as exotic) curiosities. John
feudalism and the dcvclopmcnt of national states. I11 Engla~ldthe Twy~ie,who died in 1581, collcctcd Romano-British coins, pottcry,
Tudor dynasty was glorified by renewed historical studies of Arthu- and glass, as wcll as studying carthworks and megaliths (Kendrick
rian legends that reflected the family's British, as opposed t o nar- 1950: 105). A more varied and cxtcnsivc, but less archaeological,
rowly English, origins. Thcrc was also a marked increase of intcrcst collection of curiosities by the royal gardener John Tradcscant was
in the history of England before the Norman Conquest as scholars to become the nucleus of thc Asl~molcanMuseum, cstablishcd at
combed early records in an attempt to prove that Protestantism, Oxford in 1675 Hitherto collections containing antiquities had
rather than engaging in inno\iation, was restoring clcrncnts of true consisted either of church relics o r the family heirlooms of the
Christianity that had been destroyed or distorted by Rolnan nobilitv.
Catl~olicism(I<enclricI~1950: I I S ) . At first no clear distinction was drawn bctwcc~lcuriosities that
Yet T. D. I<cndrick (1950) has intcrprctccl the growth of historical were of natural and those that werc of llunlan origin. Scholars, as
scl~olarshipin England during the sixteenth century as a slow well as uneducated people, believed stone celts to be thundcrstones
triumph of Renaissance over medieval thought. Historians, such (a view endorsed by the Roman naturalist Pliny [Slotkin 1965: x])
as Polydore Vergil, rejected the uncritical approach of medieval and stone projcctilc points t o be clf-bolts, while in Poland and
chroniclers and sought to base their work on reliable documentary Central Europe it was thought that pottcry vcsscls grew spon-
sources. This involved denying the historicity of many national taneously in the earth (Abramowicz 1981; SklcnPi- 1983: 16). In a
Icgcnds that could not sustain careful comparison with the historical world unaware of biological
- evolution, it was not self-evident that
rccords of other countries (ibid. 38). a prehistoric cclt was man-made while a fossil ammonoid was a
In England already by the fifteenth century John Kous (1411-91) natural fornlation. Most of these curios were found accidentally by
and William of Worcester (1415-82) werc aware that the past had v farmers and manual labourers and therc was as yet n o tradition of
been materially different from the present. Willianl was working on excavating for prehistoric rcmains.
a description of Britain that involved measuring and describing old John Lcla~ld(1503-52) was appointed Icing's Antiquary in 1533. H c
buildings (Kendrick 1950: 18-33). This concern with the niatcrial played an important role in rescuing books following the dispersal
rcmains of the past was strengthene~iby the destruction of the of monastic libraries. H e also toured England and Wales recording
monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII. The dismantling of these place-nanics and genealogies as wcll as objects of a~~tiquarian intcr-
familiar landmarks and the dispersal of their libraries spurred schol- est, including the visible remains of prchistoric sitcs. Although hc
ars to record what was being destroyed as well as monuments of the was only vaguely aware cvcn of major changes in architectural styles
more remote past. In this way the study of physical remains began to in nicdicval times, his great innovation was his desire t o travel t o see
supplcment that of written rccords and oral traditions, giving rise to things rathcr than simply to rcad about them (Kendrick 1950:
a new tradition of antiquarian, as distinguished from purely his- 45-64). William Camden, the author of the first comprehensivc
torical, scholarship. These leisured, although not rich, antiquarians topographical survey of England, concentrated mainly o n Roman
1
were drawn from the professional and administrative middle class, and early medieval remains. His Britannia, first publishcd in 1586,
which was expanding and prospering undcr the more centralized was to g o through many posthumous editions. Camden was also a
rulc of the Tudors (Casson 1939: 143). For thcse patriotic English- founding member, in 1572, of the Society of Antiquaries, a London-
nien local antiquities were an acceptable substitute for thosc of Italy based association for the preservation and study of national antiqui-
and Grccce. They visited n ~ o n u m e ~ l dating
ts from the medieval, ties. This society was supprcsscd by James I in 1604, presumably
Roman, and prehistoric periods and described thcm as part of because the Scottish-born monarch feared that it was encouraging
county topographies and histories. They also rccordccl the local English nat~onalismand Ilcncc opposition t o his rulc (Taylor 1948:
 A history of archaeological thought Class~calarchaeology and antiquarian~sm

Rcnaissancc historians soon became as fascinated with thcir

rcspcctivc national hcritagcs as wcrc thosc in England. They wcrc
cncouragcd by Icings Christian IV of Dcnnlark (rcigncd 1588-1648)
and Gustavus I1 Adolphus of Swcdcn (reigncd 1611-32) to draw from
historical rccords and folklore a picturc of primordial grcatncss and
v,lloul- th.it w,ls flattering to thcir rcspcctivc nations. This intcrcst
qu~c-lilyc\tcndcd to the s t ~ ~ col'ancicnt
iy inonumcnts. Rojlal patron-
age enabled Icad~ng~ n t ~ q u a r i ct os record thcsc monuments in a
thorough and systematic fashion. Johan Burc (1568-165z), a Swcdish
civil scrvant, and Olc Worm (1588-1654), a Danish medical doctor,
documentcd large numbers of rune stones. Thc inscriptions on thcse
stoncs, which dated from the latc Iron Age, pcr~nittcda classical
archaeological approach to latc prchistoric and carly historical
times. Thesc antiquaries also collcctcd information about much
oldcr megalithic tombs and rock drawings. Burc and Worm lcarncd
from each other dcspitc the tensc political relations bctwccn their
countries and thcir own commitment t o promoting patriotic scnti-
mcnts (Iclindt-Jcnscn 1975: 14-21). Some of tllcir work was carried
out by mcans of q~~cstionn.lircs that wcrc distributed nationwide.
- Aubl.c\.'s pl.ln o f i \ \ ~ c h u ~ - ti-om
y, his A ~ f o r r ~ l l i ~ ~Ri.ltta1iriri7,
~ilrtr r-. 10-5
Museums wcre also cstablisl~cdin which hunlanly fabricated objccts
and natural curiosities wcre asscmblcd. In Denmark ollc of thc first
10; Joan Evans 1936: 14).John Aubrey (1626-97), the niost f a n ~ o of~s of thcsc was Worm's own muscum which became thc basis for the
thc scvcntccnth-ccnturp English anticluarians, worlicd mainly in I<unstkammcr, o r Royal Collection, that was opcncd t o the public in
Wiltshire. H c prepared descriptions of Stonchcngc and Avcbur):, thc 1680s. In Swcdcn an Antiquarics Collcgc was cstablishcd at
arguing that these great prehistoric monuments wcrc probubly Uppsala in 1666 in ordcr t o pursuc antiquarian rcscarch and national
druidical temples (Hunter 1975).The research of these carly a n t i q ~ ~ ; ~ - laws wcrc passed to protcct ancicnt monuments. Tl~cscrcquircd thc
rians was continued by a succession of historians ancl topographers, surrcndcr of valuablc finds t o the king in rcturn for a rcward. Olof
most of whom worked at the county level. They dicl little deliberate Rudbcck (1630-1702) trcnchcd and drew vertical sections of Viking-
digging and had no scnsc of chronology apart fro111ivhat was known agc tumuli at Old Uppsala, and in this way he dctcrmincd the
from written records. Lilic classical archaeologists, they sought to rclative age of thc burials within individual mounds. H c also
explain ancicnt monuments by associating them wit11 peoples mew bclicved that the thickness of sod accumulated abovc a grave could
tioncd in historical accounts. This ~ i ~ c a that
n t what we now rccog- be uscd to indicatc to thc nearest ccntury how much time had
nizc as prchistoric rcnlai~rjwcrc generally ascribcd quite arbitrarily elapsed sincc a burial had bcen placed in it (Klindt-Jcnscn 1975:
either to the Britons, whom the R o ~ l ~ n nencountered
s when they 29-31). Unfort~~natcly, antiquarian rcscarch tcndcd t o languish in
first invadcd England, or to the Saxons and Danes, who had invaded Sweden and Denmark as the political ambitions o f thcsc states and
Britain aftcr the fall of the Roman Empire. thcir cconomics faltcrcd toward thc end of thc scvcntccnth ccntury.
Systematic anticluarian research de\~elopcd somewhat later in A similar, although lcss intcnsc, intcrcst in the physical rcmains o f
Scandinavia than in England, as part of the political and nlilitary the past dcvelopcd throughout Wcstcrn and Central Europe. In
rivalr~lthat folloivcd the separation of Sweden ancl Dcnmarli in 1523. mcdicval France, Roman and prchistoric ruins alilcc were ascribed t o
 Classical archacology and antiquarianism

heroes, such as Charlcniagnc and Koland, and to local saints. With

the Rcnaissancc, Ro1na11a~ltiquiticswere so011 identified for what
they wcrc and Francis I (rcigncd IS](-47) and Hcnri IV (rcigncd
1589-1610) built u p substantial collcctions of local and importcci
classical murblc statues and brorlzcs. Mucll scholarship \\. . '15 cOIlccl1-
tl-~tcd011 Komiln inssl-iptions, while for a long tinlc prc-Romar~
antiquities wcrc littlc valued. Only in the cightccnth century dici 311
intcrcst develop in the earlier Celtic i~iliabitantsof France and their
origins. This led to the cscavation o f somc prehistoric monuments.
In the latter purt of the cightccntli century a gro\\~ingclcsirc t o
dcmonstratc the c~ilturalacliic\-cmcnts of tlic Cclts, who \\,ere I-ccog-
nized 3s tlic a ~ ~ c e s t o rosf tlic French, encouraged the s t ~ ~ do yf
prc-IZoman times t o clcvclop indcpc~ldentlyo f classical arcllucology.
This movement, which continued into tlic ninctccnth century, \\us
linked t o growing nationalism. Liltc early English s t ~ ~ d i oc fs prc-
Kornan remains, it encouraged nlorc f a ~ ~ c i fspeculation ul than sober
investigations and ~~ltinlatcl!lcontributed littlc t o the dc\~clopmcnt
of archaeology (Laming-Empcrairc 1964).
In Germany thc rcciisco\~c~-y in 1451o f the Koman historian
Col-nclius Tacitus' (c. A . D . 56-120) Gc~,~.lwn~rin, which contained a
c1ct;lilcd clcscription of the customs o f the ancient Gcrnmans, Icd
sc1iola1-s to use classical sourccs ratl1c1- th;ln 111cdic\1a1Icgcnds to
study their early history. l'his trend laid the hasis for the first general
I~istoric.11st~~c!y01. ;111sic11tC;cr~ll.~~iy, l'llilip I<li~\,cr's(;CT.J/~I~IIIIIL,
A?rtiqr,in~- (Ancient Germany), published in 1616(Sltlc11;iiI$!,;: 24-5).
As happcncci clsc\zlhcrc, this ~-csc;~rcli led t o il growing intcrcst in the
tnatcrial remains o f the past. The csca\ration of bi~rro\vsat M ~ I - ~ J ~ I I I ; I
in SL1xonyin 1587was one of tlic first in Europe tliut souglit to viswcr
a specific question (whctlicr the vcsscls found in such structures
\vcrc I I ~ ~ I I L I ~ ~ I Co ~r for~ncd
L I ~ C ~ natirally) rather than t o tinel treasure
o r enrich a collection (ibid. 38). A few efforts were also ~ i i a d ct o
class if)^ mcgalitl~sand funerary vcsscls according to shape and i ~ s c
(ibid. 3 3 ) .
Analogous dc\~clopmcntsoccurred in H u n g a r ~ land thc Slavic
countries. l'olitical figur-cs, c l ~ ~ ~ r c h r n:uid c ~ l ,scholars incorpor:ltcci
archaeological finds into their collcctions o f curiosities. In somc
princes' collcctions local discoveries considercd t o h a \ ~ cartistic merit
\irere ciisplaycd alongside S ~ : I ~ L I C ;111ci
S paintcci vcsscls imported from
It;ll!l ancl Grcccc. Some digging \+'ascarried o u t t o I-CCOVCI- urtif.~cts
 A his cal thoug rchaeolog;y and antiquarianiz

-11.. 1 -...
" ....,-, carly In the s~xteenthcentury by Pictro M a l ~ i u ~ AI1f;lllCrd
r
ncw finds for natio~lal collcctio~~s (Sklenil 1983: 32-3). Whilc when he compared the nativc peoples of the West Illdies with
arcliacological discoveries wcrc often fa~lcifullyassociatcd with his classical traditions of a primordial Goldcn Age (Hodgcn 1964: 371).
toricallp know~lpcoplcs, no systcln was devised for dating prc The Italian geologist Gcorgius Agricola (1490-1555) exprcsscd the
historic artif~ctsanywhere in Europe. Indeed, in the abscncc o opinion that stonc tools wcrc probably of human origin (Hcizcr
written inscript~ons,it was not eve11clwr \vliich finds datcd prior tc 1962.1: 62); while Michcl M c r c ~ t(1541-93),
i who was Supcrintcndcnt
c,irlicst written records in any particular arca and which did not. of the Vatican Botanical Gardcns and physician t o Pope CI-----+ ILIIICI'L

VII, suggcstcd in his Metallutl7eca that, bcforc thc usc of ironI, StOllC
tools might have bccn 'bcatcn out of the hardest flints, to bc uscd for
rze tools
the madness of war' ([1717] Hcizcr 1962a: 6s). H c citcd biblic--I LUI LLL'U

The sixteenth and scvcntccnth centuries marltcd the beginning o. classical attestations of the use of stonc tools and was famili:Lr with
worldwide Western Europca~i cxploration and colonization ethnographic spcci~ncnsfro111the New World tliat had bccn scnt as
Marincrs startcd encountering largc numbers of hunter-gathcrcr: prcserlts to the Vatican. Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522-1605) also A1 L ~ U L U "rn*l,.TJ

and tribal agriculturalists in thc Americas, Africa, and the Pacific that stone tools wcrc human fabrications in his MuseuwzMetallicum,
Dcscriptio~lsof these pcoplcs and thcir customs circulated in Europc published in 1648. In 1655 tlic Frenchman Isaac de la Pcyrtre, onc of
and collcctio~isof thcir tools and clothing were brought back a: thc first writers to challcngc thc biblical account of the crcat;nt- nf .
"
I "I

curiosities. At first the discoverj~of groups who did not know how humanity, idcntificd thu~idcrstoncswith his 'prc-Adamitc ' racc,
to work metal and whose cultures abou~ldcdwith practices that were which he claimcd had cxistcd prior to thc crcation of thLC first
contrary to Christian teaching sccmccl to confirm the traditional Hcbrcw, which was dcscribcd in tlic Book of Gcucsis.
nicdicval vicw tliat those who had wandered hrtlicst from the Neal 111 131-itain increasing knowledge of tlic nativc pcoplcs of thc New
East and lost contact with God's continuing rc\~clationhad dcgcncr. World rcsultcd in a growing conviction that stotie tools wcrc madc
ated both morally and tcchnologically Gradually, howc\rcr, ar ",
I?., I,,,,
. A u ~ l l ; u n bcings. In 1656 the antiquarian William Dugdalc
awareness of tllcsc people and thcir tools gnvc rise to an altcrtiativc (1605-86) attributed such tools to thc ancicnt Britons, asserting that
vicw, which drcw a parallel bctwccn modern 'primitive' pcoplcs anc thcy h ~ uscd d tlicm bcforc thcy learned how to work brass o r iron.
prchistoric Europeans. Yet it took a long timc for this compariso~ltc Robert Plot (1640-96), Dugdalc's son-in-law and thc ICccpcr of thc
bc gcncrally acccptcd ;and cvcn longer for all of its implicatio~lsto bc Ashmolean Museum, sharcd this opi~iionto the extent that in 1686
worked out. he wrote that the ancient Britons had uscd mostly stone rathcr than
The first step in this proccss was thc realization by scholars that iron tools and that one might learn how prchistoric stonc tools had
the stonc tools being found in Europc had bee11 n~anufacturcdb) been haftcd by conlparing them with North Amcrican Indian oncs
human beings and wcrc not of natural or supernatural origin. Unti that could be observed in thcir woodcn mounts. In 1699 his assistant
the late ~c\~cntcenth ccntilry crystals, animal fossils, stone tools, anc Edward Lliwyd drcw specific comparisons bctwccn clf-arrows and
othcr distinctively shaped stone objects werc all classified as fossils chipped flint arrowhcads made by the Indians of New England.
In 1669 Nicolaus Stcno (1638-86) conlparcd fossil and moderr Similar vicws wcrc cntcrtaincd by the Scottish antiquarian Sir
mollusc shells and concluded that thcy rcscmblcd each othcr morc Robert Sibbald as carly as 1684. Around I766 Bishop Charles Lyttcl-
closely than either did inorganic crystals. Hcncc hc argued that fossil ton spcculatcd that stonc tools must havc bccn made bcforc any
shclls wcrc the rcmai~lsof oncc living animals. Ethnographic analo. nictal oncs wcrc available and thcrcforc that thcy datcd fro111somc
gics played a similar role in establishing the human origin of stonc time prior to thc Ronian conqucst (Slotkin 1965: 223). A decade later
tools (Graysc111 1983: 5:). Thc po ssibility t hat pcopl c had on(:c lived ill the writ cr Samuc,I john so^ comparcci British stonc
Europe who did not kr~owtl:Ic LISC of nlctal tc101s was implicitl) arrowhc.ads with tools mat nhabitant-sof thc P'acific
 Classical archaeology and antiqu;xianism
A history of archaeological t
t

nctallurgy must have bccn lost by nations th;at migrat cd into a ceas
Lslauub auu ~ ~ ~ ~ c l that
u d cthe
d former had bccn manuracture where iron ore was not found ([17r7] Hcizer 1962a: 66). Similar
nation that did not l u ~ o wthe use of iron. By the eighteenth century lcgcncrationist vicws wcrc widcly hcld. Othcr antiquariaris main-
such observations had encouraged a growing realization in the aincd that stonc tools wcrc used at thc samc timc as mctal ones by
United Kingdo111 that antiquities c0~11dbe a SoLirce of information :ommunities or nations that wcrc too poor to own mctal. As late as
about thc past as well a:i curiosit ics wort1ly of bcirng rccorcicd in 857 it was argued in opposition to thc tlicory that stonc t<,ols
county topographies. ntcdatcd mctal oncs that stonc tools must bc iniitatio~isof m ctal
, J .
XX.-.-*
I, ~'110
In Francc in 1719Dorrl acrnaru uc m o ~ ~ ~ f a u c(1o655-1741)
1
n )riginnis (O'Lavcrty 1857; 'Trcvclyan' 1857). Without a d c qlatc ~
24. VC;II-s carlicr had puhlishcd 311 account of the cscavution of a
I~ronologicalcontrols and any archaeological data from many p;arts
megalithic stone to~nt)containing polished stone axes, ascribed such ~fthc world, it remained possiblc that iron working and lack of SI~ c h
tombs to a nation that had no knowledge of iron. In reaching this nowledge had cxistcd sidc bv sidc tliroughout most of hunlati
coiiclusioil hc was influenced by knowlcdgc of archaeological
iistory. Prior to thc ninctc cnth cen~ tury thcrc was n o factual (:vi-
research in England and Scandinavia (Laming-Emperairc 1964: 94).
encc to make an evolutiona~ ry vicw ol'human history more plausi blc
Five years later the French scholar Antoine de Jussieu (1686-1758)
han a degenerationist one. '1rk-
IIL ~ L I U I religious
I ~ sanctioiis cnjoinrn
drew sc,me detailed compariso~lsbctween Europcan stonc tools and
y tlic dcgcnerationist posit)ioii also rnade many antiqu,arians rcl
ethnographic spccimcns brought from New France and the Carib- Int to challenge it.
bean. IYc stated that 'the people of France, Germany, and other
norther^^ cou~ltricswho, but for the discovcry of iron, would have
much resemblance to thc savages of today, had no lcss necd than
they - bcforc using iron - to cut wood, to rcmove bark, to split he development of an evolutionary .,Lvv , y , , ~ w,, CULU
branches, to kill wild animals, to hunt for their food and t o < " gcd far less by a growing body of arcliacological cvidcncc than b
thcmsclvcs against their cncmics' ([1723] Hcizcr 19623: 69). I radual tr.~nshrmation in tlio~~glit that bcgan during the scvc
Kilian Stobcus, Professor of Natural History at the Univcr: cnth century in northwcstcrn Europc, thc region which
Lund, argued that flint inlplcmc~ltsantedated nictal ones in Scanui- rapidly emerging as thc economic hub of a new world economy
navia and compared them with ethnographic specimens from (Wallcrstcin 1974; Dclige 1985). This vicw was bascd on rapidly
Louisiana, an opinion echoed in 1763 by the Danish schola r Erik
1' .- increasing coi~fide~lce in the ability of human b'cings to excel and *-
Poiltoppidan (Klindt-Jcnsen 1975: 35-9). As late as 1655, as alstin-
:velop both economically and culturally. Early in the century t
guishcd an antiquarian as Ole Worm had continued to think it likely
nglish philosophcr and statesman Francis Bacon protested agair
that polishcd stonc axcs wcre of celcstial origin rather than fossilized
c idca that thc culture of classical antiquity was supcrior to that ,,
iron tools or stonc oncs, cvcn though he had ethnographic cxamplcs
odcrvi timcs. A similar thcmc was cchocd in France in the latc
of stone tools from thc New World in his collection (ibid. 23).
vcntcciith-century Quarrel betwccn the Ancients and the
Nevertheless, by the sevcntecntll century both the human fabri-
odcrns, in which the 'moderns' argucd that the human talcr+c
cation (3f stone t~ools. and t:heir co~lsiderablc antiquity in Europr were
wcre not declining and hencc present-day Europeans could hope
widely accepted produce works that equalled o r surpassed thosc of the ancic
Yet 21 growinp on that stone tools had prot n used
L A&L .. Greeks or Romans (Laming-Empcrairc 1964: 64-4). While Ralcig,.
prior to metal oncs 111 kurope and clscwhcre did not neccsslcarc LIK
d many other Elizabethan writers had continued to bclicvc, in the
adoptioli of an cvolutionar~lperspective (cf. Roddcn 1981: 63), sincc
:dicval fash~on,that thc world was hastening toward its cnd, by
stonc tools could bc seen ill usc alongside metal oncs in the con-
:second half of the scvcntccnth ccntury many Wcstcrn Europcar,~
+-*--l-nraty
Lb1.1
Y"' world. Noting that according to thc Bible iron workine:
:re confic .lt the ~ Llturc
I (Tc
was pr; actiscd fi-om early timcs, A/ Icrcati argucd tha.
 A history of archaeological thought Classical archaeology and antiquarianism

108-10). The reasons for this growing optimism included the scienti- Ferguson, and the ccccntric Jamcs Burnett, who as Lord Mollboddo
fic revolutions of the sixteenth and sevcntce~~th ccnturics, as remains notorious for his ciain1 that human bcings and orangutans
ma~lifcstcdabove all in the work of Galilco and Newton, the applica- belong to a single species (Bryson 1945; Schncidcr 1967).
tion of scientific discovcrics to the ad\~ancemcntof technology, and a The philosophers o f the Enlightcnmc~~t combined a more natural-
widespread appreciation of the literary creations of English writers istic understanding of soc~alproccsscs with a firm bclicf in progrcss
in the reign of Elizabeth I and of French ones under Louis XIV. to produce an intcgrated set of conccpts that purportcd to explain
Especially among the nliddlc classes, thcsc dcvclopmcnts cncour- soc1.11 ch,~ngc.They c~lsocrc.lrcd a methodology that they bclicvcd
aged a growing faith in progrcss and a belicf that to a large degree enabled them t o study the general course of human dcvelopmc~lt
human bcings wcre masters of their own destiny. They also inclined from earliest times. In England and the Ncthcrlands, whcrc political
Western Europeans t o regard the ways of life of the technologically powcr was already in the hands of the n~crcantilcmiddlc class,
less advanced peoples that they wcrc encountering in various parts intcllcctual activity was dircctcd towards asscssing the practical
of the world as survivals of a primordial human condition rathcr political and cco~lonlicsignificance of this changc. Tllc co~lti~luing
than as products of dcgcneratiorl. wcalincss of the French middlc class in the face of B o u r b o ~autoc-
~
Neither the Renaissance discovery that the past hacl been diffcrcnt racy Jppcars t o havc encouraged French intcllectuals to cngagc in
from thc prcscnt nor thc realization that technological dc\lclopmcnt broader speculatio~lsabout the nature of progrcss. The grcat inlpact
was occurring in Western Europe led directly to the co~lclusionthat that these ideas had on scholars in Edinburgh rcflcctcd not only the
progrcss was a general theme of human history. In the scvcntcc~lth close cultural tics bctwccn France and Scotland but also thc greater
ccntury succcssivc historical periods were viewed as a series of powcr and prosperity sudde~llyacquired by the Scottish middle class
kaleidoscope variatio~lson themes that wcrc grounded in a fixed following Union with England in 1707.
human nature, rather than as constituting a dcvclopmcntal sequence The following arc the nlost important tcncts of thc Enlighten-
worthy of study in its own right (Toulmin and Coodficld 1966: ment that were to become the basis ofpopular evolutionary thinking
11;-14). The Italian philosopher Giamh;lttist;l Vico (1668-1774) among the European middlc classes:
viewed history as having cyclical characteristics and argued that 311
human societies evolvc through similar stages of d c \ ~ c l o p i ~ ~and
cnt I Psychic unity. All human groups wcrc bclicvcd t o possess csscn-
dccay that reflect the uniform actions of providence. H e p r ~ d c n t l y tially thc same kind and level of illtclligc~lceand to share the same
stressed, ho\ve\lcr, that this view of human history as govcrncd by basic emotions, although individuals within groups diffcred from
strict laws did not apply to the Hebrews, whose progrcss was one anotl~crin thcsc fcaturcs. Becausc of this there was n o bio-
divinely guided. Although he was not an evolutionist, his views logical barrier to thc degree t o which any race o r nationality could
helped t o encourage a bclicf that history could be understood in benefit from new Iu~owlcdgc - o r contribute t o its advancen~ent.All
terms of regularities analogous to those being proposed for the groups werc equally perfcctable. In its most cthnoccntric form
natural scicnccs (ibid. 125-9). this constituted a bclicf that all human bcings wcrc capable o f
An cvolutio~laryview of human history that was sufficie~ltlycorn- benefitting from European civilization. Yet it also implicd that an
prehcnsivc to challcngc the medieval formulation not only on speci- advanced technological civilization was not dcstincd t o rcmain
fic points but also in its entirety was formulated by the Enlight- the exclusive possession of Europeans. Cultural differences werc
enment philosophy ofthc eighteenth century. This movement began generally either ascribed to climatic and other environmcntal
in France, whcrc it is associated with Icading philosophers, such as influences o r dismissed as historical accidents (Slotkin 1965: 423).
Montcsquic~i, Turgot, Voltairc, and Condorcct, but it also z Cultural progrcss as the dominant feature of human history.
flourislicd in Scotland in the school of so-called 'primitivist' thinlccrs, Change was bclic\7cd to occur continuously rathcr than episodic-
which included John I,oclcc, William Robertson, John Mill;~r,Aciam ally and was ascr~bcdt o natural rather than supernatural causes.
 'l'i tus b Carus (98-55 B . C .) in his poem DE ian P. F n his History of Norway, Denmark.
** ..,.,4 ti...
( 0 1 1 tllc L ~ , ~ L of L ~ Things).
~ ~ ' H c aisuccl L L I , L ~ tlic c;lrlicst i ~ n p I ~ ~ ~ ~ (1776)
~ ~ and ~ by ~ the
~ ant~quarianSkuli Thorlacius (1802), as well , ,,y
\\,cl.c linnds, nails, and teeth, as well as stones vicl pieces of \\rood. L. S. Vcdcl Simonscn in liis textbook of Danish history published in
OI~I!,I.1tc.r \\.crc tools made of bronze nnci then of iron. While liis 1 8 ~ Yet,
. despite 3 growing number o f supporters, the Thrcc-Age
\ < IIC.IIIL. \\!.IS s~ll>lxwtc~l h\' \,.~riol~s cl,~ssii.~l \\,ritings th.lt I-cfcrrcd t o .I thcol-!l rcmnincd ;IS spcculativc aiid i~nprovcdas it l i d bccn in the
\\.llc.11I > I - O I I Z ~tools .lnd \\,c,lpons 11.1~1n o t yet bccn rcpl.~e~cl I!, d.1~ 01' ~IA~~crcriils.
I%!, c o ~ ~ l p ~ ~ r i the
s o l ohscr\,atioli
i, tIi;lt sometime in
1 1 ~ 5i,t \\*.IS h.1sc.d 1.1rgc.lv o n c\.ol~ltioll.lryspccirlatio~ls,\\,hiell the rclilotc past at Icnst some 1luropc;lns l ~ c made i ;uicl ilscd stonc
.~tctl1l1.1t thc \\,orld .~nci1111 li\fing species had d c \ ~ l o p c dns .I tools \\,.IS f.lr morc \vidcly accc~>tcd.
. ) I i~-l.~.~luiihlc .und ctcrn,ll p.1rticlcs of m,lttcr, \vhich hc c,\llcd
combining in cvcl- morc complex ivays. Neither Lucrctius
1101 . i l l \ , otllcr Romnn schol,lr sought to pro\.c his theory ;lnd it

~ c donl!, one of many spcci~lnti\.cschcmcs kno~1.n to the The study of prehistoric antiquities \\,as also infl ucnccd h!
1s. A polx1l.11-nltcrnnti\lc postulatcci the moral dcgencrution of ~ c n u a dc\lclopmcnt
l of scientific mctliodology, \vIiicli i l l turr
lit!, t l ~ r o ~ ~succcssi\~c
gli ages of gold, sil\.cr, bronzc, and iron. intimately related to the growing ability o f Europeans t o m,inip
y i l l thc cightccnth ccntury E'rcncl~scholars wcrc familiar both their cn\,ironmcnt technologically. The philosopher R c ~ l>csc i ~ artcs
lc. iclc.ls of1 .ucrctiils and \\,it11 the growing c\,idcncc that stonc (1596-16~o),as part of his efforts t o account for all natural plicl 10lll-
irrc,lh 11.d once hccn used tlirougliout Europe. They were also cna in tcrnis of a single system of ~ilcchanicalprinciples, cspou ndcd
I;lmili.ll. \\.it11classical nnci bi!>lical tests \\.liich silggcstcd that bronzc tlic idc;~that the laws governing nature wcrc i~nivcrsaland ctcrnal.
r o o l 5 11.1~1hccn used prior to iron ones. In 17;+ Nicolas Maliudcl rend Goel \\71isviewcd as existing apart from the i~ni\,crsc,which lie had
.I I ' . I ~ ~ I .l o (Ilc Ac.~dcmicdcs Inscriptions in Paris, in \\,hich lie cited created ;IS ;I ~iiaclli~ic
that \vas capable o f functioning without fi~rthcr
i . ~ n dset O L I ~the idea of three S L I C C C S S ~ \ ~ages C- ofstonc, bronzc, intcr\~cntion(Toulniin and Goodfield 1966: 80-4). Dcscartcs' views,
) I I .IS .I pl.~l~siblc account o f humun dc\~clop~ncnt. Rcrnard dc together with Francis Bacon's emphasis o n inductive methodology
111co1i;111ci1ii.1ny other scholars I-cpcntcd this idea throughout and the csclusion of negative cases, produced a new spirit o f scicnti-
~ l l cciglltc.cnth century. In 173s Antoinc-Y\.cs Goguct (1716-j8) sup- fic inquiry that was rcflcctcd in the importance that the E
~ ~ ) r t c tlic c l 'Ilircc-Age theory in a book that was translated into Society of London, founded by Charles 11 in 1660, place(
Ill~glishthrcc vcars later \\fit11the title 7.116 O~.i_lJi~z qflntm, Arts, and obscr~~ation, classification, and cxpcrinicntation. T h e mcmbc
,SI.;I.IICIT, nud t / ~ c 1-'1~$qrcss i~ ~ I Y L O Pthc
~ Most A V I L Z E Nations.
IZ~ Hc the Royal Socict)l rejected the authority that mcdic\~alscholars had
I>clic\,cdtli.lt modern 'savages set bcforc us a striking picture o f the assigned t o the Icarncd worlts o f antiquity as the illtimate sources of
ig11or.lnccoftlic ancient tvorld, and the practices of primitive times' scientific linowlcdgc and dcvotcd thcmsclvcs to stuclying things
( 1 17011 Ilcizcr 1962;1: 14). Yet t o S ~ L I ; ~ I -this C cvolutionar~\.ic\\r \\,it11 ratlicr than \lrhat had bccn written about thicm. Yet c\'cli son1c of
I hc biblical assertion that iron \\,orking 1i;ld beeti il1\rcntcd before the these rcscarchcrs \vcrc pleased hen they th(>ught thc:y found thcir
flood, he cl,~imcd,like Mcrcati and some other contcrnporary c\.olu- most rcccnt discovcrics anticipated in the grcat scicntifie writin gs of
t ionists, that this process had t o be rcinventecl after 'that d r ancient times. Antiquarians were clcctcd fcllows o f the Royal
cal.lmity dcprit'cd the greatest part of mankind of this, as we1 Society and thcir work was encouraged and published by the society,
ot1ic1-;1rts1. GI!JII D1111icl (1976: 40) correctly \varncd against csi - - except when Isaac Newton was its president bctwccn 1703 and 1727.
,lting the influence t h ~the t Thrcc-Age theor!. cscrtcd o n antiquarian Although Nc\vton was a great physical scientist, his illtercs ts in
tlio~rglitcluring the cightecntli century. Yet, as a n interest in cultural human liistory were dccidcclly mystical and ~ncdievalin charac:tcr.
1~.ogrcssgrc\v morc pcr\..~si\rc, the Tlircc-Age theory gaincci in Mcmbcrs o f the Royal Society provided accumtc and dct,nilcd
r cstccm. dcscripti' ical finds. They icIcntificd
 A history of ~ r c h ~ c o l o g ltch~o~~l ~ g h t

fl-0111nrch~cologicalsites and sought

to dctcl-mine ho\v tools had bee11
m.ldc and ~ l s c d .They also tried t o
\\,ark o u t lie\\, 1.1rgc stones might
h.~\.chccn lno\,cd .111d monltmcnts
L~ollsrl~11'~lcc~ i l l \ l l l L ~ l c ~ l l 1i111cs.
l 'lllc~
liillcis of' ~-csc~.~rili tl1.1t [ h e I<o!.al
Socicrj. cnco~~r.lgccl Llrcc\-cmplificci
h!. the c,irl! \\.orI\ ot' \l'illi,~rn
S~LII~CIC!. (iOS--i-Oc). I,ilic (-;,urncicn
llciill-c Ililll ( I ~ J l l i ~ loo-: l <7),I1c
I-c.~li/.cdtli.lt rhc gcomctric.ll (1-01,
m.~rlis th,lt iirnicrs had notcci in
\ . , ~ r i o ~p.11-t
~ s of' l-;ngl%~~ncl since the
mcciic\z.~l pcrioci ( m d \ v h i i l ~ they
h,ld interpreted ;IS supcrn,lt~~rul
p11cnomcn.l) outlincci the buricci
fi)lind,ltions ot' \..lnishcd s t r ~ ~ c t i ~ ~ ~ e s
(l'iggott tc)Sj: .;.). t Ic g ~ - o ~ ~ p c c i
together as tlPpcs monuments 01'
simil,ll- form, sc~clias linc,~rc,l~-th-
\\,o~-lis01-ciiffci-c~ltIiinds of huri.11
~ l i o ~ ~ i i c111
i s , l ~ o l > ~01.. s i i i t c . ~ - p ~ ~ c ~ i ~ i g
them in the light of the mc.igrc his-
torii.ll c\.idcncc t h ~ \\,.IS t ,l\,,~il,~blc.
Stl1.11-tl'iggott j IC)S<: 0-1 h,is noted
th.1t Stt~liclc!. \\,.IS one of the til-st
liritish ,~~iticl~~~ll-i,lils t o r c c o g n i ~ cthe
possil>ilit\,o f .I length!. prc-1<ornc~~n
o c ~ u p ~ ~ t i duringon, \\.liich clibtinct-
i\.c t\,pcs of ~,rcliistoricmonuments
h,ld bee11 cc~nstt.l~ctcd . ~ tdiffci-cnt
times ,lnd diffci-cnt pcoplcs might
Ii,~\.cs~~cccssi\.cl!, occupied s o i ~ t h c r n
Engl.ind. E\.cn this, lio\\.c\.c~-,\\.CIS
--
sug,qcstcd b\. J11lill.c Cncs.lrls ~ O C L I -
mcnt,ltion of ,I Rclgic inixsion of
so~lthcastcl-nEngland shortly be-
fi)rc the Rom.ln conquest. At the
 A history of archaeological thought Classical archaeology and antiquarianism

same timc, Stukelcy and other antiquarians took the first steps Europe, Karcl Sklenii- (1983: 59) observed that 'the vcry fact that
towards trying to ascertain relative dates for archaeological finds for arcl~acologistsin Central Europc prcfcrred analytical description of
which there were no historical records. H e observed construction the facts t o the formation of a synthetic picture of the past' shows
layers in barrows and argued that Silbury Hill, the largest artificial how small was the contribution that the new scientific approach
~ n o u n din Europc, had been built prior to the constructio~lof a made to the dcvelopme~ltof a better knowlcdgc of prehistory. This
Roman road, which c~lrvcdabruptly to avoid it (l>nnicl 1967: 122-3). statcmcnt cannot be nppl~cdto England and Scandi~iavia,whcrc
H e also noted that R o ~ n a ~roads
l C L I ~through Bronze Age disc a n t i q u x ~ a ~were
s making substantial progress in conceptualizing
('Druid') barrows in several places (l'iggott 1985: 67) and used the the problems confronting the study of prchistoric times and tcnta-
prcscncc of blucstonc chips in some burial mounds ncar Stonchcnge tivc steps werc being taken to resolvc these problems.
to infer that these burials were contemporary with the building of
the temple (Marsdcn 1974: 5). In 1758 his daughter Anna dated the
Antiqua~iunismand oma antic ism
White Horse cut in the chalk at Uffington, and which had been
thought to be a Saxon memorial, to the pre-Roman period on the The growing i~lflucnceof cultural-evolutionary thought during the
basis of its stylistic similarity to horscs portrayed 011 pre-Roman eighteenth century spawned a conservative rcaction that at that timc
British coins (Piggott 1985: 142). In 1720 the astronomer Edmund had even greater influence on antiquarian rescarch than did cvolu-
Hallcp cstinlatcd that Stonchcngc might be 2,000 or 3,000 years old, tionism. In 1724 the French Jcsuit nlissionary Joseph-Fran~ois
following an examination of the depth of wcnthcring of its stones; L.1fitau (168~-1740),who had worltcd among thc Indians of Canada,
while a later comparison of rclativc wcathcring convinced Stultclcp publ~sl~cci his Moeurs dcs sauvaacs ameriquains cumpart2es aux nzoeurs
that Avebury was much older than Stonchcnge (Lynch and Lynch despremzers temps. Although this book has often bccn described as an
1968: 52). In Dcnmarlc Erik Pontoppidan carefully excavated a mega- early contribution to evolutionary anthropology, Lafitau argued
lithic tomb on the grou~ldsof a royal palace in northwest Sjaelland, that the religions and customs of the Amerindians and thc ancient
the main Danish island, in 1744. H e reported on the structure and Grcclts and Romans rescmblcd each othcr because both wcrc
the finds it contained in the first volume of the Proceedivjgs of thc corrupt and distorted versions of the true religion and morality that
Danish Royal Society, concluding that cremation burials found ncar God had revealed t o Adam and his dcsccndnllts in the Near East.
the top of the mound dated from a more recent era than the stone These views, which revived the doctrine of degeneration, were
chamber below them and the mound itself (I<lindt-Jcnsen 1975: similar to those held by Stukeley, who in latcr lifc was obsesscd by
35-6). When three megalithic tombs opened in 1776 wcre found to the belief that the religion of thc ancient Druids was a relatively pure
contain stone and bronze artifacts but not iron ones, 0. Hocgh- survival of primordial monotl~eismand therefore closcly akin t o
Guldbcrg, the excavator, assumed that they wcre very ancient (ibid. Christianity. Stukelep associated all of the major prchistoric
42-3). monuments 111 Britain with the Druids and based extravagant inter-
Studies of these sorts helped to advance the investigation of pretations of them on this premise. His writings wcrc directed
prehistoric times by encouraging more accurate observations and against the Deists, who believed that reasonable people could appre-
descriptio~lsof ancient artifacts and monuments, more disciplined hend God without the help of revelation, a view that had much in
thought about them, and efforts t o date a few of them in either common with the Enlightenment.
relative or cale~ldricalterms. Altl~oughthis research was too frag- Stukeley's thinlting also reflected a growing trend towards roman-
mentary and the results too discon~lcctcdto co~lstitutea discipline of ticism. This i~ltellectual movement, which began in thc late
prchistoric archaeology, it helped to lay the groundwork for the c~gl~tcenth century, was anticipated in the back-to-nature phil-
cventual dcveloprne~ltof such a discipline. Noting similar trends in osophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Although hc bclicvcd in the
the antiquarian rescarchcs of the eighteenth century in conti~lc~ltal importa~lccof reason, he empl~asizedemotion and sensibility as
 u aIsslcal arcnaeology ana antlquarlanlsm
A history ological tliought
Ithat gray ining only stonc ar :re earlier
importa lit aspect:s of liuma ~ u rH. e a1ISO stress(
those that also contalncd metal oncs (Lyncl, ,,,, bYIILII..,-i. I- -YLUO D . 40).
goodncss of human beings and attributed grccd and envy tl
Some of thc bcst work donc during this pcriod was by William
corrupting influences arid artificiality of civilization. In Gcri
Cunnington (1754-1810) and his wealthy patron Sir Richard Colt
and Englanci romanticism flourished in part as a revolt 32
Hoarc. They silrvcycd a large arca in Wiltshirc, locating ancient
French cultural domination and the literary unci artistic rcstrictlons
vill,zgc sites ~ n dearthworks and excavating 379 barrows. Thcy
of nco-classicism. In its championing of strong cliiotions, romanti-
1-ccordcd their observations carcfillly, dividcd barrows intc five
cis111mingled a prcoccupatiorl with horror anci evil with a delight in
types, and cnlploycd stratigraphy to distinguish bctwccn pri
natural beauty. liomantically inclined individuals dcvclop--' -
'ind sccondClr)ri~ltcrrnc~lts. Thcy used coins to date sornc bar rows
strong interest i l l ruincci abbc!ls, graves, 2nd othcr symbols of c
fro111the historical pcriod and, like Douglas, thought it possiblc:that
and decay, including human sltclctons grinning 'a ghastly s -..-
gravcs containing only stone artifacts might be earlier than r.urc-
(Marsdcn 1974: 18).TIicp also treated 'prirnitivc' or 'natural'soc --
historic burials accompanied by ~nctaloncs. Yet, dcspitc thcsc t~Cllt'l-
and the 'spirit' of Europcan nations as prcscrvcd in their moniln
tivc advanccs, they wcrc unablc to dcmonstratc to 'which o f thc
and folk traditions, cspccially those of the medieval period, a
successive inhabitants' of Britain various classcs of monurncnts wcrc .. - - -
ideal inspiration for arts and letters (I<. Clark 1962: 66). In L I I I ~
to be ascribed o r cvcn whcthcr thcy wcrc the work o f morc tliarI one
fashion romanticism bccamc closcly linked to nationalisrn. It
peoplc. Morcovcr, Cunnington could not discover enough rcg-
appealed to the morc conscrvativc members of the middle class, who
ularity in typcs of grave goods associated with particular b arrow ~_
identified nco-classicism with the values of tlic aristocracy -d-lAl u
styles to iniplc~iicntthc antiquary Thomas Lcman's suggestion that
cquatcd rationalism with athcism and political radicalism. Sig-
stonc, bronzc, and iron wcapons could bc used t o distinguish t.hrce
nificantly, the Socicty of Antiquaries of London, which was fou nded
in 1717 and received its charter in 1751,was far morc intcrcstc,..A ;.,
L,n
successive ages (Chippindale 1983:123). Thus, in Glyn Danicl's ( I ~* w . <

31) words, they 'failed to find any way of brcaking down the appacent
medieval England than in Koman or prehistoric Britain (l'iggott
contc~iiporancityof prc-Roman remains'. Evcn at thc most clcrncn-
1985: 43-4). The romantic movement was strcngthcned in conscrva-
tary Icvcl, thcrc were always antiquarians prcparcd to arguc +I.L ,*L l d L
tivc circles in tlic years followitig the French rcvolution, w1ic1- t l i c .
gravcs contaiiiing only stone tools wcrc not necessarily older than
E~iliglitcnmc~~t was dcnounccd for encouraging popular libert)i and
the rest but mcrcly belongcd to rudcr tribcs or poorer social groups.
republicanism. In thc conscrvativc restoration that followcc1 t11c
As yct thcrc was n o satisfactory rcbuttal for this claim.
defeat of Napoleon Bonapartc, a conccrtcd effort was macIr to
supprcss Enliglitcnmcnt ideas in Ccntral and Wcstcrn Europc.
Tlic late eighteenth century has bee11 viewed as a pcrio 7e New I
i~itcllcctualdcclinc in historical and antiquarian studies in Br------
The first historical questions that Europeans askcd about the naltive
(Piggott 1985: 108, 115-17, 154-5). Yet, romanticism appears to have
inhabitants of North and South America wcrc who they were and
bccn instrumental in encouraging a growing emphasis on cxca-
from where they had conic. Betwccn the sixteenth and eightcc:nth
vation, and cspccially the excavation of graves, that contributed .-.to
.-
:cnturics scholars speculated that tlic Indians might be descenldcd
thc dcvelopmcnt of antiquarianism in the later part of the eighte en tll
%om Iberians, Cartliaginians, Israelites, Canaanites, and Tart:as.
century. Betwccn 1757 and 1773 the Reverend Bryan Fau ssett
Still more imaginative writers claimed that they came from the
(1720-76) excavated more than 750 Anglo-Saxon burial mounti s in
~anishcdcontine~itof Atlantis. Most of thcsc speculations rcflecxed
south caster^^ England. James Douglas (1753-1819), in his Nenia Bri-
-lie prctcnsions or biases of particular groups of scttlcrs. Some c arly
tannica, or Sepulchral Histovy of Great Britain, whic11 was pubii shed
,I1 of
Spanish colonists denied that thc Indians had souls, which mc:ant
in parts bctwccn 1786and 1793vid based on a massive com~ilatic
rcd from barrow i is rhroug not h ~ l m
an being: exploit tt

06
 A Iiistory of archaeological thought Classical archaeology and antiquarianism

as they could animals. The Spanish Crown, l~owever,wanted recog- the inferiority of its indigenous cultures as well as of its plant and
nition from the Church that the Indians had souls, since that allowed animal life (Haven 1856: 94).
the Spanish government t o assert its right t o govern them and to In Mcxico and Peru archaeological monuments were frequently
curb thc indcpe~ldcnccof its colonists. W h c t ~the Roman Catholic effaced o r destroyed during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
Church proclaimed nativc people to be human beings, it also meant in an attempt t o eliminate the memories nativc people had of thcir
that Christians were rcquircd to recognize that they wcrc clcscc~ldcd prc-Christian past (Bcrnal 1980: 37-9). A particular cffort was made
from Adam and Eve and hencc had originated, like othcr pcoplcs, in to destroy synlbols of Aztcc sovcrcignty and national identity. Only
thc Near East (Hankc 1959). a small numbcr of European travellers discussed the great prc-
Some of thc leaders of the seventee11t11-cc~~tury Massachusetts Bay Hispanic monuments of Mcxico and Peru prior to the nineteenth
Colony liked to think of thcir own colonists as constituti~lga New century.
Isr;~cIand the Indians as C.uiaanitcs, whosc possessions God was 13cforc the I ~ t ccightecntli century almost no notice WAS taken of
dcliveri~iginto their hands as he had given Palestine to the ancient prehistoric remains in North America apart from occasional rcfcr-
Hebrews. This was interpreted as giving the Puritans the right t o enccs to rock carvings and rock paintings which wcrc usually
seize land and enslave the Indians. As recently as 1783, Ezra Stiles, the thought t o be the work of n ~ o d e rnative
~l peoples. Few collcctions o f
President of Yale University, was promoting the idea that the artifacts recovered from the ground were assembled in North
Indians of New England were literally descended fro111 Canaanites America and the excavation of sites was rarely attcmptcd. Among
\vho had flccl f1-0111 Palestine at the tirile of Joshua's invasion, as the exceptions is a splendid collection of polished stone tools from
recorded in thc Bible (Haven 1856: 27-8). the late Archaic pcriod found near Trois-Rivitrcs, in Qucbcc, in
Over timc, howc\~cr,there was growing support for the theory, 1700 and preserved in a convent from that timc t o the present (Ribcs
first cspounded in 1589 by the Jesuit priest JosC dc Acosta in his 1966). Equally exceptional wcrc Thomas Jefferson's carefully
Historia ~latural?~ nzo18aldc las Ir~diasthat tllc Indians had crossed the reported excavation of an Indian burial mound in Virginia in 1784
Bering Strait as wandering hunters from Siberia (Pagdcn 1982: (Heizcr 1959: 218-21) and the alleged exploration of a burial mound
193-7). Although Acosta bclieved that the Indians had lost all 111 ICansas a decade earlier (Blakcslcc 1987).Throughout this pcriod a

knowlcdgc of scdcntar)i life in the course of thcir migrations, later pervasive ethnocentrism caused Europeans t o doubt that anything
17roto-c\~01~~tionists saw in Anlcrica evidence of what the chilclhood significant could bc learned about thc history of pcoplcs whom they
ot'.lll h~im.lnit!, h.ld hccn likc. I n thc 1.1tc sixteenth ccntur!, it \\,,IS viewed as s<~vages fit only to be swept asidc, o r in rare cascs assimi-
being suggested that in ancient times the nativc inhabitants of lated, by thc advance o f Europcan civilization. Because o f thc
Britain had been as primitive as the n ~ o d e r ~Indiansl of Virginia paucity of archaeological data, most discussio~lsof native history
(Kcndrick 1950: 123). O n the other hand, dcgcncrationists viewed had to be based on oral traditions (oftcn garbled in trans~nissionand
native cultures as the corrupt remnants of the divinely revealed not understood in their cultural context), comparative ethnology,
patriarchal way of life described in the Book of Genesis and also saw and physical resemblances. A notable cxccption t o this was the
amongst them evidence of the half-remembered teachings of early naturalist and explorer William Bartram, who in 1789 used con-
Christian rnissionarics. Inrhc sevcntccnth century the technological temporary ceremonial structures belonging t o the Creek Indians o f
inferiority and alleged cultural degeneracy of native American cul- the southcastern United States as a basis for interpreting prehistoric
turcs by comparison with European ones were interpreted in theo- mound sites in that region. Ian Brown (n.d.) has pointed out that
logical terms as manifestations of divine displeasure (Vaughan this is one of the earliest known examples o f the employment o f the
1982). During thc nest century some leading European scholars dircct historical approach to interpret archaeological remains in
advanced the morc naturalistic argument that the New World was North America.
climatically inferior to E~tropcand Asi,~and that this accounted for
 Llasslcal arcliacology and antiquar

Avcbury and Stonchcnge . . . rcmai

LY ublivion' (Daniel 1963a: 35-6). In 1802 rnc uanlsn.:d in obsc
. , ar1t1-
In North America n o lcss than in Europc antiquarians who wcrl uarian Rasmus Nycrup cxprcsscd a similar dcspair:. 'cvcrythi "g
intcrcstcd in what arc now recognized to be prehistoric remain rhich has come down to us from hcathcndom is wrappcd in a th ick
looked t o written rccords and oral traditions to provide a historic3 )g; it bclongs to a spacc of timc wc cannot mcasurc. Wc know thar
contcxt for thcir finds n o lcss than clid c1:lssicnl urchncologists. Yet is olcicr than Cliristcndom but whether by a couple of ycars o
the casc of prehistoric remains thcrc wcrc no adccluatc writt ~ u p l cof centuries, or even by more than a millennium, we can
rccords. In his book on tlic antiquities of the island of Angle: s niorc than gucss' (ibid. 36). The English cssayist and lcxicog
publislicd in 1723the Rcvcrcnd Henry Rowlands noted that 'in thc3sc lcr Samuel Johnson, who had little paticncc with antiquarial
inextricable rcccsscs of antiquity we must borrow otlicr lights t o -csscd thc casc against a future for thcir rcscarch cvcn mc
guidc us through, or content oursclvcs to be without any' (Danicl cnchantlp: 'All that is rcally known of thc ancicnt statc o f Britain
1967: 43). H c went on to declare that 'analogy of ancient names a )ntaincd in a fcw pagcs. Wc can know n o more than what c
words, a rational cohcrcncc and congruity of things, and pl: ritcrs have told us' (ibid. 35). Even J. Dobrovsky, 'the fathcr
natural inferences and deductions groundcd tliercon, arc the bc -zcch prehistory', who ill 1786 argucd that archacological finds wc
authorities we can rely upon in this subject, when more warrantal 'speaking documents' that by tlicmsclvcs might illumi natc as j
relations and rccords arc altogcthcr- silcnt in the matter'. Gcncra unknown pcriods o f national history (Sklcnli- 1983: sz), M/as not vc
the explanation of a monument consisted of trying t o idcntify w t succcssful in determining how this could be donc.
people o r individual nientioncd in ancicnt rccords had constructed it Antiquarians continued to bclicvc that thc world had bccn crcatl
and for \vIiat purpose. This approach left Camdcn to spcculatc lout 4000 B.C. They also thought that rcliablc written rccor
whether Silbury Hill hacl been crcctcd b!, tllc Saxons or the Ro~nans wzrc available as far back as the time of crcation for the most cruc
and whcthcr it had served t o comnicmoratc soldiers slain in a bat1tlc gion of human history. If humanity had sprcad from the Near Ez
or was crcctcd as a boundary survey marker. Wliilc Stulcclcy demon - the rcst of the world, in most rcgions tlicrc was likcly t o havc bcc
stratcd stl-atigraphically tliat this mound was older than the ncal-lby ~ l y,I brief pcriod bctwccn the earliest human occupation and tl
Roman road, his conclusion that it was the tomb of the British lci~ d it w11 of history. Antic~u.tria~l IS were LIInccrt,tin whether the gcncr
Chyndonax, the founder of Avcbury, was a mcrc flight of farita coursc of human history liacI bccn orle o f dcvclopnicnt, dcgcnc
(Joan Evans 1956: 121). Stonchcnge was altcrnativcly attributed ation, o r cyclical change.
' e Dancs, Saxons, Romans, and either gencrically to the ancie
Yct the situation was not as stagnant as it is oftcn rcprcscntc(
-itons or spccifically to thc Druids. twccn the fifteenth and cightccnth centuries European antiqu
As a result of their dcpcndcncc on written Iaccords, t s had learned t o dcscribe and classify monuments and artifacts, I
c cightccnth and into the early ninctccnt~iccnturics antlquarla. CX(zavatc and record finds, and t o use various dating method
,ncrally dcspaircd of ever learning much about the pcriod bcfo int:luding stratigraphy, t o cstimatc tlic agc of somc finds. Some (
ch rccords became available. 1111742 Richard Wise commcntc thc:m had concludcd on tlic basis of archacological cvidcncc th,
here history is silcnt and the monuments d o not spcak for thenn- thcrc had probably bccn an agc whcn only stone tools had been usc
Ivcs, demonstration cannot bc expected; but the utmost is conje C- in Europc prior t o the use of mctal and tliat thc usc o f bronze migt
rc supportcd by probability' (Lynch and Lynch 1968: 57). Ccllt havc preccdcd that of iron. Thcsc dcvclopn~ents rcprcscntc
oarc concluded 'we havc evidence of the very high antiquity of our iuine progress and carried thc study o f prchistoric rcmair
iltsliirc barrows, but none respecting the tribcs to whom they iond what had bccn accomplislicd in China, Japan, and othc
pertained, that can rcst on solid foitndntions'. Later in his Tour in -ts of the world prior to Wcstcrn influence. The most s c r i o ~
~r*cln~zd hc ncicic.ci. 'Alike will the histories of those stupendot dock t o t:he cstabllishmcnt o f a rcla tive chro

71
 A history of arcllacological thought

prcl~istorictimes and hcnce to acquiring a more systematic know-

lcdgc of early human dcvclopmc~~t was tl>$ assumption that artiE~cts
and monuments merely illustrated thc Iris~oricallyrecorded accom-
plis11111ents of the past. This was bascd on the bclicf shared with
classical archaeologists that historical lt~~owlcdgccan be acquired
only from written documents or reliable oral traditions 2nd that Thc beginnit~gsof scientific archaeology
without thcsc there can be no con~~cctcd understanding of carlicr
times. The creation of prehistoric archacology required that anti-
quarians find the means to libcratc thcmsclvcs from this restricting Within no vegl distant period the study of antiquities has passed,
assumption. in popular esteem, from conternpt to comparative honour.
E O L D i- I E L D, (181z), y.
Ititrodt~ctoryAddress, Arc/~aeo~ogrcai/ozrrnal I

The dcvclopment of a self-containcd and systcmatic study of prc-

history, as distinguished from thc antiquarianism of carlicr times,
i~ivolvcdtwo distinct movcnlcnts that began in the early and middle
parts of thc ninetecnth century rcspcctively. The first originated in
Scandinavia and was bascd 011thc invention of new techniques for
dating archacological finds that made possible thc comprehensive
study of the latcr pcriods of prehistory. This dcvcloptnc~~t markcd
the beginning of prehistoric archacology, which was soon able to
take its placc alongside classical archaeology as a significant com-
ponent in the study of human development. The second wave,
which began in Francc and England, pionccrcd the study ok tllc
Palacolitl~icpcriod and added a vast, hitherto unimagincd timc
depth to 11uma11 history. Palacolitl~icarchacology was conccrncd
with questions of human origins that had bccome of major conccrn
to the cntirc scientific community and to the gcncral public as a
result of the debates bctween evolutionists and creationists that
followed the publication of O n the Origin of Species in 1859.

Relative dating.
The creation of a controlled chronology that did not rely on written
records was the work of the Danish scholar Christian Jiirgcnsen
Thomscn (1788-1865). The principal motivation for Thomscn's
work, liltc that of many carlicr ailtiquarics, was patriotism. The
antiquarian rcscarch of thc eighteenth century and the evolutionary
conccpts of the Enlighte~lmentwere indispensable preconditions for
c ~ ~ t s havc been of littlc
his succcss. Yct thcsc a c c o ~ ~ ~ p l i s h mwould
 A history of archaeological thought The beginnings of scientific archaeology
value if Thomsen had not developed a powerful new technique for tradition, although it had not been as flourishing in recent decades
dating archaeological finds without recourse to written records. as that in England. Most English antiquaries were conservatives
Unfortunately, because Thomsen wrote little, the importance of who had rejected the ideals of the Enlightenment and taken refuge in
what he acco~nplishcdhas bee11 underrated by historians and romantic nationalism. By contrast, Scandinavian archaeologists
detractors. It is tliereforc necessary to clarify what he actually were inspired to study the past for nationalistic reasons but these
accomplished. interests did not exclude an evolutionary approach. For them
Thonlscn was born in Copenhagen in 1788, the son of a wealthy history and evolution wcrc cornplcmentary rathcr than antithetical
mcrcliant. As a young man he studied in Paris and, after he rctur~led co11ccpts.
home, he undertook to arrange a local collection of Roman and In 1806 Kasmus Nyerup, the librarian at the University of Copen-
Scandinavian coins. Collecting coins had become a popular hagen, published a book protesting against the unchecked destruc-
gentleman's hobby during the eightcent11 century (McICay 1976). tion of ancient ~ n o n u n ~ c n tand
s advocating the founding of a
From the inscriptions and datcs thcy bore it was possible to arrange National Museum of Antiquity modelled on the Museum of French
thcm in series according to the country and reign in which thcy had Monuments established in Paris after the Rcvolution. In 1807 a
beer1 minted. It was also often possible to assign coins on which Danish Royal Commission for the Preservatio~land Collectio~iof
dates and inscriptions wcrc illegible to such series using stylistic Antiquities was established, with Nyerup as its secretary. It began to
criteria alone. Working with this coin collectio~lmay have made amass a collectio~lof antiquities from all over Denmark. This collec-
Thomscn aware of stylistic changes and their value for the relative t ~ o nsoon became one of the largest and most representative in
dating of artifacts. Europe. In 1816the Co~lln~ission invited Thomscn to catalogue and
Thc beginning of the nineteenth century was a period of growing prepare it for exhibition. His chief qualifications for this post, which
nationalism in Denmark, which was greatly strengthened when the was not a salaried one, were his knowledge of numismatics and his
British, who were fighting Napoleo~land his reluctant continental independent means. For the rest of his life Thomsen was to divide
allies, clcstroycd 11iostof the l>anish navy in Copenhagen harbour in his time between his family busi~lcssand archaeological research.
1801 and bombarded Copenhagen again in 1807. Worsaac latcr The main problc~iithat Tliomscn faced was how the material in
argucci that these cal:umitics encouraged l),incs to s t ~ ~ dtheir
y past the collcction could be exhibited most cilicicntly. Vcry early he
glories as a source of consolation and encouragement to facc the decided to proceed chronologically by subdividing his prehistoric or
future. Yet he also noted that the French Rcvolution, by encour- heathen period into successive ages of stone, bronze, and iron.
aging greater respect for the political rights of a broader spectrum of Presumably he knew of Lucretius' Three-Age scheme through the
the population everywhere, awakened in Denmark a new popular, as work of Vedel Simonsen, if not the writings of French antiquarians
opposed to dynastic, interest in the past (Daniel 1950: 52). Many such as Montfaucon and Mahudel. H e also appears to have been
middle-class Western Europeans who laclzed political rights saw in aware of archaeological evidence suggesting an era when stone but
the Rcvolution, and latcr in Napoleon, hope for their own political not metal tools had been used and of the classical and biblical texts
and economic improvement; while those who enjoyed a mcnsurc of which suggested that bronze had been used before iron. The notion
political power viewed them as a threat to their interests. of three successive ages of stone, bronze, and iron therefore was not
Denmark was at that time politically and economically less mere speculation (as often has been maintained) but a hypothesis for
cvolvcd than Wcstcrn Europe. Hence the ideals of thc French which there was already some evidence.
Revolution appealed to many middlc-class Danes. These same In attempting to sort the prehistoric material in the collection into
Danes were also receptive to the teachings of the Enlighte~~ment, three successive periods, Thomsen faced a daunting task. H e recog-
which in popular thinking were closely associated with the Revo- nized that even for the stone and metal objects a mechanical sorting
lution (Hampson 1982: 251-83) Denmark had a strong antiquarian would not work. Bronze and stone artifacts had continued to be
 A history of arcliaeological thought The bcgin~li~igs
of scientific archaeology
Botge~irater: ging8irater:
made in the Iron Age, just as stone tools had been used in the Bronze
F " P
1A*L1AAAll*ll*ll~ll111111111111A&1~I1A1
Age. Tlic cliallenge was therefore to distinguish bronze tools madc F=rrrrrrvvyYrvYKh
during the Iron Age from those made during the Bronze Age and to
differentiate which stone tools liad been madc in each pcriod. There
was also the problem of assigning objects made of gold, silver, glass,
and other substances to each pcriod. Individual artifacts were no
help in bczinning this work. Yet in the collection there were sets of
artifacts that had been found in the same gra\lc, hoa~-d,o r other
contests and that one c o ~ ~ saf'ely
ld assume had been buried at the
same time. Thomsen called these 'closed finds' and believed that by
carefully coniparing the various items from each such discovery it
would be possible to dctcrmille the sorts of artifacts that were
characteristic of different periods (Graslund 1974: 97-118, 1981).
Thomsen sorted and classified his artifacts into various use catc-
gories, such as knives, adzes, coolting vessels, safety pins, and
necklaces. H e further refined each category by distinguishing the
artifacts according to the material from which they wcrc made and
their specific shapes. Once types had been defined, lie began to
examine closed finds in order to dcterniinc which types werc and
werc not found together. H e also examined thy decorations o n
artifacts and found that these varied systcniatically fro111 one closed
find to another. O n the basis of shape and dccoration it becanic
possible for Thoniscn to distinguish bronzc artifacts made in the
Bronze Age from oncs made in the Iron Age. H e was also able to
demonstrate that large flint knives and spearpoints that had similar
shapes to bronze ones liad been made in the Brolizc Age. Eventually
he could assign single artifacts to his sequence on the basis of stylistic
similarities. I11 this fasliio~ilie worlicd out a rough chronological
sequence for the whole of Danish prehistory.
Thomsen did not stop at that point but procccdcd to examine the 10 Successive styles ofornamentatlon, from Thornsen's Guidebook
contest in w l ~ i c lartificts
~ were recorded as having been found. (older forms at top)
Ultimately this process yielded a devclop~ncntalsequence of five
stages. The first was the eaply Stone Age, when only stone tools were wcrc decorated with ring patterns. In t l ~ cIron Age, tools and
uscd. This was followed by a later Stonc Age, whicl~he described as weapons were made of tcnlpcrcd iron, while bronzc conti~luedt o be
the pcriod when metal first came into use. At this time the dcad were uscd for ornalilents and luxury goods. The Iron Agc was divided
buricd, uncrcmated, in megalithic tombs, accompanied by crude ~ n t otwo stages, the earlier characterized by curvilinear serpent
pottery vcsscls with incised decoration. In the full Bronze Age, designs and the later by dragons and other fantastic animals. The
\ Y C ~ ~ O I Iand
S cutting tools were madc of coppa- 01-bronze, the dead latter forms of orn,uncntat~onc o n t i n ~ ~ cinto
d thc historical pcriod
were crcmatcd and b ~ ~ r i cind urns ~111dcr small tumuli, and artifacts (118371 Hcizcr 1962~:21-6).
 A history of archaeological thought The beginnings of scientific archaeology

I11 the past a few archaeologists had attempted to subdivide

prehistoric materials into various temporal segments. Possibly the
nlost elaborate of these efforts was Pierre Lcgrand d'Aussy's (1737-
1800) six-period classification of burial practices from earliest times
to the Middle A ~ c s(1,aming-Empcr:iirc 1964: loo-I). Thcsc
schemes were bascci largely o n intuition and failed to convince many
pa)plc. Thornsen o\.ercnmc this impasse by developing 3 crude but
cffcctive form of scrintion, \vhich provided scientific c\iiciencc to
support the histol-ical v;llidity of his chro~lologicalseries. For this
schc111cto work, it was insufficient that only one class of data formed
a sequence. Instead, all the characteristics of individual artifacts and
of those found together in closed fiiids hacl to be arranged in n
sccluc~~cc in which material, stylc, decoration, and the co~itcstof
discovery formed a cohcrcnt pattern of variation. Discrepa~lcicsin
any part of the pattern (sucll as the disco\icry of iron tools decorated
with Bronze Age ring pattcr~ls)would have caused the entire schcmc
to fall apart. Thomscn's assumption that his scqucncc had evolvcd
from stonc to iron, rather than nlovcd in the opposite direction, was
confirmed by decorative continuities bct\vccn his late I r o ~ Age i and
the early historical period. Although sonic antiquarians mocked him
for not adding ages of glass, wood, and gold to his scqucncc and
others tried to ascribe his stonc, bronze, and iron objects to diffcrcnt
economics that had cxistcci ,~longsicico ~ i .~nothc~-,
c thcsc critics fiilcd
to recognize that his phases were not the result of a ~iicclianical
sorting of artifacts but instc,lcl wcrc based o n the concurrent analysis
of style, decoration, and contest, which reinforced each other to
p r o d ~ c ca rough but cfkctivc chronology.
Tliomsen's Museu~ilof Norther11 Antiquities, with its collcctio~l
arranged in accorda~lccwith his new system, was opened t o the
11 Thomscn sliowing visitors around thc Museum of Northern A I I ~ I ~ L ~ I ~ I C S
public in 1819,but the first written account of his research appeared
otily in 1836 in the L e d e t ~ a a dti1 Novdish Oldlzyndghed (Guide Book to
Sca~idi~iavia~i Antiquity), which was available in a German trans- that lt~iowlcdgeof bronze and iron working was brought into thc
lation the next j~carbut not in English until 1848. At least part of the region either by successive waves of immigrants from the south o r as
appeal of Thornsen's work was that it offered indepe~ldcntsupport a result of 'intercourse with other nations' (Daniel 1967: 103). They
for an evolutionary view of early humatl dcvclopnicnt, which slowly did, however, assume that somewhcrc in Europe o r the Near East all
became Inore popular, cspccially in England, as fear of the French cvolutio~lary dcvclopmcnt had taken placc. Ninetccnth-ccntury
Revolution and of Napoleo11 rcccdcd. It is true that neither archaeology did not view diffusion and migration as concepts that
Thomscn nor his successors regarded the Three Ages as constituting were antithetical to evolution but as factors that hclpcd to promotc
an cvolutionnrj~sccl~~c~lce within Scariciinavia. Instead they argued cvo~utionarychange (Harris 1968: 1 7 4 ) .
 A history of archaeological thought The beginnings of scientific archaeology

The development and spread of Scandinavian a~chaeolog-y

Even in his earliest work Thomsen was i~ltcrestcdnot merely in
artifacts and thcir dcvclopn~cntover time but also in tllc contexts in
which they had bccn found and what this might reveal about
changing burial customs and other aspects of prchistoric lifc.
I>uring tlic first half of the nineteenth centur!! arcliacology con-
tiliucd to dc\~clopin Sc:indinnvin as a discipline concerned with the
c\lolution ol'\vays of lifc t h r o ~ ~ g h oprehistoric
ut times. This develop-
mcnt was po\vcrf~illyassisted by the work of SVCIINilsson (1787-
12 Worc.i~cboring into one of thc Iargc tu~nul~
at Jelling; lie csplains the
1883), who had studied under the leading French palacontologist proccduic to K~ngFrrcicr~kVII of 1)cnmark
Gcorgcs Cuvicr and for many years was Profcssor of Zoology at the
Univcrsity of Lund. Nilsson strongly believed in cultural evolution volunteer \vork~ngwith Thomsen. H c was appointed Denmark's
1-1-* unlike Thomscn, he was mainly interested in the dcveloprncnt Inspector for thc Conscrvatio~lof Antiquaria11 Monunlcnts in 1847
ubsistencc economies rather than technology. Like some and thc first Profcssor of Archaeology at the Univcrsity of Copcn-
rccnth-century philosophers, he believed that increasing popu- hagen 111 1855. Unlike Thomscn, who remained a lnuscunl rcscarchcr,
... n had bccn the principal factor co~npclling Scandinavia11
L.,,
Worsaae became a prolific field worlicr. His excavations hclpcd t o
hunt cr-gathcrcrs to bccomc first pastoralists and then ngricultural- confirm Tliomscn's chronolog)r by p r o v ~ d ~ nmorc g closed fiads and
ists. His 11iost important contribution to the s t ~ ~ cof l y prehistory w,is ,ilso by rnc'lns of st~-~lt~gr.ipli~c csc.i\~ations, wli~clioffcrcd a morc
his s.
..._ _ystcmatic effort to dctcrminc the uses made of stone and bone concrete dcmonstrat~onof cultural change ovcr time than d ~ scri- d
artit'icts by means of dctuilcd comparisons with cthnographic spcci- atlon. Major strat~gr,~phic cvidcncc in support of thc Thrcc-Agc
mcns from around the worlci. Since m:uiy Scundinavinn artifacts had tlico~y w,ls prov~dcdby the excavations tli.it the h ~ o l o g ~Japctusst
bccn parts of compound tools now dccaycd, inferring the sort of Stccnstrup c.~rr~cd out In the peat bogs of Dcnm,irk In his efforts to
imp11cmcnts to wliicli they hncl belonged w:ls often fir from easy. As 11 .ice ch,ungc\ In the p.ittcr~i\o f flora .uici f.i~~n.islncc the end of thc
an cliponcnt of unilincar evolution, hc bclicvcd that cthnographic last Ice Age. Many art~f'icts wcrc found In the course of thcsc
spccirncns from North America, the Arctic, and the Pacific Islands cxcavatlons. These showed that the initial pinc forcsts corrcspondcd
coulc1 shcd light on prehistoric Scandi~lavia~l cultures that were at with the Stone Age occupation, while thc Bronzc Age was roughly
thc s;amc lcvcl of devclopmc~lt.H c also advocated that ethnographic cocval w ~ t hthe succeeding pcriod of oalc forests, and thc Iron Age
,,,,,,lclsI
7-n v.7
should be vcrificd through the study of wear patterns on with beech forcsts. Stcenstrup's findings were confirmed as archac-
istoric artifacts, which could help to confirm what they had ologlsts sought to rclatc thcir own discoveries to thcsc cnviron-
used for (Nilsson 1868: 4). In thcsc ways hc sought to infer mental changes (Morlot 1861:309-10).
istoric patterns of hunting and fishing directly from archaeo- Worsaae was a prolific writer and in his first book Danrnavlzr
logical data. His most imp"ortant study of the Stone Age was Oldtzd (The Prl~ncvalA n t ~ q u ~ t i cofs Denmark), published in 1843
published in four parts bctwccn 1836and 1843 and was translated into (Engl~shtranslat~onr849), he used Thomscn's findings as the basis
English as The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia in 1866. for a prch~storpof Denmark. In 1846-7, with financial support from
An even more influential contributor to the dcvelopmcnt of I<ing C h n s t ~ a nVIII, hc v ~ s ~ t cBritain
d and Ireland, mainly to study
Scandinavian archaeology was Jcns J. A. Worsaac (1821-85). H c V ~ l c ~ nrcma~ns
g there. HISobservations of prchistoric finds in thcsc
bccamc thc first professional prchistoric archacologist and was the countries convinced him that Thomscn's Thrcc-Agc schcmc was
first pcrson to bc trained in the discipline, albeit informally as a appl~cablcto large parts, if not all, of Europe.
 A history of archaeological thought The beginnings of scientific archacology

Worsaae also played an important role in developing interdiscipli- Scandinavia had passed through the same stages of development in
nary research related to archaeology. As early as 1837 o n Sjaelland, prehistoric times, Scottish artifacts differed stylistically from their
moiulids of oyster and cockle shells containing numcrous prehistoric Sca~ldinavia~l counterparts, especially in thc Iron Age. I11 this work
artifacts had bcen observed a short distance inland from the present Wilson also coined the term prehistory, which he defined as the
coastline. As the rcsult of a desire to lcarn morc about geological study of the history of a region prior t o the carlicst appcarallcc of
changes, in 1848 the Royal Ilanish Academy of Sciences establishcd a writtcn records relating to it. H e stressed that the ~~ndcrstanding of
commission to stncly these shell middcns. Thc commission was the p.1st tli.lt could be dcrivcd fro111,irtif,icts alonc w,ls very diffcrcnt
lic;iJcd by Wors;lnc, the biologist Stccnstt-up and J . S. Forchham- fi-oln the k ~ n dof ~lndcr-stclncling
that could bc derived from written
lncr, the Siithcr of l3anish geology. In the carly 1850s thcse scholars ~ccorcis.Yet he expressed the hope that in due course arcllaeologists
published six volunles of reports on their studies of these 'kitchen would be able to learn about thc social life and religious belicfs of
middens'. Their interdisciplinary rescarch dcmo~lstratcdthat thc prehistoric times. In his ready commitment to an cvolutio~lary
middens werc of human origin and traced the patterns of their pcrspcctive Wilson showed himself t o be a true product of thc
nccumulation. They also detcrmined that, when the middens had Scottish Enlightenment. Anlong English antiquarians there was
lijrmcd, the palaco-ct~vironmcntdsetting had consisted of fir and much morc resistance to accepting the Scandinavian approach
pine forests and some oak, that the only animals likely to have bcen (Daniel 1963a: 58-9) and Wilson's call to reorganize the collectiolls
dolncsticatcd wcrc dogs, and that the middens had been occupied of the Br~tishMuseum in accordance with thc new systcm long fell
during the autumn, winter, and spring but not during the summer. on deaf ears. Unfortunately for British archacology, Wilson,
'I'hc distributions of hearths and artifacts \vithin the middens wcrc although honoured for his accomplishn~cntswith a doctoratc from
;iIso studied to learn more about IILIIII~II activities at these sitcs. the University of St Andrcws, failed t o find satisfactory cmploymcnt
I'spcrimcnts, which involved feeding animal bones to dogs, were in Scotland. In 1855 he left to teach English and history at University
carried out in order to explain the numerical preponderance of the College in Toronto, Canada.
middle part of the long bones of birds over other parts of their Scandinavian archaeology also provided a model for significant
skclctol~(Morlot 1861: 300-1). Thc one issue Worsaae and Steen- research in Switzerland. Thcrc, as the result of a drought in the
strup did not agree about was the dating of the middens. Steenstrup winter of 1853, lake levels fell unprcccdcntedly low, rcvcaling the
maintained that they were Neolithic, and hence contemporary with rcnlai~lsof ancient settlcments preserved in waterlogged environ-
the megalithic tombs, but, because they containcd no ground or ments. The first of these sitcs, a Bronzc Age settlement at Ober-
polishcd stone impleme~lts,Worsaac correctly believed them to be meilcn, was studied the following summer by Ferdinand Kcllcr
earlier (Klindt-Jctlscn 1975: 71-3). (1800-81), a Professor of English and President o f the Zurich Anti-
The archacology that was developing in Scandinavia provided a quarian Society. His initial report led to the identification o f several
n~odclfor work clscwl~cre.Contacts with Worsaae inspired the hundred such sites, including the Neolithic village at Robenhausen,
Scottish antiquarian Daniel Wilso~l(1816-92) to use the Three-Age which was excavated by Jakob Messikommcr beginning in 1858
system to rcorganizc the large collection of artifacts belonging t o the (Bibby 1956: 201-19). These so-called 'Lake Dwellings' werc intcr-
Society of Alltiquarics of Scotland in Edinburgh. This work pro- preted as settlemc~ltsbuilt on pilcs driven into lakc bottoms o n the
vidcd the basis for his book TheA~ehaeologyand Prehisto~icAnnalsof basis of the traveller C. D u n ~ o ~d'UrvilleJs
lt dcscriptions o f villages
Scotland published it1 1851. In this first scientific synthesis of prc- of this sort in New Guinea (Gallay 1986: 167). They arc now believed
historic times in thc English languagc, Wilso11 assigned archaeo- to have been constructed on what would have been swampy ground
logical data to the Stone (Primeval), Bronze (Archaic), Iron, and around the edge -
of lakes.
Christian eras. Yet his study was not merely a slavish imitation of These cxcavatio~lsyielded the remains of wooden pilcs and house
Scandinavian work. H e demonstrated that, while Scotland and platforms, stone and bone tools still mou~ltcd in their wooden
 3ry of arc haeologic t The bcgi nnings of scientific archaeolc

I~ana~es, 111a~c ctry, and a vast ar.ray of foodstuffs. Villages the E mcnt. H istory hac1 traditior ~lallybcelil concerrleu wlrn
dating from both the Neolithic and Bronzc Agcs provided Swiss recounting the thoughts and deeds of famous individuals. Even
archaeologists with the opportunity to study changcs in the natural classical archacology and Egyptology, insofar as they wcre inter-
cnvironmc~lt,economics, and ways of life of thcsc people. The Swiss cstcd in material culture rathcr than epigraphy, werc conccrncd with
finds not only revealed many sorts of pcrishabic artiFacts not usually work, ' s of fine art understood in rclation to rccordcd history. Yet

found in Scaiidiriavia and Scotland but also verified the rcc 011strLlc- Wors aac pointed out that in many cases prchistoric ~rchacologists
tio~isof stonc and bone tools by Nilsson and others. Switzcrland was co~llcinot even dctcrn~incwhat pcoplc had liladc the implc~llcnts
,- . I
already a major centre of tourisni and the continuing study o t thcsc rncy were studying. H c and Wilson protcstcd against thc idca that
prcliistoric remains attracted wide intcrcst. It played a major rolc in the earliest pcoplc to be mentioned in rccordcd history wcrc the
convincing Western Europeans of the reality of cultural evolution original inhabitants of Europe (Daniel 1950: 50). A chronology
- rr- 'ng indepcndcnt confirmation of thc dcvclopmcnt of Europcan
orrcrll
and that ancient times could bc studied using archacological cvi-
dcncc alone (Morlot 1861: 321-36). socicty fi-om Stone Agc beginnings was only of interest to pcoplc
l'rchistoric archacology had thus dcvclopcd as a well-defined who ,wcrc already prcdisposcd to rcgard cultural cvolution as a
discipline in Scandinavia, Scotland, and Switzerland prior to 1859. wortnwl~ilctopic. The groundwork for such an i~itcrcst had bccn
The basis for this ncw discipli~lcwas the ability to construct rclativc cstablishcd by E n l i g l ~ t c n m cvicws
~ ~ t of human nati~ r c By
. thc carly
chronologies from archacological data alone using seriatiot~and nincteenth century, and despite periods of economic contraction
stratigraphy. Thomscn had pionccred scriation using a large and such as the one that lasted from 1826 to 1847 (Wolf 1982: z ~ I )many ,
rcprcscntative museum collection, whilc Worsaae had employed members of the expanding and now increasingly entrepreneurial
stratigraphy to confirm his findings. For the first timc rclativc middlc class imagincd thcmsclvcs to bc t11c spcarhcad o f dcvclop-
chronologics wcrc offered into which all known prchistoric data mcnts that wcrc crcating a ncw and bcttcr life for cvcryonc. By
could bc fitted. This demo~lstratcdthat artifacts from reaso~lably identifying moral and social progr'CSS as corlcomitants of tcchnologi-
wcll-documented archacological contexts could be uscd as a basis for cal dcvclopmcnt and the latter a1s a fund amcntal charactcristic of
understanding human history. Iiun~anhistory, Enlightcnlnc~itthcorrcs rcassurcd thc middlc classcs
The dcvclopmcnt of prehistoric archaeology has lo1~g been of Western Europc of the cos~iiicsignifica~lccand llcncc of the
ascribcd to the influcncc of geological and biolog;ical evol ution. It inevitable succcss of their rolc in history and portrayed their per-
has bccn assumed that thc stratigraphically derived chronologies of sonal ambitions and those of thcir class as promoting the gencral
gcological timc constructcd by geologists and palaeontologists pro- good of society. Tec1111ological progress was also attributed to the
vided a model for the devclopme~ltof archaeological chronologics of initiative of individual human beings who uscd thcir innate intel-
prehistory. Yet in Tl~on~sen's pioi~ceri~lg work we scc a seriational
1'-,-+%3.71
ILCLUUI capacities to control naturc bcttcr. This was an opt' ' '
chronology of l ~ u n ~ aprchistory
n inspircd by social-evolutionary view a1>propriatcto the middlc classcs at the dawn of an era thlat was
tlicorics of the Enlightenment combining with the data collected by to see their power and prosperity incrcasc througllout W'cstern C
R ~ ~ r n n rThus, by providing what appcarcd to be matcrial I
carlicr antiquaria~lsand with an implicit k~~owlcdgc of stylistic UUk
:
,
.
connr-
change probably derived from the study of numismatics. Prehistoric mation of t11c reality of progrcss throughout human history, S candi-
archacology did not begin as thc result of borrowing a dating device navian-style archaeology appcaled to those who werc bcne,fitting
from other disciplines. Instead it started with thc d c v c l o p n ~ e of ~ ~at from the Industrial Revolution. Wliilc Danish archacolog~ r con-
ncw tcclinique for rclativc dating that w tinued to be strongly nationalistic and to enjoy thc patron,age of
logical material. successive generations of t l ~ royal c family, its innovators and inlcreas-
"' c kind of llistorv p ~ ~ by~Scand~nav~a~l ~ ~ c archaeology
d -. also
cctivc of
- b A J --
i- -n
class (I
~ l l its
r audicncc wcrc mcmbcrs -of a growing comnlcrcial n-llluule
11 1981), for whorn nation.
:JJt_

in tern;is of the cultural-c

: sense o r~ l p onism

8$
 A history of archaeological t l ~ o u g l ~ t The beginnings of scientific archaeology

were both attractive concepts. By contrast, in the politically

The antiquity of humanity
reactionary environmc~lt of post-Napoleonic Germany, archae-
ologists, while inspired by nationalisn~,tended to rcjcct the Scandi- The prchistoric archaeology pioneered by the Scandinavians influ-
navian approach partly because its evolutionisrll was too closcly enced archacology in somc of the smaller countries o f Western and
aligned with Enlightcnmcnt pl~ilosopl~y (13011ncr 1981; Sl<lcnif 1983: Northern Europc. Yet it was largcly ignored by the antiquarians of
87-91). Francc and England, who, a l t h o ~ ~ gsomc
h of thcm wcrc prcparcd t o
Scandinavian and Scanciinavian-st* archaeologists clid not, translate the writings ofT11omscn and Worsaac into thcir languages,
however, linlit thcir efforts to dcmonstrati~~g the reality of cultural wcrc unwilling to follow thc cxamplc set by colleagues from a
evolution. They also sought to undcrsta~ldthe technologics and peripheral country such as Dcnmark. Thcir conscrvativc attitudc
subsistcncc economics of prehistoric peoples and the e n v i r o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ t s ensured that the scicntific study of prehistory did not bcgin in thcsc
in which they had lived, as well as son~cthingabout thcir social lifc countries bcforc the late 1850s and that it devclopcd largcly indcpcn-
and religious bclicfs. Their aim was to learn as much as the archaeo- dently of Scandinavian-stylc archacology. Unlikc Scandinavia, carly
logical evidence would permit not only about the patterns of lifc at scientific archacology in England and France was conccr~lcdpri-
any one period but also about how those pattcrns had changed and marily with thc Palacolithic period and ascertaining thc antiquity of
dcvclopcd over time. In order to understand the bchavioural sig- humanity. The prcscncc in France and southern England of cavcs
nificance of archaeological finds they wcrc prcparcd t o makc sps- and glacial deposits containing traccs of human activities going back
tcmatic compariso~lsof archacological and ethnographic data, to into Lowcr Palaeolithic times provided archaeologists in thcse
carry out rcplicative cxpcrimcnts to determine how artifacts had countries with an opportunity to study early phases of human
been manufactured 2nd used, and to pcrfor~ncspcrimcnts t o explain cxistcncc that was wholly lacking in Scandinavia, Scotland, and
the attrition patterns on boncs found in archaeological sites. They Switzerland.
also lcarncd how to coopcratc with geologists and biologists to The dcvclopment of Palacolithic arcl~acologydcpcndcd on the
reconstruct p a l a e o c n v i r o n ~ ~ ~and
c ~ ~clctcrminc
ts prehistoric diets. cmcrgcncc of an evolutionary pcrspcctivc in gcology and also of
What archacoiogists of this pcriod did not clo was to challcngc tllc somc knowlcdgc of palacontology. Progrcss in thcsc ficlds was
traditional biblical cl~ronologywhich allowed a total of about 6,000 necessary for a scicntific study of human origins t o replace reliancc
ycars for the whole of human history. For Thomscn, Worsaac, and on the traditional biblical accounts. While the major archaeological
others, scvcral thousand ycars appeared long enough to encompass brcaktl~roughsin studying thc antiquity of humanity slightly prc-
thc past that was being revealed by the archacological record. ceded the first major statement of Darwinian evolutionism, Palaeo-
Worsaac dated thc first arrival of human beings in Dcnmark around lithic archaeology was quickly drawn into thc controvcrsics that
3000 B . C . and the beginning of the Bronze Age between 1400 and surrounded Darwin's work and was strongly influenced by concepts
roo0 B . C . By an ironic coincidence Scandinavia, Scotland, and derived from biological evolution.
Switzerland had all been covcrcd by glaciers during the Wiirnl When a flint handaxe was found near the skeleton of what was
glaciation and to this day have produced little evidence of human probably a mammoth beneath a strcct in L o n d o ~ towards
l thc cnd of
habitation prior to the Holocene era. Hence the absolute chron- the scvcntccntl~ccntury, the antiquary John Bagford interpreted the
ology imagincd by the Scandinavians, Scots, and Swiss for their find as that of a war elephant brought t o Britain by the Roman
finds was not significantly out of line with reality as we currently emperor Claudius in A . D . 4 3 and slain by an ancicnt Briton armed
undcrstand it. with a stone-tipped spear (Grayson 1983: 7-8). This interpretation
was clearly in the tradition of text-aidcd archaeology. O n thc other
hand, in 1797 John Frere described a collection of Acheulean hand-
axes that were found together with thc bones o f unknown animals at
 The beglnliings of scie~ltificarchaeology
A history of archaeological thought

A cussion. While the i~ltellectualclimate was clearly opposed t o assign-

ing a grcat antiquity to humanity, Donald Grayson (1983: 58) has
pointed out that Frcrc's failure t o idc~ltifycithcr the animal bones o r
thc shells in his stratigraphy did not demand agreement with his
c11'
< l1llS.

In the course of tlic cightccntli ccntusy scic~~tists such ,IS Gcorgcs

Buffon began to propose natural~sticorig~nsfor thc world and t o
speculate that it might be tens of thousands or even millions of years
old. This in turn suggcstcd the nccd for a symbolic rather than a
htcr,~llntcrprctatlon of the biblic~laccount of the scvc~ldays of
creation. The Frcnch zoologist Gcorgcs Cuvicr (1769-1832)' who
cstabltshcd p~laeontologyas a scientific discipline, uscd his know-
ledge of comparative anatomy to reco~istructcomplete slccleto~lsof
hitherto unknown fossil quadrupeds. In this fashion hc was able t o
assernble cvide~lcethat numerous species of ani~nalshad become
extinct H e also obscrved that older geological strata co~ltai~ied
an~l-n~ll scmallls that were increasingly dissimilar to thosc of modern
tlmcs. S ~ n c chc assumed 1' relatively short span since the crcatio~iof
the world, he concluded that a scrics of natural catastrophcs had
destroyed cntlrc bpcc~csof an~malsand shaped the niodcrn gcologi-
cal configuration of the planet. W h ~ l clie believed that devastated
arcas wcrc repopulated by mlgratlons of anlmals from areas that had
hccn \p.l~cd, other gcolog~\t\,\i~zIi,IS W~lli.lm 1Suclil.lnd (178+-
18~6),~111A11glic.1n prrcst and Professor of Mineralogy at Oxford
UIIIVCI-s~ty, viewed many catastrophcs as u~iivcrsaloncs that had
w ~ p c dout most speclcs. T h ~ srcqu~rcdGod to CI-catcnew oncs to
replacc them. The increasing co~iiplcxityof plant and animal life
obscrvcd 111 succcssi\~egeological strata was thcscforc not vicwcd as
a dcvclopmcntal scquc~icebut rather as a scrics of ever lnorc coniplcx
13 A c h c ~ ~ l c ahnnclosc
n found by Frcrc at H o s n e ,
creations. H e co~iceivcdof evolution as having occurrcd in God's
published in Arcbncolgin, 1800
mind rather than in thc natural world.
a depth of four liictrcs in eastern Engialid. H c argued that thc In the first half of the ninctccnth cclltury ~laturalistsand antiqua-
overlying strata, which inclydcd a prcsumcd incursio~iof the sea and rians ci~coullteredhuman physical remains and stone tools associ-
the formation of half a nictrc of vegctablc carth, could o ~ i l yhave ated with the bones of extinct animals in stratified deposits in cave
been built up over a long period and co~lciudcdthat 'thc situation in
sites in niatiy parts of Wcstcr~iEurope. The most inlportant work
which these ~ilcaponswere found mag tempt us to rcfcr thcm to a was that of Paul Tournal (1805-72) near Narbonnc and Jules de
rcrjr rclllotc period indeed; cvcn beyolid that of the present world'
Christ01 (1802-61) northeast of Montpellier, both in France,
([18oo] Heicer 19621: 71). BYthis lie n~cantthat they were probably Philippc-Charles Sch~ncrling(1791-1836) near LiPgc in Belgium, and
niorc t h a i 6,000 ?cars old. Tllc Society of Antiquarics thought his the Rcvcrcnd John MacEncry (1796-1841) at Kent's Cavern in
plpcr wo~-thyof publication but it aroi~scdoo contemporary dis-
 A history of arcl~aeologicalthought The beginnings of scientific archaeology

I:,ngland. Each of these men bclicvcd that his finds might constitute Thc intellectual problcms of this pcriod arc clcarly cxcmplificd in
cvidcncc of tlic co~ltcrnporancity of human beings and cxtinct tlic work of Jacqucs Bouchcr dc Cr2vccocur dc Pcrtlics (1788-1868),
r~nimalspccics. Yct thcir tcchniqucs of excavation were not suffi- who was the dircctor of customs at Abbcvillc, in thc Sommc Vallcy
cic~itlydcvclopcd to rule out thc possibility that thc human material of northwcstcrn France. In thc 1830s Casimir Picard, a local doctor,
was intrusive intb older dcposits. MacEncry's finds wcrc scaled rcportcd discovcrics of stonc and antler tools in thc rcgion. Bouchcr
beneath a layer of hard travcrtinc that nlust havc take11a long timc to dc l'crthcs began studying these finds in 1837. Soon aftcr, in the c ~ n a l
form. Buckland maintained that ancient Britons had dug earth ovens and railway excavations of the pcriod, hc startcd to find Lowcr
tlirougli the travcrti~lcand that thcir stone tools had found rl~cirway Palacolithic I~andaxesassociated with thc boncs ofextinct mammoth
through thcsc pits into much older dcposits containing the bones of and rhinoceros, dccply buried in thc stratificd gravcl dcposits of
t;)ssil animals. While MacEncry denied this claim, hc accepted that r~vcrterraces that prcdatcd tlic local peat for~nations.
tlic human boncs, while old, need not bc contemporaneous with the Bouchcr dc Pcrthes' sound stratigraphic obscrvations convinced
cxtinct animals. It was argued that dcposits clsewhcrc contained t stoiic tools ~ n cxtitlct
him t h ~tlic d animals wcrc equally old. Yct, ns
mixturcs of animal boncs and artifacts from divcrsc pcriods that had a catastrophist, hc dccidcd that thcsc tools bclongcd to an antcdilu-
bccn waslicd into caves and mixed together in fairly recent times via11human racc that had bcc~icomplctcly annihilated by a rtiassivc
(Grayson 1983: 107). It becamc obvious that caves were not going to flood 'prior to the biblical deluge'. Aftcr a lengthy ycriod of timc
bc conclusive. Their deposits were notoriously difficult to date and it God had crcatcd a new human racc - that ofAdam and Evc and thcir
was hard t o rule out the possibility that human rcmains had become
niixcd with tlic bones of extinct animals as a result of human or
geological activity in recent timcs.
A much-dcbatcd question was whethcr traces of human beings
and thcir works should be found associatcd with cxtinct manlmals.
Tlic boncs of mammotli and woolly rhinoccros wcrc cncountcrcd
frcqucntly in the glacial deposits that covcl-ed Fra~iceand southcrn
England. At the beginning of thc linet tee nth century thesc wcsc
gcrtcrally bclicvcd to have rcsultcd from Noah's flood, the last great
catastrophe to convulsc the earth's surface. Since thc Bible rccordcd
the existence of human beings prior to that timc, it seemed possible
that human rcmains might be fou~ldin thcsc diluvial deposits. Yet
fundamentalist Christians believed that the Biblc implied that as a
rcsult of divine intcrvcntion all animal spccics had survived the
flood; hence the prescncc of cxtinct spccics in thcsc levels indicatcd
that they dated beforc the creation of humanity rathcr than simply
beforc the last flood. Evcn~hosepalacontologists who wcre inclined
to interpret the Biblc less literally bclicvcd that a beneficent God
'
would havc brought thc earth to its modern statc prior to creating
thc human spccics. By thc 1830s it was gcncrally acccpted that all thc
diluvium had not bee11 deposited at thc same timc. It was also
believed to be oldcr than the flood and therefore should not contain 14 Profile show111g location of Palacolithlc nlaterial from Boucher dc Perthes'
human rcmains (Grayson 1983: 69). A~ztrqtittbceltfqucsct antcdzlu~~tcnncs, 1847
 A history of archaeological

;rayson 1983: 126-30). It i5i scarcely surprisilng that l c possibility o f biological ( ,a concc pt that L:yell
, , - .
.:~cctca, although Jean-Baptistc lam arc^ (1744-1829) naa alre~-,
> I
adv
\\l~lcntl~cscrancif~llidcas wcrc publishcd 111 tnc nrst volume orr nls , '

A~rtiqtlitCsccltiqztcs ct a~ltLdilul~icnrccs
in 1847, they were dismissed by argued in favour o f it.
French and English scholars alike. Yet cvcn wlicn his field obscrva- This new view of gcologilcal histor y also left thc question of thc
-.
'
were ciu~licatcdby the physicia~n Marcel-JCrBmc Rigollot ~ntiquityof humanity as one &L rnar rccluircd
.L

an empirical answer. Thc

-1854)at St. Auchcul 2nd another site ncur Amicns, 40 kilo- ~vour~iblc reception given t o Lpcll's gcology rcflcctcd thc incrcas-
i upstream fsom Abbcvillc, vicl tlicsc cicposits wcrc confirmed ng openness of British scholars and thc public t o evolutionary idcas.
,)I the middlc of the ninctccnth century, Britain had bcconic thc
L O ~ J of"dilu\.ial
C age' by geologists, including Edmond Hthcrt fro111
the Sorbonnc, geologists and a~~ticluarin~is contini~cdto express vorltsliop of the world' .u1d tlic growth of industrialism hiid greatly
concern that the artifacts might be intrusive. Grayson (1983: 207) has :rcngtlicncd the political power and self-confidcncc of thc niiddlc
concluded that the rejection of Rigollot's sound cvidcl~cc'stcmmcd lasses, who had comc to vicw thclnsclvcs as a major force in world
from the sliccr bclicf that such things could not be' and Rigollot's istory. This new .lttitudc was rcflcctcd in thc writings of Herb
status as an outsider with respect t o the scientific clitc of his day. pcnccr (1820-1903), who in the 1850s began t o champion a gcnc
The resolution of such controvcrsics concerning the antiquity of volutionary approach to scic~itificand philosophical problems. ..,
humnnity required 311 improved i~nderstandingof the gcological rgued that the dcvclopmcnt of thc solar systcm, plant and anirnal
record. In 1785 the Eclinburgh physician James Hutton (1726-97) fc, and 11iim~11nsociety was fro111 simple, uniform homogcncity t o
proposed a unifol-~iiitarianview of gcological history in which the lcrcasingly c o ~ ~ i p l cand
x diffcrcntiatcd entities. By cmphasiz~ ing
slo~verosion of roclis and soil ~ 3 baianccd
s by the ~ ~ p l i f t i nofg 0thc1- ~dividualismand frcc enterprise as the driving forces bchind c:ul-
Innd surfiiccs. Hc believed that 311 geological strata could be
,
~ r a cvolution,
l lie rescued thc latter from its formcr revolution arY
accounted for in terms of the forces currently at work operating over jsocl.ltlons and helped to ~nalccit the ideology of a substan tial
\~cr!~ long pcriocls of timc. In the years that f o l l o ~ cWilliam
~i (Strata) ortion of the British middlc class, whose faith in progrcss had
Smitln (1769-1839) in England and Gcorgcs Cuvicr and Alexa~ldre rc.idy been csprcsscd in the Great Exhibition hcld in London in
Rrongniart in France, rccognizcd that strata of difftrcnt agcs each 151 (Harris 1968: 108-41). In s o doing hc inclincd all but the
possessed thcir o\vn cliaractcristic asscnlblagc of organic fossils and :ligiouslp most conscrvativ c membc rs of thc middle classcs t o
concluded that such asscmblagcs could be used to identify coeval ~mpathcticto argumcnts f avouring biological evolution and I
formations over Iargc areas. Smith, unlike Cuvicr, accepted the ~tiquityof humanity.
principle of the orderly deposition of roc tions ovc.r long In 1858 W~lliamPcngclly (1812-94) excavated in Brixham Cavc
pcriods of timc. car Torquay in southwcstcr~~ England. This was a 11cwlydiscovcrcd
12ctwccn 1830 and 1833 the English geologist Cliarlcs Lycll (1797- tc known to contain fossilizcd boncs. His work was sponsorcd by
1875) published liis lJ~inciplesof G c o l o ~ in
~ ~which
, hc asscmblcd an ic Gcological Society of London and was carcfully supcrviscd b Y a
o\lcrwhclming umount of data, much of it bascd on liis observations mmittcc of prestigious scientists, including Charlcs Lycll. In 1:he
around M o ~ ~Etna n t in Sicijy, to support the i~nifonnitariannssump- Iursc of 1iis cxcavatio~~s stone tools and fossil animal boncs wlcrc
tion that gcological changes had occurred in thc past as a result of )und bcncath a11 unbroken layer of stalagnlitic deposit 7.5 cni thick,
the same gcological agencies acting over long pcriods and at hich suggcstcd considerable antiquity (Grubcr 1965). As a rcsult o f
approximately the sanlc rate as thcjl d o at present. Lycll's book rowing intcrcst in the antiquity of humanity, in the spring and
quickly won support for the principle of uniformitarianism in lmmcr of 1859, first the gcologist John Prcstwich and the arch ac-
gcology. Contrary to catnstrophism, it indicated the past to have logist John Evans and then a number o f other British scicnti: its,
bccn a lo11,r and geologically i~nintcrruptcdperiod in which other ~cludingCharles Lycll, visited thc sites in thc Sommc Vallcy. All. of
L.
could ha1 icd. This ;for scho resc scicn tists wcrc:convinccd of thc, validity of thc finds Boucl
 A history of archaeological thought The beginnings of scientific archaeology

dc Pcrthcs and Rigollot had madc thcrc and the geologists also some stone tools, such as axes and gouges, had been ground and
rccogllizcd that the strata in which these finds occurred must havc polished (Danicl 1950: 85). Aftcr 1860 thc main advances in Palaco-
hccn deposited long bcforc 4000 B . C . In their reports to leading lithic archaeology took placc in France, where thc river terraces of
I<ritisli scic~itificassociations, includillg thc British Association for the north and the rock shelters of the south providcd bcttcr evidence
the Ad\~;1ncctne11t of Science, thc Royal Society of London, and the than was available in England. Thc principal goals of these studics
C;cologicnl Society of London, they agreed thnt thcrc was now solid were to determine how long human bcings had bee11 in the area and
cvidcncc that human beings had coexisted with extinct lllarnrnals at whether evolutionary trends could bc dctcctcd within the Palaco-
somc time that was fat- removed from the present in terms of litllic period. Evolutionary theory predicted that ovcr time human
calcndnr ycars (Chorlcp c t al. 1964: 447-9; Grayson 1983: 179-90). beings would havc bccornc both morphologically atid culturally
'This new vicw of the antiquity of human beings won what more complex. The first goal of Palaeolithic arcl~acologistswas
; ~ ~ n o u n tto
c dofficial approval in Lpcll's The Geolojical Evidences of the thercforc to arrange their sites in chronological order.
Alrtiq14ityofMan (1863). The leading figure in early Palaeolithic rcsearch was Edouard
(;hnrlcs Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in Lartet (1801-71), a magistrate who had turned to the study of
No\~cmbcr1859. This book, which summarized the results of almost palacontology and had publicly aclcnowlcdgcd the importance of
to ycars of rcscarch that had been inspired by uniformitarian Bouchcr de Perthes' discoveries in 1860. Supported by the English
ga)logy, accornplishcd for cvolutio~larybiology what Lyell's Prin- banker Henry Christy, he began to explore cave sites in the Dor-
rilrlcs had donc for geology. Darwin's concept of natural selection dogne in 1863. H e quickly realized that the Palaeolithic was not a
wns ncccptcd by Inany scientists and members of the general public single phase of human development but a series of phases that could
;is providing a mechanism that madc it possible to believe that a be distinguished according to artifacts and associated prehistoric
lwowss of biological cvolutio~laccounted for modern species and animals. H e preferred a classification based on palaeontological
c.spl;~incdthe c h a ~ ~ g observed
es in the palaeontological record. The criteria and distinguished four ages o r periods, which from most
ohvio~lsi~nplicationthat humanity had evolved from somc ape-like recent to oldest were: (I) Aurochs o r Bison, (2) Reindeer, of which
~>ri~ii;ltc not otily madc the anticluity of the Iluman species a burning the cavc sites at Laugcric Bassc and La Madclcinc wcrc typical, (3)
isst~cthat had to be empirically studicd but also madc this invcsti- Mamn~othand Woolly Rhinoceros, and (4) Cave Bear, although hc
garion ;I vital part of the broader colltrovcrsy that was raging gradually recognized that the last two periods could not be tempo-
concerning Darwin's theory of biological evolution. Palaeolithic rally separated. The Le Moustier site was designated as typical of a
;ircllacology thcrcforc quiclily acquired a high-profile role alongside new Cave Bear and Mammoth period. T o Lartet's three periods
gcolog)l arid palaeontology in the debates concerning a question of Fklix Garrigou added a still earlier Hippopotamus one when human
csc;ilating public interest. beings had inhabitcd mainly open sitcs and which was not rcprc-
sented in the caves of southern France (Danicl 1950: 99-103).
Lartct's work was continued by Gabricl dc Mortillct (1821-98), a
geologist and palacontologist who turncd to the study of archac-
The subject-matter of Palacblithic archaeology was first given its ology. H e was assistant curator at thc Museum of National Antiqui-
11;1mcin 1865 when, in his bookPrc-historic Times, the English bankcr ties at Saint-Germain-en-Layc for seventeen years bcforc becoming
iund naturalist John Lubbocli dividcd the Stonc Age into an earlier Professor of Prehistoric Anthropology at the School of Anthropo-
I'alacolithic or Archacolithic (Old Stonc) and a nlorc recent Nco- logy in Paris in 1876.Although he admircd Lartct's work, he bclicvcd
litllic (Ncw Stonc) period. H e was, however, merely formally label- that an archaeological subdivisioll of thc Palaeolithic had to be based
ling a distinction that was already obvious betweell an initial pcriod, on cultural rather than palacontological criteria. In this respect he
when all tools had bccn chipped fro111stone, and 3 later pcriod, when chose to follow the example of Lubbock and Worsaac.
 A history of arcl~aeologicaltliouglit Tlie beginnings of scientific archaeology

In spite of this, liis approach tp archaeology was greatly influ- I

~~311)s I\C;I.:S ~'~::RIODES I::I>O~UES
c~iccdby liis knowledge of geology and palacontology. H c sought to
distinguish each pcriod by spccif~ringa limited number of artifact 1 ;2 .\16ro\.ingic1111c. \Vi~l)cnien~~e.
(1Vr~/>ot,
1'ci.v-r/c-(;ri/ciis.)
typestthat were cliaractcristic of that pcriod alone. These diagilostic -
nrtif;icts were the archaeological equivalent of the index fossils that .--- C:l~i~n~~xlolic~~~~c.
-- (Chnr~ij)tlolc*r~t,
Seirte-et-Oiac.)
geologists and palaeo~itologistsused to identify tlic strata belonging - I
Iiomn~nr. -- - . --- .
L~~g~l~rnient~c.
to ;I el articular gcological epoch. Mortillct also followcd gcological ( L!/Oll , 1~11o11e )
practice in naming cach of his subdivisions of the Palaeolithic aftcr I-- 1111 Fcr. -
Bct~\-r;~y~icn~~c.
rhc t)lpc sitc that had been used t o define it. Liltc palacontologists he (.lIol1l-Bc~lli~l~/l~,
.\ l>[ll*e,)
-
I
rclicd on stratigraphy t o cstablisl~a chronological sequence. I11 the -
i Rlnr~~ic~~nc.
2 I

.---
- 2 Golnliennc.
l';~l;~colithic rcscarcli of the ninctccnth century, striation played only L
G - (I)crl~~rlrrr~ertI
tic Irr .Il(ir.rle.)

;I minor role as a nlcans of cstablishing chronology. This was n o I --

c
II~~ll~l;~llic~~~~c.
.--
L
i

---
I
(IIi~llslcill,11ci11te~Iiilr~i~~Itt~,)

--
tlot~htpastly because technological and stylistic sequences were -- --
- -d

I~;irdcrto rccogni~cin Palacolithic ston; tools than in latcr artifacts --- -

dl1 B Y O ~ L C'r~lz,tl~icnllp.
.
I.nr~~a~~tlic~inc.
(Lctr.r~cii~rl,
Jurci.)
illid also because the issues being discussed were so controversial
4
1
2
.\1orgie1111c.
tl~:itonly the clcarcst stratigraphic evidence was u~iivcrsallyagrccd (.llor.yc~s,
ccrnior~cle I'ciarl, Suibae.,
t o hc ;iblc to provide coiiclusivc tenlporal scclucnccs. The rcliancc on Iiohe~~ll;~uz~c~~~~e.
stratigraplly also reflected Lartct's and Mortillct's training as natural I (IloDr~~l~tru.~o~,
%itrVic.h.)
scientists.
1,artct's N ~ P P O ~ ~ O ~ Age ; I I ~bccanic
I L ~ S the Chcllcan Epoch, namccl
.ili.cr .I sitc 1ic3r l';iris, ;111dmost o f La-tct's C;I\JC1<c;1rvncl Mammoth Tartic~~oisic~~nc.
(Iq'?~.e-e~i-
S'rir.cler~r~is,
Atis~~e.)
Age bcc;imc the Moustcri;ui, a l t h o ~ ~ gMortillcth assigned finds from
A u l - i g ~ itli;it
; ~ 1,urtct 1i;id placccl late in liis Cave 1Scar and Mviimotli Tu~~rns~io~~nc.
(L(c 'l'~,~i~.rih\c', Ilr~i~le-G(~~~o~irte.,
Age to 3 separate A~~rignacian Epocli. Lartct's Rci~idccrAge was , \ I I C ~ ~ I IIIi;tLt~s.

di\lidcd into an earlier Solutrean Epoch and a latcr Magdalenian i

i
1 :- U I\logl;~ldnier~nc.
one. Mot-tillct was uncertain about the date of the Aurignacian. H e .- .-- (Lu .Mutleleirze, Dor5tloyrte.)
---
latcr placcd it aftcr the Solutrcan and finally dropped it from his r .-- Solulri:cr~~ie.
cle In (Soliilr~;,S(ior~e-el-Loire.)
c1;issification of 1872. H e also added a R o b c ~ ~ l ~ a u s iEpoch an to .-2 I,nl~olillliquc.
rcpcscnt the Neolithic pcriod and in latcr studies, such as Fovmation L
2
-
r.
-
._i 1'1crrc.
hloosl6ric1111c.
(Le ,Iloustier~, L)ortlogrle.)
dc la nationfiangalse (Dcvelopmciit of the Frcncli Nation) (1897),he --
2

5, Acl~cl~lBcn~~e.
added still more cpoclis to incorporate the Bronze and Iron Ages (Snirtl-Arheul, Sornn~e.)
into his system. It is doubtful, however, that he was cvcr serious
CII~II~CIIII~.
about tlic univcrsalitp of these highly distinctive Wcstcrn European (Chelles, Srinc-ct-,ll~irrie.)
periods (Cliilde 1956a: 27). i I~~iycour~ric~~nc.
Mortillct also invcnted a Thenaisiaii Epoch and latcr a Puycour- .- ( P ~ I I J - C V ~ ~C(i111cil.j
I~II!~,
~iiaiione to cover prc-Chcllcan finds. Bctwccn 186; and 1940 ai-chac-
ologists discovcrcd eoliths, or prcsumcd artifacts of exceptionally
crude nianufacturc, in early Pleistocclic as well as still earlier
i. 1 l<oIilhiq~~c.
The~~irysie~~nc.
(?%ellcl~~,
Loif.-el-Cher.)

15 Mort~llct'sepochs of prchrstory, fro111Formanon dc la natton franpise, 1897

Pliocene and Miocene deposits in France, England, Portugal, and
 A history of archaeological thought The beginnings of scientific archaeology

Belgium>Evolutionary theory implied that the earliest tools would iian period (Bahn 1978), Palaeolithic archaeologists were far less
be so crude that they could not bc distinguished from naturally l~ltcrcstcdin studying how pcoplc had lived in prehistoric times than
broken rocks; hence in the abscncc of human bones or otlier con- Scandinavian archaeologists had becn. In this rcspect Palacolithic
vincing proofs of hun~anprcscncc the authenticity of thesc finds was archaeologists rcscmblcd palaeontologists, who at that time were
challcngcd. In the late 1870s Mortillct and othcrs who supported the more conccr~icdto demonstrate cvolutionary sequences than they
nrtif~ctualst.~tusof col~thsb e g ~ nto develop a set of criteria t h ~ t were to study ccologic,ll I-elations within rock foniintions from
n ~ ~ g lbc
i t used to dist~ngu~sh
~ n t c n t i o nstone
~ l work~ngfrom natural individual pcriods. The main units of archacological cxcavation
breakage. Challenges to these criteria alternated with efforts to were strata, although cvcn thesc wcrc oftcn rccordcd in surprisingly
elaborate new and more c o n v ~ n c ~ ntests.
g Comparat~vcstudies werc udimcntary fashion. Sitcs wcrc frcqucntly cxcavatcd with minimal
made of coliths and rocks from formations hundreds of millions of upcrvision, which mcant that detailed cultural stratigraphy and
pears old and experimental work was carried out, including S. H. leatures within major levels went unrecorded. Particularly in rock
Warren's (1905) observations of striations on flints broken by shelters where living floors had becn prcserv cd, this I-csulted in a
mccl~anicaipressure, Marcclin Boulc's (1905) study of flints rccov- scvcrc loss of information conccr~linghow plcoplc ha1d livcd. Tlic
cred from a cement mixer, and A. S. Barnes' (1939) quantitat~ve artifacts that wcre kcpt for study in muscums w .-.-c-- c- CA.. only those
~ ulLcn
analysis of edgc angles fabricated by human hands and by natural recognized as bcing of diagnostic valuc for ascertaining thc agc and
processes. In the course of these studies much was learned about cultural affinities of sitcs. Dcbitage and artifacts that wcre not
stone working and many sitcs werc disqualified as evidence of thought to havc diagnostic significance wcrc frcqucntly discarded.
human antiqu~ty(Grayson 1986). Either as a rcsult of direct influ- This cncouragcd a lion-cultural view of artifacts as dating dcviccs
cncc or by coincidence, this research carried 011 the traditions of and cvidence of progrcss, which was very diffcrcnt from thc Scandi-
arcliacological experime~ltatio~i cstablishcd by Scandinavian investl- navian approach to archacological data. Evcn Boyd Dawkins, who
gators in the 1840s. criticized Mortillet for his preoccupation with evolutionary dcvel-
Mortillct's training in thc natural sciences was reflected in more opmcnt and his failure to allow that some diffcrcnccs between
than his classificatory approach. H e and most other Palaeolitl~ic Palacolithic assc~nblagcs
-
might
-
rcflcct tribal or ethnic variation as
arcliacologists wcre primarily concerned with establishing the anti- well as varying access to different types of stone, did not produce any
quity of humanity. Within their evolutionary framework, this meant satisfactory altcrnativc analyses (Daniel 1950: 108-9).
trying to trace cvidencc of human prcscncc back as far as possible in Mortillet, like the geologists and palacontologists of thc mid-
the archaeological record and demonstrating that older cultures nineteenth century, was caught up in thc evolutionary enthusiasm
were more primitive than later ones. The sequence that Lartet and that characterized scientific rcscarch at that time. H e viewed his
Mortillct established stratigraphically and palacontologically carried Palacolithic sequence as a bridge bctwecn thc geological and palac-
out this task admirably. Comparing later with earlier stages of the ontological cvidencc of biological evolution prior to the Pleistocene
Palacolithic, thcrc was evidence of a grcatcr variety of stone tools, era and the already cstablislicd docunicntation of cultural progrcss
more stagcs and grcatcr prccisio~lin their preparation, and an in Europe in post-Palaeolithic timcs. As Glyn Danicl (1950: 244) has
increasi~lgnumber of bone tools. This demonstrated that the tech- noted, one of the kcynotcs of evolutionary arcliacology was the idea
nological progrcss that Thomsen and Worsaac had documented that humanity's cultural development could be represented in a
from the Stone to the Iron Ages could also be found within the single sequence and read in a cave section, just as the geological
Palaeolithic period. sequence could be read in stratified rocks.
While archaeologists discussed what Palacolithic populations had Mortillet was also influenced by a strong ethnological interest in
eaten at diffcrc~itstagcs and it was debated whether certain art work cultural evolution during the second half of thc ninctccnth ccntury.
might indicate that horses had bccn domcsticatcd in the Magdalc- In 1851 thc German ethnologist Adolf Bnstian (1826-1905) began a
 A history of archaeologicai thought The beginnings of scientific archaeology

series of voyages around the world in order to build up the collcc- thc same Palacolithic scqucncc. While some scholars wcrc prcparcd
tions of the Royal Museum of Ethnology in Berlin. Impressed by the t o accept the multiple i~lvcntio~l o f simple artifacts, such as spcars o r
cultural similarities that he e~lcountcrcdin widcly separated regions, calabash containers, thcy suspected that morc complcx ones, such as
he emphasized the Enlightcnmcnt doctrine of pspchic unity by boomerangs or bows and arrows, wcrc morc likely to be traccd t o a
arg~iillgthat as a resitlt of uni\~crsallyshared 'clcmcntary ideas' common origin (Huxlcy [1865] 1896: 213). Likcwisc, ovcrly rigid
(Ele~~ze~~tayqedarzkc) peoples at the salnc Ic\~elof dc\lelopmcnt \vho ,~ppllcationsof notions bout what constituted progrcss lccl many
arc facing similar problems will, within the constraints imposed by ~~rchacologists, although not Mortillct (Danicl 1950: I ~ I )to , reject
thcir cnviro~~mcnts, tend to develop similar solutio~lsto them. thc authenticity of cavc painti~lgson thc ground that thcy wcrc too
After 1860 thcrc was a grcat revival of thcorctic history, as cthno- advanccd t o havc been produccd at an early stage of human dcvclop-
logists sought, by comparing modern socictics assu~ncdt o be at mcnt. This v ~ c wwas only overcome as frcsh discovcrics of boric
differc~ltlevels of dcvclopmc~~t, to work out the stagcs through carvi~lgsand cavc paintings wcrc madc in c o ~ ~ t c xthat t s clcarly datcd
which European societies had cvolvcd in prehistoric times. These this art t o the Upper Palacolithic period (ibid. 131-2). Oncc vali-
rescarchcs rangcd from studies of specific .issues, such as Johann dated, howcvcr, European cave art was largclp intcrprctcd in tcrms
Bachofcn's (1861) theory that all socictics had evolved from matri- of the totcmism associatcd with the Australian aborigincs (Rcinach
li~lcalbcgin~li~lgs 2nd John McLenna11's (1865) arguments that the 1903; Ucko and Roscnfcld 1967: 123-8).
oldest human socictics had been polyandrous, to gc~lcraldelinc- Palacol~thicarchacology was scic~~tifically important and aroused
ations of dcvclopmc~~t from savagery to civilizatio~lby E. B. Tylor grcat public intercst because it rcvcalcd the hitherto uncxpcctcd
(1865) and Lewis H . Morgan (1877). Unlil<c the 'thcorctic' histories antiquity of hu~nanitpand the gradual cvolutio~lof European civili-
of the cightcenth cc~ltur)~, thcsc ethnological formulatio~lswcrc zation from vcry primitive beginnings. I t also sct new standards
prcscntcd as scientific thcorics rather thail as philosophical spccu- for stratigraphic analysis in archacology. Palacolithic archacology
lations. While reflecting the gc~lcralvogue for cvolutio~larystudies enjoyed grcat prestige bccausc of its close tics with gcology and
in the mid-nineteenth century and usunllp addressing questions that pal.lcontology, which wcrc both sciences in thc forefront of crcati~lg
archaeological data wcrc ill ccluippcd to hnndlc, thcsc ~ ~ o r lderived
cs a new V I S ~ O L Iof the history of the wdrld. All thrcc of these discipli~lcs
ruuch of thcir self-confidcncc from growing .~rchaeologicalcvidcncc were valued bccausc thcp wcrc viewed as demonstrating the reality
that tech~lologicaladvances had bee11an important feature of human of progress in prchistoric tiincs. Palacolithic archacology also was
history. Reciprocally thcsc c t l ~ ~ ~ o g r a pformulations
l~ic c11couragcd respected bccausc it had cvolvcd in France and England, which wcrc
archacologists to i ~ ~ t e r p rthcir
c t data in a unili~lcarpcrspcctivc. the cc~ltrcsof political, economic, and cultural devclopmcnt in thc
In his guide to the archaeological displays at the Paris Expositio~l world at that time. Bccausc of its prcstigc Palacolithic archacology
of 1867 Mortillct declarcd that prchistoric studics rcvealed human provided a model for studying post-Palacolithic prchistory in
progress to bc a law of nature, that all human groups passed through Wcstcr~lEurope. Yct its vicw of artifacts n ~ a i ~ l as l y dating dcviccs
similar stages of dcvclopmcnt, and the grcat antiquity of hurnanit~~ and cvidcncc of cultural cvolutio~lwas a vcry narrow onc by com-
(Daniel 1967: 144). The first two co~lccptshad thcir roots in the parison with Scandinavian prchistoric archacology, which was con-
philosophy of the E n i i g h t c ~ ~ m cand
~ l t the third had been recognized ccr~lcdwith studying cultural evolutio~lbut also sought in a more
as a result of research carried out prior to the publicatio~lof On the r o u ~ ~ d cfashion
d t o learn as much as possible about how human
O~iginof Species. Yet, while Palacolithic archacolog~~ had vindicated beings had Iivcd in prchistoric cnvironmcnts. Thc intcrdiscipli~lary
an evolutionary origin for hurnanit~r,Mortillct's first two laws wcrc cooperation of Scandinavian arcl~acologistswith geologists and bio-
far from validated. Not enough work had been done outside of logists in thcir pursuit of thcsc objcctivcs contrasts with the whole-
Wester11 Europe to dctcrminc whether or not human groups cvcry- sale modelling of archacological rcscarch upon often inappropriate
\vhcrc hacl developed - i11sofi.11-us thcy had dc\,clopcci at 311 -through natur,ll science methods by l'a1a~oIithic :~rchaeologists.AS a result
 A history of arcliaeological thought The beginnings of scientific archaeology
I

thc prehistoric archaeology that dcvclopcd in France and England represent idiosyncratic local trcnds or the accidental interdigitation
was limitcd in thc range of its intcrcsts just as it was enhanccd in its of neighbouring, contemporary groups with different cultures.
time dcpth by con~parisonwith Scandinavian archaeology. From this he concluded that there was no evidence that cultures at
different levels of complexity had not coexisted throughout human
history (Dawson 1888: 166-7; 214; Trigger 1966). While in retrospect
Reaction against evolution Dawson can be sccn as defending a lost cause, in thc ninctcenth
Those who objcctcd to cvolutio~iaryaccounts of human origins or century it was easier for his opponents to ignore his objections than
thc dcnial of biblical accounts of human liistory fought back in to rcfutc them. Not cnougb was yet known about prehistoric
various ways. During tlic 1860s creationists who acccptcd current scqucnccs outsidc Europe to establish evolution in
i~ltcrpretationsof the archacological rccord could still hypotlicsizc human history.
that human beings had been created much earlier than had pre- Still morc links existed between Near Easter11 dlLlldCUlUglbLb n ~ l d
viously been thought and hope that early hominid skeletons, when those who sought to prove the literal truth of the Bible. Intercst in
discovcrcd, would rcscmblc thosc of modcrn human bcings rathcr Mesopotamian archaeology was rcvived in the 1870s aftcr Gcorgc
than the 'pithccoid forms' prcdictcd by the Darwinians (Grayson Smith published a clay tablet from Nineveh containing a Babylonian
1986: 211). Yct not cvcryonc acccptcd an evolutionary interpretation account of the deluge. The Daily Telegraph offered 1,000 pounds
of tlie archacological record. As early as 1832 Richard Whatcly, sterling to send an expedition to Iraq in search of the missing
Archbishop of Dublin (1787-1863), had breathed new life into the portions of this tablet, which were duly found (Daniel 1950: 132-3).
doctrinc of dcgcncrationism. H c argucd that thcrc was no cvidcncc Much of the early work of the Egypt Exploration Society was
that savagcs, unaidcd, had ever dcvelopcd a less barbarous way of dircctcd towards sitcs in thc Dclta, such as Tcll el-Muskhuta, that
lifc. It follou~edthat humanity originally must havc existed in a statc were associatcd with biblical accounts. In 1896 W. M. F. Pctrie was
'far superior' to that of modcrn savages, a vicw which lie fclt was in quick to idcntify thc cthnic name I.si. ri. ar?, which appeared on a
accord with tlic Book of Gcncsis (Grays011 1983: 217-20). This ncwly discovered stela of the Pharaoh Merneptali (reigncd 1236-
position bccamc i~~crcasingly popular among conscrvativcs in the 1223 B.c.), as thc first known mcntion of Isracl in Egyptian texts
186os, altliough not all dcgencrationists denied the grcat anticluity of (Drowcr 1985: 221). As late as 1929 Leonard Woolley excited great
humanity or attributcd its earliest cultural achievements to divine interest by claiming that the thick silt deposits that he had found in
rcvclation. Onc of thc most cmincnt dcgcncrationists was the his cxcavations of prehistoric lcvcls at Ur attested a great flood in
Canadian gcologist and amatcur archaeologist John William Mesopotamia that had given rise to tlie biblical account of th
Dawson, who was Principal of McGill University in Montreal from deluge (Woolley 1950: 20-3). While Egypt and Mesopotamia prc
1855 to 1893. Dawson acccptcd the association between human duced spectacular archacological discoveries that excited the pub11
rcmains and cxtinct mammals but argued that thcsc associations in their own right, those that related to the Biblc and appeared t
confirmed the rcccncy of the l'lcistoccnc gravels in which they wcrc confirm scriptural accounts cklsurcd widcsprcad support fc
found. 0 1 1 a trip to Europc in 186s hc inspcctcd the geological archacological research carried out in these countries as well as i11
dcposits of the Sommc Valley and dcscribcd his mcntor Charlcs Palestine. Individual archaeologists were on both sides in the
Lycll as taking 'very good-naturcdly' his opinion that cvidcncc was strugglc between the supporters of revealed religion and of evolu-
lacking 'of the cxccssivc antiquity at that timc attributcd to [thcsc tionism during the late nineteenth and earlv twentieth centuries
forn~ations]by some writers' (Dawson 1901: 145). H c also main- (Casson 1939: 207-8).
tained tliat North American ethnographic cvidcnce rcvcalcd that the
pcoplcs who uscd the bcst-madc stone implcnicnts also uscd the
rudest and tliat the dcvclop~ncntalsequcncc found in Europc might
 A history ofarciiacolog~calthought The beginnings of scientific archaeology

Avchaeolo~yin N O YA
&me
~vi
Ica Thc Amcrican public wcrc anxious that their continent should
have its own h i s t o ~ yto rival that of Europe and hence wcrc intrigued
While European visitors and to a limited dcgrcc local scholars by these finds, just as they were to be intrigued by John L. Stephens'
studied isolated facets of Latin Amcrican PI-c1iistor)r(Bcrnal 1980: discovery of lost Maya cities in the jungles of Central America in the
j j - I O ~ ) ,tllc United States was the only country o~~tsiclc
L?LII-ope
to r~+os.Yet, apart fro111those ~ 1 1 0interpreted them as cvidcncc of
dc\rclop an indigenous tradition of 3rchacologic.d rcsc,u-ch priol- t o clcgcncration (I%icdcr1986: 33-4), most scholars and the general
the late nineteenth century. 13y the time Europcun settlement public were not prepared to ascribe the finds in the Mississippi and
prcsscd \vcst\vard beginning in the 1780s, rscial myths had gcncrally Ohio Valleys t o thc a~~ccstors of the American Indians. Thcy attri-
cclipscci religions oilcs as a justification for waging war o n the buted them to a race of Moundbuildcrs who wcrc imagined to have
Indi,~nsc~nci\riolating their treaty rights. It \vns widely maintained been destroyed or driven out of North An1crica by savage hordcs of
that the Indians were brutal and warliltc by nature and biologically Indians. The various Moundbuilder theories thus offcrcd a chron-
incapable of sig~lificantcultural dcvelopnicnt. Thcy werc also pro- icle of American prehistory but, by attributing the major accom-
nounccd, despite substantial cvidcncc to the contrary, to be unable plishments of the past to a vanished non-North Amcricun Indian
to adjust to a European style of life and therefore destined to die out people, thcy continued to emphasize thc static and hcncc potentially
as civilization spread westward (Vaughan 1982). Many white ~incivilizablenature of the Indians. The archaeological record was
Americans saw these arraligcmcnts as a manifestation of divine intel-prcted as further cvidcncc of the menace posed by the Indians,
providence, \vhich indicates that the ncuTbiological csplanations of \vho \irere rc\~calcdas destroyers of civilization when given the
alleged native inferiority did not exclude religious ones. opportunity. Victims wcre thus portrayed as bloodthirsty monsters
As Europc.lns began to settle west of the Appulachian Mountains ancl new reasons wcre provided to justifjr white Americans waging
thcy discovcrcd lllounds and earthworks throughout the Ohio and war on them and scizi~lgtheir lands. Books expou~ldingthe thcory
Mississippi watcrshcds. Thcsc arc now ltnown to have been built by that the Moundbuildcrs werc a lost 'race of civilized people, such as
the Adcna and Hopcwcll cultures that had bccn ccntrcd in the Ohio Josi:lh l'ricst's Amevicnw Aatiqzdities andL)iseo~~cries in the West (1833),
Valley bctwccn 8 0 0 E . c. anti A . D . coo 2nd the Mississippian culture q ~ ~ i c kbccamc
ly best scllcrs. So great was the attraction of this theory
distributed throughout the southcastcrn United Statcs from that, even after the American physician and anatomist Samuel
A . D . 5 0 0 to 1500. Tllcsc carthworlts, \vhich often contained clabor- Morton (1799-1851) had failed t o find any sig~lificantdiffercnccs
ate artifacts made of pottcrp, shell, mica, and native copper, chal- bct\vcen the slculls of Moundbuildcrs and thosc of recently deceased
lenged the belief that native American cultures wcrc invariably Indians, hc divided his American race into Toltcc and Barbarous
primitive. They also quicltly bccamc the focus of thc most varied families o n purely cultural grounds (Silvcrbcrg 1968).
speculations. Some Americans, such as thc naturalist William More positively the discovery of mounds and earthworks west of
Bartram, the Kcvcrcnd James Madiso~l,and most i~llporta~ltly Dr. the Appalachians crcatcd for the first time a widespread interest in
James M c C ~ ~ l l o hconcluded
, that thcy had bee11 constr~ctcdby describing prehistoric monuments and collecting artifacts from
Indians but the traveller Bcnjamin Barton attributed them to Danes, them. Between 1780 and 1860 archacology in the ccntral and eastern
who had gone on to become the Toltccs of Mexico, wl~ileGovernor United States passed through an antiquarian phase which rccapitu-
Dc Witt Clinton of Ohio said they were the work of Viltings, and latcd the devclopmcnt of archacology in England and Scandinavia
Anclos Stoddard identified them as bcing of Welsh origin. The bct\vccn rsoo and 1800. In the late cightccnth century, army officers
sagacious ethnologist Albert Gallatin linlted them wit11 Mexico, stationed in the Ohio Valley began to draw plans of thc earthworks
although he was uncertain whether the Mexicans had moved north and the Reverend Manassch Cutler counted the number of rings of
or the builders of thcsc mounds had cvcntually moved south (Silver- trccs that had grown on the top of the cartl~worltsat Marietta as
bcl-g 1968; Willcy 2nd Sabloff 1980: 19-25; Blakcslcc 1987). thcsc were cleared for town b ~ ~ i l d i n In g . 1813 H. H. Brackcnridgc
 ory ot archaeolog~calthougll t The b e ~ i n n i n ~o br scicnrinc arcnaeolc.

distingulshcd bctwecr1 burial and tcmplc mourids and corrcctly

-.---
suggested t h a-.l~.ulr LUUllal .
..-: ones wcrc carlicr (Willcy and S a b,.fL--,.o-.
l u ~, y~o u .
1

23). Research and thc publication of rcscarch gradually bccamc morc

systematic. The Amcrican Philosophical Society took an active inter-
est in the Moundbuildcr debate. In 1799, as one of its numerous
scicntific projects, its President, Thomas Jcffcrson, distributed a
circular soliciting information about prchistoric fortifications,
+lltnuli, and Indian artifacts. In 1812 the p~iblishcrIsaiah Thomas
~ndcdthe Anicric,~nAntiquarian Soc~cty,which provided a focal
po:int for thc diffuse but growing interest in archaeological qucs-
tin ns. The first volume of the society's Transactions, which appeared
---..u

in 1820, contained Calcb Atwater's 'Description of the antiquities

disccwered in the Statc of Ohio and othcr western states'. This study
preserved valuable plans and descriptions of carthworks, many of
which were latcr destroyed. He divided the remains into three
classes: modcrn European, modcrn Indian, and Moundbuildcr. H e
speculated, on thc most meagre cvidcncc, that thc latter had been
built by Hindus, who had com~ :h Amcricca from tlsia and Grave Crecrk Mound, West Virg;inia, from Squier an(1 Davis, AI
latcr moved south into Mexico. Monunzl x t s of thellImiss+pi Valley, 1848
TIic
-. ncxt major contribution to nmcr~can archacology was
A ncir:nt Monuments of the Mississippi Valley (1848) by Ephraim G. editor, and Davis, a physician, both livcd in Ohio. Thcy carefully
Squic:r (1821-88) 3nd Edwin H. 13avis (1811-88). Squier, a ncwspapcr survc)lcd a I.~rgc number of mounds and carthworks, cxcavatcd
some, ,uid drew together the findings of othcr rcscarchcrs. Thcy
assembled a vast amount of data about prchistoric carthworks ovcr
the eastern Unitcd States, many of which concern sitcs that have
since been dcstroyed. Yet, while they wcrc firm supporters of the
- UWIJl,,
Moundbuildcr theory, their work was primarily descriptivc in tone.
Their classification, which was bhsed on formal criteria, distin-
Rapaarwr.rr guishcd betwccn the effigy mounds of the upper Mississippi - - Vallcy,
1 ,,l , I?,". ,,-d.o.,;**<:/. the symmetrical enclosures of Ohio, and the trunc:ated mol~ n d sto
I , ",",.;,A ,,?, ;,*, ,,~.,",,,.,-".,,/;,.
! ....A,,,
:
.;II"rd,;,.,#.'...f-..
.,.#+" d , ~ & , , ~ . the south. Speculation was gcncrally limitcd to posing some ques-
tions about the possible uscs of such structures.
The general tone of the volume was sct by Joseph Henry, a
rcnow ncd physicist and thc first secretary of the Smithsonian Insti-
tution
.._ _ , which had bccn founded in 1846. Thcir volume was the
Smith:sonian's first publication and began its Contvibutions to Know-
ledge scries. Hcnry was dctcrmincd to purge Amcrican archacology
r l a n or prehistoric carthworks at Portsmouth. Ohio. fiom Atwater's
of its 5;pcculativc tcndcncics and to cncouragc scicntific rcscarch in
1 o f thc ant scovercd il-I thc Statc of Ohio'. I ductivc 1 traditior1. H c in:

IC
 A history of archaeological thought Thc beginnings of scientific archaeology

Squier and Davis' speculations about the Moundbuilders so that

I ment in Neolithic, Bronzc Age, and Iron Age times, while the
their 'positive addition to the sum of human knowledge should second, which started SO years later in England and France, devel-
stand in bold relief (Washburn 1967: 153; Tax 1975; Willcy and oped around the study of the Palaeolithic period. While Palaeolithic
Sabloff 1980: 36). Henry also commissio~ledSamuel Haven, the archaeology did not begin completely independently of that prac-
f
librarian of the American Antiquarian Society, to prepare a his- I
tised in Scandinavia, they were distinctive in terms of goals and
torical review of the Archaeology of the United States, which was methods. Palaeolitl~icarchacology tended t o model itsclf on the
published in 1856. I11 it numerous speculations about American n ~ t u r a lsciences, while Scandinavian archacology was morc intcr-
prehistory were rigorously examined in the light of available infor- cstcd in learning from archaeological data how specific peoples had
mation and shown to be ~intc113ble.The M o ~ ~ ~ l d b ~ ~theory
i l d e rwas lived in the past. It also pioneered seriation as a form of chronology
one of the principal objects of Haven's attacks. In order to cncour- appropriate to ordering cultural remains.
age a more profcssio~laloutloolz Henry also published reports on Both branches of prehistoric archacology rcvcal thc~~~sclvcs as
devcloprnents in European archacology in the Annual Report of the intellectual products of the Enlightenment. Thcy wcrc comrnittcd to
Srnithsonian Institution, which was widely distributed in North believing that the evolution of material culture bctokcns social and
America. The most successful of these was 'General Views on moral improvement as well. Large numbers of middlc-class pcoplc,
Archaeology', a translation of a paper originally published in French whosc economic and political power was increasing as a result of thc
by the Swiss geologist and amatcur archacologist Adolf Morlot Industrial Revolution, were pleased to view themselves as a wave of
(1861). Morlot carefully sumnlarizcd recent advances in European progress that was inherent in human nature and perhaps in the very
archacology, especially in Denmark and Switzerland. In particular, constitution of the universe. White Americans wcrc happy to sharc
his account of the excavation of I>a~lish'kitchen middens' stimulated I
t h ~ soptinlist~cview but were not prep'ircd to cxtcnd it to embrace
the excavation of shell niounds along the cast coast of North I the native peoples whosc lands they were seizing. For them native
I
America from Nova Scotia to Floricla beginning in the carly 1860s pcoplc were an exception, who as a result of their biological in-
(Trigger 1986a).Although Henry's convictio~lthat the collcctio~lof adccluacics were unable to participate in the progress that destiny
data should precede theorizing did not significantly diminish the had made the prerogative of Europeans. Far from being discordant,
fanciful i~itcrpretatio~ls
of the past that prevailed among amateur ! these two views were so011 to be combined in a powerful inter-
archaeologists vid the general public, his official encouragement for national synthesis.
archacology and his promotion of morc systematic research helped
to prepare archaeologists for the more professional era that was to
dawn after 1860.

In Europe prehistoric archaeology developed in the early and middle

part of the nineteenth century, primarily as an evolutionary study of
human history. It revealed not only that the most complex industrial
technologies had developed from Stone Age beginnings but also
that the Stone Age itsclf bore witness to the gradual elaboration of
the ability of human beings to control their environment. Prehis-
toric archacology originated in two complementary waves. The first,
which began in Denmark in 1816, mainly studied cultural develop-
 The imperial synthesis

1840s to bc rcgardcd as diffcrcnt bra~lchcsof anthropology, which

was idc~itificdas thc study of nativc pcoplcs. Thc pri~icipalgoal of
American anthropology was romantically dcfitlcd by thc cthtlologist
Hcnry Schoolcraft as being to prcscrvc somc rccords of a dying racc
for futurc agcs (Hinslcy 1981: 20).
One of thc main protllcms that had confronted cultural cvolu-
Thc imperial syntl~csis
tionis111from the beginning was to explain why s o n ~ csocictics had
dcvclopcd rapidly whilc others apparc~itlyhad rcmai~icdstatic ovcr
Felv of us can obsenx such indications of the habits and physical thousands of ycars. In thc cightccnth ccntury such disparitics com-
condition of the earliest inhabitants of this island [Britain] as are monly had been attributcd to c~ivironnlcntalfactors. Yct specific
afforded by the remains of their rude dwellings, and by the rude environn~c~ital explanations often wcrc far from convincing. A
inzplements occasionally fo and, without a sense of thankfulness
that our lot has been merciftlll3, cast in times of improved know- growing intcrcst in cultural cvolutio~lcould not fail to draw attcn-
ledge, of advanced civilization, and more refined habits. tion to this deficiency.
'111aupur~IAJdrcssl at E S C ~COII~I-CSS,
E A K L 0 F 1) E V O N, C~ 1873.

I
Avcbaeolo~lcalJ o r r v n 30 (1873), 206
The rise of mcism
A sharcd commitment to an evolutionary approach promoted a close At the samc timc that this closc rclationship bctwccn prchistoric
alignment bctwecn prchistoric archaeology and ctllnology in archacology and ethnology was dcvcloping in Wcstcr~lEuropc and
Westcrn Europc and the United States in the 1860s and 1870s. In Arncrica, somc of the principal idcas of thc E~llightc~imcnton which
Europc the basis of this alig~lmcntwas thc belief 111 un~li~lcar
cultural it was based wcrc u~ldcrgoi~ig significa~itcliangcs and cvcn being
evolution evolved by Enlightenment ph~losophcrs.It was accepted abandoned. I11 particular thc ninctccnth ccntury witncsscd thc slow
that arranging modern cultures in a serles fro111 simplcst to no st dcclinc in Wcstcr~lEuropc of thc bclicf in psychic unity. Thc
co~nplcxillustrated the stagcs through which the most advanced Napoleonic conquests had stimulated a nationalistic reaction, which
cultures had developed in prehistoric t~nics.Glyn Danicl (1950:
185-6) has argued that the mcagrcncss of the archaeological record I was c~lcouragcdby tlic conscrvativc rcgimcs that wcrc rcstorcd to
power in Francc, Gcr~nany,and Italy aftcr his dcfcat. I11 placc of thc
compelled archaeologists to employ the conclusions of physical rationalism of thc Enlightcnmcnt, this ncw co~iscrvatismfavourcd a
anthropolog~sts,linguists, and ethnologists in their efforts to recon- romantic idealization of national and cthnic diffcrcnccs. This
struct the past. Yct it appears that French and British archaeologists cncouragcd intcllcctuals to vicw allcgcd national charactcristics as
did not try harder to elucidate the past using archaeological data being rooted in biological disparitics bctwcc~lhuman groups. I11
because, as a result of their commitment to unilincar evolutionism, placc of thc ciglitcc~itli-century bclicf in thc i~ltcllcctual and
they bclicvcd that ethnology revealed almost everything that they cmotional similarity of diffcrcnt cthnic groups and in rclativcly
wished to hiow about prehistoric ti~ncs.From this stricture we must quickly acting cnvironmcntal i~lflucnccs as tlic main causcs of
exempt the Scandinavia17x archaeologists, especially Nilssoil, who
used ethnographic parallels to infer specific forms of behaviour, such
i physical and bchavioural diffcrcnccs (Grayson 1983: 142-9), somc
scholars bcgan to vicw thcsc diffcrcnccs as rootcd in biological
as the use that had been made of particular types of artifacts, rather factors that wcrc impervious to changc. Thcsc idcas found cxprcs-
than the nature of whole cultures. sion in thc writings of Joseph-Arthur, comtc dc Gobi~lcau(1816-82),
In the Unitcd States, where it was assumed that relatively little cspccially his four volumc Essai sur L'inifalite' des races humains
cultural evolution had occurred in prehistoric times, archaeology, (Essay on the Inequality of thc Human Raccs) (1853-5). A mcmbcr of
cthnology, physical anthropology, and linguistics had begun by the an aristocratic and royalist Frcnch family, Gobincau bclicvcd that
 A history of archaeological thought The imperial synthesis

the fate of civilizations was determined by thcir racial composition fad which was generally repudiatcd by devout Christians, who were
and that the more a successful civilization's racial character was offended by its rcjcction of biblical authority. Despite thcir allcgcd
'diluted', the morc likely it was to sink into stagnation and corrup- proof that ncgrocs werc inferior t o whitcs, Nott and Gliddon's ideas
tion. In particular he proclaimcd that Europca~lsocieties would wcrc not popular in the slavc-owning so~ithcastcr~l Unitcd Statcs
flourish only so l o ~ i gas thcir members avoided 'miscegenation' with ~ C C ~ L I Stheir
C attacks 011 biblical authority offcndcd thc conscrvativc
uon-European strains. Gobincau's teachings were t o influence religious sensibilities of that region (Stanton 1960: 161-73). Even thc
European racists from Richard Wagner to Adolf Hitlcr and in leading British monogcnist Jamcs Cowlcs Prichard (1786-1848),
America they wcrc popularized by worlis such as Madison Grant's who argucd that I~umanbeings had differentiatcd as thc rcsult of a
The Passirg of tl~cGreat Race (1916). It was not long before novelists process of self-don~cstication,maintained that the more civilizcd
as well as scholars were invoking alleged racial factors instead of peoples became thc morc they grew to resemble Europeans. Hcncc
cn\~ironmcntalones to explain variations in the degree to which while the most primitive groups had black skins, morc civilizcd oncs
ciiffcrcnt groups had evolved in the course of human history. bccamc progrcssivcly lighter (Prichard 1813: 174-242).
S o ~ n of
e these theories were related to the doctrine of polygcncsis, 13clicf in the inccluality of r x c s gained scientific credibility as ;I
which can bc traced back to the twelfth century (Slotkin 1965: 5-6), result of Darwinian evolutionism. In their dcsirc to makc crcdiblc
but was first raised as a major issue in ~llodcrntimes by the French the cvolutionary origins of the human spccics, Darwin and many of
Ca1vinist librarian Isaac de La Pcpri'rc (1594-1676) in 1655.H e argued his supporters argucd that human societies varicd in thcir biological
that the biblical Adam was the ancestor of the Jews alone, while the evolutionary status from highly evolved groups t o ones that differed
ancestors of othcr human groups had been created separately and only slightly from the most evolved apes. Darwin bclicvcd that lcss
earlier. While church authorities compelled La Pcyrtrc to retract his civilized pcoplcs wcre also less developed intcllcctually and
thesis, his ideas continued to be debated. In 1774 Edward Long cmotionallp than wcrc Europeans; hence his cstimatio~lof bio-
(1734-1813), who had worked in the West Indies, argued that Euro- logical devclop~ncntcorrespo~ldedwith the conventional scale of
peans and ncgrocs were separate spccics, while in 1799 Cl~arlcs cultural evolution. In 1863 Thomas Huxlcy noted thc similarities
White (1728-1813) proclaimcd that Europeans, Asians, Anicricans, between two N c a n d c r t l ~ ~skulls
~ l and those of 111odcrn Australian
black Africans, anci Hottentots constit~~tccl a gracicd scclucncc of aborigines 2nd argued that they wcrc also culturally alike (Huxlcy
increasingly pri~nitivespecies. [1863] 1896). Culturall)~advanccd socictics wcrc vicwcd as ones in
Samuel Morton suggested in his CmniaAmericana (1839) that the which the operation of natural selection had produced individuals
American Indian constituted a homogcncous type that providence who possessed superior i ~ ~ t e l l i g c and
~ ~ cgreater
c self-control. Alfrcd
had adapted from the beginning for life in the New World. In his Wallace (1823-1g13), the co-discovcrer o f natural sclcction, had as a
Crania Agyptiaca, published five years later, he argued that Egppt- naturalist livcd for long periods of timc among tribal groups in
ian skulls and depictions on thcir monuments rcvealcd that human South America and Southcast Asia. 0 1 1 thc basis of his pcrsonal
types had not changed in that part of the world for 4,500 pears; knowledge of such groups he dcnicd that these pcoples differed
almost as far back as the biblically recorded creation of the carth. significantly from Europeans in intclligcncc o r othcr innatc abilitics
While Morton initially believed that God had differc~ltiatcdthe and m~intaincdthat humanity's higher mcntal capacities could not
races after he had created a common humanity, by 1849 he was have been produced by natural selection. Darwin dcplorcd thcsc
advocating divine polygcncsis, a position that was endorsed by the observations as lack of support for thcir joint theory (Eisclcy 1958).
influential Swiss-American naturalist Louis Agassiz (1807-73) and To those who werc predisposed t o believe it, Darwin's view of
popularized by the Alabama physician Josiah C. Nott (1804-73) and natural selection offered a far more convincing explanation of how
the amateur Egyptologist George R. Gliddon (1809-57) in their biological inequalities had developed among human groups than
book Tvpcs ofManlri~~d (1854). Yet polygcnism remained a scientific polygcnism had done. Darwinism also reinforccd an cvolutionary
 A history of archaeological thought The in~pcrialsynthesis

perspective on cultural evolution by malzillg it appear t o be an Condition of Man (1870) also went through several cditions. It
extension of biological evolution and implying that they were in- expounded Lubbock's ideas in a morc extreme fashion and with less
scparablc. While Darwin vchcmcntly opposed the mistreatment and emphasis o n archaeological data. Lubbock grcw up as a ncighbour
exploitation of non-Western pcoplcs, liis theorizing about human of Charles Darwin, whose house bordered on the Lubbock family's
evolution Save an ~u~iprecedcntcd measure of scientific respectability estate in ICcnt. At the age of 22 he bccainc a partner in his father's
to racial interprctatio~~s
of human bchaviour. These i~ltcrprctations bank and latcr as a member of parliament he secured passage of the
provided a biological counterpart t o romantic nationalism in chal- Bank Holidays Act (1871) and of an act to provide protcctioll for
lenging and ultirnatclp superseding a bclicf in ps)ichic unity. anclent monuments (1882). His rcscarch as a nat~ralistcstablisl~cd
hlrn ,is a leading ~ ~ ~ t h o r011
i t yanimal bchaviour. It was as an early
supporter of Darwin's theory of evolution that he began t o study
Lubbock's sy~zthesis prehistoric archaeology.
A Darwinian view of human nature was incorporated into prc- At first glancc, Pvd~isto~ic Times (to adopt the spiclling of latcr
historic archacology by thc versatile John Lubbock (1834-1913), who editions) appears to bc a curious collection of dispara te ~natcri al. A
latcr became Lord Avcbury, with his book Pre-historzc Times, as first section, comprising more than half the book, prescnts a scrics or
Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of chapters dealing in roughly chronological order with archaeological
Modern Sava~es.Betwee111865 and 1913 this book went through scvc~l topics: the use of bronze in ancient times, the Bronze Age, the usc of
editions both 111 England and the United States and it long served as stonc, megaliths and tumuli, lakc-dwellings, lzitchc~i middens,
a textbook of archacology. It was almost certainly the most influen- North American archaeology, Quaternary mammals, 'primeval man',
tial work dealing with arch~cologypublished during the nineteenth Plcistoccnc deposits, 'und the anticluitp of human beings. Lubbock
century. A second book The Origin of Czvzlisation and the Przmitive then argued that just as inodcrn elephants provide information
about the nature of extinct mammoths, so modern primitivc soci-
eties shed light on the bchaviour of prehistoric human beings. This
is followed by a series of sltctcl~csof the ways of life of modcrn tribal
soc~etics: Hottentots, Vcddahs, Andamail Islanders, Australian
Abongincs, Tasmanians, Fijians, Maoris, Tahitians, Tongans,
Eskimos, North American Indians, Paraguayans, Patagonians, and
Fuegans. The ordering of these chapters is clcL1rlygeographical
rather that evolutionar)~and n o attcmpt was made t o indicate what
particular modcrn groups providc evidence about specific stages of
prehistoric development. Among the few spccific parallels that he
suggcstcd was the long-standing Sc.lndin,ivi,~n cl,iim that Eslc~mo
stonc tools LVCI.C \ u - y s1ni11.11.to tliosc 01' tllc E L I ~ O ~Upper
C~II
Palacolithic. H e also drcw a parallel bet\vccn the Fucgans and the
llanlclcss people who had produced the Danish lzitchcn middens,
~lthoughhe noted that the latter had cxccllcd the Fucgans because
they manuticturcd crude pottery.
Lubboclc was deeply co~iimittcdt o the idea of unilincar cultural
evolution. The parallel that he drcw between palacontological
o h n 1,ubhock (1,ol.d A\.chury) (lXj+-ly I;) analogies and those in\,ol\iin~modern 'primitive' peoples and prc-

114
 A history of archaeological thought The inlperial synthesis

historic oncs sccms to have bccn an attempt to enhance the scientific values, he also cmphasized thcir dirtincss. H e argued that cultural
respectability of the cultural comparisons rathcl- than mcthodologi- dcvclopn~cntrcsultcd in an increasing population; whilc lcft to thcir
callp innovative. He notccl, howcvcr, that there was no clcur cvi- own dcviccs primitive pcoplcs rcmaincd static or declined in
dcncc that humanity hael invented spccific types of tools in an!! o11c numbcrs. Cultural dcvclopmc~ltalso cxpandcd human conscious-
partic~~l;~r SCC~LICI~CC.
En\lironmcntd factors liud produced variations ncss and Icd to growing material prospcrity and spiritual progress.
in 'l<incl' us well as 'dcg~-cc'among h ~ ~ r n F; I~- OnL I ~ S .None 01' tllcsc Nc vicwcd ci1lt~1r.11
cvoI~ti011 .IS c o ~ i t i n l ~ i i~iclcfi~litcly
~ig ill .I futiirc
arguments limiting the uscfulncss of a unilincar approach was new. marked by ever grcatcr technological and moral improvcmcnt and
What was nc\v was his 13nrwini;ln insistence tllrlt as a rcsult of by increasing human happincss and comfort. Prc-historic Times
natural sclcction humrin groups 11.1cl hccomc diffcrcnt from cuch cndcd with a rousing cxprcssion of this evolutionary crcdo:
other not only cult~irallybut also in their biological crlpacities to Even in our own time, we may hope to see some improvc-
utilize culture. Lubbock viewed modcrn Europeans as thc product ment; but the unselfish mind will find its highest gratification
of intcnsivc cultural and biological evolution. H e bclicvcd that in the beliefthat, wl~atevermay be the case with oursclvcs, our
technologically less ad\~anccdpcoplcs were not only culturully but cicsccndants will understand Illany tllings wllicll arc lliddc~l
also intellectually and cniotionally morc primitive than civilizcd from us now, will better appreciate the beautiful world i
oncs. H c also mai~~taincd that as a rcsult of the diffcrcntial operatio11 which we live, avoid much of that suffering to which we a]
subject, enjoy many blessings of which we are not yet worth:
of natural sclcction among Europeans, the cri~lli~lally inclined and and escape many of those temptations which we deplore,
lower classes wcrc biologically inferior to the more successful middle but cannot wholly resist. (Lubbock 1869: 591)
and upper classes. Thus a sillglc explanation accounted for social
inequality in Wester11 socictics and for the allcgcd supcrioritp of The growth o f a capitalist industrial economy, in conjunction with
Europcan societies ovcr other human groups. the operatioil of natural sclcction on human beings, was clearly
Like other evolutionists, Lubboclc argued forcefully against the leading to an earthly paradise. By offering evidence that such pro-
idea that cultural degeneration had played a significant rolc in gress was thc continuation of what had been occurring cvcr more
human l~istory.H e consistently portra~~cd dcgcncrationism as 311 rapidly throughout human history, yrchistoric archaeology bol-
old-fashioned and discredited doctrine. Hc also s o ~ ~ gto h t counter stered the collfidcilce of the British middle classes and strcngthened
romantic followers of Jean-Jacques Rousscau, who qucstioncd that their pride in the lcading rolc that they werc playing in that process.
thc dcvcloprncnt of civilizatio~lhad Icd to an incrcasc in human Yct not all l~umangroups wcrc to sharc in this happincss. T l ~ c
l~appincss.I11 order to reinforce an evolutionary perspective, he most primitive were doomed to vanish as a result of tllc spread of
went out of his way to portray primitivc pcoplcs as inevitably few in civilization, sincc no amount of cducation could compcnsatc for thc
number, wretched, and depraved. Hc described mociel-n tribal tl~ous~~nclsof years during which ilatural sclcction had failcd to adapt
groups as being unable to control naturc and having intcllccts them biologically to a more complex and orderly way of life. Nor
rcscmbling those of children. Their languages were allcgcd to lack was their rcplaccmcnt by morc cvolvcd pcoplcs to bc seriously
abstract words and they wcrc claimed to be incapable of undcrstand- regretted, sincc this rcsultcd in an overall improvement of the
ing abstract concepts. ?hey wcrc also said to be slaves to thcir human race. Thus, by applying Darwinian principles, Lubbock
passions, being unablc to coiltrol anger or t o follow any spccific came to much the samc conclusion about the unbridgeable bio-
course of action for more than a short timc. H e maintained that they logical differences between Europeans and native pcoples that
wcrc more dcficicnt in moral scnse than was gc~lerallybclicvcd and American anthropologists and historians had evolvcd in thc late
took pains to documcnt how spccific groups regularly mistreated cightccnth and early nineteenth ccnturics. His vicws of native
children, murdered agcd parents, ate human flesh, and practiscd pcoplcs justified British colonization and the establishment of poli-
human sacrifice. To demonstrate their luck of routine Vict+wi.t~m tic.11 'ind ccononlic control ,ibroad o n thc grounds that thcy pro-
 A history of archaeological thought The imperial synthesis

n ~ o t e dthe general progress of the human species. H e also absolved I

Colonial archaeolo~yin America
British and Amcrica~lsettlers of much of the moral respo~~sibility for
the rapid decline of native peoples in North America, Australia, and Lubbock's writings played a significant role in reinforcing and
the Pacific. Thcse populatio~lswere vanishing not because of what shaping the development of American evolutionary archaeology in
colonists \vcre doing to thcm but rather because, over thousands of the late nineteenth century, even if some leading American archae-
pears, natural sclcctio~lhad not equipped them to survive as civili- ologists did not whole-heartedly accept the relevance of Darwinism
zation spread. The impositio~lof inferior roles on native groups was for understanding human affairs (Mcltzer 1983: 13). Euroamerican
made to appear lcss a political act than a consequence of their limited anthropologists had no difficulty applying an evolutionary pcrspcc-

I
natural abilities. Whether dealing with the worlcing classes in Britain tive to their own society. The Enlightcnn~cntconcepts of reason and
or with native peoples abroad, social Darwinism transferred human progress that had played an important role in the American Rcvo-
inequality fro111the political to the natural realm by explaining it as a lution, and the econornic and territorial expansion of the United
conscclilcncc of'biological dillkrc~lccsthat could bc ultcrcd only vcrp tile ~ l i n ~ t e e century,
St,~tcstlll-oi~gllo~~t ~ ~ t h sustai~~ed
a bclicf that
slowly, if at all. progress was inherent in the human condition. In works such as
This view nlarkcd a major break with the ideals of the Enlighten- Lewis Henry Morgan's (ISIS-81) Ancient Society (1877) and Otis
ment. The aspiring bourgeoisie of eighteenth-century France had Mason's (1838-1908) The Orgins ofInvention (1S9s) anthropologists
expressed thcir hopes for the future in terms of a belief in progress in traced the development of culture in a perspective that placed
which all human beings could participate. In contrast the middle Euroamerican society in the forefront of human advancement.
classes that dominated Britain in the nlid-nineteenth ccntilry werc Lubbock provided Americans with a Darwinian cxplanation for the
increasingly concerned to ctcfcncl thcir gains :und did so by trying to biological inferiority that thcy had attributed to An~crica~l Indians
define natural linlits to those who could reasonably hope to sharc in since the late eighteenth century. Many found his explanation more
them. Beginning in the 186os, Darwinian evol~itionisn~ performed persuasive than any previous one, n o doubt partly as a result of the
this function admirably. Through Lubbock's vcrsio~lof cultural great prestige that leading biologists and the general public
I
c~ccordcdto Darwin's work. The declining numbers of native people
evolution, prehistory was linltcd to a doctrine of European prc-
cmincncc.
I and their lessening ability to withstand Euroamerican expansion
While Lubboclr's synthesis was clearly a product of Victorian I
!
also encouraged a growing belief that they were doomed to extinc-
England, thcrc was nothing narrowly chauvinistic about it. Argu- tion, which accorded with Lubbock's views. As a result most North
rnents about superiority werc formulated in terms of a contrast _American archaeologists conti~luedto stress the changeless quality
between European civilization and technologically lcss developed of the archaeological record and tricd hard to attribute changes to
societies. They sought to explain the expanding world syste~llthat processes other than alterations in native cultures.
was dominated by Western Europe. England's political and The archaeology of Mexico, Central America, and Peru consti-
tuted a challenge to this view. Somc writcrs, including thosc who
ccononlic h e g c m o ~ ~was
y SO great compared to that of any other 1
nation that it did not require any specific defence. I11 framing
arguments in terms of8uropea11 civilization, Lubbock took his own
j identified the native peoples of Mexico with the Moundbuilders,
regarded them as racially superior to the North American Indians.
country's leadership for granted. Because of that his works had i J. L. Stephens' discovery of the ruins of Maya cities in Mexico and
appeal far beyond Britian and influenced the interpretatio~lof I Central America was welcomed as proof that the New World had
archacological data in nlany parts of the world.
I
3
developed its own civilizations by American scholars who were
anxious to refute the claims advanced by eigl~teenth-centuryEuro-
pean naturalists and historians, such as Georges-Louis Leclerc,
I comte de Buffon, Guillaurnc-Thomas Raynal, and William Robert-
 A history of archaeological thought The imperial synthesis

son, that the climate of North Amcrica was conducive t o thc dcgcn- society (Morgan 1876).H c did not rule out thc possibility that nativc
cration of a~linlaland human lifc (Haven 1856: 94). William H . Americans on their own might have cvolvcd morc complcx ways o f
Prcscott's celebrated Histo7.y of the Conquest ofA4exico (1843) and his lifc, but he bclicvcd that any cultural adva~lccmcntdcpcndcd o n an
later Histoql of tJge &~z~uest of Peru (1847) portrayed the Aztccs and increase in brain size which could occur only vcry slowly (Bicdcr
Incas as civilized pcoplcs, although 11c ~ilaintaincdthat, as a result of 1986: 194-246). This position was long maintai~lcdby many Euro-
their superstitions 2nd aggrcssivencss, the Aztecs were destroying americans who saw littlc t o adnlirc in the nativc pcoplcs of thc
the ~ccomplishmcntsof their morc civilized PI-cc1ccesso1-s.The U111tcdStates. Thcrc w'ls strong support by the 1860s for thc vicw
ethnologist Albert Gallatin (1761-1849) defended Enlightenment that thc native cultures not only of North Amcrica but of the entire
vicws of c u l t ~ ~ r evolutionism
ul and strongl!~opposed polygcncsis, New World were ~~lhcrcntlp prinlitivc and had bccn static tllro~1g11-
but by the 1840s his argurnellts appeared old-fashioned and un- out prchistoric timcs.
convi~lcing(Bicdcr 1975). Ncvcrthclcss E. G. Squicr continued to It has bccn suggcstcd that thc lack of conccrn with chronology in
defend both u~lilincarc v o l ~ ~ t i o ~ i and
i s m psychic unity (Bicdcr 1986: North Amcrican archaeology prior to thc twcnticth century r c s ~ ~ l t c d
104-45) Finally in 1862 Daniel Wilson, who was now teaching at fro111 the failurc of any native group t o advance bcyo~ldthc Stolic
University College in Toronto, published the first edition of Pre- Age, a dcarth of stratified sitcs, and lack of familiarity with tcch-
histovic Man: Researches iwto the Or$in of Civilization in the Old and niqucs for dcriving chronology in thc abscllcc of major tcchnologi-
the New Wovld. This book was a rcniarlcablc synthesis of all that was cal cliangcs (Willcy and Sabloff 1980: 80-1). Thcsc factors d o not
hiown about the a~lthropologyof thc Nc& World. Wilson, as a explain, howcver, what happcncd. A low frcqucncy of stratified
product of the Edinburgh E~ilightct~nicnt, continued, lilcc Gallatin, post-Palacolithic sitcs among thosc that wcrc known in northcrn
to resist ~-aci;lli~ltcrp~-ctations of human bchnviour. A significant and wcstcrn Europc in the ninctccnth cc~lturpdid not inhibit the
portion of his book was co~lccrncdwith thc impact that Europea~i constructioll of dctailcd chronologies in those rcgions, mainly by
colonists and African slaves wcrc having upon the native pcoplcs of employing Thomscn's principles of striation (Childc 1932: 207).
the wcstcrn hemisphere and the eftkcts thar a new e ~ l v i r o ~ ~ r nwas cnt Morcovcr, all of thc cl~ronologicalmcthods uscd in Europc wcrc
having on them. 111the section of his book dealing with prehistory, known in America and had bccn succcssf~~lly applied by archac-
Wilso11, while ncccpti~lgthe M O L I I I ~ ~ Lmyth, I ~ ~ ~skctcliccl
CI- an olog~sts In sltu,ltlons where thcy sought t o c m ~ ~ l a tEuropcnn
c
evolutionary sequence which, indcpclldcntly of outside i~lflucncc, research. After 1860 shcll mounds were studied both scriatiollally
had produced in Mcxico and Peru civilizations that were comparablc and stratigraphically and on the basis of such cvidc~lcclocal cultural
to tliosc of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. chronologies werc constructed that wcrc cllaracterizcd by changing
These vicws cncountcrcd great opposition. Tlic war between the pottery styles o r adaptivc patterns. Such observations wcrc made by
United Statcs and Mcxico that cndcd in 1848 unleashed a flood of Jcffrics Wyman (1875), S. T. Walkcr (1883), and Clarcncc B. Moorc
anti-Mexican feeling in tlic United Statcs. The Mexicalls wcrc (1892) 111 the soutl~castcrnUnitcd Statcs; Willia~llDall (1877) in
widely ugrccd to be racially inferior to Euroa~~~cricans because Al,~slca;,ind the visiting Gcrm'ln archaeologist Max Uhlc (1907) in
Spanish settlers had intcrbrcd with the nativc population (Horsman Calitorn~a.Stratigraphic methods were also c~llploycdin ~lioutld
1975). Thc ctl~~iologist Ecwis Henry Morgan, doggedly ignoring studies by Squicr and Davis in thc 1840s and by Cyrus Thomas in the
archaeological cvidcncc, maintained that the sixteenth-century 1880s, as well as by W. H . Holmcs and F. W. Putnam in their
Spanish had cxaggcrated the sopl~isticationof the Aztccs and Incas 'Palacolithic' research in thc 1880s (Mc~tzcr1983: 39). The cvidcncc
in ordcr t o glorify tlleir own achievements in conquering them. H e of local cultural change that tl~escarcl~acologistsadduccd was
argued that the traditional ways of lifc of thesc peoples had differed rejccted o r dismissed as being of trivial significance by most con-
littlc from that of the Iroquois of Ncw Yorlc State and that 110native temporary arcl~acologists, including so111eti1~1cs those who
g r o ~ in
~ pthe New World hacl ever c\~olvcdbeyond the level of a tribal c~l~ploycd these ~ncthods(Thom,ls 1898: 29-34) 1)iscussing Uhlc's
 A history of archaeological thought The imperial synthesis

cvidencc for 'the gradual elaboration and rcfi~icmc~lt of technical

proccsscs' withiti the Enicryville shell~noundin California, A. L.
I<roebcr (1909: 16) proposed that the native cultures found in tliat
region in historical times had becn so primitive as t o rule out any
possibilitp that there could have been significant cultural cliangc in
the past. It is also significant tliat not even local studies of slicll
mounds displayed cu~nulativedcvelopmcnt at this period. The most
insightful and productive research in an)l one region was not ncces-
sarily tlic most recent (Trigger 1986a).
I11 accordance with the belief tliat change had bee11 minimal in
prehistoric times, the systematic study of cultural variation ill the
archacological record was orieiitcd primarily towards defining gco-
graphical rather than cliro~iologicalpatterns. This paralleled the
tendency of American eth~~ologists late in the ninctee~lthccntuly to
orgaliizc the study of cultural similarities and differences in terms of
cultural areas. In 1887the ethnologist Franz Boas had argued tliat the
- material from across the United States that was accu-
ctlinological
mulati~igin major museums should be exhibited according to geo-
graphical areas and tribes rather than in terms of hypothetical
cvolutionar~lsequences o r typological categories applicable t o the
entire continent. Otis Mason published tlie first detailed etlino-
graphical treatment of the cultural areas of North A~iiericain 1896
and was followed in this approach by Clarli Wisslcr (1914).
Arcl~aeologistshad long been aware of geographical variations in
the distributions of certain classes of archacological data, such as
different types of mounds. Cyrus Thomas (182j-1910), an entom01o-
gist who worlccd as an archaeologist for the Bureau of America11
Etlinolog~~, subdivided these mounds into eight geographical units
\vhicli lie suggested represciited more than one nation or group of
19 'Cultural characterization areas' o f North America based o n
tribes, some of which liad survived into historical times (1894). archaeolog~calcriteria, by Holmes, 1914
Later, in his Introduction to the Study of North American Archaeology
(1898), lie divided all of North America into three major cultural 26 'cultural cliaractcrization arcas' on the basis of arcl~acological
zones: Arctic, Atlantic, 2nd Pacific, wit11 the latter subdivided into data, in a maliner that paralleled tlie proccdurcs being followed by
several districts. J. D. McGuire (1842-1916) examined the distri- ethnologists. I11 all of this work littlc cffort was madc t o assign
bution of different typcs of Ilidian pipes in terms of fifteen geo- relative chronological significance to diffcrcnt units o r t o tracc
graphical divisions (1899) and W. H . Holmcs (1846-1933), who liad cl~ronologicalchanges within them.
been trained as an artist, used stylistic :unalyscs as well as tccllnologi- It was generally assumed that thc way of lifc of cach prehistoric
cal criteria to define a series of pottery regions for tlie eastern United tribe had not changed significantly ovcr timc. Evidcncc of change in
States (1903) In 1914he divided the \vIiolc of North America into the archaeological record was intcrprctcd as resulting from move-
 A history of archaeological thought Thc imperial synthesis

For the anthropologists cmploycd by thc Bureau of Ethnology

mcnts of pcoplc rather than from alterations within individual
(rcnarncd the Burcau ofAnlcrican Ethnology in 1894) this 'flat' vicw
culturcs. For exampic, the change from what would now bc called
of native history unified the study of ethnology and prehistoric
Archaic to Middlc Woodlalid culturcs in upper New York State was
attributed to the rcplaccmc~~t of an Inuit-likc populatio~l by
archaeology as closcly related branches of anthropology. Founded as
an arm of the Smithsonian Institution in 1879, thc Burcau grew
Algonlcian-spcakcrs, who in turn wcrc displaced by Iroquoian-
spc;iking pcoplcs carrying yet another distinctive cultural pattern under the Icadcrship of its dircctor, thc rc~lowncdgeologist and
explorer John Wcslcy Powcll (1834-I~OZ),into the lcading centre of
northward from thc Mississippi Valley. That pattern included an
anthropological rcscarch in North Amcrica. Althougl~originally
agricultural subsistcncc ccononiy and incised pottery and in gcncral
was tllo~~glit to rcsc~nblcmore closcly the ways of life found in the intended to study cthnograyhic and linguistic problems in ordcr to
promote the more effcctivc administration of Indian affairs, it also
sourhcnstcrn Unitcd Statcs than it did earlier cultures that had
laid 'the empirical f o ~ ~ ~ i d a t i oofn sarcheology in thc Unitcd Statcs
c.si.stcd in its historical homcland (Beauchamp 1900; Parker 1916,
t o ~ o )'The . ctlinologist R. B. Dixon (1913)interpreted the complcx- . . . o n bi-o.ld gcogr,~phic.llsc,llc' (I-Iclllowcll 1960: 84). While the
it!! of the nrcl~acologicalrecord, which by that time was becomi~ig 'flat' past was advocated as a sclf-evident mcans for understanding
c\lidc~itin eastern North America, as a 'palimpscst' resulting fro111 archacological data, it depended on the assumption that prchistoric
rclwawd sliif'tsof population in prehistoric times. Thcsc shifts were tinlcs wcrc not qualitatively distinct from thc cthnographic prcscnt.
\lii*~vc~l ;IS largely random liiovcnlcllts that charactcrizcd aboriginal
Samuel Havcn (1864: 37) had observed that 'Thc flint utensils of tlic
l i l ? on a 1;ll-g~and thinly populated continent.
Age of Stone lic up011 the surface of the ground. . . Thc pcoplcs that
I t \v;is ;ilso ugrccd that, wherc there had been no major shifts in
made and used them have not yct cntircly disappcarcd'. Yct this
~x)pltlnrio~l, cthnographic data concerning tribes that had livcd in a denial of cultural change, to no lcss a dcgrcc than thc cxtrcrnc
tq:iotl i n Iiistorical ti~iicsC O L I ~be ~ U S C ~relatively straightforwardly
unilincar evolutionism of European archacologists, subordinated
to csplnin prehistoric archacological data. Cyrus Thomas (1898: 23)
archacological to ethnological rcscarch by suggesting that nothing
.~I.~:LIc'cI rhat once Anicrica had been settled by ~iativcpcoplcs they could be learned from archacological data that could not be asccr-
tc.ticlci1 t o t.ctnnin it1 the same place; Iict~ccthe archaeological rccot-d t'llncd more c.lsilp by mc.lns o f ctlinogr.lp11ic rcsc,lrch. Wliilc unify-
Ing c~nthropology, the 'flat' vicw also rcinforcccl negative stcrcotypcs
11.1~1 hcc11 ~nostlyproduced by the same pcoplc who h.ld livcd it1
of native pcoplcs. As Mcltzcr (1983: 40) has notcd, this vicw was 'a
~ j . ~ . t i c ~ regions
~ l ; l r in historical times. Hc s~~ggcstcd that such stabi-
prcdictablc co~iscquc~icc of the government approach to archaeo-
lit\! i-o~tld hc assu~iicdunlcss thcrc was clear cvidcncc to the contrary.
At~i.ll;icologistssuch as Franlc Cushing (18~7-19oo)and J. W. Fcwlces logical rcsearcli [which was] groundcd in a subliminal and dcni-
(1Xco-r030), in thcir studics of the Pueblo I~idiansof the southwes- grating stereotype of thc Nativc American'.
In ordcr to pursue thcir programmc, thc anthropologists at thc
tc3l.lrUnitcd States, paid much attention to dctcrrni~ii~ig by mcans of
Bureau of Anicrican Ethnology sought to climinatc thosc aspects of
c..\rcli~lcthnographic parallels what prehistoric artifacts liad been
prehistory that could not be studicd by mcans of thc dircct historical
t~sc.illi)r ;uid how they liad bccn made (Cushing 1886; Fcwlccs 1896).
approach (Mcltzcr 1983). Tlic first of thcsc anomalies was thc lost
11 \vns gcncl-ally assumed that thcrc were no significa~ltdiffcrcnccs
Ix~twccnlife in prehist~ricpueblos and in modern ones. Hence Mou~ldbuildcrrace. Because of grcat public interest, the United
States Congress had insistcd that thc Burcau should spcnd $5,000
c.lli)rrs to Icnrn about the past brought archaeologists into close
r*ollt;lctwith ethnologists and often with native pcoplc. Studics of cach pear on mound studics. In 1882 Powcll sclcctcd Cyrus Thomas
to head this rcscarch. Thomas bcgan an cxtensivc programmc of
this sort constitute early cxan~plesof the dircct historical approach
survey and excavation which led him to conclude that many mounds
to the intcrprctation of archacological data. Only Edgar Lee Hcwctt
(1805-1946)cxprcsscd significant rcscrvations about the relevance of had bccn constructed after carlicst Europcan contact and that all of
I his method (1906: 12).
them had bccn built by thc anccstors of modcrn nativc Amcricans
 A history of archacological thought The imperial synthesis
I

(Thomas 1894). H c also sought to dcmonstratc that the cult~ircsof Unitcd Statcs began to find similar 'Palaeolithic' tools, sometimes in
the Indians wlio liad built tlic mounds in no way cxccllcd thosc of gcological contcxts suggesting gk-cat antiquity. Holmcs and Thomas
the Indian groups who had livcd in tlie eastern United Statcs in the Icd the attack on thcsc claims. Thcy argucd that tlic so-callcd
scvcntccntln and ciglitccntli centuries. TIILISthe refutation of the Palacolithic tools wcrc quarry rcfusc marking thc early stagcs in thc
Mounclbuilclcr niyt11 involvcd not only the wholcsalc rejection of manufacture of implcnicnts by Amcrican Indians. Doubt was also
inflatcd claims tliat had bccn made about them (such as that they cast on the geological contcxts in which thcsc finds wcrc bcing
were able to produce iron) but also ~~ndcrvaluing many of the made. Latcr AlcS HrdliZka (1869--rgq3), a Czcch physical antliropo-
qcnuinc accomplishnicnts of the various groups that had built the logist wlio was brought to thc Unitcd Statcs National Muscum in
mounds. It appe:irs that at this time :~rcIiacologistsliricl either to 1903, studied all of the skclctal matcrial tliat had bccti clai~~icd as
credit the Mo~lndbuildcrswith possessing an adv:inccd culture and evidence of 'Early Man' and dcmonstratcd that thcrc was no clcar
deny that thcy were Indians or to accept them as Indians and deny cvidencc tliat any of it dated prior to thc post-glacial pcriod. While
that their culture was morc advanced than thosc of any Indian tlicsc onslaugl~tsIcd arc~iacolo~ists) and geologists to abandon the
groups living north of Mexico i l l historical ti~lics.No arcl~acologist idca of a strictly Palacolitliic agc in Nortli Amcrica, thcy did not
was prepared to believe that in prehistoric times native Nortli cxcludc thc possibility that human beings had livcd in thc Ncw
A~ncrica~is might have cvolvcd cultures that wcrc morc complex World for Inally tliousands of years. Thcy did, howcvcr, dcnion-
than those observed in the historical pcriod, although by then most stratc the need for more rigorous evidence. I t is clcar that in this case
Indian groups had been scvcrcly reduced by epidemics of European scicntists in thc cmploy of thc fcdcral government were using their
diseases and 1iian)i liad also been shattered and dislocated by Euro- power and prestige not only to put archaeology 011 'a rcally scicntific
pean aggrcssion and by warfare arisin_~as a result of European basis' but also to promotc a vicw of thc past tliat accorded with thcir
scttlcmcnt. Under thcsc circurnstanccs, it is scarcely surprising tliat commitment to thcir own conccption of how archaeology and cth-
tlie demolition of the Moundb~iildcrnijltli 'did nothing to change ~iologyfittcd togctlicr as branches of anthropology (Mcltzcr 1983).
the prevailing popular attitudes against the American Indian' Archaeologists were prcprircd to aclcnowlcdgc that a limitcd
(Willey and S:zbloff 1980: 42). amount of innovntion had occurred in prchistoric timcs. Warrcn K.
The archacologists at the Bureau of A~ncricanEthnology also Moorchead (1866-1939) cvcn bclicvcd that some progress was likcly
adopted a vcry sceptical attitude towards claims that thcrc cxistcd in bccausc 'thc Indian brain is fincr than thc Australian o r African
Nortli America cvidcncc of human antiquity to rival the Palacolithic brain' (1910, I: 331). Thcrc was, however, a tendency, where clcar
assc~nnblagcsof Europe. The most sigliificant of thcsc assertions was cl~ro~~ological indications to tlic contrary wcrc lacking, to intcrprct
based on cxca\~ationsthat Charles C. Abbott (1843-1919)' a physician high-quality artifacts, such as stonc cffigp pipcs o r claborately dccor-
by training, carried out in gravel deposits on his ancestral farm near atcd stone and ~ilctalornaments, as reflecting Europcan influence,
Trcnton, New Jersey. 13y 1877 he was convinced tliat these finds had which took the form of iron tools and artistic inspiration. Thc
bccn produced not by the recently arrived ancestors of modern implicatioii of such intcrprctations was that nativc culcurcs had bcen
Native Americans but by inhabitants of the region during the glacial even si~~iplcr in prehistoric timcs than thc archacological rcillai~lsof
pcriod \vho were probably not related to tlic Amcricaii Indians. H c thc past viewed as a wliolc would suggest.
latcr suggested that this earlier race ~iiighthave been the ancestors of The pcriod bctwccn 1860 and 1910 wit~icsscdthe growing pro-
the Inuit (Abbott 1881).For a ti~iiehis research e~ijoycdthe limited fcssionalization of archacology in tlic Unitcd Statcs. Full-time posi-
support and patronage of Frcdcric W. Putnam (1839-I~IS), who had tions became available for prchistoric archacologists in major
been trained as an iclitl~yologistbut since 1874had bcen the curator museums in the larger cities and latcr tcaching positions were
of the Pcabody Museum of American Arcliaeolog~rand Ethnology established in universities, bcgitining with Putnani's appointment as
, ; ~Har\.ard
t University. Mcan\vliilc, scientists in other parts of the Pcribody Professor of Amcrican Archacology and Ethnology at
 1 4

A history of'arcl~aeologicalthought The imberial synthesis

eighteenth ccntury. Instead, the belief that Indian societies were

I
fossilized entities, incapable of progress, and therefore doomed t o
extinction was rcinforccd as a rcsult of being ratio~lalizedin tcrms of
Darwinian cvolution and seen to accord with the universal pcrspec-
tive on human cvolution that had bee11 popularized by John
I
Lubbocli. The vicw of native Amcricans as inhcrcntly primitive and
static was now shared not only by vast numbcrs of whitc Amcricans
at all social levels but also by an jnternational scientific community
that was increas~nglyreccptivc to racist cxplanations of human
bel~aviour.Without significant changes, thc traditional view that
Euroamerican arc1~aeologistshad held of American prehistory could
be identified as congruent with that part of Lubbock's imperialist
20 Drawing of the Great Serpent Mound of Ohio,
from a popular article by Putnam, 1890
archaeology that applied to colonial situations.

Harvard in 1887.Thc-first doctorate in prehistoric archaeology in the Racist 'a~cbueolo~y

in Apica
United States was granted at Harvard in 1894 (Hinsley 1985: 72).
Euroamericans cxprcsscd their convictio~lsabout their own ethnic These developments in American archaeology foreshadowed ones
superiority by locating collectio~~s of native American archaeology that were to occur later in other colonial settings. Archaeological
and ethnolog~rin museums of natural history rather than together research was carried out sporadically in sub-Saharan Africa by
with Europca~land Near Eastern antiquities in museums of fine art European visitors beginning in, the eighteenth ccntury. According
and by teaching prehistory in dcpartme~ltsof antl~ropologyrather to Brian Fagan the earliest recorded excavation was by the Swedish
than of history. Despite the pleas ofa~~thropologists such as John W. naturalist Andrew Sparrman in 1776. H e dug into one of a number of
Powell and Lewis H . Morgan that 'humble Indian antiquities' stone mounds near the Great Fish River in southern Africa.
should not bc allowed to perish, it was generally nlorc difficult to Although he discovcrcd nothin$, hc concl~~dcd that thcsc mounds
securc thc support of wealthy patrons for rcscarch on North offcrcd irrefutable proof that a morc powerful and numerous popu-
American India11prehistory than for collecting the classical antiqui- lation had lived in the area bcfore being 'dcgradcd to the prescnt race
tics of Europe, which it was argued would 'increase the standard of of Cafres, Hottentots, Boshiesmen, and savages' (Fagan 1981: 42).
our civilizatio~land culture' (Hinsley 1985: 35). Despite these prob- Systematic archaeological research did not begin in Africa before
lems, much new information was collected, new standards of the 189os, by whicl~time the continent had been divided among the
rcsearch were establisl~ed,and the first steps were taken to preservc various European colonial powers. Archacologists and colonizers
major prehistoric monuments, such as the Great Serpent Mound in both regardcd the indigenous cultures of sub-Saharan Africa as a
Ohio and Casa Grande in Arizona. The Smithsonian Institution and living museum of the human past. There was much more diversity
the Bureau of American Ethnology played a major role in providi~lg among thcse cultures than among those of North America, which
Icadcrship to archaeology. This sometimes involved directi~lgtl~cir could all be formally assigned to t l ~ cStone Age. In Africa technolo-
prestige and resources against amateurs, who bitterly resented inter- gies werc based on iron as well as stonc tools, whilc socictics rangcd
fcrcnce in t h e ~ activ~tics
r by profes~ion~ll
scic~ltistsenlployed by the in co~nplexityfrom tiny hunting bands ro largc kingdoms. Yet most
federal government (McICusicl~1970). Yct, dcspitc these develop- Europeans agreed that the technological, cultural, and political
ments, there was 110 change in the view of Indians that had prevailed achieve~nentsof African people werc less significant than they
in ~rchacology ~11dAmcnc,ln soc~ctpgcncrally since the 1,ltc appeared to be. This position was sustained by attributing such
 A history of archaeological thought The imperial synthesis

accomplishments as were recognized to diffusion from the north. i~lvcstigatotsof these monuments saw them as proof of prehistoric
Explorers and missio~larieswho first e~lcountcrcdblack Africa's white colo~lizatio~l in southcrn Africa.
many complex societies concludcd that agriculture, metallurgy, I11 the sixteenth ccntury Portuguese colo~listsit1 Mozambique
urban life, and various art forms had bee11introduced by the ancient recorded Swahili reports of stonc cities in the interior. These
Egyptians or from other Mcditcrrallean or Near Eastern civili- accounts encouraged European spcculatio~~ that thesc cities had
zations (Fagan 1981: 43; Schrire et nl. 1986). In his study of the been built by Icing Solomon or the Qucc~iof Shcba in the course of
archacology of southern Africa, Miles Burliitt (1890-1971), a lecturer gold-mining activities. The identification of the stone co~~structio~is
in Prehistory at Cambridge University, saw northern, and fre- of Zimbabwe with the biblical lalid of Ophir continued to cxcitc the
quc~ltlpspccificallp Europea~lLower Palacolithic, Moustcrian, and irnagiilatio~lof those who studied the geography of Africa in suc-
Upper Palacolithic, influences in stone-tool assemblages and rock ceeding centuries. 111 the late nineteenth c e ~ ~ t u thcsc
r y spcculatio~~s
art (1928).His view of the region as a cul-de-sac was shared in a less had particular appeal to the Afrikaancrs, who wcrc ~icwlyscttlcd in
extreme form by his pupil A. J. H. Goodwin (Goodwin and Van the Transvaal and whose Calvi~listfaith led them to hopc that thcir
Riet Lowe 1929). new homeland bordered on a region that had biblical associations.
I11 1880 the German Egyptologist Icarl Lcpsius suggested that I~lformatio~l collected in the Transvaal about ruins to thc norti1
the indigenous peoples of Africa were composed of two major inspired H. M. Walms1e~~'s The Ruined Cities of Zululand, a novcl
stocks: a lighter-skinned Hamitic populatio~lin the north and a published in 1869. Already in 1868 the Gcrman rnissio~laryA. Mcr-
Negro populatio~~ to the south. A large llumber of ethnologists, cnskp h ~ pcrsu'ldcd
d the you~igGerman geologist Carl Mauch to
i~lcludi~lg Charles Seligman (193o), icicl~tificdthe Hamitcs as thc look for these ruins. 1111871 M a ~ ~ bcca~nc
ch the first European known
'great civilizing force' of black Africa. They sought to account for the to have visited the ruins of Grcat Zimbabwe, which, on the basis of
more advanced aspects of sub-Saharal~cultures by claiming that what Merenslcy had told him, he co~~cludcd was the lost palace of the
culturally liiorc creative Hamitic pastoralists had conqucrcd 2nd Queen of S1icb.l.
i~nposcdthe rudiments of a more advanced tcchnologp and culture, Spcc~~lations of this sort were actively promoted by Cecil Rhodcs
that was ulti~n;ltclyof Neat- Enstel-11origin, upon tlic culturally inert 'lftcr his British South Africa Company forcibly occupied Mashona-
Negro popuintions of Africa ~ ~ n ttheiri l own creativity was undcr- 1.1nd in 1890, .lnd nciglibouri~~g M.ltahclcland thrcc years later, in
mined as a result of 'misccgcnation'. This dichotomy bctwccn order to exploit the region's gold resources. Grcat Zimbabwe soon
Negroids and Caucasoids, and the accompanyi~lgdisparage~nc~it of became a symbol of the justicc ofEuropca11colonization, which was
African creativity, lingered on in studies of prehistory and ethnology portrayed as the white racc returning to a lalid that it had formerly
into the 1960s. The role that was assigned to the prehistoric Hamitic ruled. The first serious study of Grcat Zimbabwe was s p o ~ ~ s o r cbyd
conquerors bore a strilii~lgrescmblance to the civilizillg missions the British South Africa Company with the help of the Royal
that European colonists had been claiming for themselves since the Geographical Society and the British Association for the Advance-
late nineteenth ccntury (MacCnffep 1966). ment of Science. The man chosen for this t.1~1~ was J. Thcodorc Bent
Soon archaeological discoveries wcrc made that seemed to be too (1852-97), a Near Eastern explorer with antiquarian interests.
extc~lsiveor sophisticated to be the work of people who were as Although his excavations revealed cvidc~iccof Bantu occupatio~l
primitive or indole~ltas the Africans wcrc supposed to be. The most containing foreign trade goods no more than a few ccnturies old, he
spectacular example of the colo~lialistmentality at work in African co~~cludcd on the basis of an ullscie~ltificselcctio~lof architectural
atchacology is provided by the co~ltroversicssurrounding the stone and stylistic features that the ruins had been built by 'a ~ l o r t h c rracc'
~l
ruins found in what is now Zimbabwe. Fagan (1981: 43-4) has that had come to soutl~ernAfrica from Arabia ill biblical times. O n
observed that these co~ltroversicsco~lstitutcan African counterpart the basis of alleged astro~lomicalorielltatio~isthe stone ruins were
to the Mou~ldbuilderdebate in North America. Early European dated bct\veen 1000 and 2000 B.C. (Bent 1892).
 A history of archaeological thought The imperial synthesis

In 1895 a company called Rhodesia Ancient Ruins Limited was

licensed to hunt for gold in all the architectural sites in Matabeleland
except Grcat Zirnbabwc. This operation, which mainly involvcd
grmc robbing, was stoppcd,in 1901; after which, in an effort to give
his plundering some rcsycctability, one of thc prospectors, W. G.
Neil, collaborated with liichdrd Hall (1853-1914), a local journalist,
to PI-oduccThe Ancient RuinsofRhodesia (Hall and Neal 1902).This
book prcscntcd tlic first gcncr.ll survey ofthc ruins of the region. On
thc \trc.~igtho l ' l t , tlic. I<riti\hSoutll Ali-1c.1<:o~npariyappointed II.1II
.~s(:~rs.~torof' C;rc,lt Zimb.lbw\k, \vlicrc hc proceeded to remove
stratified archaeological deposits on the grounds that by doing so hc
wv;ls clc.iring the site of 'the filth and dcc,lcicncc of the K,~ffiroccu-
pation'. I11 his second book 11c defined thrcc architcctural stylcs,
~ h i c hhc claimed rc\~ealcdprogressive degeneration from thc fincly
drcsscd walls of the elliptical enclosure, and interpreted Grcat Zim-
bab\vc as the lost metropolis of a Phoenician colony. In recent years
careful architectural studies have revealed that the regularly coursed
and drcsscd walls at Zimbabwe arc later than short, wavy ones but
wcrc followed b\r w.llls witli t ~ ~ ~ c o u r stoncs
s c d (Garl.tkc 1973: 21-3).
Arch.lcolog~cal crit~cismof Hall's work led to his dismiss.il in
~c,o+,fi)llo\v~ng\vhicIi tlic ISrit,ish Associ,ition for tlic Adv,inccmcnt
of Sc~cncc,trs~ngfi~ndsprovided by the Khodcs Trustees, invited
lI,l\,id Rand.lll-M,icI\ler (1873-1945), I, professional archaeologist
\\rho had worked with the Eg!lptologist Pctric, to investigate Grcat
Zinib.tb\\.e .lnd other ruins in RhodcsiL1(1906).More cstcnsivc , ~ n d
stratigr,~phicall!~ sophistic'itcd work was carried out under thc same
cluspiccs by the cclcbrdtcd By-itis11 archacologist G c r t r ~ ~ dCc ~ t o n
Thompson (1894-1985) in 1929 (Caton Thompson 1931).These two
archaeologists dctllo~lstratccl~conclusi\~el!~ that these r~1in.swere
cntircly of 13,untu origin .111~i dated fro111 the Cliristi.in cr.1. While
their conclusions were accepted by the world arch~eologicalcoin-
munity, they were unwelcome among the whitc settlers in Rhodesia
and South Africa, wherc ainatcur nrcl~~~cologists kept dlivc the
notion that the ruins of Zirnbabwc wcrc the work of invaders,
merchants, or nlctalworlzcrs coining from such varied places as the
2.1 s A p ~ , ~ - o . ~toc Ithc
~ acropolis', from Rclir's
TIICKzliucd Citics oJ'Mnsl~o~mln~~d, I Xgz
Near East, India, and Indonesia (Posnansky 1982: 347). In 1909 Hall,
supportcd by subscriptions from a ,broad cross-section of leading
whitc South Africans, published Prehistoric Rhodesia, a massive and
emotional work in which he attcmptcd t o rcfutc Randall-MacIvcr's
 A history of archaeological thought The impekial synthesis

findings. H e maintained that the 'decadence' of the Bantu is a

'process which has been in operation for very many centuries [and] is
admitted by all authorities', attributing this proccss to a 'suddcn
arrcst of intclligcncc' that 'befalls cvcy n ~ c n ~ bof
c r the Bantu at the
I amateur archaeologists and the general public. This suggests that,
while the same social to distort the past existed in both
situations, by 190s advances in archaeological techniques for resolv-
ing historical qucstions had reachcd the point whcrc thesc pressurcs
age of puberty'(p. 13). Thus, as Peter Garlakc (1973: 79) has noted, no longer distorted the interpretations of most professional archae-
Hall made cxplicit for thc first time thc racial thcorics that were ologists. Work donc in Zimbabwe sincc the 1950s by locally bascd
implicit in cxcludillg Africans from the consideration of Zimbabwe's professional archaeologists such as Kcith Robinson, K. Summers,
past. Notions of cxotic origin havc becn kcpt alivc sincc that timc by and Peter Garlake has made a distinguished contribution to under-
A. J. Bruwcr (1965), K. Gayre (1972), Wilfrid Mallows (1985), and standing thc history of Zimbabwe during the latc Iron Agc. During
Thomas Huffmall in an official guidebook to Great Zimbabwe the Smith regime only on,e ,professional archaeologist yielded,
writtcn undcr tbc Ian Smith regime. For thc whitc scttlcrs, who against his own bcttcr judgement according to later statcmcnts
constitutcd lcss than ten pcr cent of thc population of Southern attributcd to him (S. Taylor 1982), to pressures to satisfy the political
Rhodcsia, such claims scrvcd to dcprcciatc African talcnts and past requirerncnts of white settlers.
accomplishmcnts and to justify thcir own domination of thc Anothcr feature of African colonial archaeology was t l ~ cgrcat
country. These claims bccamc particularly insistent aftcr thcy illc- attention paid to Palaeolithic studies. In the 1890s the geologist J. P.
gally proclaimed the colony to be independent in 1965. In 1971Peter Johnson studied the geological contexts of Palaeolithic tools in the
Garlalcc, who had bccn Inspector of Monurncnts sincc 1964, Orangc Free State and Transvaal. In 1911 Louis PCringuey, the
resigned in protest over a secrct order issued by the Smith govern- Director of the South ~ f r i c a nMuseum in Cape Town, divided
lilcnt that 110 official publication should indicatc that Grcat Zim- South African prchistory into a Palacolithic phasc, cl~aractcrizcdby
babwc had becn built by blacks. By this timc thc govcrllmcllt was implements from river gravels, and a later Bushman phase, repre-
particularly conccrncd that the ruins had bccon~ca syn~bolof thcir sented in shell middcns and rock shcltcrs (Fagan 1981: 42-3).
cultural hcritagc to local Africans struggling for majority rulc. Since Bcnvecn 1913 and 1924 remains of'fossil humans wcre discovered in
the indcpendc~lceof Zimbabwe in 1980, some nationalists havc South Africa covering the range of human development from Upper
claimcd that only Africans havc thc moral right or undcrst.~nding Palacolithic Homo sapiens to the first idcntificd skull of an Australopi-
ncccssary to intcrprct thc ancicnt ruins of Zi~nbabwcand attcmpts thccine.
havc bccn madc to promotc new, and in this casc black African, Stone tools werc identified'in Kcnya as early as 1893 but systematic
mythologies (Mufuka 1983; Garlake 1984). work did not begin there until 1926, when the Kenyan-born Louis
A comparison of the controversies surrounding the Moundbuil- Leakey (1903-72) organized the first East African Archaeological
ders in North America in the ninctccnth century and Zimbabwe Expedition from Cambridge University. In The StoneA~eCultures of
beginning in the 1890s reveals striking similarities but also sig- Kenya Colony (1931) Leakey outlined a culture-historical framework
nificant differences. In both cases amateur archaeologists and public for East Africa that continued to be used into thc 1950s. Stone tool
opinion rejected an association of thcsc remains with i~ldigellous assemblages wcrc labelled, a; beforc, with terms used in European
native peoples in an efforrto disparagc the latter's accomplishrncnts. Palaeolithic studies, such as Chellean, Achculean, Mousterian, and
Similarly, thc scientific cstablishtnellt of the day exprcssed some Aurignacian, and he worked out,a succession of pluvial and interplu-
reservations about thc morc fanciful intcryrctations that wcrc being vial periods that werc generally believed to correlate with glacial and
offcrcd of thcsc monuments. What is significant, howcvcr, is that interglacial periods in Europe. In due course it was realized that
aftcr 1905 the intcrnatiollal archacological community ~lnanimously many finds did not conform to European categories and in the late
rejccted the claims that Zimbabwe had not been cbnstructcd by the 1920s a set of designations for,cultural assemblages that were recog-
Bantus, lcaving thc ruaiiitcnancc of the Zin~babwcmyth to local nizcd to bc specific to Africa was proposcd (Goodwin and Van Rict
 A history of archaeological thought The i~l~perial
synthesis

Lowe 1929). Thc two systcn~scontinued to bc uscd alongside onc reinforced the beliefthat there was little for arcl~aeologiststo discover
another until the European tcrms were discarded, except to dcsig- about recent millennia. There were, however, significant exceptions.
nate tool-manufacturing techniques (Posnansky 1982: 348). Kenneth Murray, an art teacher who had long sought to conserve
Between 1936 and 1962 a large number of Austraiopithccinc dis- Nigeria's indigenous traditions and to convince scholars that these
coveries were made at Sterkfontein, Kromdraai, Makapansgat, and traditions were worth studying, was appointed first Director of the
Swartkrans in South Africa. Thcsc finds cncouragcd growing Inter- Nigerian Antiquities Service in 1943. H e persuaded Bernard Fagg, a
est in an earlier phase of the arcl~aeologicalrecord than had hithcrto Cambridge-trained archaeologist, to join his staff and founded a
been studied anywhere else in the world. In thc latc 1950s new numbcr of regional museums throughout the colony. This work
geological chronolog~cswere cstabl~shcdfor the Plcistocenc and brought traditional art and culture closer t o thc currents of emerging
Pliocene epochs in Africa, potassiumn-argon dating strctchcd thc African nationalism. John Schofield's Primitive Pottery (1948) pre-
period that was covcrcd by evidence of cultural remains from an sented thc first typology of Iron Age ceramics from sites in Rhodesia
assumed 600,ooo to ~ , o o o , o o oyears, Palacolithic artifacts found in and tllc Transvaal but major uncertainties about thc cl~ronologyof
river gravels wcrc shown to be of limited interprctatlvc value, and the Iron Age were not resolved until the 1950s (Fagan 1981: 48-9).
interest shifted to the excavation of presumed 'living floors', which Especially after 194s there was a marked expansion of museums,
favourcd the prcservatio~lof fossil pollens and other palaeocnviron- antiquities services, and university departments employing archae-
mcntal data. In 1959 Louis and Mary Lcakey, who had pioneered ologists, especially in the British and French colonies. Newly trained
Palacolithic living-floor arcl~aeologyat Olorgcsaillic in the 194os, expatriatc scholars combined thc latest technical and conceptual
madc the first of ~nanyspectacular early horninid finds 111 the primi- advanccs of Wcstcrn Europcan archaeology with the pioneer efforts
tivc Oldowan tool levcis at O l d o v , ~Gorge
~ (M. Lcakcy 1984).Thcsc of loc,~l(LISLI~III~
white) '~mntci~rs. AS thc prospects for indcpend~ncc
finds arouscd world-wldc intcrcst 111 Lower l'alacol~thic archac- brigl~tcnedtl~crcwas in somc colonies a growing interest in learning
ology. International futldlng for such rcscarch vastly increased and more 'about thc actual peoples who were now to govern Africa
large nurnbcrs of arcl~acologistsfrom Amcrica and Europe began to rather than about thcir rcmotc Stone Age ancestors' (Posnnnsky
work in East Africa. Their d~scrovcricswcrc SCCII .IS confirming I 982: 149). Thcrc was ,llso ,111 increasing dc111dnd to teach African and

Darwin's conclusion that Afr~cawas lil<clpto have been the cradle of not solcly Europcan and colonial history in African schools, as had
human~ty.Wl~llcthese finds wcrc procla~mcdto be of great scientific been done in the past. Archaeologists began to study the develop-
importance, much of the interest rcsultcd fi-omthcir being perceived ment of early African states and,to investigate important late pre-
as marking thc origins not only of humanity as a whole but morc colonial sitcs such as Bcnin, Gedi, and I<ilwa. At the samc timc
spccifically of Europeans and Euroamcricans. Altl~ougl~ thc carlicst African historians insisted that more attention be paid to the Iron
scgrnents of European and Euroan~crica~l prehistory wcrc clcarly Agc. In the 1960s they encouraged the introduction of the first
not going to be found in Europe, it now appcarcd that they could be regular courses in archaeology in Uganda and Ghana (Posnansky
traced in Africa. 1976). Iron Age archaeology learned to draw upon l~istoricaland
By contrast, prlor to the latc 1950s Europca~lsgencrally regarded ethnographic sources. At the samc time archaeologists ceased to
morc recent phases of African prehistory as a tlmc of cultural stag- attribute changes in prehistoric.times almost exclusively t o external
nation. T o arcl~acologistsin other parts of thc world thcsc pcriods stimuli and began to try to understand the internal dynamics of the
werc of littlc interest compared to carlp Paiaeolithic oncs and many later phases of prehistoric African development. This reorientation
resident arcl~acologiststcndcd to be prcoccupicd with Palaeolithic was supported by a rapid accumulation of evidence that in pre-
archaeology. Fagan (1981: 49) has observed that almost no historians colonial times Africa had played a major role in the development of
wcrc conccrncd with prc-European Africa. In their vicw, the history agriculture and metallurgy and that without major extcrnal stimuli
of Africa began with the carlicst records of Europcan activltics. This its peoples had created numerous civilizations.
 A history of archaeological thought The imperial synthesis

Thc history of African archaeology reveals that changing social Hereafter the main historical research concerned the origins of thc
conditions have influenced the pcriods of prehistory that were Maori. In the coursc of the nineteenth century a strong interest
studied at different times, the questio~lsthat have been posed, and developed in their custom;: mythology, folklore, and physical
the degree to which internal or external factors have been invoked to anthropology. Much of this &search was stimulatcd by a decline in
cxplain change. It is also clear that a growing corpus of archaeo- Maori population and by rapid cultural change, which suggested
logical data, produccd by an increasing number of professional t11.1t soon little of thcir traditional culturc might bc available for
arcl~acologists, and new internationally acccptcd tcchniqucs for study. Bctwccn 1898 and 1915 Percy Smith (1913, 1915) sought to
studying the past havc restricted thc freedom of archaeologists to synthcsizc various tribal' accounts of Maori migrations that had bccn
support thc views of prchistory that wcrc congenial to colonial collcctcd in thc 185os, in order,to crcatc a uniform history of thcir
idcologi~s.At the samc timc changing Oshions in archacological scttlc~llcntin Ncw Zcaland. H c concludcd that thcy wcrc Polynesian
interpretations in the European countries where most archae- seafarers who had ultimately originated in India. New Zealand had
ologists who havc worked in Africa wcrc trained have also influ- first bccn scttlcd by thc Maruiwi, an allcgcdly inferior Mclallcsia~l
enced thc i~lterpretatio~lof African prehistory. These fashions wcrc pcoplc who wcrc latcr conquered by thc Maori. In 1916Elsdon Bcst
not directly related to the changing colonial milieu. This suggests a (1836-1931) identified the Maruiwi with the South Island Moa-
significant b ~ c011~plcx
~ t relationship bctwccn archaeology and the huntcrs. Sonic Maori tribes wcrc claimed on thc basis of oral
colonial setting in which it was practised in Africa. traditions to have reached ~ e wZealand
' around A.D. 950 and 1150
and these were followed in A.D. 1350 by a Great Fleet, which carried
AYzhaeolo~yin New Zealand the groups from whom the major tribes are descended. It was
gcncrally concludcd that t l ~ cbasic pattcrn of Maori culturc had not
In New Zealand the small and dispersed British settlements that changed since that time (Sorrenson 1977).
began to be established in the 184os, in the wake of earlier activities This scheme of origins was widely accepted by white and Maori
by European missionaries and whalers, werc for a loilg timc unable New Zcalanders, including thc Maori anthropologist Peter Buck
to subdue the indigenous Maori, who, especially on the North (Te Rangihiroa, 1877-1951). Peter Gathercole (1981: 163) has drawn
I
Island, were numerous and warlike. Armed conflict between the attention to the parallels that'this account, based on Maori tradi-
natives and settlers lasted until 1847and broke out again in the 1860s.
I tional scholarship, drew between the coming of the Maori and the
Although the Maori wcre weakened by European diseases, thcir arrival of the Europeans in New Zealand. The Maoris were estab-
continuing resistancc won them a measure of grudging respect from lished in European opinioil as being recent colonists in Ncw
the European settlers. Zcaland, who had seized it tiom an earlier, culturally lcss dcvelopcd
No full-time archaeologist was appointed to a university position people. Therefore they had little more historical claim to the land
in New Zealand prior to 1954. Yet as early as 1843 European settleis than the European settlers had. It was also assumcd that ethnology
had noted stone tools associated with the bones of thc giant moa and 1 and oral traditions rcvcalcd all that nccdcd to be known about Maori
othcr extinct spccics of birds. In thc 1870s Julius von Haast i prehistory.
(1822-87), who was influchced by the writings of Lyell and Lubbock I In the 192os, Henry D. Skinncr, who had studied anthropology at
concerning the antiquity of human beings in Europe, argued that Cambridge University, began to examine Moa-hunter sites on the
the Moa-hunters wcrc a vanished Palacolithic people, who had South Island. Combining archaeological, ethnographic, physical
subsisted mainly on fish and shellfish and werc distinct from the anthropological, and linguistic data with oral traditions, he sought
much later Ncolithic Maori. H e was soon compelled, however, to to demonstrate that the Moa-hunters were Maori, and hence Poly-
admit that the Moa-hunters were culturally not very different from nesian, in origin. By debunking the Maruiwi myth, he established
the Maori (1871,1874). I the rolc of thc Maori as thc 'first pcoplc of thc land' and put

138 1
 A history of archaeological thought The imperial synthesis

archaeology in the forefront of the movement for re-enfranchising provides an example of a colonial situation in which there was a
them (Sutton 1985). Skinner was also sensitive to regional variations measure of respect for the native inhabitants. Yet amateur archae-
in Maori culture, which he interpreted as partly adaptive in nature, ologists there, as elsewhere, viewed native cultures as static and
and he argued that indigc~louscultural changes had taken place attributed alterations in the archaeological record to ethnic changes
(Sutton, personal c o ~ ~ ~ n ~ u ~ ~ iYet
c a t his
i o ~arcl~acological
~). work rather than to internal dcvclopmehts. It is also truc, however, that in
lacked any systenlatic trea'tment of scque~~cc or cultural change apart the coursc of the twentieth ccntury a more profcssio~~alized archae-
from the ccono~llicimpact of the extinction of the nloa (Skinner I ology has played a significant role in dispelling such beliefs
1921). Like coloilialist archaeologists
- elsewhere, he continued t o 1
view archaeology mainly as a way to recover material culture that I
~ u s t r a ~ i prehisto~
nn
would augnlcllt and complement ethnological collections rather I

than as an independent source of historical information. IHe did., I In Australia studics of Aboriginal custon~sbegan with thc first
however, support the expansion of arch,rcological rcscarch, includ- European cxplorcrs and scttlcrs. 13)~1850most of sourhcrn Australia
n~ __
ing the appointment of David Tcviotdale (1932) at the urago was occupied by Europeans and the Aborigines had bccn drivcn
Museum. Tcviotdale thus ~ C C J I I I C the first prof archac- from their lands or were dead as a result of discasc, ncglcct, and
ologist in New Zealand. Into the 1950s archaec csearch outright murder. As in North! America racial prejudice helped t o
continued to concentrate on the study of the Moa-nun~ers(Duff reduce any feelings of guilt that European scttlers may have had
1950), while later periods remained understudied (( le 1981). about the way they were treating native people.
Although oral traditions had involved an awaren storical Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, etbnolo-
events, Ncw Zcaland archaeologists had not yet d e v c ~ u ~ a11
c c inter-
~ gists it1 Europe and America ckouragcd thc study of Aborigincs as
est in accompa~lyingchanges in material culture and styles of life that examples of the 'most primitive tribes' known to anthropological
would have stimulated a comprehensive study of changes in thc science. By 1900 major studies, such as Baldwin Spcncer and F. J.
arcl~aeologicalrecord. Gillc11's The Native Tribes of Central A w t a l i a (1899), had placed
In rcccnt years New Zcaland archaeology has become increasingly Aboriginal ethnography on an internationally rcspccted basis.
professionalized and redefined its traditional association with Maori Spcnccr, likc his English mentors? was to dcscribc the Aborigincs as
ethnology, which had discouraged the study of later prehistory. 'a relic of the early childhood o f mankind left stranded . . . in a low
Much recent work has been done on the North Island, which condition of savagery' (Spencer 1901: 12).
archaeologists had hitherto ignored, but where most of the Maori Early investigations of Aboriginal prehistory failed to uncover
population lived and the greatest elaboration of their prehistoric any clear evidence of the association betwecn human beings and
culture had occurred. This work, which is increasingly involving the prehistoric animals, such as had been found in Europe. Nor did the
Maori themselves, has not only already pushed the original settlc- artifacts discovered in archaeological sites appear to differ sig-
ment of New Zealand back several centuries but also revealed nificantly from those in recent use. By 1910 naturalists abandoned the
dramatic changes in the material culture and the economic and social search for early cvidcncc of native people in Australia./The assump-
organization of the Maor'i, as well as the effects of climatic change
1 tions that they had arrived recently and that their cultures had not
i
and considerable regional diversification as they adjusted to life in changed significantly accordod with the ethnologists' belief that
New Zealand. The Moa-hunters are now interpreted as an episode these cultures were primitive and essentially static. From 1910 until
in the Polynesian settlement of the South Island (Davidson 1979). the 1950s amateur arcl~aeologistscollected artifacts 'secure in the
There is also increasing interest in the archaeological investigation knowledge that Aborigines were an unchanging people, with an
of contact between New Zealand and neighbouring regions of the unchanging technology' (Murray and White 1981: 256). Spencer,
Pacific (D. G. Sutton, pcrson.11 communic,ltion). New Zcal,lnd 'lllcging tcclinologic~lopportunism and lack of conccrn with formal
1
 A history of archaeological thought The in~pcrialsynthesis

tool types in Aboriginal culture, attributed variations in thc form

and function of artifacts t o diffcrcnccs in raw material, thus ignoring
the alternative possibilities of change over timc, idiosyncratic cul-
tural prcfcrcnccs, and functional adaptation (Mulvanc)l 1981: 63).
John Mulvanc)r (1981:63-4) lias argued that this concept of tlic
'unclinnging savage', which \vas in accorci with the popular cicni-
gration of Aboriginal culture, inhibited the dcvclopmcnt of prc-
historic nrcliacology in Australia throughout this period. It is also
notc\r~orthythat the first nrclincologp dcpurtmcnt that was cstah-
lislicd in Australia, at the University o f Sydney in 1948, initially
studicd only the archaeology of Europc and the Near East.
The cscavation ill southern Australia, beginning in 1929, of a
stratified scrics of different tool types suggested 3 longer hunlan
occupation and callcd into question the image of a static prehistory.
Cultural change was attributed initially, howcvcr, to various groups
rcplucing o n c another, some of them recent invaders. In 1938
Norman Tindalc linked his scqucncc to the An~crican physical
anthropologist, J. B. Birdscll's, tri-racial hybrid theory ofAustralian
racial origins. Tindalc also suggcstcd that cnvironmental changcs
might have occurred during tile pcriod of Aboriginal occupation.
Concern with cultural cli;lngc and regional variation did not char-
actel-izc Australian arcliucology until a nl~mbcrof young pro-
fessional arcliacologists began t o study Australian prehistory follow-
ing John~Miil\~ancy's apptziiltn~entat the University ofMi-lbournc in
195;. Most of these archucologists had been trained at Cambridge
Uni\.crsity, \\~licrcGrahamc Clark had cncourugcd them to work in
Australia. As 3 result of their rcscarch, it 112s become clcur rhat
lit11ii31ihcings have l i \ d in Australin for at least -1-0,000 years.
Archaeologists ha\.c documcntcd numerous changes in technology,
c~i\~ironmcnt, udapt.~tion,and no11-tccllnologic;~I;~spcctso f nntivc
cultu~.~*. .l'hc.ir i t ~ l t ~ ~ . i. ll il ~ . o ~ i o l o ~h,1\,c
i c s .dso di.\\~cllcclrhc bclicl'
that nll cultural cliangcs in prehistoric times came about as a result of
cstcrnal stimuli.
Sincc the 1970s the interpretation of archaeological data lias also
rcflcctcd a gro\ving concern for a distinctive national identity among
22 'N;lti\>cpolice dispersi~lgthc blacks', W c s t c r ~Queensland,
~ c. 1882
whitc Australians. White artists draw i~ispirationfrom native art
forllls and Aboriginal art is viewcd as part o f Australia's national
hcritagc t o a far grcatcr dcgrcc than is thc case with nativc arts in
North America. Within the :context of this, growing nationalism,
 A li~storyof archacological thought
arc11acologists oftheir past complicity in dc~ligrati~lg
Aborigincs as a
Australian archaeologists arc no lo~igcrcorltcrlt to trcat their primitive pcoplc who wcrc d o o n ~ c dto extinction (Langford 1983).
country's prchistory ns a mirror of the Palacolithic stage of human Thc rcsolution of such conflicts bctwccl~Aborigines and archac-
dcvclopnlcnt. Instcad they have begun to c~nphasizctlic singularity ologists cannot occur i~ldcpcridcntlyof a rcsolutio~lof thc major
o f Australian prcl~istor!i, includi~lgthe considel-:tblc dcgrcc to which grievances that Aborigines have against rnodcrn Australian socicty.
A~lstr~llian Abol-igincs managed ;111d ~ I t e ~ - csignificant
d aspects of Ncvcrthclcss Australian :u-cliacologists have been making significant
thcir environment. The current i ~ l ~ a gofc prehistoric Aborigi~lcsas cffbrts to involvc Aboriginal pcoplc in their work. T l ~ cgcncral
'fircstick farmers' is f,tr removed from thc traditional one of thcm as orientation of modern Australian archacologists towards a historical
IJppcr Pnl.lcolitI~ichuntcr-gathcrus. ratl~crtha11 311 cv~lutionaryview of prcllisto~)~, whicll r ~ s u l t sfro111
It is taking longer fi,r Australian archaeologists to considcr the tlicir British training, niakcs the rcsolution of thcsc problems in
possibility that their country's prehistory [nay be morc than nine- some respects casicr than it is for a~~thropologically traincd North
teenth-century ethnology rctrodictcd for 50 millc~l~lia (Murray and American archacologists.
White 1981: 258; Mulvnncy and Whitc 1987).Thcrc is now, howcvcr,
lively discussion about wl~cthcr it is scic~ltificallylcgitilnatc to
regard the whole of Australian prehistory as that of the ancestors of Lubbock's lgacy
the modcrli Aborigincs (cf. Whitc and O'Conncll 1982: 6; Flood In tlic 1860s and 1870s archaeologists continucd to bclicvc in tlic
1983). cvolutio~iaryorigins of Europcan socicty. Yct by that pcriod thcy
Archaeologists have also been compelled to reassess thcir goals as wcrc inclined to o f i r racial cxpla~iationsfor tlic failurc of other
a result of the increasing political activities of Aborigines. The socictics to cvolvc to tlic same cxtcnt as thcp had done. Thc Darwin-
federal Labour Party that was clcctcd in 1972 passed legislatioti ian cxplanatiori of thcsc racial diffcrc~icesthat was popularized by
granting Aborigiilcs significant rnemhcrsl~ipon decisionmaking Lubbock reinforced thc racist views inhcrcnt in colollial situatio~is
bodies considcri~lgmatters of concern to them, including the pro- and which had already i~lfluc~iccd tlic intcrprctations of arcliaco-
tcctio~iof archacological sitcs. As a result nrchacologists havc corllc logical cvidcncc in thc United Statcs. Tlic arcliacology that dcvcl-
~ ~ n d gc rro w i ~ ~pressure
g to consider the rclcvance of their research oped wherever Europcan colonists were seclcing to establish them-
for native pcoplc (Ucko 1983; McBrydc 1986). The situatio~lhas beell sclvcs jn the rliidst of native populations had much ill common.
a c o m p l c and rapidly changing one. Some Aborigirics' traditional Native socictics werc assumed to be static and cvidcncc of changc in
world view leads thcrn to regard all archaeological activity as usclcss the archacological record, when noted, was attributed to migratio~ls
or profaning; others appreciate the value of arcliaeological work for rather than to irltcrnal dynamism. The racist vicws undcrlyi~~g
land-claim disputes and for enhancing their general image. Thc specific intcrprctations wcrc morc oftcn implicit than explicit.
desire of the latter to use archacological f i l ~ d i ~ for
~ g spolitical ends Either way, colo~lialistarchacology served to dctiigratc thc native
somcti~llcs bri~igsthe111 into conflict with \vliitc archaco1og;sts socictics that Europcan colonists wcrc scclcing to dominate o r
wishing to pursue 'scientific' goals. Difficult cultural issues include replace by offering evidence that in prehistoric times thcy had lacked
whcthcr o r not fcnlalc archaeologists may visit sacred sitcs, which tlic initiative to develop on thcir own. Such arcliacology was closely
only Inale Aborigi~lcsr&iy approach. aligned with cthnology, which docu~nentcdthe primitive condition
Alllong wliitc Australian acadcinics there arc significant differ- of traditional native cultures and their gcncral inability t o changc.
cnccs of opinion concerning the dcgrcc to which Australian prc- This priniitivcrlcss was widely bclicvcd to justify Europeans seizing
history should be regarded as a ~latiorlalheritage o r as tile csclusivc co~itrolof thc territories of such peoples. While tlicse archacological
yosscssion of the Abol-igincs. At least s o o ~ Aborigine
c activists view vicws did not survive thc collcctio~io f archacological cvidcncc
a wliitc Australian interest in thcir heritage as yct another attcrnpt to which indicatcd that internal' changes had takcn place in nativc
appropriate what belongs to nativc pcoylc. The). rcniinci Australian
 A history of archaeological thought

cultures, they impeded the search for such evidence and significantly The imperial synthesis
I,
delayed the development of prehistoric archaeology in countries
such as Australia, whcrc it was assumcd that archacology had little to implementing holistic compa;isons. N o systematic effort was made
reveal about thc past. Morcovcr, this dcvclopment did not occur to correlate specific tool types with ethnographic cultures so that
until evolutionary archaeology had been replaced in Europe by a these tool types could in turn be used to draw detailed and con-
trolled comparisons between ethnographic and archaeological
historical view of prehistory.
This was because unilinear evolutionism, whether of Lubbock's assemblages. Efforts to do this might have revealed in greater detail
racist variety or the oldcr, ulliversalistic sort championed by Mor- some of the problems of unilinear evolutionism. Archaeologists
tillet, shared ccrtain major wcaknesscs as a model for collecting and. were aware of the difficulties posed by geographical and environ-
interpreting archacological data. Thcsc wcakncsscs wcre cspccially mental variations, but they pevcr confronted this issue systematic-
ally. As a result, compacisons between archacological assemblages
evident in the cvolutio~laryarchacology that had evolved in England
and ethnographic cultures rcmaincd impressionistic.
and France around the study of the Palaeolithic period. By arguing
The failure to deal adequately with these problcms prod~lccda
that modcrn culturcs arranged from simplcst to most complex
growing sense of ililprsse and sterility in evolutionary archacology
recapitulated the sequence through which European societies had
evolved, unilinear evolution denicd that there was anything novel to after the European Palaeolithic sequence had been delineated. The
be learned from the archaeological record. The main value of archae- problem with unilinear evolutionary archaeology was that it had
ology was its proof that evolution had in fact occurred, to varying bccome too integral a part of anthropology and too dependent on
degrees and hence at varying rates in different parts of the world. ethnology. Far more creativity had survived in Scandinavian-style
Lubbock and othcr archaeologists argucd that ethnographic evi- post-Palaeolithic archaeology, although it had been temporarily
dence provided an easy way to achieve a rounded understanding of eclipsed by thc momelltous di~covericsconccrning still carlicr
how people had lived in prehistoric times. As long as archaeological phases of-human dcvclopmcnt. Whik Scandinavian archaeology had
data, in the form of diagnostic artifacts, could rcvcal thc level of been inspired by an evolutionary perspective, it shunned holistic
dcvclopment that a particular culture had reached, ethnographic analogies and sought to use parallels to interpret individual faccts of
data concerning ~nodcrnsocictics at thc same stage werc capable of thc arclincologicnl record. Recause gf their growing realizatioll of
supplyi~lgall that needcd to be known about the nature of life tlic inadcquacics of thc unilin~arevolutionary approach, a ncw
associated with that culture. Only the earliest archaeological finds generation of profcssior~alarchaeologists was to view h s decline as a
liberation rather than a loss. "
were believed to lack corresponding ethnographic evidence. As late
as 1911 Lower and Middlc Palaeolithic cultures wcre being equated
with the Tasmanians and Australian Aborigines (Sollas 1911).These
holistic analogies invited a revival of antiquarianism, to the extent
that they returned archaeology to a situation where artifacts once
again merely illustrated the past, rathcr than constitutcd a basis for
studying prehistoric human behaviour. Within the context of uni-
linear evolutio~~ism the matrix for undcrstanding archaeological
data was no longer historical documentation, as it had been prior to
Thomsen's work or remained in classical studies, but rathcr had
become ethnography.
Another major problem was that none of the unilinear evolu-
tionary archaeologists succeeded in devisi~lga niethodology for
 Culture-historical archaeolc

Druidical assoclanons of Neolithic and Bronze Age s~tcs,which had

bccn tlic main forr11of patri otism inclulgcd in by antiquaria~lsin the
cightccnth ccntuqI , was ba nishcd toI thc rcallms of popular history
and folltlorc (A. 0wen 1962: 239).
a1 archaeolog I11 Central and Northcrn Europe, archaeology was associated with
~ationalis~n throughout the wholc of the ninctccnth ccntury. By
~romotinga sense of ethnic identity, it playcd a significant rolc in
\,..,.-.
( - ~ - ~ ~ J..
- T - ~ IJI ~
I YC L Z / C Inntio7rnlirt
~~, idcol(!lr7~
Lt
llrll
.I,t/j ., hc unification of Gcrnlany in 1871 and aftcrwards by cxprcssing thc
tCTl'aSZ 1 1 ~ f ; l lC~O cI ~ J C ~ ~ Z L S I L CIt>
SS n ~ y t 1
in11cl't
~ ~ ~~c~zlzt~l: )ride of the Germans in thcir accomplishments as a pcoplc. 'rllc
zt . . . c laims topyotect an oldfolk soczety while infact
cvival of Gcrnlan literature in thc cightccnth ccntury had b~ccn
help,in4 - to build up an anonymous mass society. haractcrized by a revolt against thc classical hcritagc of Wcstcm
G t. 1. L N B I<, Nntionnlisnt I
3uropc and a glorification of Gcrnuny's nlcdicval and ancient past.
!epatriot 1 necessity 2
t k t thc samc time the philosopher Joliann Hcrdcr had dcfincd history
icnl C;ullccrion 2-3 s the account of tlic dcvclopmcnt o f a pcoplc as cxcmplificd by thcir
lnguage, traditions, and institutions (Hampson 1982: 241, 248-9).
'he study ofprchistory continued to bc part of tlic Danish rcaction
111 IIIC ~ a t ~c i i n c t ~ ~ , , ~ , cultural cvo~utiotlislnwas si~ilu
,,..tury,
3 territorial losscs to niorc powerful ncighbours. In Eastern Europe
ously challcngcd across E~tropcby growing natiollalism and c
rchacology, by encouraging a sense of cthnic identity among Polcs,
ing faith in thc benefits of tcchnological progrcss. Thesc two
:zechs, Hungarians, and other groups living under Austrian,
oplncnts wcrc closcly linlicd, sincc a rcduccd commitmc
".ussian, and Prussian domination, played an i t rolc in I~ h c
evoluti onis~ilmade cthnicity appear to bc the most importa~ltfactor
cstruction of thcsc and the eventual ( e of a serics
in liunIan history. I11 Western Europc ~iationalisniincreased as
fnational statcs.
o.-..,.-,4; iodustri~lizatiohcightcncd competition for markcts and
Throughout thc n~nctccntl~ccntury, growlng amounts
resources. Towards tlic cnd of tlic century it was cncourag
~cl~acological material wcrc rccovcrcd througl~outCcntral Euro
intcllcctuals who sought to pro~iiotcsolidarity within thci
a rcsult of thc construction of roads, railways, canals, and fi
countries in the facc of growing social unrest by blatni~igcco
~rics;the founding of museums and research institutes; and t
and social problems on neighbouring states.
establishmcnt of reaching positions for archaeologists in univt
In England and France nationalism cxprcsscd it:self stroll gly in
sirtics. As morc evidcncc was collected, the attention of arclia
historical writing, which cmphasizcd the solidarity o f thesc na~tional -1
ogists turncd from a preoccupation with megaliths, hillforts, and
groups. Yct its impact on arcliacology was quitc muted, 111 part as a
muli to the study of artifacts. Their main objective was t o dctcr-
rcsult of thc continuing influc~iccof Lubbock and Mortillct. The
ine, often using failciful criteria, to wliich ctl~nicgroups various
French Enipcror Napolcon I11 ordcrcd large-scale excavations to bc
1111dsbclongcd, so that cmcrging tiations might lcarn morc abo
carricd out bctwccn 1881and 1865 at tIic Ccltic oypida, o r fortified
thcir early history and how tlicir ancestors had lived (Sklcnilrg8
towns, at Mont Auxois and Mont R i a in Burgundy. These sitcs,
91). In thc 1870s and 1880s archaeological research in this region w
which had bccn bcsiegcd by Julius Caesar when lic invaded Gaul,
:-4uenced
11 11 by the evolutio~~ary archacology o f Francc and England.
rcvcalc d the material culturc of thc Ccltic inhabitants of France in
TI-is cncouragcd the morc carcful classification and comparison of
thc fir:st ccntury B.C. Napolcotl sought, by encouraging nation-
arc:Iiacological finds. Thc dcvclopmcnt of local chronologies was
ausm, to cnhancc the powcr of his regime (Danicl 1950: 110-11). By
dent Bri tasking about p c ~ ~ i h l ~ ILLarded.howevcr, by a rcluctaricc to adopt the Scandinavian Thrc,
contra:
;c system, which was opposed, largcly for natio~lalisticIreasons, t
r4
 A history of archaeological thought Culture-historical archaeology

a number of prominent German archaeologists (Bohner 1981; human behaviour was biologically determined, promoted growing
Sklcnit 1983: 87-91). Yct this flirtation with cvolutionary anthropo- scepticism about humah creativity. Writers and social analysts main-
logy was short-lived and in thc late ninctccntl~century arcl~acology tained that pcople were not inhercntly inventive andthat change was
oncc again rcsffirmcd its tics to thc study of national histories. A contrary to human naturc and potcntially harmful to pcoplc. It was
conccrn with l~istoricaland cthnic prob1~111sled archaeologists to argucd that a static condition was most congenial to human bcings,
pay increasing a t t c n t i o ~to~the geographical distribution of distinct- who werc naturally prcdisposed to rcsist altcrations in thcir styles of
ive types of artifacts and artifact assemblages in an effort to relatc life. This led to dccliniog credcncc in indepcndent development, a
thcm to historical groups. A nationalistic orientation encouraged belief that particular inventions wcrc unlikcly to bc madc morc than
the archaeology of Central Europe to concentratc on the study of the once in human history, and hence a growing rcliancc on diffusion
Neolithic and morc rccent pcriods rather than on Palacolithic times. and migration to cxplain cultural change. I t also encouraged an
Because of the role that archaeologists played in promoting a sense increasing intercst in the idiosyncratic fcaturcs associatcd with par-
of ethnic identity, ~mpcrialgovcrnmcnts somctimcs sought to ticular ethnic groups rathcr than with thc gcncral characteristics of
hinder or prevent arcl~acologicalrcscarch. For the samc reason, it succcssivc stages of cultural devclopmcnt. If thc insccurity of thc
enjoyed the support of nationalist elements, such as the Czech middle classes of Western Europe in the 1860s had Icd Lubbock and
middlc class and the Polish landed aristocracy. othcr Darwinians to abandon th; doctrine of psychic unity and view
native peoples as biologically inferior to Europeans, the still greater
insecurity of the 1880s led intellectuals to jettison the doctrine of
progress and regard human beings as far more resistant to change
By the 1880s growing social and economic problems in Western than they had been viewed since before the Enlightenment.
Europe were encouraging a new emphasis on conservatism and the Increasing reliance on diffusion and migration, as well as the
rigidity of human nature, and hcnce on cthnicity, in the heartland of concept of cultures as ways of life relatcd to specific cthnic groups,
evolutionary anthropology. Thc problems of thc Industrial Rcvo- wcrc soon cvidcnt in thc work of Gcrman ethnologists such as
lution wcrc bccoming increasingly cvidcnt, cspccially in Britain Fricdrich Ratzcl (1844-1901) and Franz Boas (1858-1942). Ratzcl, a
wherc it had been going on the longest, in the form of slums, geographcr and ethnologist, rejected Bastian's conccpt of psychic
economic crises, and growing foreign competition. At the same time unity. In works such as Anth~opogeog~aphie (1882-91) and The Histoly
the political supremacy of the middle classes was being challenged ofMankind ([1885-81 1896-8) he argued that, because the world was
by the first labour movements. As a result of these developments, the small, ethnologists must bcware o f thinking that even thc simplest
younger generation of intellectuals turned against the idea of pro- inventions were likely to havc bccn made morc than once, Ict alone
gress. Industrialism, which had formerly been a source of pride, was repeatedly. Both invention and diffusion were dcscribcd as capri-
now seen as a cause of social chaos and ugliness (Trevelyan 1952: 119). cious processes; hence it became impossible to prcdict whcthcr a
The efforts that wcrc madc to cxtcrnalizc conflicts encouragcd a particular group will borrow cvcn a uscful invention from its ncigh-
growing emphasis on racial doctrines. It was argued that French, bours. Ratzel argued that because of this it was necessary to rulc out
Germans, and English vGere biologically different from one another the possibility of diffusion in order to provc that the same type of
and that their behaviour was dctermined, not by economic and artifact had been invented more'than oncc. H c tried to demonstrate
political factors, bht by essentially immutable racial differences. that items such as thc blowpipe and the bow and arrow, whcrcvcr
National unity was encouraged by arguing that within each nation they occurred in the world, could be traccd back to a common
everyone, regardless of social class, was united by a common bio- source. H e also sought to show that, dcspitc its capriciousness,
logical heritage, which constituted the strongest of all human bonds. diffusion created culture areas, or,blocks of similar cultures adjacent
Disillusiohn~cnt with progrcss, togcthcr with thc belief that to each othcr.
 A history of archaeological thought Culture-historical archaeology

Ratzcl's ideas influcnccd the youngcr Boas, who introduced them the development of agriculture, which was followed by the invcn-
into North America. Boas opposed thc doctrinc of cultural cvo- tion of pottery, clothing, konumental architecture, and divine
lutionism and argucd that cach culture was a uniquc entity that had kingship. Smith believed that these events had occurred in a unique
to bc understood on its own tcrms. This involvcd accepting two cnviro~lmcntand wcre ynlikely ever to have happened elsewhere.
1
doctrines: cultural rclativism, which denied the existence of any Egyptian innovations had been carried to all parts of the world by
~inivcrsalstandard that could bc uscd to compare thc degree of Egyptian mcrcl~antswho wcre searching for raw matcrials that had
dcvclop~nc~lt or worth of diffcrc~ltculturcs, and historical par- thc power to proloilg huma~ilife.While these influences acted as an
ticularism, which vicwcd cach culturc as the product of a unique 'exotic leaven' encouraging the development of agriculture and
scqucnce of dcvclopmcnt in which thc largely chance operatio11 of civilization in other parts of the world, civilizations such as that of
diffusion played the major role in bringing about change. Boas the Maya declined when cut off from direct contact with Egypr
bclicved that if the dcvclopmcnt of culturcs displayed any rcgulari- (Smith 1923, 1933).
tics, thcsc wcrc so complcx as t o dcfy understanding. Thc only way Smith's hyper-diffusionist ideas were elaborated using ethno-
to cxplain thc past was to determine thc successive idiosyncratic graphic data by W. J. Perry, who taught cultural anthropology at
diffusio~iaryepisodes that had shaped thc development of cach the University of London. His two major works, The Children of the
culturc (Harris 1968: 250-89). About thc same time the Vicnncse Sun (1923) and The Growth of Civilization (1924) still makc fascinating
school of anthropology, dcvclopcd by the Roman Catholic pricsts reading, although the explanation of his world-wide parallels in
Fritz Gracbner and Wilhclm Schmidt, argucd that a singlc scrics of political organization and religious beliefs rcmains illusive. Lord
culturcs had dcvclopcd in Central Asia, from wherc culturcs of Raglan (1939) also advocated hyper-diffusionism but believed Meso-
diffcrciit types had bccn carr~cdto various parts of thc world. Thc potamia rather than Egypt to have been its source. The ideas o n
C O I T I ~ ~ C cultural
X variations obscrvcd on cvcry continent rcsulted wl~ichthese three men agreed were that most human beings are
from thc mingling of culturcs at different lcvcls of dcvclopmcnt tlaturally primitive and will always revcrt to a stagc of savagcry if not
( i bid. 382-92; Andnolo 1979). stoppcd from doing so by, the ruling classcs; that savagcs ncvcr
Diffilsion displaced an c v o l ~ t i o n ~ ~approc~ch
ry in English cthno- invcnt anything; that thc dcveiop~llciltof civilization, and by extra-
logy as a rcsult of thc work of thc Ca~ilbridgcscholar W. H. R. polatio~lthe Industrial Revolution, were accidents that produced
Rivers (1914). Unablc to dctcct an evolutionary pattcrli in his results contrary to human nature; and that religion was a prime
detailcd study of thc distribution of cultural traits in Oceanic factor promoting the development and spread ofcivilization. Yet, in
socictics, he rejected an cvol~itionaryapproach and adopted a dif- denying that progress was natural or that therc was any plan t o
fusionist one (Slobodin 1978). Diffusionism was carricd further in human history, the hyper-diffusionists were only carrying to an
British anthropology by Grafton Elllot Smith (1871-1937). Born in extreme ideas that had been shared by a growing number of anthro-
Australia, Smith studicd mcdiciilc and bccamc interested in mummi- pologists sincc the 1880s. Marvin Harris (1968: 174) has observed
fication wliilc hc taught anatomy at the University of Cairo, prior to that diffusionists generally were far more dogmatic in dismissing the
moving to the U~iivcrsityof London. Noting that cmballning was possibility that thc samc invention had bccn madc twicc than cvolu-
practised in various fotms clscwhcrc, he dccidcd that it had been tionists ever had been in denying the importance of diffusion.
invented in Egypt, whcrc it had rcachcd its most highly developed Some European archaeologists were influenced by Elliot Smith to
form, and that it had dcgcncratcd as it sprcad to other parts of the the extent that they argucd, that megalithic tombs might be a
world. H e then tl~corizcdthat all carly cultural dcvclopment had degenerate form of pyramid, the, idea of which had been carried to
occurred in Egypt. Prior to 4000 B.C. therc had been no agri- Western Europe by Egyptians seeking for life-giving natural sub-
culture, architccturc, religion, or govcrnmcnt anywhere in the stances (Childe 1939: ~ o I - ~ , I ~ s69).
+ ' : Yet, by the 1920s the archaeo-
world. Then t11c accidcntal harvesting of wild barley and millet Icd to logical rccord was sufficicntly well known that hyper-diffusionism
 A history of archaeological thought Culture-historical archaeology

had little appeal to archaeologists as an explanation of world pre- most parts of the earth' where, they remained in an arrested state of
history. Insofar as archaeologists thought about the problem, cul- development (1924: 599). Under the impact of diffksionism, holistic
turcs in thc Old and New Worlds wcrc rccog~~izcd to be stylistically analogics bascd on thc assumption that historically unrclatcd groups
distinct and wcrc bclicvcd to havc dcvclopcd indcpcndcntly from at thc same levcl of dcvclopmcnt arc culturally similar gradually werc
hunting and gathering to civilization. Yct, within the diffusionist replaced by the assumption that because cultures are inherently
milicu that had bcgun to cvolvc in thc 188os, thc human capacity for staticonly the comparison of hisforically rclatcd ones could facilitatc
innovatioll was considcrcd to bc sufficiently lin~itcdand quixotic thc intcrprctation of ar~hacolo~ical data (Wylic 198sa: 66-7).
that basic discovcrics, such as pottery and bronze working, sccmcd
unlikcly to have bccn invented twice and hcncc wcrc bclicvcd to The Montelian synthesis of European prehistory
havc spread fro111one part of the world to another. Thc cl~ronologics~
that had been elaborated prior to radiocarbon dating, especially on The growing interest in cultural variation and diffusion in the social
an intercontinental scale, were not sufficiently calibrated to rule out sciences provided a framework that allowed archaeologists to
such interpretations. Almost all cultural change in the archaeo- account for the evidence of spatial as well as temporal variation that
logical record was attributed to the diffusion of ideas from one was becoming obvious as archaeological data accumularcd across
group to another or to migrations that had led to the replacement of Europe. As early as 1851 ~ a n i e Wilson
l had noted major stylistic
one people and their culture by another. Because they accepted the differences between Iron Age artifacts in Scandinavia and Scotland.
capacity of one group to learn from another, archaeologists who In the course of the nineteenth century archaeologists in Britain,
stresscd diffusion werc generally morc optimistic about the capacity Francc, Switzerland, Germany, and Central Europe traced the geo-
of human societies to changc than wcrc thosc who attributed almost graphical distributions of coins (J. Evans ISSO),megaliths, and other
all change to migration. Thc latter fashion is exemplified in the work Stone, Bronzc, and 1roi Agc remains (Daniel 1950: 303-5; Sklcnif
of W. M. F. Petric (1939)~who, in discussillg the prehistoric dcvel- 1983: 111-12). As La Ttne finds were morc firmly identified with late
opmcnt of Egypt, explained all cultural changes in tcrrns of mass prchistoric Ccltic groups, its status as a culturc rathcr than a stage of
migrations or the arrival of smallcr groups who brought about devclopmcllt or a pcriod bccamc clcarcr; a proccss that was accclcr-
cultural change by mingling culturally and biologically with thc atcd in 1870 whcn Mortillct intcrpretcd, La TCne artifacts found in
existing population. Petrie saw-no possibility of significant cultural northern Italy as archaeological evidence of a historically recorded
change without accompanying biological change. Celtic invasion of that country (Daniel 1950: 111). In 1890 Arthur
The transition between evolutionary and diffusionist modes of Evans identified a late Celtic urnfield in southeastern England with
thought was gradual and diffusionist explanations often shared the Belgae, who the Romans reported had invaded England in the
many of the features of evolutionary ones. W. J. Sollas, in his first century B.C. John Abercromby (1902) associated Early Bronze
Ancient Hunters and their Modern Representatives ( I ~ I I )based
, or, a Age beaker pottery, probably wrongly (Harrison 1980), with a
scrics of lccturcs dclivercd in 1906, appears to bc following an putative 'Bcakcr folk' whom hc had migrating ovcr much of Wcstcrn
evolutiollary modcl whcn hc compares succcssivc agcs of Palaeo- Europc. In 1898 thc Danish archacologist Sophils Miillcr (1846-
lithic development with "dfferent modern hunter-gatherer groups. 1934) argued that, although the Singlc Graves and Megalithic
Thus the Mousterians are 'represented' by the Tasmanians, the Burials of the Danish Ncolithic wcrc at lcast partly contcmporary,
Aurignacians in part by the Bushmen, and the Magdalenians by the the weapons, pottery, and ornaments associated with them were
Inuit and the American Indians. Yet he maintains that most of these different and hence they must kprcsent two distinct peoples (Childe
modern countcrparts are appropriate analogues because they are the 1953: 9). By 1909 the Mesolithic period in Western Europe had been
literai descendants of thesc Palaeolithic groups, who, as more divided into contemporary Azilian and Tardenoisian assemblages.
'intclligcnt' raccs cmcrgcd, wcrc 'cxpcllcd and drivcn to thc uttcr- As early as 1874 Boyd Dawkins'(p. 353) suggcstcd thc posgibility of
2,: ' (
.. \
 A history of archaeological thouglit Culture-historical archaeology

travelling throughout Europe in ordcr to study collections and thus

bccamc tllc first arcl~acologist,to invcstigatc prchistory on a con-
tinental scalc. Thc cnlargcd scopc of his rcscarch was madc possiblc
by the increasing tempo of arcl~acologicalactivity throughout
Europc and by thc dc\rclopmcnt of a nctworlc of railways, which
m ~ d travelc casicr.
The typoIog~c.~l method, 1' s Montcllus dcvclopcd it, was a rcfinc-
mcnt of Thomscn's scriation.il .ipproach. Hc rioted v,lrintions In
l o 1 1 1 1 .11111 d c c o ~ . l t ~ o101.
~ i \ * . I ~ I O L I \cl,~ssesof' .lrt~f.lct\ t l i r o ~ ~ g l i o ~ t
I - ; u ~ o.11idl ~ o n tli~sh.l\~\~ o i ~ g ltoi t\\,ark o ~, ~~n dcorrcl,ltct .I series o f
I-cg1on.11cl~ronologics. H c did this by examining material from
closcd finds, such .I\ gr.~\~cs, ho.lrds, .lnd 111~ii\'idt1.11 rooms, to dctcr-
rl111lc. \ \ Il.lt rypc\ ol'.~r.c~l;lc.is o z c ~ ~ r r c.111dd 11c\,croccurrcd together.
Espcricncc t , l ~ ~ ghl~~nt that, i ,lfter comparing zoo to 300 finds of this
sort, clustcrs of association \vould form that rcprcscntcd, not largc
units of timc such as the Bronzc Agc, but subdivisions of thcsc ages
that he bclic\rcd could cach ha\;e 1,zsted only a few hundred !cars. B\.
' ~ r r ~ ~ n g thcsc
i n g clusters so that clcmcnts that were most ,dike wcrc
pl,lcccl ,~clj,~ccnt to cach other, hc created a chror~ologicalscqucncc.
Fol s ~ ~ c.Il iscqucncc to be co~i\~incing, ho\vc\~cr,ni.~tcrials, tccli-
niclucs of rn.lnl~f.~ct~~rc, sh.~pc,.lnd dccor.itton had to form an intcr-
n,llly coherent series, just .IS they h,ld donc with Tt~omscn'sc r ~ ~ d c r
regional \rari;~tionsi n the 1';llacolithic .uid b!: 1916I3cn1-i0hcrm;licr
Ilad divided the Lower Palacolithic into contcmporary flake ;~ndcore scriation (Bibby 1956: 176-81; Klindt-Jcnscn 197s: 87-96).
Montclius notcd evolutionary trends ovcr the course of his
traditions.
periods. Bronzc cclts, for cxamplc, began as flat axes that wcre latcr
This irowing emphasis on thc geographical distribution as well as
flanged to strcngthcn them. Ncxt thcy wcre providcd with a crossbar
the cl~ronologyof archaeological finds led to inlportallt crcati\x
and cylindrical shaft and finally with a hcavy cast socltct to facilitatc
work bcing done by archacologists who wcrc intcrcstcd pri~llarilyin
mounting. H e vicwcd,such a sequcncc as a natural and logical one
the European Neolithic, Bronzc, and Iron Agcs rathcr than the
and drcw parallels bctwccl~thc cvolution of matcrial culturc and of
Palacolithic period. Their work was to replace the cvolutionar)~
biological organisms. Yct, as Graslund (1974)has shown, dcspitc his
preoccupation of Wcstcrn Europca~lprchistoric archacology with a
training in thc natural scicnccs, Montclius' thinking about human
historical oricntatiotl, but this challgc camc about slowly. Thc first
bchaviour owcd littlc to Darwinism. 011 the contrary it continued
major figurc in this transltio~lwas the Swcdish arcl~acologistGustav
thc traditions of Scandinavian archacology. Montclius believed, as
Oscar Montclius (1843-1921). H Cwas traincd in the natural scicnccs
had thc philosophers of the Enligl~tcnmcnt,that technology dcvcl-
but soon became intcrcstcd in archaeolog~land begall to work at thc
State Historical Musc~lmin Stockholm in 186;. He shared T l ~ o m - opcd because Iiumai beings used thcir powers of rcason to dcvisc
morc cffcctivc ways of coping with naturc and thcrcby makc thcir
sen's and Worsaac's intcrcst in elaborating a prehistoric chronology,
livcs casicr and more sccure. His rcfcrcnccs to biological evolution
to thc cxtcnt that 11c was lcss conccrncd than wcrc many of his
sccm to havc bccn intcndcd mainly as analogics that would enhance
Sca~ldinaviancontcmporarics with understandi~lgthc ecological
the status of archacology in an cra dominated by Darwinian cvolu-
background of prehistoric cultures. Hc spent part of cach year
 icological thought ulturc-historical arc

L I V I I . ~t 1s s~gnlhcant that not all of Montclius' evolutioilary 1 Bro Belt b m ~ ,

wcrc unilincar. H c dcmonstratcd, for cxan~ple,that during the I
Bronze Agc fibulac (safety pins), which were uscd t o fasten clorhing,
had bccn manufactured in Italy as onc piecc with a coilcd spring and
in Scar~dinaviaas two picccs with a hinge (Bibby 1956: 180-1). I n due
course thc best fcaturcs of both types wcrc merged to form a new
pan-European variety. Hence hc took account of how historical
factors as logical ones influcnccd the cvolutio~lof material
culture
. -1:.
In t nc Iaaos Lvlonrcuils
S "
developed his typological method and
dividcd thc Europcan Bronze Agc into six pcriods. In the following
dccadc he divided thc Neolithic into four pcriods and thc Iron Agc
into ten. While he regarded thcsc periods as applicablc t o the whole
of Europc, he noted considerable rcgional variation within each one
and rcjcctcd thc idea that all parts of Europc had reached the same
stage of devclopment at thc same time. Instead he sought to use
artifac.ts which hc assun~cdhad bee11cschangcd from one region to
anothc:r, or copied from more advanced areas, to correlate various
period s in rliffcrclit parts of Europc. As a rcsult of the discovcr!r of
Mjlccnacn11 GI-cck pottc~-yin historically dated Egyptian sitcs and
Egyptian goods in Greece, it was possible for nrcl1:icologists to date
the Mpccnacan period in C;rcccc to the fifteenth century B.(:.
Faicnc c bends found across E ~ ~ r o ptliat c \vcrc prcsitmcd t o hnvc
come iFro111 Egypt through the Mycenaean civilization provided a
bench-mark calcndrical dating for Bronze Agc cultures. This corrc-
. .
l a t ~ o nalso gavc rise to what was later called the 'short chronolnr+v'of
European prehistory (Bibby 1956: 181-2).
Moiltclius bclicvcd that his cultural c'hronolog
I.. . - I
prchistory was dcrivcd objcctivcly ft-0111 t11c arcllacologlcal cvluc~~cc.
Today ~ v carc not so ccrtain that prcsuppositions did not plly a
significant rolc in dctcrlnillillg his selection of thc cross-tics that he
l x c t3 ~ correlate the chronologies of diffcrcnr parts of Europc. I
Hc
~t that his c h r o ~ ~ o l o gindicated
y that in prchistoric times
11 devclopment had occurred in the Ncar East and that
aclllcvcmcnts had bee11 carried from there t o Europc by wavcs ...-- UL-l-
diffusion and migration malting their way through thc Ballza~lsand \J I-' I
Italjl. Because of that the lcvel of cultural dcvclopment in southcast- c Bronze Age artifacts arranged according
ern Europe in pi-chistoric times was always ahead ofthat to thc;I---+I- I U l LII

and west and El I whole 'was for long but the pale rcflIcction
 A history of archaeological tl~ougl~t Culture-historical archaeology

of Eastern civilization'. Montelius became thc most distinguished East also appealed to many Christians as a reaffirmation of the
c x p o ~ ~ eof~ al tdiffusionist explanatio~lof Europcan cultural dcvclop- biblical vicw of world history. It furthcr accordcd with a biblically
ment, the so-called ex oriente lux ('light from the east') school based intcrprctation of history dating from thc mcdieval period that
(Rcnfrew 1973a: 36:7). saw successive empires - Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic Greek,
Montclius' (1899, 1903) interprctatio~lof the development of and Roman - transferring the centre of powcr and crcativity west-
European civilizatio~lrequired a bcl~cfnot only in diffusion but also ward from the Ncar East to Europc. Finally, throughout thc nine-
that over long periods innovation tended to occur in particular xcas teenth ccntilry Europea~lpowers, cspccially England and France,
and to diffuse outwards froru these nrcas to peripheries. A similar had bccn intervening to an ever greater dcgrcc it1 thc political and
belief in c~~ltural cores and pcriphcrics played -1 signific.unt role in cconomic .~ff.~irsof thc Ncar East (Silbcrn~an1982). A vicw of
Boasian anthropology, togcthcr w ~ t hthe agclarca assumption, prehistory which saw the Western Europcan nations rather than the
which maintained that morc widely distributed traits tended to be Arab peoples as thc true hcirs of thc ancicnt civilizations of the Ncar
older than ones sprcad over a smaller territory. 111 general broad East helped to justify Europc's colonial intcrvcntions in that region,
natural zones, such as the Great Plains or boreal forests of North just as such folk lore justified the European colonization of Africa.
America, were seen as constituti~lgthe most active spheres of diffu- This interpretation of early cultural development in the Ncar East as
sion by American anthropologists. The concepts of cultural cores constituting thc origins of Epropean civilization may help to explain
and agelarea were subjected to a withering critique by the anthro- why Montclius' arguments wcrc morc popular in France and
pologist R. B. Dixon in 1928. In Europc, however, these theoretical England than in Germany, where intcrventio~lsin the Ncar East
assumptions were neither articulated nor criticized so clearly. began only towards thc end of the ninetcentl~ccntury.
Many archaeologists supported Montelius' intcrpretat~o~l of Montclius did not subscribe ,to racial intcrprctations of human
European prehistory. Moreover, the nlost vocal objections wcrc history. Moreover, while he belicvcd that diffusionary proccsses
directed not against his idea of diffusion from a centre of innovation accounted for the sprcad of civilization to Europc in prehistoric
but rather against his claim that this centre was located in the Ncar times, he saw evolutionary oncs explaining its origins in thc Ncar
East. Many scholars objected to an intcrpretatio~lthat ran counter to East. As the citizcn of a geographically pcriphcral nation whose
European convictio~lsof their own superior creativity and which cultural and academic lifc 'was bcing transformcd in thc nineteenth
derived civilizatio~lfrom outside Europc. Carl Schuchardt, Adolf century by influences coming principally from Germany, hc must
Furtwangler, and other German archaeologists maintained that have regarded diffusion as a powcrful stimulus for changc. Whilc he
Mycenaean civilization was the creation of 'Aryan' invaders from the was the first great archaeological innovator to bc strongly influcnced
north; while Montclius' thesis was opposed in a more general by a specifically diffusionist view of culturc, his position in the
fashion by scholars such as Matthaus Much (1907) and the French debate about human inventiveness was a modcratc one and much of
prehistorian Salomon Rcinach in his book Le Mirage oriental (The his thinlcing continued in an evolutionist mode.
Eastern Mirage) (1893) (SklenPi- 1983: 145). Overthrowing Monte-
lius' scheme required, however, either ignoring or refuting his T h e co&ept ofcuZtwe
chronology, which most4mpartial prehistoria~lswere convinced was
based on sound evidence. In the late nineteenth century a growing preoccupation with cth-
There were, however, non-scientific reasons as well as scientific nicity encouraged the development of the concept of thc archaeo-
ones for the support given to Montelius. His diffusionist views logical culture and of the culture-Historical approach to the study of
clearly accordcd with the co~~servative opi~lions about human prehistory. Archaeologists in Scandinavia and Central Europe
crcativc~~css that wcrc fasl~ionablcat the end of the nincteenth began to draw an explicit analogy bctwccn thc numcrous gco-
century. T r ~ c i n gthe origins of European civilization to the Ncar graphically restricted remains of n distinctivc chnractcr that thcy
 A history of archaeological thought Culture-historical archaeology

were finding and ethnographic culturcs. Kroeber and Kluckhohn aidentities in the archaeological record. As early as 1866 the Nor-
(1952) have documentcd how in the course of the eighteenth century wegian archaeologist Olof Rygh interpreted distinctive spear points
French and Gcr~lla~l pl~ilosophersbegan to use the French word and arrowheads found in his country as thc products of a particular
'culture', which originally had bcen applicd to agricultural pursuits, Stone Age 'culture and people' and by 1871 he had noted the
to dcsignatc human progress and cnlightenmcnt (sclf-cultivation). existence of 'two Stonc Age cultures and two Stone Age peoples' in
In Gcr~lla~lp the word came to dcsignatc the customs of individual Norway (Mcinandcr 1981: 106). A. Gotzc was referring to thc
socictics, especially thc cohcsivc, slowly changing ways of lifc Bandkcramik and othcr Neolithic cultures in 1891; V. V. Hvojko to
ascribed to peasant and tribal groups as opposed to the cosmopoli- the Tripolye culture in 1901; and A. A. Spitsyn to thc Fatyanovo
tan, rapidly changing 'civilizatiotl' of modern urban centres. After culturc in 1905 (ibid. 103, 107). In 1908 Raphacl Pumpclly, an
1780works on ICulturgeschichte (culturc history) began to proliferate American geologist turncd archaeologist, who was excavating at the
and, beginning in 1843, the Gcrman ethnologist Gustav IClcmm stratificd sitc of Anau in Ccntral Asia, used the term culturc to
(1802-67) pi~blishedethnographic data in books titled Allgemeine distinguish successive level; of occupation at that sitc, explaining
Cultur-Geschichte der Menschheit (Gcncral Culturc History of that 'culturc' was employed as a synonym for civilization (p. xxxv).
Humanity) (1843-52). Thc English ethnologist E. B. Tylor was In some cases it is possible to trace the process by which specific
aware of IClcmm's usage as early as 1865 but it was only in Primitive cultures were recognized. Following the cxcavations at a Bronze
Culture (1871)that he adopted the word culture and providcd it with Agc cemetery at ~ n f t i c in
e Czechoslovakia, archaeologists began to
its classic definition as 'that complex whole which includes know- identify ~nineticc-likefinds in nearby regions and finally organized
ledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and other capabilities and these to establish a ~116tice culture. In a similar manner thc proto-
habits acquired by man as a rncmbcr of society' (p. I). From this Slavic Burgwall-type pottcry that thc German prehistorian Rudolf
holistic or proccssual vicw of culturc it WAS an easy step to a partitive Virchow (1821-1902) had dcfincd in Ccntral Europe in 1870 was
one of individual cultures as ways of life trans~llittcdby spccific broadened into the conccpt'of a Burgwall culture (Sklenil1983: 110).
pcoplcs from gcncration to gcncration, a concept popularized by
Ratzcl along wit11 diffusionism. In his G~schichtedes AlteYthunzs Kossinna and the ,culture-historicalapproach
(History of Ancient Tin~es),which began to appear in 1884, the
historian Eduard Mcyer (1855-1930) wrotc of Egyptian, Greek, Despite these diverse beginnings, the concept of the archaeological
Trojan, and Mycenaean cultures (Mcinander 1981: 101). In the works culture was not defined and systematically applied to the interprcta-
of Hcinrich Schlicmann and others the terms Aegean, Mycenacan, tion of archaeological data until Gustaf Kossinna (1858-1931)
Minoan, Hclladic, and Cyciadic distinguished spccific Bronze Age published Die Herkunft der ~ e m k n e n(The Origin of the Germans)
civilizations of the eastern Mcditerranca~l(Daniel 1950: 243). in 1911.Inspired by a fanatical patriotism, Kossinna dcclared arcllac-
'Thc labelling of geographically and temporally restricted asscm- ology to bc the most national ofiscicnccs and the ancicnt Germans to
blagcs of prehistoric archaeological material as cultures or civili- be the most noble subject for archaeological research. Although he
zations and their identification as thc remains of ethnic groups sccms had bccn trained in philosophy, hc turncd to archaeology in an
to have occurred independently to a number of archaeologists. In effort to ascertain the original, homcland of the Indo-European-
Childc's (193sb: 3) vicw, the concept of the arcl~aeologicalculture speaking pcoplcs and hencc of the Germans. H e was appointed
was 'forced' upon Scandinavian, Central European, and Italian Professor of Archacology at the University of Berlin and in 1909
archacologists by the wealth of material that their excavations wcrc founded the German Socicty for Prehistory, which was soon
rcvcaling for Neolithic and latcr periods. Yet it is also clear that this rcnamed the Socicty for German Prehistory to emphasize its nation-
generally occurrcd first in Central Europe and adjacent regions alistic goals. H e attacked fellow-German archaeologists for their
where thcrc had bccn a longstanding interest in tracing ethnic interests in classical archaeology and Egyptology, which he implied
 A history of archaeological thought Culture-historical archaeology

wcrc of a lack of patriotism, if not a betrayal of the German the archacological record of Central Europe could be organized as a
nation (Sklcnai 1983: 148-9). Die Herkunft der Germanen was the mosaic of cultures (IGltttren o r Kultur-Gwppe), the location and
first systematic cxpositio~lof his approach to archaeology, which contents of which altcrcd ovcr timc. O n thc basis of his belief that
was a mixturc of importallt thcorctical innovatior~sand a fanciful cultures arc incv~tablya reflection of ethnicity, he argued that
glorification of G c r l a n prehistory as that of a biologically pure similarities and diffcrcllccs in material culturc corrclatc with simi-
rnastcr race. His \vork hclpccl to reinforce Gcrman nationalism and lar~tics. ~ n ddiffcrcticcs in ethnicity. Hcncc clearly defined cultural
\\Ion the favour of conscr\~ntivcs,such ;IS Field Marshal l'aul von provinces always con-clatc w ~ t hmajor ethnic groups o r pcoplcs,
,-
Hindcnburg, and latcr of the National Socialist mo\lcmcnt. such as the Germans, Celts, and Slavs, while individual cultures
Although Kossinna died in 1931,his interpretation of G c r m ~ nprc- correspond with tribes, such as thc Germanic-speaking Saxons,
histol-y bccamc the main component in the c~~rriculum that the N z i Vandals, Lombarcls, and Burgund~ans. Like many othcr archac-
govcrnmcnt adopted for teaching prehistory in Gcrma11 schools ologists, including Montclius, Kossinna bclicvcd that culturr~lconti-
(Frick 1934). Under the Nazi regime his Society for Germall l'rc- nuity indicated cthnic continuity. HCIICChc argued that, by inap-
history was rcnamcd the Imperial Union fbr German Prehistory and ping the distributions of types of artifacts that wcrc characteristic of
a large number of new teaching positioils was cstablisl~cdfor his specific trlbal groups, it would bc possible to dctcrminc whcrc thcsc
followers in Gcrman universities; whilc many archaeologists who groups had livcd at diffcrcnt pcriods in prchistory, a procedure that
wcrc politically or racially anathema to the govcrllmcnt or who hc called scttlcmcnt archacology (Szedlungsarchiiolugie).By this he
opposed Kossinna's views \vcrc dismissed from their positions and did not mean the study of habitation sites but rather the dclincatioll
had to lcavc Gcrmnny (Sklc~~rii 1983: 159; Fowler 1987). of whcrc particular cthnic groups had livccl. H c bclicvcd that by
1)cspitc Germany's impcriulistic nmbitions d;lting from before identifying h~~torically known t r i b ~groups
l with particular archaco-
World War I and thc Nazis' desire to establish a new world order, logical culturcs for thc early historical period, it would become
German arcl~acoiogistsproduced ollly an extrcmcly strident version possible to trace them backwards in timc archacologically. At some
of the nationalist archacology that more often sought to defend the point it would no longer bc possible to dist~nguishindividual
interests ot'smallcr or weaker ctlinic groups. They did not succeed, Gcrm.ln tribe.\, alncc they would not yet have diffcre~tiatcdfrom
as Lubbock had done, in crc;lting a truly impcri~listicarch;~cology, c ~ c hother, but arch.lcologists could still distinguish bctwccn
based on a vision of what had happened in thc past that would serve Gcrmans, Slavs, Celts, and other major groups of Indo-Europeans.
rhc interests of their country by winning widcsprcad support For still inorc rcnlotc pcriods it might only be possible to diffcrcnti-
abroad. Because of ICossinna's political orientation, it is necessary to ate Indo-Europeans fro111 11011-Indo-Europeans. Kossinna was not
mai~ltaillan unusual lcvcl of objectivity if his positive contributiolls only the first arcl~acologistto usc the concept of thc archacological
arc to bc separated from thc pcrllicious aspects of his work. It should culture systematically but also the first t o apply thc direct historical
also bc rcmcmbcrcd that in illtctprcting atcl~acologicalcvidc~lcein I approach to thc study of a large region.
way that encouraged Gcr~nansto regard Slavs and all othcr pcoplcs In a11 of his latcr writings Kossinna specifically idcntificd cult~iral
as infcrior to thcrnselvcs and cxcuscd aggrcssioll against thcsc and ethnic variations wit11 racial diffcrc~~ccs. In particular hc
pcoplcs, Kossinna was 1101 acting differently from thc anlatcur and acccptcd the com~nonlyheld bclicf that thc original Indo-European-
scmi-profcssional archaeologists \v11o in North America, Africa, and spcalcing pcoplcs and hence the direct ancestors of thc Germans werc
Australia wcrc portraying native pcoplcs as inferior to Europeans. 111 nlcmbcrs of the blond, longhcadcd Nordic (or Aryan) racial group
different ways arcl~acologyin each region rcflcctcd racist attitudes and that racial characteristics wcrc the fundamc!ltal dcterrninants of
that had become widcsprcad in Wcstcril civilizatio~lin thc coursc of 11uma11 bcl~aviour.1.ossinna- also acccptcd Klcmm's distinction
the twcnticth ccnt~~r!~. between I<ulturvulker, or culturally creative peoples, and Natur-
Kossinna proposed that from Uppcr Palacolitl~ictimes onward vuler, or c u l t ~ ~ r ~passive
lly pcoplcs. For him this was a distinction
 A history of archacological thought Culture-historical archaeology

bctwccl~Indo-Europeans, and above all Gcrmans, and all othcr lived in prchistoric timcs. Culturcs were not to be dcfined simply as
peoplcs. H c bclicved that thc Indo-Europeans could bc traccd back artifact asscmblagcs but archacologists wcrc urged t o try to dctcr-
to the carly Mcsolitllic Maglcmosian culture found in northern minc thc naturc of prchistoric lifc-styles. In his own work, Kossinna
Gcr~nany.In particular he traccd thcir origins to the vicinity of paid little attention to archacological cvidcncc o f housc typcs, burial
Schlcswig and Holstein, which Germany Ilnd recently annexed from customs, and rituals but bascd his intcrprctations on artifacts in
l>cnmnrk. 13y claiming ~ n a s i n ~ uanticl~lity
m fol- the c~~lt~lr;ll
chron- museum collections. His spcculations about prchistoric Gcrman lif'c
ology of Germany, he sougllt to demonstrate that this region had oftcn were fanciful in thc tradition of Stukclcy and his latter-day
been the centre of cultural dcvclopmcnt for Europe and thc Near tbllowcrs. Yct, in its intcntion, his holistic view o f individual
East. Late Neolithic flint daggers were interpreted as cvidcl~ceof a archacological culturcs had morc in common with thc Scandinavian
noble Gemman pride in weapons and as prototypes for later bronze approach to archacology than i t had with "scicntific' archacology
oncs, while Bronze Age trumpets wcrc construed as cvidcncc of the modclled on Frcnch and English Palaeolithic studics.
superior musical ability of the Gcrnlans in prchistoric timcs. In a Kossinna's work, for all of its chauvinistic nonscnsc and its oftcn
flight of fantasy hc proposed that cvcn the alphabet had a Stone Agc amateurish quality, markcd thc final rcplaccnlcnt of an evolutionary
European origin rather than a Phoenician one. approach to prchistory by a historical onc. By organizing archaco-
Bccausc morc advanccd cultures were an cxprcssion of biological logical data for cach pcriod of prehistory into a mosaic of archaeo-
superiority, thcy could be spread from one region to anothcr only by logical cultures, he sought not simply to document how Europcans
migrations of pcople, not by diffusion. Waves of Indo-Europeans had lived at differmt stages of prchistoric development but also to
were imagined to have migrated south and east, conquering native learn how particular peoples, many of whom could be identified as
populations and using them to build civilizations in the Ncar East, thc ancestors of modcrn groups, had lived in thc past and what had
Grcccc, and Italy. Each of these waves in turn, however, had happened to them over time. His approach offered a means to
interbred with local populations and as a result had impaired their account for the growing cvidcncc of geographical as wcll as chrono-
crcativc abilities. Hcncc cvcn the Indo-European-spcal<i~~g pcoplcs logical variations in thc archacological rccord. H c must thcrcforc bc
of ancient Grcccc and Italy cvcntually bccamc incapable of sustained recognized as an innovator whose work was of major importance for
cultural crcativity. ICossinna argucd that because the Germans had thc development of archacology.
stayed in thcir original hon1cland thcy rcmaincd the racially purest
and thcrcforc the most talented and crcativc of all thc Indo- Childe and The Dawn of European Civilization
European pcoplcs. Thcy alone remained capable of carrying out the
historical rcsponsibi1it)l of crcating civilizatio11 and imposing it Yct Kossinna had little direct influence outside the Gcrman-
upon inferior pcoplcs. Hence the Gcrn~a~ls bccamc the first-born speaking countries, no doubt because his chauvinistic intcrprcta-
(E~stgeborenc~~) of the Indo-Europcans. Kossinna also vicwcd tiolls of prehistory wcrc so repellent to othcr nationalities. The
archacology as establishing a historical right to tcrritory. Whcrcvcr British of thc Edwardian pcriod wcrc as proud of thcir suyposcd
allcgcdly German artifacts wcrc found was dcclarcd ancicnt Gcrman Nordic or Aryan racial affinities as wcrc the Germans. Yet, unlike the
tcrritory, which modern Gcrmanjr either held by right or was Germans, who could trace their cthnic group back into prehistoric
cntitlcd to win back. The same argument did not, of coursc, apply to timcs as the sole occupants of most of thcir modern homeland, the
non-Gcrman groups, such as the Slavs, who in mcdieval timcs had British wcrc kecnly aware that England had bcen conquered and
scttlcd as far wcst as thc modcrn bordcr bctwccn East and West scttlcd in turn by Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans. British
Germany (Klcjn 1974). archacologists postulated that similar invasions had occurred in
Finally and more positively Kossinna stressed the nccd to Icarn as prehistoric timcs. While some English claimed that the prchistoric
much as possible n b o ~ ~ t I I ~ I ~ I I groups,
1101\7 ~I~ or at least Gcrmans, had Celtic pcoplcs wcrc only thcir prcdcccssors and not thcir ancestors,
 A history of archaeological thought Culture-historical archaeology

most historians argucd that what was biologically and culturally

most desirable in successive i~ldigc~lous populations had combined
with what was most advanced in invading groups t o produce a
pcoplc w1i.osc hybrid vigour, coniposcd of various European stocks,
made thcm the best in tlic world ( l i o ~ ~1972:
s c 71-2). This historical
chain of increasing superiority corresponded with a nlodern
regio~ialand ethnic hierarchy within Britain. The dominant uppcr
and upper-middle classcs viewed thcmsclvcs as the spiritual if not
the biological heirs of the Normans, while the English as a wl~olc
wcrc identified with the carlicr Saxons, and the lilore rcnlotc Celtic
fringe with the still carlicr and morc primitive British.
Because of their positive attitude towards foreign influence,
British archaeologists were rcccptivc to Montclius' arguments that
prehistoric Europc owed much of its cultural dcvclopmcnt t o the
Near East. Yet thcy did not hold his vicws and thosc of niorc
Eurocentric archaeologists to be mutually exclusive. One of the two
1ilai11themes of John Mprcs' The DUU~YL of History (1911) was the
spread of technology from Egypt and Mesopotami~to Europe. The
second was his belief that all hicrarcliical societies developed w l ~ c n
politically dynamic, pastoral pcoples, such as the Se~ilitcsand thc
Indo-Europeans, wcrc forced by drought to Ica\~ctheir homelands
and to conquer and rule politically less innovativc peasant socictics. 25 Childc with a party of workmen at Skara Brae, Orkney, 1928-30
According to Myrcs thc Indo-Europeans, who111 he believed to be
non~adsfrom the steppes of Central Asia, were particularly adept at book, w h ~ c hGlyn Daniel (1950: 247) has called 'a new starting-point
imposing their language, bclicfs, and social customs on conquered for prehistoric arcl~acology',the archacological culturc bccamc the
peoples, whilc adopting the latter's material culture. O u t of the worliing tool of all Europcan archaeologists.
encounter between cultural influe~lccsthat had been transmitted to Childc was born in Sydncy, Australia in 1893, the sot1 of a con-
Europc from the Ncar East and I~ido-Europea11 political sltills a vital scrv:~tivc Ch~irchof England minister. H c studied Classics at tllc
and distinctive Europcan way of life was created. Sinlilar vicws were University of Sydney, whcrc hc bccamc comrnittcd to socialist
held by Arthur Evans (1896)) who was Myres' colleague at Oxford politics. At ah early stage he also grcw intcrestcd, likc Icossinna, in
University. Yet, whilc Myrcs wrote of pcoplcs in The Dawn of locating the homcland of the Indo-European-spc~ki~lg pcoplcs. H c
Histoy, lic did not yet rcfcr to archacological cultures. Later indi- wcnt 011 t o Oxford Univcrsity where hc studicd with Myrcs and
vidual cultures were mcationcd by archacologists such as Myres Evans. In 1916 he returned to Australia. There he engaged in various
(1923a, b), Harold Pealte (1922), and Cyril Fox (1923) and i n M a n and left-wing political activitics until 1921. Then, disillusioned with
his Past 0 . G. S. Crawford (1921: 78-9) discussed geographical politics, hc returned to the study o f archaeology. His already exten-
methods for delineating their origins, extent, and frontiers. Yet no sive command of European languages and an acute visual memory
cffort was made to apply the concept of the archaeological culture in enablcd him t o visit and asscmblc data from muscums and cxca-
a systeniatic fashion prior to tlie publication of V. Gordon Childc's vations across thc wholc of Europc. H c presc~ltedthe results of this
(1893-1957) The Dawn of European Civilization (1925a). Through this research in two boolis: The Dawn ofEuvopean Civilization, which was
 A history of archaeological thought

a synthcsis of European prehistory to the cnd of the ~ r o n z ~e ~ande ,

The Danube in Prehistoly (1929), a more detailcd study of a hithcrto
little-known rcgion. Thc thcorctical basis of his approach was out-
lined at thc beginning of thc latter book.
In The Dawn of European Civilization Childc adopted Kossinna's
basic concept of thc archaeological culture and his identification of
such culturcs as thc rcmains of prchistoric pcoplcs, whilc rcjccting
all of the racist connotations that Kossinna had attributcd to thcm.
He combined this concept with Montclius' chronology and the
bclicf that in prchistoric times tcchnological skills had diffuscd to
Europe from their placc of origin in thc Near East. His interprcta-
tions of European prchistory were also influcnccd by thosc of Myrcs
and Evans, inasmuch as he stressed the creativity of prehistoric
Europeans to a much greater extent than Montelius had done. H e
defined an archaeological culture, unfortunately with misleading
brcvity, as 'ccrtain typcs of rcmains - pots, implcmcnts, ornamcnts,
burial rites, house forms - constantly recurring together' (1929:
v-vi). He stressed that each culture had to be delineated individually
in terms of constituent artifacts and that cultures could not be
dcfined simply by subdividing the ages or epochs of the evolutionary
archaeologists cithcr spatially or temporally. Instcad the duration
and geographical limits of cach culturc had to bc cstablishcd
c~~~pirically and individual culturcs aligncd chronologicaily by
means of stratigraphy, scriations, and synchronisms. In this way he 26 Childe's first chart correlating the archaeological cultures o f Central
intcrprctcd thc prchistory of the wholc of Europc in tcrlns of a Europe, from The Danube in Prehistovy, 1929
complex mosaic of cultures. While this mosaic was approximated
1
using maps and tables in The Dawn of European Civilization, a cultures. H e dccidcd that home-madc pottery, ornamcnts, and
detailed chart showing the chronological and geographical distri- burial rites tended to rcflect local tastcs and were relatively rcsistant
butions of all the archaeological cultures known in the Danube to change; hence they were useful for identifying spccific cthnic
Valley was published in The Danube in Prehistory and a chart by groups. On the other hand the markcd utilitarian valuc of tools,
Childe and M. C. Burkitt covering all of Europe appeared in Anti- wcapons, and many othcr items of technology causcd thcm to
quity in 1932. Thcsc charts wcrc prototypcs for ones that othcr diffuse rapidly from one group to anothcr, cithcr as a rcsult of tradc
archaeologists would use40 rcpresent regional cultural chronologies or copying. Hence these tjrpes of artifacts were especially valuable
around the world. for assigning neighbouring cultures to the same period and cstab-
Most of Childe's cultures were defined on the basis of a small
number of diagnostic artifacts. Yet his selection of these artifacts
lishing cultural chrollologies prior to the invention of radiocarbon
dating (Childe 1929: viii, 248; cf. Binford 1983a: 399-400). Childc
C
involved a functionalist view of material culture. H e argued
- that the concluded that this operation supported the same picturc of thc
historical significance of different types of artifacts could only be diffusion of material culture westward across Europc as had
ascertained by considering what role they had played in prehistoric emerged from Montclius' work. '

171 I
 A history of archaeological tlio~~glit Culture-historical archaeology

While diagnostic artifacts might scrvc to define an archacological ology and a new culture-historical approach. H c also observed, with
culturc, they did not suffice to clcscl-ihc it. Fol- that purpose cvcry rcfcrcncc to the British and French rathcr than the Scalidinavian
artif~ctW;IS rclc\rant. (:hilcic \\:as i~itcrcstcd in vic\ving archnco- school, that in the ninctcc~itlicentury cvol~~ti~~iar~\~arcl~acolo~ists
logical cultures not sinlyly as collections of traits but also as tile had bccomc more interested in artifacts than in thcir makcrs. H c
mcans of providing an cthnographic interpretation of how specific claimed that in constructing evolutio~laryscquc~~ccs they had
groups hiid livcd in prchistoric ti~ncs.111 the first edition of T/JC trcatcd artifacts as dcad fossils rathcr than as cxprcssions of living
l l n ~ v ncf Ezrwpcnu~Ci~~ilizntioui lic attempted to s ~ ~ ~ - u ~ n awhat rizc socictics (194oa: 3). I11 his opinion scientific progrcss had lcft archac-
could be inferred about thc way of life associated with cach major ologists with no altcrnativc but t o adopt thc concrctc mcthods of
culture. In later editions, he s~~rvcycd each culture morc systematic- history. H c was correct in portraying thc development of a historical
ally, covering - i n s o f ~ ras this was possible - economy, social and approdch to archaeology as a natural and logical progrcssion, to the
political organization, and religious beliefs (Childc 1939; 19~6a: extent that culturc-historical archaeology was cquippcd, as cvolu-
129-31). How people had livcd in the past was a concern that both he tionary archaeology had not becn, to study and try to cxplain
and Kossinna shared. Whcn it came to interpreting cultural change geographical as well as tcmporal variation in thc archacological
Childc had rccoursc, as Montclius had done, to diffusio~iand rccord. H e was wrong, howcvcr, in implying that his mcthod for
migration, which were both cxter~lalfactors. Cultural continuity interpreti~lgthe archacological record was necessarily morc objec-
was ascribed to the abscncc of thcse factors. His approach thus bore tive than evolutionary archaeology. The conccpt of the archaco-
a close rcscinblancc to the diffusionist ethnology found in Europc logical culturc, which he had borrowcd from Kossinna, and thc
and North Anlcrica in the 1920s. diffusionist vicws of Montclius wcrc both closcly rclatcd to thc
The Daam of'Europenn Civilization provided a nlodel that was to be tvidcly hcld intcrprctations of human bchaviour that had dcvcloped
applicd to the study of archaeology throughout Europc into the as a rcaction against cultural evolutionism in Wcstcrn Europe bcgin-
1950s. It was an approach that Childe, despite his own changing ning in thc latc ninctccnth century. Thc new culture-historical view
interests, followcd closclp in his latcr regional syntheses, such as T ~ E of prehistory was as dccply rootcd in a pcssiliiistic asscssmcnt of
Prehistory ofScotlaad (1935a) and P~ehistoricCummuubities of the British cultural change and human creativity as thc prcvious evolutionary
Isles (194oa). The primary aim of archaeologists who adoptcd this vicw had bccn rooted in an optimistic onc.
approach was no longcr to interpret the archaeological record as Childc, dcspite his left-wing political radicalism, did not wholly
c\ridcncc of stages of cultural dcvclopmcnt. Instead thcy sought to escape thc racism that was part of this ncw outlook. In The Aryans
idcntifjr often nameless prchistoric pcoplcs by mcans of archaco- (1926) hc argucd that thc Indo-Europeans did not succeed bccausc
logical cultures and to trace thcir origin, movcmcilts, and intcr- thcy posscsscd a matcrial culture or natural intclligcllce that was
action. Thc Neolithic period was no longcr sccn primarily as a stage supcrior to those of othcr people. Instead thcy wcre successful
of cultural dcvclopmcnt but rathcr as a mosaic of sharply dclillcatcd bccausc they spoke a superior languagc and bcncfitted from the
cultural groups. The questions being addressed wcre of a particular- more competent mentality it made possible. H e pointed out that thc
ist, historical variety. Thcrc was also a general intcrcst in lcarning Greeks and Romans had only a dilutcd Nordic physical type but that
how spccific pcoplcs had livcd in prchistoric times. cach had realized the high cultural potential that was inhcrcnt in
Childc was fully awarc of thc revolution that he had brought thcir language. This intcrprctation contrasted with Kossinna's belief
about in archacolog)~.111 1925 hc noted with satisfaction that the that ethnic and racial mixture in thcse countries had resultcd in
clarity with which the migrations of ~lamclcssprchistoric pcoplcs cultural decline. Yct at the cnd of The Aryans Childc bowcd to
stood out in the arcl~acologicalrccord when i t was studied as a prcvailing racist scntimcnts by suggesting that thc 'superiority in
mosaic of culturcs 143s a rc\~cI:lti~n to fellow ; ~ ~ - c I ~ ; i e o l ~(Childc
gist~ physique' of the Nordic pcoplcs niadc thcm thc appropriate initial
1925b). He thus distinguished bctwccn an olclcr cvolutio~laryarchac- bearers of a superior language (Childc 1926: 211). In latcr ycars, as hc
 A 11istor.y of archaeological thought Culture-h,istqricalarchaeology
' '#

adopted other explanations for cultural variation, he repudiated Black in 1926 (Hood 1964). The first native Chinese scholar to direct
these early speculations. the excavation of an archaeological site was Li Ji (Li Chi) (1896-
1979), who had earned a doctorate at Harvard University in 1923.
From 1928 to 1937, as first head of the Department ofArchaeology in
National a~chaeology
the National Research Institute of History and Philology of
The culture-historical approach, with its emphasis on the prehistory Academia Sinica, he dug at the important late Shang site of Yinxu,
of specific peoples, provided a model for national archaeologies not near Anyang. These excavations, carried out at an early historical site
only in Europe but around the world. It remains the dominant that yielded many inscriptions and works of art, played a major role
approach to archaeology in many countrlcs. Like nationalist history, in training a gcncration of Chincsc archaeologists and also in
to which it is usually closely linkcd, thc culture-historical approach turning the new sciencc of,archaeology into an instrument for
can bc used to bolster thc pride and moralc of nations or ethnic studying Chinese history. They also fuclled a resurgence of pride in
groups. It is most often used for this purpose among peoples who China's ancicnt past. This turning towards history is all thc morc
fccl thwarted, thrcatcncd, or dcprivcd of thcir collcctivc rights by significant in view of Li's training as an anthropologist.
more powerful nations or in countries where appeals for national Foreign scholars, such as Andersson, sought to trace the origins of
unity are being made to counteract serious internal divisions. Chinese culture, or at leaqt of major aspects of it, such as the
Nationalist archaeology tends to emphasize the more recent past Neolithic painted pottery, back to the Near East, thereby implying
rather than the Palaeolithic period and draws attention to the that Chinese civilization was derivative from the West. Chinese
political and cultural acliievcmcnts of indigenous ancient civili- archaeologists sought the origin of Chinesc civilization in the Neo-
zations. There is also, as Danicl Wilson (1876,I : 247) noted long ago, lithic Longshan culture, where Wcstern influence seemed lcss
a tendency to glorify the 'primitive vigour' and creativity of people evident. Later they argued that Yangshao and Longshan represented
assumed to be national ancestors rather than to draw attention to a continuum of development that culminated in Shang civilization
thcir low cultural status. (W. Watson 1981: 65-6). Archaeological research was curtailed by
Thc political problcnls and revolutionary cl~angesthat overtook thc Japancsc invasion in 1937and, following thc Communist victory
China beginning in the ninctccntli century produced a rcncwed in 1949, many archaeologists, including Li, rctrcated to Taiwan
i~itcrcstin historiography. In particular it Icd to thc dcvelopn~c~lt of taking valuable collections with; them.
a more critical attitude towards ancicnt tcxts (Wang 1985: 184-8). Marxism had begun to influence the study of ancient China as
The study of art objects and calligraphy was a long-established part early as 1930 in the writings of Guo Moruo (1892-1978). A writer and
of the Chinese tradition of historiography. Field archaeology devel- revolutionary, Guo was forced to flee to a still relatively liberal Japan
oped, however, within the context of the reformist May 4th Move- in 1927 to escape Chiang Kai-Shek's death squads. During the ten
ment, which, beginning in 1919, sought to replace traditional literaiy years he lived there he produced a series of studies on ancient
scl~olarshipwith scientific knowledge from the West. There was a inscriptions and the stylistic evolution of bronze artifacts. Unlike Li
receptive audience for geology, palaeontology, and other sciences and his associates, who were primarily interested in art, religion, and
capable of collecting empirical data from the earth. ideology, Guo stressed production as the basis of society and inter-
Thc first major archaeological fieldwork was carried out by preted the Shang and Zhou Dynasties as examples of a slave society.
Western scientists attached to the Geological Survey of China, More than any other Chinese'scholar, Guo sought to place his
which had been established in Peking in 1916.The Swedish geologist country in a comparative framework of world history (Wang 1985:
J. G. Andersson (1934: 163-87) identified the Neolithic Yangshao 188). After the Communist revd~utionhe became a major figure in
culture in 1921,whilc major work at the Palaeolithic site of Zhoukou- Chinese intellectual life. From 1950 until his dcath in 1978 he was
dian began under thc direction of the Canadian anatomist Davidson President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
 A history of arcl~aeologicalthougl~t Culture-l~istoricalarchacology

After 1949 archaeology became a statc-dircctcd activity. Except of the past arc also interpreted as testimonials t o the skill and energy
whcn thc valuc of any study of the past was challcngcd by cxtrcmists of the worlccrs and artisans who crcatcd thcm. Last, but not Icast,
during the Cultural Revolution, archaeology has been supported, 11s .~rch,~cologicalfinds arc used to cultivate national dignity and pridc
it always has been in the Soviet Union, as an important instrumc~lt by documenting China's accomplish~nentsover the ages.
of political education. This is done in accordance with Mao Dcspitc a Marxist vcnccr, Chincsc archacology has conti~lucdto
Zedong's dictunl that 'the past should scrve the present'. A National displ.1~strongly traditional features. It plays a significant rolc in
B ~ ~ r e aofu Cultural Relics ad~llinistcrsthousands of provincial and promoting national unity, as historiography in gcncral did prior t o
local muscu~nseither directly or through provincial and district 1949.Until recently the intcrprctation of thc archaeological rccord
Bureaus of Culture. Vast amounts of archaeological data havc been '~ccordedwith longst~ndingnortl~crn-centredChincsc traditions.
unearthed througl~outChina in the course of unpreccdc~ltcdindus- Chinese matcrial culture and i~lstitutionshave bccn interprctcd as
trial and agricultural dcvclopmcnt and, because accidental finds now first evolving in the Huang-he Valley and gradually spreading from
quickly come to the attention of professional archacologists, infor- there southward to producc the yan-Chincsc culturc of thc Iron
mation about the past has incrcascd vcry rapidly (Chang 1981:168). Agc. Thc cultural creativity of othcr parts of China was thcrcby
Within the research divisions of Academia Sinica, Palaeolithic minimized. In the past at lcast onc Westcrn archacologist has been
archaeology is separated from thc study of the Ncolithic and his- attackcd for drawing attention to the sophisticatio~land indepen-
torical periods and attached to the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeon- dent character of the 'provincial' Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures
tology and Palaeoanthropolog~~. This arrallgcnlcllt may reflect a lack of southcrn China (W. Watson 1981:68-9). This Chinese view has
of close ide~ltificatio~l of the earliest periods of hutnan dcvelopnlcnt been vigorously rejected by Vietnamese archacologists who see in
with a specifically national history, although there is much pride in the Bronze Agc Dong-s'on culture of Southeast Asia evidence of a
thc antiquity of China's Palacolithic record. 0 1 1 a practical lcvcl this 'decp 2nd solid basis' for a distinctivc cultural tradition, which in
division reflects the close working relationship among Palacolithic their own country 'absolutcly rcfuscd to bc submcrgcd by Chincsc
archacologists, geologists, and palacontologists. culture while many othcr culturcs at that timc wcrc subjugatcd and
In kcepi~lgwith nationally accepted Marxist tenets, thc Chincsc ~nnihila~cd' (Van Trong 1979: 6). It has rcmaincd for scholars
past is conccptualizcd in terms of a unilincar sequence of stages: working outside China t o identify the distinctivc cultural character-
primitive society, slavc socicty, and feudal socicty. There is no istics and early dcvclopment of central and southcrn China
qucstio~lingof this model. So far vcry little arcl~aeologicalrcscarch (Meacham 1977).
has been directed towards examining Marxist thcorics of social Western-stylc field archaeology was introduced into Japan cven
evolution, which would involve thc investigation of subsistence earlier than into China by American and European natural scientists
systcms, scttlcmcnt patterns, trade, and social and political organi- and physicians who were hired to tcach there, especially after the
zation. This may partly reflect the scarcity of wcll-trained personnel, Mc~jirevolution of 1868,whcn the ncw government dctcrmincd to
but it has also been attributcd to unpredictable shifts in Chinese catch up with advances in Wcstcrn scicncc, technology, and mcdi-
govcrnmcnt policy, which have discouragcd thc cxprcssion of opin- cinc. Thc most important of thcse visitors was thc American zoolo-
ions on topics that arc ~potcntially politically scnsitivc. Instead, gist Edward Morsc (1838-I~ZS), who had participated in shcll-
archaeological finds arc interpreted pragmatically to promote a mound research in the eastern United States. H c identified and
variety of political goals. Thcy dramatize the cruelty and oppressio~l excavated the shcll mound at Omori in 1877.Whilc none of his
that characterized life for the Chinese masscs under successive royal students bccanle profcssional archaeologists, he interested some of
dynasties, and which contrast with the beneficial social and thcm in doing archaeological rescarch. Ikawa-Smith (1982:299)
cconomic changes that havc been the goal of go\~crnmcntpolicy in points out that the leading Japanese archaeologists of thc late
China since 1949.The great tombs, temples, and other nlonulllcnts ninetccntl~and early twcnticth ccnturics wcrc traincd in geology,
 A history of archacological thought Culture-historical archaeology

zoology, or medicine and that many of them had studied in Europe At t h ~ tlmc
s some historians also publisl~cdMarxist intcrprctations
o r America. IHcncc their bnckgrouncis wcrc similar t o tliosc of the of' J,11.>.11icscli~stoi-yin wli~charchacological data wcrc used. Fro111
self-traincci or i~iformallytrained professional arcl~acologistsin the tlic ninctccntl~century onwards, howcvcr, most archacologists were
West during tlic ninetecnth century. careful not t o contradict officially sponsored accounts of ancicnt
Altllo~lghMorse was an evolutionist, the Japancsc archaeologists Japanese history based o n the Kojiki, Nihon Shoki, and other chron-
who followcd him had more in common \ x r i t l i the Europca11culturc- lclcs recorded in the eighth century A . D . The prinl~tivcJ o l ~ ~ o ~ i
historical archacologists of the latc ninctcctlth century. The first culturc, w h ~ c hwas dated prior to 1500 B . C . and thercforc antedated
generation of Japancsc profcssio~lal arcl~acologists was Icd by thc events dcscribccl in thcsc accounts, was ascr~bcdto the Ainu by
T s ~ ~ b oS i~ O ~ O (1863-1913).
I-O In 1884 he c ~ n dseveral other scicncc thc ~ n ~ i t o m i sIcogcnei
t Yoshik~yoand to a pre-Ainu pcoplc by
students cstablishcd the Anthropological Socicty of Tokyo and nine Morsc and Tsuboi, but was not considcrcd to be ancestral t o the
years later he was appointed Professor of A~lthropology at the modcnl Japancsc. Either i~ltcrprctationjustificd the latc-ninctccnth-
University of Tokyo. H e conccivcd of anthropology, in the con- century colon~zatio~l of the island of Holikaido, wherc thc Ainu
tinental European fashion, as a branch of zoology interested in I~vcd,by reprcsc~iti~lg ~tas the conti~luationof a historical c x p a n s i o ~ ~
11uma11 physical rcmai~lsand regarded archacological evidence as of the Japanese people northward through the Japancsc archipclago
clues for identifying racial groups. H e spccializcd in the study of the (Fawcett 1986). In the ultra-nationalist atmosphcrc of the 1930s it
Mesolithic Jonion period and by the 1930s had cstablishcd a gc~icral bccanlc extrc~l~clp dangerous t o engage in any rcsearch that even
chronology for it. inadvertently might cast doubt on Shinto myths concerning the
In 1895 historians worki~igat the I~llpcrialMuscum (rodap the d ~ v i n corigin of the royal family. Thosc i~lvolvcdin such act~vitics
Tokyo National Museum) fou~idcclthe Arcliacological Society. It risked renloval from then posts and cvc~limprisonment. As a result
had closer links with prc-Mciji antiquarian scl~olarshipthan did the of thcsc pressures phys~calantl~ropolog~sts and linguists avoided
Anthropological Socictp of Tokyo. Its aims werc to study the discussions of etl~nicity,while arcl~acologistsco~lcentratcdon elabo-
'archacologp of our country, with the view to throwing light 011 r a t ~ n gartifact typologics and did not cngagc in discussio~lso f
customs, institutions, culture and technologies in the successive cultural change that could havc any bearing on the official version of
periods of our national history' (Ilcawa-Smith 1982: 301). Tlicsc history.
scholars concentrated 011 the latc prehistoric Yayoi and the proto- Since World War I1 archaeological activities havc increased enor-
historic I<ofun pcriods 2nd had n special interest in fine art, as mously III Japan. Japanese archacologists arc proud of the technical
cxcmplificd by bronzc rnirrors and weapons. excellence of t h c ~ workr and strlvc to advance their undcrstandi~lgof
Japanesc archaeologists of all schools conti~lucdto pursue a culture-historj~and chronology. The vast majority of them arc
culture-liistorically oriented archaeology, which did not preclude all i~ltcrestcdin studying material rcmains within Japan from the per-
interest in understanding 'the outline of human dcvelopn~e~lt a~id spect~vcof ilatio~lalhistory. Public interest in archaeology is high,
regularities of social transformations' (Ikawa-Smith 1982: 302). Poli- survcys and rcscue work mandatory, and archacological finds are
tical pressures, particularly tliosc associated with efforts to promote widely exhibited to the public (Tanaka 1984). Archaeology has
national unity by strcssAig the vcncration of the cmpcror as the prov~dcda view of the dcvclopmellt of the Japanese nation, people,
descendant of the gods and thc divi~lclyappointed head of the and culturc that has helped to fill the ideological vacuum left after
Japvlcsc national f.~mily, impeded archacological dcvclopnicnt at the m ~ l ~ t a r idefeat
st in World War 11. For many Japancsc, archaco-
certain pcriods. Government rcgulatio~~s issued ill 1874 and 1880 l o g ~ c ~finds
~ l provide tang~blccontact with thc past and hclp t o
made it difficult to excavate large b ~ ~ r i mounds,
al espccially ones reinforce a sense of stability in a period of great social and cultural
identified as possible tombs of the royal family. Such excavations changc and unccrta~nty.111particular, arcl~acologicalresearch and
were carried out in the politic all!^ relaxed atmosphere of tlic 1920s. popular accounts of archaeology arc cliclractcrizcd by a fascination
 A history of archaeological thought Culture-historical archaeology

with the origin of thc Japanese pcoplc and culture. There is a which had as one of its duties to train archacologists. I t later bccamc
growing tendency to tracc the Japanesc as an ethnic group as far part of the National Institute of Anthropology and History, which
back as the Jomon or cven the Palaeolithic periods (Fawcett 1986). was granted an absolute monopoly to license archacological exca-
The theory that t11c~Japaneseruling class came as conquerors from vations throughout Mexico.
the Asian mainland during the Yayoi pcriod, which was advanced in While this Institutc and ~ e i i c a narchacology as a wholc have
the wake of Japanese ~nilitarisrnin the 194os, has also been aban- bccn influcnccd by trends in United Statcs archaeology, they Iiavc
doned. Nevcrtl~clcssa traditional pattcrn continues of portraying maintained a strongly historicist orientation. Archaeologists scc it as
the Japancsc ruling elite as the patrons of ncw influences, such as their duty to provide Mcxicans with a past of thcir own, whicli
writing, bureaucracy, and Buddhism, which c~ltcrcdthe country promotcs ~lationalil~tcgrationthrough thc formation of a Iiistorical
from Korca and China. This view relates class to history in a way that perspective that can be shared by all elements in thc population. This
resembles interpretations offered by nationalistic historians and requires the humanization and popularization of prehistory. An
prehistorians in England in thc late ninctecllth and carly twcnticth important aspect of this policy has bccn thc crcation of largc public
centuries. museums and the dcvclopmcnt of major archacological sitcs as
In Mcxico the past was an object of political manipulation cven open-air muscums for thc enrcrtai,imcnt and instruction of Mexi-
before the Spanish conquest in 1519 (Carrasco 1982). Followit~gthe cans and foreign visitors alike (Lorcnzo 1981, 1984). Within this
conquest the Spanish attempted as far as possible to eliminate common framcwork thcrc arc striking divcrgcnccs in the intcrprcta-
non-Christian religious beliefs and traditional political loyalties by tion of archacological data, sbmc of which have clcarly political
discouraging an interest in Mcsoamcricall history and culture (Dichl connotations. These run the gamut from variaus types of Marxism
/
1983: 169). During thc struggles prcccdillg Mexican indcpcndc~lcein on the one hand to varying degrees of comniitmcnt to North
1821, Spanish officials conti~lucdto discourage thc study of thc Amcrican positivism on thc othcr. Tlic political uscs of archacology
pre-hispanic period, but crcoles turned to it as a source of inspir- havc bccn accompanied by an undcrfunding of scientifically oricntcd
ation and national identity. In thc ninctccilth cclltury thc conscrva- rescarch. As a rcsult many of the most important long-term rescarch
tivcs among the ruling elite regarded thc study of this period as a projects havc bccn carried dut by forcign archacologists.
worthless preoccupation with barbarism, while liberals supported it Archaeological research in India began in n colonial setting arid
as the investigation of a significant pcriod of Mexico's llational for a long timc reinaincd reniotc from traditional Indian scholar-
history (Lorcnzo 1981).The national revolution of 1910 was success- ship. European travellers bcgan to notc a~lcicntmonuments as early
ful largely as a result of armed support by peasants, who were mainly as the sixteenth century and systcmatic scholarly intcrcst in thcsc
Indians and who constituted a majority of the population. The monuments dates from about 1750. This intcrcst was stimulated by
revolution resulted in major changcs in government policy towards the realization that Sanskrit and thc modern languages of northcrn
these people. The injustices of the colonial period were acknowl- India that are descended from it wcrc rclatcd to the major languages
edged and far-reaching cconomic and social rcforms werc promised. of Europe; licncc studying India might bc rclcvant for understand-
The government also ~~ndcrtoolc to integrate Indians into national ing ancient Indo-European culture. Anlatcur British archacologists
life and to heighten tgeir sense of self-respect by encouraging the began to examine megaliths, Buddhist stupas, and othcr archaeo-
study of Mexico's rich pre-hispanic heritage and malting its findings logical sitcs with some regularity, whilc thc Archaeological Survcy
an integral part of Mexican history. In this way the government also of India, first cstablishcd in 1861, published an immcnsc amount of
sought to assert Mexico's cultural distinctiveness to the rest of the research under dircctors such as Alexander Cunningham (1861-s),
world (Gamio 1916). Large sums of money were allocated for John Marshall (1902-31), who discovercd thc Indus Valley civili-
archaeological instruction and rescarch. A Department of Anthro- zation, and Mortimcr Wheelcr ( 1 9 ~ - 8 ) . Whcclcr traincd many
pology was established in 1937at thc National Polytechnical School, . Indian students in modern ficld mcthods and cllcouragcd several
 A history of archaeological thought Culture-historical archaeology

Indian universities to begin offering instruction in archacology. Yet, dc facto, if not official, colonial regimes. In particular, Western
while India owes the introductio~iof archaeology to British rule, scholars werc attracted to Egypt, Iraq, and Palestine by thc remains
Lallanji Gopal (1985: i) has observed that the 'glorious cultural of ancient civilizations that were of special intcrest to Europeans
licritage, which was uncartlicd by archaeologists . . . aroused the because they were mentioned in the Bible. O n the other hand, local
self-confidence of tlic Indian people [and] was one of the major attitudes toward archaeology have been colourcd by a traditionally
factors contributing to the 1ndi;un renaissance, \vhich ultimately negative view of prc-Islamic tinlcs as an agc of religious ignorance.
ushered in independence'. Chalirabarti (1982: 335) notes that, by the In Egypt the indigenous middle class displayed considerable interest
time John Marshall began to cscn\?atc,tlic outlines of ancient Indian in Pharaonic civilization within thc context of scc~llarnationalism
history nnci culture Ilad bccn cstablislicd from textual and nrt- t l ~prevailed
~t in the c.lrlp p u t of the twentieth century. This intcrcst
historical sources. Yet the historical image of ancient India rcnlaincd expressed itself in strenuous efforts to ensure that Egyptians con-
shadowy. His excavations of sites of the Buddhist period in the trolled the archaeological work being done in their country and that
Ganges Valley and the northwest enlivened this crucial phase in the Egyptian scholars were involved in it (J. Wilson 1964: 159-77). Thc
develop~ncntof India in tlic Indian cultural co~isciousnessand hence late Shah of Iran sought to emphasize the pre-Islamic glorics of his
contributed to the growth of nationalism. country and in particular to identify his regime with thc ancient
The ties between archaeology and history were made easier by Persian monarchy. This included a magnificent celebration of the
close similarities betwccn the culture-historical approach in archae- supposed z,sooth anniversary of thc ancient Persian kings at the
ology and tlic newly emerging Indian historiography. Historians ruins of their palace in Persepolis in 1971. In the face of growing
tended to think in terms of different racial groups and vicwcd the difficulties with neighbouring Islamic, and in some cases also Arab,
past as a series of niigratiolis of peoples wlio brought innovations states the Iraqi government has likewise paid increasing attention to
into India Lx~teventually were absorbed into the Indian way of life. thcir country's distinctive Babylonian hcritage. O n thc other hand,
By labelling the Indus ci\~ilizationas prc-Vedic and attributing its interest in prc-Islamic times dcclincd rapidly in Egypt following thc
destruction to Aryan invaders, archaeologists made prehistory overthrow of the monarchy and the coming t o power of the Gamal
co~ifornito the established pattern of Indian historical intcrpreta- Abdul Nasscr regime, which promoted a pan-Arab rather than a
rion (Chakrabarti 1982: 339). specifically Egyptian scnsc of identity. Likewise in Iran the over-
Arcl~aeologphas made significant progress in India since Indepen- throw of the Shah brought to power a strongly Islamic government
dence in 1947. It is well-cstablishcd in utiivcrsitics and much research that discouraged identification with pre-Islamic times both on rclig-
is carried out each year (Thapar 1984). Yet, while Indian archae- ious grounds and because of the symbolic associations between
ologists lcccp abreast of world-wide trends in thcir discipline and are ancient Persia and the recent monarchy. Throughout the Near East
morc attracted by American anthropological archaeology than are there is increasing emphasis on Islamic arcliacology as research
Japanesc or Chinese researchers (Jacobson 1979; Paddajya 1983; La1 comes to be controlled by and carried out by local scholars (Masry
1984), archacology remains closely linltcd to the study of ancient 1981).
history. Many Indian archaeologists arc content to attach ethnic and I11 modern Israel archaeology plays the very different role of
linguistic labels to nPwlp discovered cultures and to interpret them affirming the links between a recently arrived population and its own
in a general, descriptive fashion. It remains to be seen how, as ancient past. By providing a sense of concrete reality to biblical
research of a processual nature becomes morc familiar to Indian traditions, it heightens national consciousncss and strengthens the
archaeologists, they will relate it to this orthodox historical claims of Israeli settlers to thc land they are occupying. I n particular,
framework. Masada, the site of the last Zealot resistance to the Romans in
A.D. 73, has become a monument possessing great emotional and
Archaeology was also introduced to the Near East by Europeans,
wlio dcvelopcd local institutions for research and teaching under ceremonial value as a symbol of the will to survivc of thc new Isracli
 A his tor)^ of arcli,1culogrs~1thought Culture-historical archaeology

state. Its cxcavatio~lwas one of the most massive archaeological rcalignmcnt, as wcll as a growing involvemcnt with the study of oral
projects undertaken by Israeli archacologists and rcccivcd a vast traditions and historical li'nguistics, history is now cquippcd to
amount of publicity. investigate periods for which few o r n o written records are available.
A strong biblical cmphusis in Isracli and still earlier Palestinin11 I t t h ~ i s~CCOIIICS African rather than colonial in its orientation (D.
arcliacology has 'helped to create an individual discipli~lcmeasur- McCall1964; Ehrct and Posnallsky 1982). By actively participating in
ably ~inaffcctcdby methodological and intcllcctual devclop~ncnts this process, African arc11acolog)l is transformed fro111being colo~lial
clscwhcrc' ( Wanburp-Tc~iison1986: 108). Most Isracli archacologists to national in character.
'11-ctrained in historical and biblical rcscarch and dcvote nlucl~time In Europc the crudcl- and morc obvious I-clationships bctwccn
to studying history, philology, c ~ ~ ;u-t n d history. 1'al.xcolithic ;I~CII;IC- archacological intcrprctntio~land nationalism tcndcd t o disappear
ology is r n ~ ~ cless h impol-t.111t2nd the influence o f unthropological- aftcr World War 11, us growing political and cconomic coopcratioll
style archacolog)~has gcncrally been limited to cncouragi~lgthc use and a gcncrallp in~provi~lg standard of living Icd to n dcclinc in
of technical aids in the analysis of data. Iiclativcly little attention is nationalism. In rcccnt pears this has promoted a growing nwarcncss
~ n Islamic pel-iods (13a1--
paiid to the 31-cll,tcologyo f thc C ~ I - i s t i , and of how f~~ndamcntally diffcrcnt prchistoric E u r o p c a ~culturcs
~ wcrc
Yoscf and Mazar 1982). Whilc most Israelis view archaeological from modern ones and has encouraged archacologists o11cc again to
rcscarch as playing a positive rolc in their society, some ultra- rely 01-1 cthnograpliic studies of non-Europcan culturcs to interpret
conscr\utivc religious groups opposc it 011 thc grounds that it thcir data. The rcsult has been a growing ~approchementbctwccn
disturbs ancient Hebrew burials (Painc 1983). Wcstcrn Europcan (cspccially British) and A~ncrica~l archacology.
The dccolonizatio~iof sub-Saharan Africa has accclcratcd the Yct archacological interpretation co~lti~lucs to be influcnccd in
changes in the archaeology of that region that had bcgu~iin the late various ways by political issucs (Gjcssing 1968). In cou~itricssuch as
colonial pcriod. Posnansky (1982: 355) has pointed out that African Greece, Poland, and to a lesser degrec Italy, whcrc various gricv-
archacologists and historians arc not ncccssarily intcrcstcci in the ances still nurture nationalism, archaeology continues t o be valued
same problc~nsas foreign scholars. They arc morc concerned with as a chronicIc of past glories and a sourcc of hope for the futurc. I n
rcccnt prcliistor~land with problems of national history than with Scandinavia 11dcdicntion to pcacc and soci;ll wc1E11.cis accompnrlicd
P ~ l ~ c o l i t h arcli;leolog)~.
ic Topics of interest i11cI~icIcthc origin of by a whimsical fascination with thc Viking period, which is conccp-
specific states, the dcvclop~ncntof tradc, the cvolutio~iof historically tualizcd as violent, wanton, and romantic in contrast to thc present.
attested social and cco~iomicinst-itutions, and relations among In thc 1970s, 20 to 25 per cent of all archaeological publicatio~lswcrc
ethnic groups that live within the boundaries of modern African devoted t o thcsc 300 years (Moberg 1981: 215). 111Englalld, howcvcr,
states (Tardits 1981; Andah 1985). Thcrc is also an interest in the the discovcry that during thc Darlc Agcs the Viking scttlcn~cntat
study and prcscrvatio~lof major sites that relate to prc-colonial York was a centre of manufacturing and tradc has confirmcd to
African history. While arcllaeology is seen as a means of increasing ~lorthcrncrsthat thcir region was culturally as advanccd as southcr~l
awareness of, and pride in, Africa's past, thcrc is political concern England, contrary to cstablishnlc~ithistory which portrays Saxon
about how the prcscntation of archacological findings may c~ilzancc Wcsscx as an outpost of civilizatio~lvaliantly resisting the incursio~ls
~lational unity o r *,promote rcgio~lal and local self-awareness of barbarous Scandinavians who eventually settled i11 the north
(Nzcwunwa 1984). Whilc African archaeologists, who arc oftcn tied (Graharn-Campbcll and ICidd 1980). Thc rcvclation, as a result of thc
to administrative positions, generally wclconic research by anthro- excavations at Wood Quay, that in thc Dark Agcs Dublin was a
pologically trained collcagucs from abroad, a~lthropoiogyas a disci- nlajor Viking centre, while exciting great public interest, accords
pline is not well rcgardcd. Across Africa archaeology is becoming less well with a Ccltoccntric nationalist vicw of Irish history (Shcchy
increasingly alignccl with history, just 1' s ethnological studies arc 1980).
being rcdcfi~~cci as sociology (Ki-Zcrbo 1981). As a result of this As the rolc of Europc, and in particular that of Britain, as a ccntre
 A history of archaeological thought Culture-historical archaeology

of world power has declined, new views of Europcan prehistory people had lived in North America far longer than most archae-
have replaced those formulated by Childe in the 1920s. Colin ologists had hitherto believed (Willey and Sabloff 1980: 121-3).
Rcnfrew (1973a), in particular, has played a major rolc in discredit- These observations were interpreted in the context of general devel-
ing thc Montclius-Childc diffusionary modcl of Europcan prc- opments in American anthropology. Boasian anthropology had
history, once again emphasizing thc technological superiority of popularized the concept of the, ethnographic culture as a basic unit
Europe in prehistoric timcs. He has uscd calibrated radiocarbon of study and of diffusion as a major cause of cultural change. In
dates to argue that metallurgy dcvclopcd in Europc indcpendcntly addition Boas' persuasive advoc~cyof cultural relativism and his
and as carlp as it did in the Ncar East and that megalithic structures strong opposition to racism encouraged the view that Indians were
were being crcctcd in Mdta dnd Wcstcrn Europc prior to ,1ny c,lpablc of change. Yct, while hc had some interest in archaeology,
monumental constructior~sin the Ncar East. Rcnfrcw views Euro- which he actively promoted in Mexico (ibid. 84-j), thcrc is no
pean prehistory in much the same way that Montelius' Euroccntric evidcncc that he introduced the ~ u r o ~ e concept
an of the archaeo-
opponc~itsdid in the late ninctccntli century. Although his intcrprc- logical culture to the United Statcs. On thc contrary, thc way in
tations arc conccivcd in tcrlns of a neo-evolutionary perspective that which this concept developed in North America and the fact that it
affirms the creativity of all human groups, no specific explanation is was used prior to any formal, definition in Europc suggest an
offercd for thc precociousness of European culture, w h i h thus indcycndent origin. Both the ~ u i o ~ e and
a n the American version
appears to bc takcn for granted. had their roots in the ethnology of Friedrich Ratzel.
There has also been a rcsurgcncc of popular interest in Britain's We have already noted that during the nineteenth century
rich asscmblagc ofmcgalithic circlcs and alignments as evidcncc that American archaeologists became , increasingly aware of geo-
highly sltillcd cnginccrs and 'astrononicr priests' livcd thcrc in prc- graphically circumscribed cultural manifestations in the archaeo-
historic times. As a result of Rcnfrcw's new 'long chronology', the logical record, especially in the central United States, where a
scientific lcnowlcdge cncodcd in thcsc monumcnts is interpreted as concern with the Moundbpilders (had led to much archaeological
being of indigc~iousr.lthcr th.111 esotic origin. On thcsc grounds activity. In 1890 G . P. Thruston dkfined a prehistoric Stone Gravc
some scho1,lrs ,lsscrt t h ~ tB~-~t,iin
11.1s bccn ,I centre of' scicntifc 'r.~cc' in Tcnncsscc, which he bclicvcd was the r c n ~ ~ ~ofi nas singlc
achicvcmcnt since thc Neolithic period (Ellcgird 1981; Fowler 1987). tribe or a group of rclatcd tribes (pp. s, is). The tcrm culture was
It thus appears that the dcclinc of Britain as a world power has first applied to groups of sitcs containing distinctive artifact asscm-
produced at least a minor nationalist rcaction. This has been accom- blagcs in the Ohio Valley. By '1902 William C. Mills had distin-
panied by a more widespread resurgent emphasis on ecollomic guished the Fort Ancient and Hopewell cultures. In 1909 W. K.
dynamism, cquality before thc law, and the sharing of political Moorehead identified the Glacial Kame culture and soon after H. C.
power as cxclusivc featurcs of Western civilization (Wells 1984; Shetrone (1920) was noting more such units in that area. These
Gosdcn 1985; Lambcrg-Karlovsky r98sb; Willey 1985). archaeological culturcs diffcrcd from Europcan or later Amcrican
oncs inasmuch as they remained primarily geographical entities. It
was, for cxamplc, not until 1936 that the Hopewell culture was
securely dated earlier than the ~ o r tAncient
' one.
In thc United States a culture-historical approach was adopted soon In 1913 the American ethnologist Berthold Laufer (1913: 577)
after 1910 as a rcsponse to growing familiarity with thc archaeo- correctly diagnosed the most serious shortcoming of American
logical record. Continuing research revealed tcmporal changes that archaeology as being its lack of chronological control. This was a
could not be explained by the simplc replacement of one group of problem that American archaeologists had already recognized and
people by anothcr. As a result of the first confirmed Palaeo-Indian begun to remedy. Stratigraphic excavations had been undertaken
finds, which date from the 192os, it also became evident that native with increasing frequency since the 1860s but for a long time this

187
I
 A history of archaeological thought Cuiture;historical archaeology

tcc1111iquc was not uscd regularly cvcn though it was recognized that
important conclusions flowed from it, such as Richard Wethcrill's
-bb
dcmonstration that thc Baskctnlalccr culturc had prcccdcd thc morc Modern F l o o r

scdcntary Pucblo onc in thc Amcrican Southwcst (Kiddcr 1924: 161).

On somewhat spcculativc typological grounds Adolf Bandelier in
thc 1880s and Edgar Lcc Hcwett in 1904 attemptcd to work out a
rough chronology of prchistoric Pucblo sitcs (Schwartz 1981).Work
of this sort was, howcvcr, only a bcginning. Willcy and Sabloff
(1980: 83) s t ~ t tli.lt
c Amcrica~l.~rchacologistswere mainly conccrncd
wit11 chronology only bctwccn 1914.uid 1940.
In 1913archacologists began to study the cultural chronology of
thc Southwcst in a systematic fashion. Ncls C. Nclson (1875-1964)
(1916) and Alfrcd V. Kiddcr (1885-1963) carricd out cxtcnsivc strati-
graphic cxcavations. Nelson had obscrvcd and participated in cxca-
27 Kidder's profile of refuse stratigraphy and construction levels at Pccos
vations at Palaeolithic sitcs in France andSpain, and still earlicr, as a Rum, New Mexico, from A n Introduction to the Study of Southwestern
studcnt in California, he had dug stratified shell mounds under the Archaeology, 1924
direction of Max Uhlc. Kidder had taken a course in field methods at
Harvard University with the Egyptologist George Rcisner (1867- Yet what interested other archaeologists most about Kidder's
1942), who was onc of thc bcst cxcavators of thc early twcnticth work was his chronology. At thc first Pccos Confcrcnce, hcld in 1927,
ccntury. In 1916 and 1917 A. L. Krocbcr and Lcslic Spier uscd thc archacologists who were working in the area adopted a general
striation tcchniqucs to dctcrminc the cl~ro~~ologicalordcring of sitcs classificatory schcme made up of three Baskctmakcr periods fol-
in thc ZuAi rcgion from which thcy had surface-collcctcd potsherds. lowed by fivc Pucblo oncs. H. S. Gladwin complained, howcvcr,
Syicr wcnt on to cxcavatc Zulii sitcs stratigraphically and to that among its othcr shortcomings thc Pccos classification was
comparc the results of both tcchniqucs. better suited to the northern Pueblo area of the Southwcst than to
In his A n Introduction to the Stgdy of Southwestern Archaeology more southerly regions, where quite different cultures were found.
Kidder (1924) attemptcd thc first culture-historical synthcsis of the In a paper entitled 'A method for designation of cultures and their
archacology of any part of the United States. This study was variations' (1934), he and his wife Winifred proposed a hierarchical
published one year before Childe's The Dawn of European Civili- classification of cultural units for the region, the most gcneral of
zation. In it Iciddcr discussed the archaeological material from nine which were three roots called Basketmaker (later Anasazi),
river drainages in terms of four successive periods, or stages, of Hohokam, and Caddoan (later Mogollon). Each of these roots,
cultural dcvclopmcnt: Basket Maker, Post-Basket Maker, Prc- which werc found in the northern, southern, and intcrvening moun-
Pucblo, and Pucblo. Each pcriod was somctimcs called a culturc, tainous arcas of thc Southwcst, was subdivided inro stcms, that wcrc
whilc the regional variants associated with individual river drainages named after regions, and these in turn into branches and phases that
wcrc also designated as Chihuahua Basin culture, Mimbres culture, were given more specific geographical names. Some phases couId
and Lowcr Gila culture. Although the term culture had not yet follow one another in the same locality and each one was defined as a
acquircd a standard mcaning in thc Southwest, as a result of chrono- set of sites with a high degrec of similarity in artifact types. Whilc the
logical studics supplcmcnting a knowlcdgc of geographical vari- Gladwin classificatory hicrarchy was bascd on relative degrees of
ation, something approaching the co~lccptof an arcl~acological trait similarities, its dendritic pattern involved geographical con-
culturc was now evolving. sidcrations and it was implicitly chronological; roots formed before
I

189
 I

A history of archaeological thought Culture-historical archaeology

1

stems and stems beforc branchcs. Willey and Sabloff (1980: 10s) the functional significance of different classes of artifacts or to the
observc that the system implies that the prehistoric cultures of the ecological significance of what was being found. Quantitative com-
southwestern Unitcd Statcs had become increasingly diffcrentiated parison o f diffcrcnt classcs o f artifacts was ncglcctcd in favour of
through tinic, which 'yhilc a possibility, was by no means dcmon- simply noting thc prcscncc'or abscncc of artifact typcs. Changing
stratcd'. frequencies of types 'wcrc not seen as having chronological or
A similar but even liiorc influential schcn~cwas proposcd in 1932, functioilal significance. Neither was attention paid to thc fact that
under the leadership of W. C. McI<ern (1939), by a group of archae- artifacts that wcrc stylistically highly variable, such as pottery, often
ologists working in the midwcster~lUnited States. Thc Midwcstcr~i wcrc divided into nlorc types than wcrc stone o r bone ones. It was
*.
I ,ixonomlc Mcthoci w.15 s o o n clpplicd t h r o ~ i g l l o ~tlic
~ t ccntr.~ld n ~ i rccog~lizcd,however. that c~mctericsand l~ahitationsites belonging
c.istct-n Unitcd St.itcs. It w.is ~ ~ s ctod cl,issify largc clmoLlnts o f to the samc culturc might'contain a diffcrcnt sclcctioi~of artifact
matcrial that had bccn collcctcd by amatcur archacologists in a types. Rccnusc of this, somc arch.~cologistsproposcd to hasc foci on
region whcrc fcw stratified sitcs reprcscnting occupations over long .I r.lnZc of'sitcs rcprcscnting thc complctc cultural ~~~anifcstations of
periods of time were known. The Midwcstcrli Taxonomic Mcthod a people, rathcr than on co~nporlcnts(McI<crn 1939: 310-11). It was
proposcd to classify these finds or1 the basis of formal critcria alonc. argued that these considerations, as wcll as thc i~lcomplctc~~css of
Yet, whilc its authors denied that the system had historical implic- archacological data, precluded specific pcrcentagcs from bcing uscd
tions (Rouse 1953: 64), they generally acted on the assumption that t o establish degrees of relationship among componcnts. Yct it was
cultural diffcrcnccs in a singlc locality indicated tcmporal diffcr- rnaintaincd that 'quantitativc similarity', as mcasurcd by the pcrccnt-
ences, while similar culturcs distributed over largc areas dated from age of sharcd artifact types, was important for dctcrmining thc
thc same period (Snow 1980: 11). Artifact asscmblagcs represelltilig classificatory status of archacological ~~lanifcstations.
a single period of occupatioll at a site wcrc called a component; Both the Gladwin systcm and the Midwcstcrn Taxonomic
components sharing an almost identical set of artifact typcs were Method cschcwed thc term 'culturc, which McKcrn (1939: 303)
assig~lcdto the samc focus; foci with 'a prcpo~lderati~ig n~ajorityof bclicvcd was uscd by archacologists to dcsignatc too broad a range
traits' to the samc aspect; aspects shar~ngonly more general char- of phenomena. Ncvertl~elcssthcsc two systems initiated systcmatic
actcristics t o the samc phnsc; and phascs sharing a fcw broad traits to usc of cultural units for classifying archacological data in thc Unitcd
the samc pattern. The traits uscd to define a pattern wcrc said to bc 'a Statcs, in thc guisc of the Gladwins' phascs and McKcrnYsfoci and
cultural reflection of thc primary adjustmc~ltsof peoples to environ- aspects. These units were scetl as the archacological equivalent of a
ment, as defined by tradition'. The patterns that wcre identified were tribe o r group of closely related tribcs. Thcir dcndritic schcmcs
Woodland, characterized by semi-scdcntary sitcs, cordmarkcd pot- implied that culturcs, like biological spccics, differentiated along
tery, and stemmed or side~lotchedprojectile points; Mississippian, irreversible paths, thercby ignoring thc convcrgcncc brought about
with sedentary sites, incised pottery, and small triangular points; and by diffusion. In both cases shared traits wcrc assumed to signify
Archaic, which lacked pottery but contained ground slate artifacts. common origins, history, and ethnicity. It was also bclicvcd that
Foci and aspects wcre defined by drawing up lists of artifact types more generally sharcd traits were oldcr than rnorc culturally spccific
for each component and seeing how many types different com- ones, a fallacy that cvcn in the 1930s would havc made the Coca-Cola
poncnts had in common. This approach corresponded with the bottle older than thc Acheulean handaxe. This vicwpoint had somc
historical particularist conception, champiol~edby Boas, which bad effects o n the inccrprctation o f archacological data. For
vicwcd culturcs not as integrated systems but as collections of example, i n New York State ~ c ~ c hWoodland ' s pattcrn cmbraccd
individual traits that had comc together as the result of historical prehistoric cultures that archacologists traditionally had associated
accidents. No inferences about human bchaviour were included in with Algonlcian-spealiers, whilc hlisMississippian pattcril cmbraccd
tlicse dcfinitiolis nor was any attention paid, as Childc had done, to the historical culturcs of the linguistically utlrclat~dIroquoians. Thc

191
 A history of archaeological thought

assumption that culturcs could not cvolvc fro111 one pattern to

another, any more than an Algonkian language could change into an
Iroquoian one, sevcrclp hindcred the realization that the historical
Iroquoian cultures had developed from local Middle Woodland
a~itccedents(MacNeish 1952).I11 this respect, the Midwcstcrn Taxo-
nomic Method, while struggling for classificatory objectivity and
quantitative prcclslon, perpetuated the pessililistlc views about the
Indians' capacity to change that had characterized American archac-
ology during the n~nctccntlicentury.
Yet in practice this wealu~csswas of short duration. Phases and
foci were soon being arranged to form local chronologies by means
of stratigraphy and seriation, as was being done with cultures in
Europe. As this happened, the higher levcls of the American classifi-
catory schemes were abandoned and archaeological cultures were
viewcd as forming mosaics, in which each unit had its own empiric-
ally defined spatial and temporal limits. Cultures, as well as artifact
types, were viewed as persisting, possibly with slow modificat~ons,
to for111 traditions, or spreading geographically to crcatc cultural
horizons, wh~chwcre one of the devices uscd to align traditions
chronologically. Thcse concepts wcre systematized by G. R. Willey
and Philip Phillips in Method and Theoy in American Archaeology
(1958). As rcg~onalcultural cl~ronologieswere constructed, the den-
dritic view of c u l t ~ ~ rdcvclopmcnt
,~l bccanic untenable mcl a r c h ~ c -
ologists began to credit diffusion with playing a signific,lnt role in
bringing about cultural change. Yet diffusion was employed
mecl~anically.Most archaeologists paid little attctltion to under-
standing the internal dynamics of change or trying to determine why
a particular i~lnovationdid or did not diffuse from one group to
another. By 1941enough data had been collected for James A. Ford
and G. R. Willey to present a synthesis of the culture history of
eastern North America in which the known cultures were grouped
to form five stages of devclopmcnt: Archaic, Burial Mound I (Early
Woodland), Burial Mound I1 (Middle Woodland), Temple Mound
I (Early Mississippian), and Temple Mound I1 (Late Mississippian).
Each stage was viewed as coming from the south, and ultimately in
some general form from Mesoamerica, and then spreading north
through thc Mississippi Valley. Thus an interpretation of eastern
North American prehistory was created that resembled that pre-
sented for prehistoric Europe in The Dawn. ofEuropean Civilization.
 A history of archaeological thought Culture-historical archaeology

While diffusion implied a greater capacity for native cultures to ment had been a local and almost wholly independent one that was
change than had hitherto been recognized, diffusionist explanations cut short by the 'devastating blight of the white man's arrival' (1962:
wcrc e~l~ploycd in a vcry conscrvativc fashion. Ncw idcas, such as 344). I n this, as in much clsc, Kiddcr was an innovator.
pottcry, burial mounds, m,ctal working, and agriculture wcrc almost American archaeology did not rcmain a passivc victim of the
always assigned an East Asian or Mesoamerican origin (Spinden stcrcotypcs of Indians as bcing incapable of changc that had domi-
1928; McICern 1937; Spaulding 1946), thus implying that n,ltive nated it throughout thc ninctccnth ccntury. Yct, while eultural
North Americans wcrc imitative r-lthcr than creative. Morcovcr, change and devclopmcnt wcrc pcrccivcd for thc first time as bcing a
arch.~cologistsstill tended t o attribute major cliangcs in the .~rchaco- conspicuous fc.lture of thc aschaeological record for North Amcrica
logic.ll rccol-~ito mlgr,ltlons. 1;ot- c\,umplc, i n t o thc ~ c ) ~the
o s tr.ln- in the dec'ldcs after 1914,thc main,product ofthis period was a scrics
sitions from thc Archaic to the Woodland pattern and from of regional clironologics. While overtly racist vicws about nativc
Woodland to Mississippian in the nortlicastcr~~ United States were people werc abandoncd, the stereotypes of the Amcrican Indiail th;
interpreted as rcsulting from the cntry of ncw populations into that had becn formulatcd bcforc 1914 rcmaincd largcly uncl~allci~gct
region. As had happcncd in Europe, theorics of cultural changc and Major changes documented in the archaeological record continuc
chronologies became linlted to form a closed system of interpreta- to be attributed to migration and diffusion was only grudgingly
tion. A very short chronology was adopted in which late Archaic admitted to indicate creativity on the part of North American
cultures, that arc now radiocarbon dated around 2500 B.c., were Indians. Because there was less concern than previously with rccon-
placed no earlier than A . D . 300 (Ritchic 1944). This short chron- strutting prehistoric patterns of life, the links between archaeology \
ology reflected tlie belief that major changcs had occurred as a result and ethnology, as well as betwcen arcl~aeologistsand native people,
of migrations. Yet, so long as it was accepted, it discouraged were weakened. No alternative links were formed and to a large
archaeologists from considering intcrnal dcvelop~ncntsas an alter- dcgrce American archaeology came to be preoccupied with typolo-
native.explanation of cultural change in this area. gies of artifacts and cultures andtworkingout cultural chronologies.
W i ~the
i notable exception of Ford and Willey (1941), interprcta- American archacologisrs did not simply adopt a culture-hiskorical
tions of arcliaeological data wcrc characterizcd by a lack of will to approach from European ones but rcinvcnted much of it, as incrcas-
discover, or even to search for, any overall pattern or meaning to ing knowledge of chranological variations in the archaeological
North American prehistory. Only a tiny portion of the most ambi- record supplemented an older awareness of geographical variations.
tious synthesis produced during the culture-historical period, P. S. The culture-chronological approach developed differently i~
Martin, G. I. Quimby, and Donald Collier's Indians Befare Colunzbus Europe, where a growing sense of geographical variation in th
(1947), was devoted to interpreting rather than describing the archaeological record complemented a longstanding evolutionar
archaeological record. The autliors concluded that from the arrival preoccupation with chronological variation (Trigger 1978a: 75-95).
of the first Asian immigrants 'there existed a continuous process of Yet Amcrican archaeology did not, as a result of this cnhanced
adaptation to local environmcnts, of specialization, and of indepen- perception of change in prehistory, overcome the views about native
dent invention' that 'led to tlie developme~ltof a series of regional people that had characterized the 'colo~lial'phase of its develop-
Indian cultures' (p. 520). .Yet they believed that the two innovations ment. The minimal acceptance of change in prehistoric times was
they selected as representing basic trends of cultural development, primarily an adjustment of cherished beliefs to fit new archaeological
pottcry making and agriculture, were of cxternal origin. While the facts. American archaeology rcmaincd colonial in spirit at the same
book documented change as a basic feature of North American pre- time that it adopted a culture-historical methodology. The price that
history, it made littlc effort to explain that change. Kidder was a rare American arcl~aeologistspaid for their conservatism was a growing
exception to a diffusionist pcrspectivc when hc maintailled in 1924 disillusionment with thcir discipline, which was perceived to be
that the prehistoric southwestern Unitcd States owed littlc morc without theorctical or historical intcrcst.
than the 'germ' of its culturc to the outside and that its dcvclop-
 A history of archacological thought Culture-historical archacology

(18j3-1940), who had cxcavatcd at Olympia, workcd for Hcinrich

Technical developments
Schliemann (1822-90) at Hisarlik, in Turkcy, from 1882 t o 1890.
The dcvelopmcnt of the culture-historical approach resulted in a Sclilicmann, who liad begun there in 1871, had pionecrcd the strati-
significant claboratio~iof archaeological mcthods. This is especially graphic cxcavation of multi-layered 'tell' sites in an cffort to discover
cvidcnt in tcrlns of stratigraphy, scriatio~l,classification, and Icarn- tlic rcmains of Homcr's Troy. H c liad idcntificd scvcn supcrimposcd
ing niorc about liow pcoplc had lived in the past. As arcliacologists scttlcmcnts at the sitc. Using morc rcfincd cxcavation mcthods,
bccanic incrcasi~iglyi~ltcrcstcdin historical rarhcr than evolutionary Dorpfcld idcntlficd ninc lcvcls and rcviscd Schlicmann's chronology
problems, they perceived tlic need for increasingly tight controls (Daniel 1950: 166-9).
over chrono1ogic;ll .~swell .IS ci11ti1r;llv:tri,ttio~i. TCIIIPOI-JI
cIi,~~~gcs Thcsc new tcchn~clucsof cxcavating and recording data gradu,llly
within sitcs over relatively short pcriods of time became crucial for sprcad tlirougliout thc Ncar East. W. M. F. Pctric (1853-1942), who
answering questions of a historical rather than an cvolutionary bcgan to work in Egypt in 1880, rccordcd the plans of his cxcavations
nature. This nccd was first pcrccivcd in cl,~ssicalnrchucology, which .~ndnoted cv11c1-cm,~jorf nds wcrc m,dc but gcncr,\ily did not rccorct
always had a historical orientation. In the latc ninctccnth century stratigraphic sections. EIc rcgardcd thc lattcr as bcing of rclativcly
classical archacologists bcgan to search for ways to rccovcr infor- minor importance, since most of thc sitcs hc dug had been occupicd
mation from historical sitcs that would corroborate and expand for rclativciy short pcriods. H c did rccord stratigraphic profiles at
what was known about tlicir history from written records. O ~ i cof Tell cl-Hesy, a stratified site in southern Palcstilic where he bcgan
tlic pionccrs of this sort of stratigraphic analysis was Giuscppc cxcavating in 1890 (Drower 1985). George Rcisncr, who cxcavatcd in
Fiorclli (1823-96), who took charge ofthc excavations at Pompcii in Egypt and tlic S u d m beginning in 1899, introduced the rccordi~lgof
1860. H c proclainicd the recovery of worlcs of art, whicll liithcrto scctlons as wcll CIS plans and brought Egyptian archacology t o its
had doniinatcd work at thc sitc, to be scco~idaryto the detailed modern standard (J. Wilson 1964: 145-9).
excavation of all kinds of buildi~lgsand learning liow they had been Altlio~igliprehistoric monuments occasionally were cxcavatcd
constructccl and for what F)III-poses c,1c11 pal-t o f them hsd been used. w ~ t hcon\~dc~-.lblc
.Ittcntlon to dct.111 bcginn~ngIn the scvcntccnth
This involvcd careti11 stratigraphic cscavntions so t h ~ the t ruined century (I<l~~idt-Jcnxn 1975: 3 0 ) , cictailcd rccord~ngtcchniqucs
upper storeys of houses could bc reconstructed. H c also recovered dcvclopcd morc slowly 111 this field than in classical archacology.
the outlines of dccapcd organic rcmains, includi~lgliuman bodies, Until the I ~ ~ OasSa, result of evolutionary preoccupations, i~ltcrest
by filling thc holes tlicy left in the ,is11 with liquid plaster of Paris. was focused on the rccording, frcqucntly in an idcalizcd fashion, of
Fiorclli cstablislicd an archacological school at Pompeii whcrc cross-sections of cxcavations, the main exception bcing richly fur-
students could learn his tcchniqucs (Daniel 1950: 165). nished graves, such as those found in the early Iron Age ccmctery at
His work was carried forward by the Austrian archacologist Hallstatt in Austria in the 18jos (Sklcnii- 1983: 71-2, 77). General
Alexander Conze (1831-1914),who bcgan to excavate on the isla~ldof Augustus Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers (1827-1900) altcrcd this situation
Samotliracc in 1873, and the German archaeologist Ernst Curtius with liis slow and detailed excavations of sitcs on liis cxtcnsivc estate
(1814-96), who started to dig at Olympia two ycars later. These in soutl~ernEngland beginning in thc 1870s. In the 1850s he had
excavatio~isinitiated 3 0 years of major cxcavations at classical sitcs in become intcrcstcd in cintliropology as thc rcsult of a detailed study
the eastern Mcditcrrancan. Both archacoiogists aimed t o record the lie made of the history of firearms in order t o improve thc riflcs uscd
plans and stratigraphy of thcir cxcavatio~lsof major a~icientbuild- by the British Arniy. Throughout the 1860s hc built up a large
ings in sufficient dctail that thcir reports would be a substitutc for ethnographic collection and wrote o n primitivc warfare, navigation,
what thcir digging liad dcstroycd. The report on Samotlirace was and the pr~nclplesof classification (Pitt-Rivers 1906). His daughter
the first to contain plans rccordcd by professional architects, as wcll was nl'~rricd to John Lubbock. Although an cvolutionist (Pitt-
as photographic docurncntatio~lof the work. Williclm Dorpfcld Rivers 1906), Pitt-Rivers' principal aim as an arcl~acologistwas t o
 30 Grme fro111Hallstatt cemcter),,Austria, recorded by the painter
Isidor Engcl in thc mid-ninctccnth century

~~ndcrstand the history of particular sitcs. H e did this by trenching

ditches at right angles, leaving baulks to rccord stratigraphy, and
carefully rclating finds to their stratigraphic contexts. In his lavish
excavation rcports hc strcsscd the need for arcl~acologiststo publish
a complctc rccord of their works, rathcr than only what was of
interest to thcm (M. Thonlpson 1977). While Pitt-Rivcrs is oftcn
treated as an isolatcd figurc, his work signalled a gcneral improve-
ment in thc standard of recording prehistoric sitcs. A. H. Bullcid
and H. S. Gray (1911, 1917) rccordcd their work at thc late Iron Age
scttlemcnt at Glastonbury bctwccn 1892 and 1911in sufficient detail
that thcir data concerning houscs and building lcvcls could bc
re-analyscd in thc 1970s (Clarkc 1972b). Through the advocacy of
Mortimer Wheclcr (1890-1976), onc of thc few young archacologists
to survivc World War I, modern forms of three-dimensional cxca-
vation and recording became standard throughout Europc and
much of the Old World beginning in the 1930s (1954). Whceler
cstablishcd the primacy of archaeological evidcnce and its reliability
and availability forcmost in thc minds of British and Indian archac-
 A history of archaeological thought

ologists and made it clear that bad data could vitiate a good thcory.
By the 1930s similar techniques were being followed routinely in
North Anlerica (Willcy and Sabloff 1980: 123-6).
Techniques of scriation wcrc also rcfincd in rcsponsc to growing
historical intcrcsts. In thc 1880s Pctric, who normally datcd Egypt-
ian sitcs by rnc'lns of inscriptions, cscn\i,ltcd .I number of large
cc11lctcrics in southern Egypt that contained nlatcrial that was
unfamil~arto hi111and 110 inscripti~ns.Eventually it was rcalizcd that
thcsc ccmetcrlcs datcd from the I,ltc prehistoric pcriod. Thcrc w ~ s
considerable stylistic var~ationIn the artifacts found in diffcrcnt
gravcs, suggesting that thc ccmctcrics had bcen uscd for a long timc,
but no stratigraphy or obvious gcncral pattcrns of cxpansio~lthat
could bc uscd to arrange the gravcs even roughly in a chronological
scqucncc. I11 order to devise a chro~~ology, l'ctric (1901) divided the
pottcry from the ccmctcrics at Diospolis Parva into nine major
groups or classcs and ovcr 700 typcs. Hc thcn rccordcd what typcs
occurred in each of 500 gravcs and t r ~ c dto scriatc the graves to
produce a maximum concentration of cach typc (Hcizcr 1959:
376-83). This formidablc task, cvcn using modern computers
(I<endall 1969, 1971), was facilitatcd by Pctric's having infcrrcd
certain trends in major warcs, in particular the tendency of Wavp-
handled vcsscls to bccome smallcr, cylindrical rathcr than globular,
and their handlcs more vestigial as the historical pcriod was
approached. H e was finally able to d~vidchis 500 gravcs into so
divisions of tcn gravcs cach, which wcrc arranged to form a serics of

(==y$-oo(Je
-
'sequcncc dates'. The rcsulting chronological scqucncc was then
tested against trends in non-ceramic artifacts from the gravcs and
overlaps rcsulting from later gravcs being cut into carlicr ones.
Petrie's chronology for Predynastic Egypt, which in gencral terms

ovc
has stood the test of time (ICaiscr 1957), diffcrcd from Montclius'
seriation by defining intervals that in some cases may havc bcen less
than a decade rathcr than pcriods lasting scvcral hundrcd years.
In 1916 A. L. Krocbcr, who was doing ethnographic fieldwork
among the Zufii, noted a numbcr of archaeological sitcs nearby and
that the pottcry differed from onc site to anothcr. H c collcctcd
potsherds from cightccn of thcse sitcs, divided thcm into thrcc
ge~leraltypcs, and by comparing changcs in thc frcqucncics of cach
typc worltcd out a historical scq~~cncc of thcsc sites (Hcizcr 1959:
383-93). This approach to scriation was adoptcd by Lcslic Spicr
11L7
31 Pottery of successive periods in ~etri'e'spredynastic sequence, from Diospolis Puma, 1901

201
 A history of archacolog~calthought Culture-historical archacology

(1917),who applied it to a larger nunlbcr of Zulii sitcs, whilc Jarncs treatment, such as Tularosa black-on-whitc. Type dcscriptions were
Ford (1936) made it the basis for worki~igout much of the culture- published in a set format involving name, vessel shape, design, typc
clironology of the Mississippi Valley beginning in the 1930s. sltc, geographical distribution, cultural affiliations, and inferred
Although I<rocbcr may have learned the basic principles of typology chronological range (Colton and Hargrave 1937).James Ford (1938),
;111dscriation from Boas and k~lo\\?nof Pctric's work (Willcy and o n the other hand, strcsscd that typcs should be recognized only ~f
Sabloff 1980: 94-s), his technique of seriation was not based on the they could be demonstrated to bc uscful tools for interpreting
same principles as Pctric's. Pctric's 'occurrcnce seriation' depended culture-history and that there should bc n o formal splitting of them
011 the individual occurrence or nou-occurrence in specific closed unless the results clearly corrclatcd with spatial o r temporal differ-
finds of a large number of diffcrcnt typcs, whilc Krocbcr's 'frequency ences. H c regarded typcs ~ncrclyas tools for h~storicalanalysis. Later
scriation' dcpcndcd on the changing frcqucncics of a much srnallcr discussio~~s centred on the reality of types to those who had madc
11~1111ber
of types (DLIIIIICII 1970).This suggests the separate develop- and ~ ~ s art~facts,
ed on the relationship between types and thc attri-
ment of tlic two ; ~ t ) p ~ - o ~ c h111
c sboth
. cnscs scri;ltio~lW;IS bcing used hi1tc5or mode\ th.~t.~rcused to dclinc thc~li,.111ci oil the 11,1turcof
to establish a cictailcd historical scclucncc ol'villugcs o r graves rather attr~butcsand thcir uscf~~lncss for artifact seriation (liousc 1939). In
than a succession of periods, as evolutionary archaeologists from the 1950s it was nlaintained that types could bc discovcrcd as regular
Thornsci~to Montclius had done. Pctrie and Kroeber both chose t o clusterings of attributes and that these 'natural' typcs would rcvcal
work with pottcry because its stylistic attributes providcd morc much more about human behaviour and cultural changc than would
scnsitive indices of changc than did the stone and metal tools that Ford's arbitrary creations (Spaulding 1953).This prolonged discuss-
had bccn studied by the Scandi~lavia~l archaeologists. ion of artifact classification was the first substantial manifestation o f
This growing intcrcst ill defining cultures and working out morc the concern of Amcncan archaeologists t o articulate and make
detailed scriatioiis rcsultcd in more elaborate classifications of arti- expl~cltthe a~lalyticalbas~sof their discipline.
fi~ctsin both Europe and North A~ilcrica.In Europc thcsc classi- A growing intcrcst in how particular groups of Europeans had
ficntioi~stcndcd t o build on ones cstablishccl by evolutionary archac- 11vcd In 1.>rch1stt"r1c
t ~ ~ n cwhich
s, was cncour.lgcc1 by natio~i~ilismb~rt
ologists, usually by splitting or othcrwisc refining cxisting types. had ~ t roots
s In the Scand~ndvi~un archacology of the carly ninctccnth
Types tcndcd to be viewed prag~llaticallpas a means for achieving century, Icd archaeologists t o pay attention to classes of archaeo-
chronological objectives or for understanding prehistoric life. logical datd that previously had been ignored. A long-standing
Pcrlinps for thcsc reasons, the discussiol~of the nature 2nd sig- lntcrest in cemctcries was supplemcntcd by the increasing study of
nificancc of typcs has gcncrally remained low-keyed in Europc, the remains of settlements. This required large-scale horizontal
although complcs typologies have been dcviscd there (Bordcs 1953; cxcavatlons rather than vertical stratigraphic ones, as well as the
Childc 1956a). The major exception to this is the work of David rccord111gof ~ n a n ynew types of observations. The first post moulds
Clarke, who has providcd a systematic treatment of archaeological are believed to have been noted by Pitt-Rivers in 1878, after which
typology at all lcvcls (1968). 111 the United States thc theoretical thcir value for reconstructing the plans of decayed wooden struc-
significance of artifact classification has bee11discussed in great detail tures was quickly recognized. In the 1890s the Roman-German
over the years. While ~Wi~lifrcd and Harry Gladwin (1930) saw Boundary Con~mission,which was studying sitcs along the norther~l
pottcry stylcs as sensitive indicators of spatial and temporal vari- frontier of the Roman empire in Ccntral Europc, developed tech-
ations in culture, they bclicvcd that it was necessary to define pottery niques for recognizing post moulds in all kinds of soils (Childe 1953:
types in terms that wcrc free from temporal implicatio~lsif subjecti- 1 3 ) . Archaeologists also began t o rccord morc systematically the
vity was to be avoided. They therefore proposed a binomial dcsig- locat~onswhere artifacts were found, so that thcsc could be plotted
nation, in which thc first term indicated a gcogr~phicallocatio~l in rclat~onto features such as hcarths and house walls. Gradually
where the typc was found .und the sccond its colour or surf,lcc 11th1cdcb~tageand minor floral and faunal remains that hithcrto had
 A history of archacological thought

gcncrally been dismissed as unimportant were saved and studied. were enlotionally involved in what they regardcd as the study of
All of tliis clicouragcd a ncw conccrli for prccisio~iin archac- thcir ow11 prchistory, Euroamcricalls continued t o vicw thc archac-
ological mcthods. The principal aim of such rcscarch was t o recon- olog~calrecord as thc product of an alien pcoplc. Yct, on both sides
struct a visual impression of life in the past. That involved deter- of the Atlantlc O c c ~ n ,thc dcvclopmcllt of a culturc-historical
mining what houses looked like, what kind of clothing people wore, approdch t o archacology led to an elaboration, which in tcrms of
what utcl~silsthey used, and in what activities thcy cngaged. Tlicsc classificat~on, chronology, and cultural rcconstr~~ction,carried
impressions could be rcconstructcd in drawings or three- ~netliodologyfar bcyond the point it had reached in the colltext of
dimensionally in the form of open-air museums. Onc site that did evolutionary archacology. Tlic switch from 'scientific' to 'historic-"
not rcc1ui1-cmuch reconstruction was Sknrn Brae, a Ncolitliic scttlc- object~vcs st~rnul.ltcd r,~tl~ci-
than inhibited thc dcvclopmcnt
mcnt in the Orlincys that was cxca\~atedby Gordon Cliildc (1931).111 archacological methodology.
this sitc not only houses but also furniture, such as beds and
cupboards, wcrc prcscrvcd as ;I result of being constructed from
stolic slabs. Tlic most impressive dcvclopmcnts in tliis sort of field
Conclusions
arcliacology occurred in Europe between 1920 and 1940. Houses and An approach cclitred upon defining archacological culturcs a
tl~cirsurrou~ldi~igs were complctely excavated and post moulds, trying to account for their origins in tcrms of diffusion and m
hearths, pits, and artifact distributions i~itcrprctcdas evidence of ration developed as Western Europeans ceased t o vicw cultu
p a t t c r ~ ~ofs daily life (Dc Laet 1957: 101-3; Sicvcki~ig1976: xvi). In evolution as a natural o r necessarily desirable process. Europd
Pola~ida unique timbcr-built fortress of the Ur~ificldculture was archaeology bccan~ecloscly aligned with history and was seen
cscavatcd at Biskupin beginning in 1934 and soon became thc offcrilig ~nsiglitsinto thc dcvclopmcnt of particular pcoplcs --_
best-known archaeological sitc in the country (Bibby 1956: 384-94). prcli~storictimes. Its findi~igsthus bccamc a part of struggles for
I n the Unitcd Statcs the dcvclopmcnt of a culture-historical national sclf-dctcrmination, thc assertion and dcfcllcc of national
approach initially encouraged archacologists to excavate sitcs mainly identity, and promoting national unity in oppositioli t o class con-
to rccovcr artifact sanlplcs that could be used to elaborate trait lists flict. Archaeology of this sort obviously had a widcsprcad appeal in
and dcfinc cultures. It was assumed that any part of a site was typical other parts of tlic world. Ethnic and llatio~lalgroups co~ltinucto
of thc wholc and tlicrcforc excavations were frcquc~ltlydirected dcs~ret o learn more about their prehistory and such knowledge can
towards middens, where artifacts were most abundant and could be play a significant role ill the devclopmcnt of group pride and
rccovcrcd most cheaply. In addition to artifacts, archaeologists solidarity and hclp to promote economic and social development.
sought to recover floral and faunal data as evidcticc of subsiste~~ce This is particularly important for peoples whosc past has been
pnttcrns and skeletal remains tliat could identify the physical types of neglected or denigrated by a colol~ialapproach t o archaeology and
t l ~ cpeoplc that had occupied sitcs. During thc economic depression history. While the findings of culture-historical archacology can be
of t l ~ c193os, Uiiitcd Statcs federal government relief agencies, cnriclicd by tcchniqucs for recollstructing prchistoric cultures and
working through park scrviccs, museums, and universities, made cxplain~ngcultural changc that havc bccn dcvclopcd outsidc the
largc sums of money avaifable for archacological rcscarch. As a result fi-amcwork of this kind of archacology, only an approach that is
entire sitcs wcrc cxcavatcd, especially in areas tliat were to be flooded focused on understanding thc prchistory of specific peoples can fulfil
by the construction of hydro-electric dams (Willcy and Sabloff 1980: the ~iccdsof natio~isin a post-colonial phase. For this reason
115, 127). Tlicsc massive horizontal cxcavatio~lsresulted in more culture-historical archaeology rcmains socially attractive in many
attention being paid t o scttlcnicnt pattcrns. parts of the world.
This convergence in research programmes does not indicate a I11 the Unitcd States a culturc-historical approach cvolvcd as a
growing similrlrity in attitudes towards the past. While Europeans rcsponsc to a growing awarcncss of complcxity in the archacological
 A history of archacologicnl thought

rccord. In this case, howcvcr, archacologists did not feel any

hcightcncci sense o f identity with the pcoplc they studied. I n Europe
archacologists continued to take pricic in tlic accomplishincnts of
thcir forcf~tlicrs.Yet after 1880 thcrc was declining faith in human
creativity and diffusion and migration were relied on to a much
grcscr dcgi-cc than they had been prc\*io~isly to explain ch.lngcs in
the a~-cI~aeoI~gicnl rec~rci.13y contrast, i n tllc Uilitc~iStates growing Sovict archacology
;IW;I~CIICSS of p ~ - c l ~ i s t ~change
~ - i c that co~~lci not be cspl,~incd by
migration led to an increasing reliance o n diffi~sion.In this cnsc It t.c not only a nett, econonzic system ~vhtchhas been Lorn. A new
diffusionism represented not growing pcssiniism a b o ~ ~h~lman t culture . . . a netv science . . . a new style oflife bas been born.
creativity but a grudging and linlitcd acccptancc of tlic capacity of N . I . 1) u K I I A I<I N, 'I'Iicor)~and pr.icticc lion1 tlic s t ~ ~ i d p o i tof
it
nativc Americans t o change. di.ilcctical m.~tcri.ilism'(1931). p. 3 3

Tlic culture-historical paradigm was focused o n the archaco-

logical culture rather than on general stages of dcvclopmcnt. It thus Since the Communist Party came t o power in 1917,archaeology has
tricd t o explain the arcl~acologicalrccord in more specific detail than bccn generously funded in thc Soviet Union, which now posscsscs
had bccn done in the past. In the natio~lalisticcontexts wllerc it first the world's largcst cc~ltralizednetwork for archaeological research.
dcvclopcd, thcrc was a strong desire to learn as ~ n ~ as ~ cpossible
h Every year morc than 500 expeditions carry out archaeological recon-
about how specific groups had lived at various times in the past, naissancc and cxcavatio~ls,and morc than 5,000 scl~olarlyreports arc
which meant that archacologists tricd to reconstruct synchronic published. Arcliacology 1s sponsored as an instrumc~ltfor cultural
descriptions of thcsc cultures. In America this tcndcncy dcvclopcd cnhanccmcnt and public education. Its findings arc actively dissemi-
more slowly because of a commitment to 'scientifically objective' nated through popular writings and muscum displays. Part of
trait lists which reflected the continuing alic~iationbctwcen archae- archaeology's task is to enrich an understanding o f the origins and
ologists and the peoples whosc historjr they studied. Yet in both histoi-y of thc many cthnic groups that makc up thc Sovict Union. A
cascs change in arcliacological cultures WAS ro~iti~icly attributed to st111 morc fundamental mission is to promotc a nlatcrialist under-
cxtcrnal factors, that \vcrc S L I ~ S L I I I I C~111der
~ the general headings of standing of human history that accords with the guiding philosophy
migration and diffusion. In cascs \vhcrc the internal origin of of tlic Communist Party. Sovict archacology also adds timc dcpth
innov;ltions appcarcd c\ridc~it,the process either was not ex1.71aincd and vcrisimilitudc t o a cultural-cvolutionary schcmc which, whilc
or was attributed to special racial c11ar;lctcristics. The ~iloststril<ing careful not to deny the crcativc p o t c ~ ~ t i aofl ally human group,
failure of culture-historical archacologists was thcir rcf~lsal,follow- emphasizes the world-widc historical sigilificancc of the Sovict
ing their 1-cpudiation of cultural evolutionism, to cxtc~ldt!~eir Union as thc first association of states t o cvolve socialist societics,
concern with changc to properties of cultural systems that either thus to achicvc I' goal that othcr nations havc yet to attain.
make innovation possible or lead to the acceptance of innovations The Sovict Union was thc first country whcrc archaeological data
corni~igfrom the outside. Without such understanding, diffusion wcrc 111tcrprctcd within thc framework of Marxist historical mater-
was doomed to remain a non-explanation. ialism. SIIICCthe 1atc 1920s this paradigm has guided all archaco-
logical research done there. Thc resulting unity of theorctical
outlook, which is shared by all of the humanistic scicnces in the
Sovict Union, has given Sovict archaeology a distillctivc charactcr
which has been cn11,lnccd by a major linguistic barricr and by long
periods of political and ideological cstrangcnicnt from Wcstcrn
 A I-listol-y of 'g)'

uropc an1d the Uni tcd State archaeology has 1112t rcmain.cd ,ell as archacolog~calspecimens and his scien.tific intercsts were
static a~ndc~liiiircdin '~li~letccnth cclltury dog~~ias',nor has it s111iply evident in his rcqucst that slictcl~csshould bc made of the circum-
changed coursc as rccluircd to scr\,c the shifting csigcncics of stances in \\liiicli interesting objects were found. 1111721 a Dr Mcsscr-
govcrnment policies, as some of its Western critics have mai~ltai~lcd schmidt was scnt to Sibcria to malic collections of various kinds,
(M. Millcr 1956; M. Thompson 1965).I~lstcadit has developed it1 the including arcl~acologicalones, aiid five ycars later a govcrnmcnt
past, a ~ i dco~ltinucsto de\rclop, within the frame\\rork of Marxist office t ~ ~ r n cover d more than 250 objects of gold and silver \vcighing
pliilosopl~y.111 the less rcgi~nc~ltcd i1~te11cct~a1
atmosphcrc of the c 33 liilograms to thc 1111pcrial Art Collection. I11 1739
~ ~ l o rthan
post-Stalin era, Soviet archacology has also bcco~ncless monolitl~ic Gcrhard Miillcr (Gerard F. Millcr, 1705-83), a professor of German
ancl been c11,lractcrizccl by ;I groiving clivcl-sit!! of npproa chcs \\ritl-iin att;~chcdto the Russian Acadcniy ofScicnccs, who had bccn scnt to
a Marxist framework. Moreover, although Soviet arc1hacology is study the peoples and rcsourccs of Siberia, supcr\liscd the csca-
n . . -
largely unlino\v~~ to ~llostWcstcrn archacologists, it has ~nnucnccd, vations of kurgans in the vicinity of I<r :. H c rcc
both directly and indil-cctly, 21-cliacologic,~l rcscal-ch far bcyo!~dthe I;II-gcI I L I I I ~of
~ Cbroiizi
~ at lie prc]
sphcrc of Sovict political control. For all these reasons Sovict publication (131;icli 198(
archaeology is of world-wide significluncc. It also scclns possible, by After the Russians annexed and began t o settle the steppes alorig
~ i gsi~inilariticsand diffcrcnccs bctw ccn archa cology as it
c o ~ ~ i p a r ithe the I; it of the Black Sc:l in the second h;ilf of the ciglitccntli
113s clcvclopcd u~ldcrvery diffcrcnt co~lccptualschcmcs and political cent1 archacalogical interests of thc govcrnmcnt and thc
orientations in the Sovict Union and the West, to u~laerstandbetter gcncral publ~cshifted to that rcgion. La~ndown lcrs and peasants
the gc~icralfactors t hat influ(:rice archacologica began to dig into 1t~lrga11s in hopes of rccoveri1.1gprrcious n~ctals and
anticluitics. As early as 1763 the governor of thc: region, Gcncral
Alckscy Mcl'guno\l, excavated the Scytliian royal lturgan ot'Mcl'gu-
~istRussia
novsliy, rcco\,cring valuable finds that arc now in the Hermitage
Archacolog lrcacly a ~blishcddisciplint: in tsar 1st M ~ ~ s c u rClassical
n. Greek scttlcmcnts along tllc north shore of thc
.-..,.I.:,.*-.
I<LISS~:I.T l l ~l i ~ b ib~ibst;~ntial
I L I L L I C I ) ~i l l the rc~inaillsof ~ I C I L I I ) L U ~ ~ C ISluck Sc3 also attr.ictcd :~ttcntion.Some of the best archaeological
times \vas ciircctcd t o the Icurguns, o r t ~ ~ m u lmany i, t h o ~ ~ s n ~oi df s rcscarch in Russia i n the early nineteenti1 CCLI~LII-y was C~OIIC by
\vI~iclnhad been constructed over 3 period of 5,000 ycars in the French C W L ~ J Y ~archacologists
' working in the Crimca (Millcr 1956: 22;
steppe lands that stretch from the Ukraine eastward into Sibcria. For Sklcndi- 1983: 94). The study of classical antiquities was vigorously
centuries, if not millennia, these tombs had been p l u ~ ~ d c r cfor d pursued by the Imperial Odessa Socicty of History and Antiquity,
treasure. As Russian colonization spread eastward into Siberia in the foundcd in 1839 (Miller 1956: 27). By 1826 so many finds had bee11
sc\~cnteenthcentury, the plundering of Iiurgans in 'that region was asscmblcd in the Crimcan city of ICcrch that an arcl~acological
carried out 011a massive scale, somcti~ilcsunder go\~cr~lmcnt licence. lnuscurn was opc~lcdthcrc.
By the 1760s not cnough Siberian tu~nuliremained u~lplu~ldcrcd for Prior to 1850 the Russian arist ho patrol iquarian
*l-csc large-scale opcratioils to rcmain profitable (Millcr 1956: 15). research wcrc far IIIOSC i~itcrcstcdill the \raluablc an^^ L A U L ~ Lworks of
As early as the 1680s Tsar Fyodor Alcksc~~cvitch ordered that the art recovered from kurgans and Grcclc cities than in humbler finds
~ilcsof a 'giant' (probably a mammoth) fou~ldin the I<hatkov relating to Slavic prehistory. I11 Russia, unliltc Central Europe, class
gion should be excavated, measured, and dcscribcd (Miller 1956: i~ltcrcstso\rcrtly co~lti~lucd to outweigh a sc~iscof ethnic identity.
). In 1718 Peter the Great issued a more gcncral order that district Among tl~cmsclvcs, the upper classcs often spoke French and
wcrnors and com~nandcrsof cities should collect and forward to German rather than Russian. Moreover, although thc Russians, like
Petcrsburg (now Leningrad) old and rare objects as these were r h ~4n1cricans,
~ wcrc expanding illto regions occupied bv tribal
scovcrcd. His intc rests cmk)raced geological a .a1 did not rchacolog provide
 , .
A history of archaeological thought Soviet archaeology

racial justifications for their actions. Having been conquered and the late nineteenth ccntul-y 'and wllich supported the government's
. n
cfforts to cxtcnd Russian lnnucncc throughout Eastern Europc. By
ruled for centuries by thc Mongols, thc Russians wcrc lcss incli~led
to dcspisc their technologically lcss dcvclopcd ncighbours than wcrc this time archaeology was being taught at thc universities in St
the Americans. Pctcrsburg and Moscow.
I11 thc second half of thc ninctccntl~century, Russia cxpcricnced This samc period witnessed a considcrablc, if uneven, improve-
rapid dcvelop~llcntin industry, trmsport, tr.zdc, and cducnt~onal illent in ~rchacological~ ~ ~ c t l ~ o d o and
l o g yintcrprctation. Treasure
opportunities. The middle classes cxpandcd rapidly and among the hunting continued and was popular among landowners, who legally
cducated scgmcnt of thc populat~onthere was a growing interest in owncd all the wcaltll on thcir estates, including archacological finds.
natur.ll sclcncc, philosophy, h~story,and p o l i t ~ c ~economy.
l Thci-c This ,~pproachwas provided with somc dcgrcc of scientific rcsycct-
was a rapid proliferation of archaeological rcscarch, publications, ability by old-fashioned archacologists and art historians who
muscums, associat~ons,and congresses. All of the archacologists at believed that kurgans and classical sitcs were the only archaeological
this pcriod wcrc tcachcrs, landoivncrs, civil scrvants, and military rcillains worth studying and by an aesthcticizing trend that viewed
officers who were self-insttuctcd in thc discipline. Yet they carried only works of art as deserving of attention. The latter approach was
out rcscarch comparable to that bcing donc elsewhere in Europc cultivated particularly at the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg
(Miller 1956: 28). The rapid development of archaeology in Russia, where a remarltable collection of prehistoric and medieval art had
and a growing number of remarkable finds, led the government to been assernbled (Miller 1956: 53).
establish the Impcrial ~ r c h a c o l o g i ~Commission
al in St Petcrsburg. Other archacologists working in Moscow and St Pctcrsburg wcrc
In 1859 this con~~llissio~lwas enlpowcrcd to grant Iiccnccs for cxca- influcnccd by rcccnt dcvclopn~cntsin prehistoric archaeology in thc
vations on govcrnlllcllt and public lands and ass~gncdgeneral rcst of Europc. Thc most prominent of these wasVasily Gorodtsov
rcsponsibility for safeguarding all archacological remains in Russia. (1860-rgqs), a rctircd infantry officcr who bcgan to cxcavatc in the
In 1851 an Imperial Archacology Soc~ctywas founded in St Peters- 1890s with financial support from the Countess Uvarova. In the early
burg and in 1864 Count Alcltscy Uvnrov organ~zcdthe Impcr~al 1900s he became d~rcctorof the MOSCOW Historical Muscum and
Russian Archaeological Socicty in Moscow, which he, and later his one of the founders of thc Moscow Archaeological Institute. H e also
widow, dircctcd until 1917. Each of these bodies cstablishcd major trained a largc number of professional archaeologists. Gorodtsov
publication series which continued until the rcvolution. In the 1870s was the outstanding exponent of what later was called the formalist
and 1880s regional archacological societies werc established in school of Russian archaeology, which was inspired by the work of
Tiblisi, ICazan, Pskov, and othcr provincial citics. Oscar Montelius, Joseph Dtchelettc, and other typologists. Formal-
Beginning in the 1870s and continuing into the early twcntieth ists studied the morphology of artifacts and sought to arrange them
century, archacological interests diversified. Kurgans and classical in chronological sequenced. As a result of his excavations along the
sitcs continued to be cxcavatcd, but there was a growing emphasis Don River, Gorodtsov was ablc to demonstratc thc existence of a
on scttlcmcnts and ccmcterics from a11 periods of Russian history. Bronzc Age in Russia and to dividc it into succcssivc pcriods. H c
Thc Palacolithic sites at Kostcnki, in thc Ultrainc, bcgan to bc systcmatically pcriodizcd Russian antiquities and proposcd his own
studied, whilc Ncoli'thlc sitcs, incl~~ding those of the Tripolyc terminology, although it was not widely accepted. H e also stressed
culture, as well as Bronzc and Iron Age ones werc excavated in the importance of studying scttlcments and ordinary cemeteies as
western Russia. Thcrc was also cons~dcrablclntcrcst in Slavic and well as kurgans (Millcr 1956: 37).
medieval Russian archaeology, especially among the mcmbers of the Alcksandr Spitsyn (1858-1931), who was a member ofthe Imperial
Impcr~alArchacology Socicty, where a special section was cstab- Archaeological Commission, was a founder of the empirical school.
lished for such rcscarch. This particular interest reflected ths,12au; The school maintained that the basic task of archaeologists was to
Slavism that played a significant role in Russian foreign policy in provide the most detailcd and' accurate descriptions of artifacts,
 A history of arcIiaeologic,~lthought Sovict archaeology

while cschcwing prclliaturc conclusions of a historical o r socio- Following thc creation of the Sovict Union the RAIMIC became
logical nature (Millcr 1956: 32-3). Such a n npproach had much in thc State Acadcmy for the History of Matcrial Culture (GAIMK)
comlnon with that of Joscph Henry in the United States. The and was give11 ultimate jurisdictioli over archacological activities
eventual leader of the c~lipiricalschool was hleksandr Millcr (1875- and institutions not only in the Russian Republic but throughout
19;5), a student of Mortillct ~vliobegan to excavate in Russia in 1902. the U n ~ o n(Miller 19S6: 47). From the start this was a larger and
H e greatly improved the st,indards oi'cxc,~\~ation tccliniclucs, as well niorc powerful lnstitutc than thc Inlpcrial Archacolog~calCommis-
as of the study and conscr\.ation of al-tifacts. As l'rofcssor of Archac- sion had bccn (Bulkin et al. 1982: 274). In 1922 the chairs of archac-
ology at the Univcl-sity of St P c t c ~ - s h ~ ~hc
r gtl-nincd
, man)? Russian ology . ~ tthe uni\rcrsitles of Lcn~ngradand Moscow were trans-
archacologists. Yet, despite the good tvorli that was being done, no fomicd into archacology departments. Talcntcd students who
Russia11arch,lcologist establishccl an international reputation ccl~~iv- complctcd t h c ~ rundcrgraduatc studies in these and other depart-
alcnt to that of Lobaclicvsky in mathematics, Mcndclcjrcv in the mcnts were adm~ttcdto thc Institute of Postgraduate Studies of thc
physical sciences, 01-l'avlov in biology. GAIMIC The best of thcsc studcnts could hope to remain in tlic
GAIMK as junior and then senior research associatcs. Thus a pattern
of largcly scparatlng rcscarcli and undergraduate teaching was estab-
Arpchczeology duri~dthe Neiv Economic Policy hshcd that has pcrsistcd to thc present in the Sovict Union (Davis
It has been clainicd that 'no previous government in history was so 1983: 409). In additloll to allowing a large number of archaeologists
opcnly and cncrgctically in favor of scicncc' as was the Sovict rcgimc to cngagc 111 full-timc rcscarcli, the institute structure gave these
that came to po~vcrin the autumn of 1917(Graliam 1967: 32-3). Thc archaeologuts access to technical cxpcrts who could scientifically
revolutionary Icadcrs of the nctv state looked to scientific lcnowlcdgc analysc art~facts,floral and faunal rcmains, and geological and clima-
to modcrnizc thc Russian cconomy and to cliniinatc Russia's tolog~caldata relating to archaeological problems.
age-old mysticism, which was \riewcd as a hindrance to social and In Moscow in the mid-1920s a rival arcliacological centre was
cconomic progl-css. The social sciences, including archacology, had cstabl~slicdin tlic form of an Archaeological Section of the Russian
.I crucial role to play in the cnsui~igideological str~igglc. In 3 clccrcc Assoc~ation of Scicnt~fic Institutes of the Social Sc~cnccs
oftlic Council ofl'eoplc's Commiss.ll-s dntcd I S April 1919and signed (RANION). The latter ~ 1 . 1~111~ amnlgamation of 15 scparatc institutes

b\r V.I. Lenin, tlic Imperial Archaeological Commission in l'ctro- in MOFCOW and Len~ngradthat sought to produce good rescarclicrs
grad (fornicrly St Petersburg) ivas rcorga~iizcd as thc Russian and tcachcrs by employing Colilmunist Party and sclcctcd non-party
Academy for the Historv of Material Culturc (RAIMIC). Tlic pcrsonncl worlcing under close communist supervision (Shapiro
organization was entrusted to its first director Nikola)) Marr (1865- 1982: 89). Thc encouragcmc~itby the Communist Party of thc
1934). Liltc ICossinna, a linguist with archaeological interests, Marr popularizat~onand dcmocratlzation of scicntific knowledge and
rcjcctcd the universally held belief that new languagcs evol\le 2s the rescarch also Icd to thc formation of many regional studies organi-
result of a gradual process of phonological, lcsical, and gra~ilmatical zations in thc early 1920s. Arcl~acologywas a popular subject in these
diffcrcntiation from ancestral forms. Instcad hc bclicvcd that socictics, 111 whicli professional archacologists, studcnts, and inter-
linguistic cha~igcsoccur"'as a response to alterations in the socio- csted amateurs united to carry out and publish rcsearch (Miller 1956:
economic organizatioll of the socictics in which their spcaltcrs live; 44-5).
Iic~iccsilliilarities among languagcs indicate the stage of evolution Allnost no archacological fieldwork was donc during World War I
that societies have rcachcd rather than liistorical affinities. 0 1 1 the or thc civ~lwar that followcd it. In 1921, in an cfibrt to promote
basis of a supcrfici,ll rcscmbla~iccbctwccn this thcorp and Marxist econornlc rccovcry and broaden thc basis of support for thc rcvo-
explanations of sociocultural change, iMarr's tcachi~igs ciijoycd lution, cspccially among the peasantry, Leni~iinaugurated the New
official cstccm within tlic Sovict Union until 1950. Economic Pol~cy,which rcstored a limited market economy in tlic
 A history of arcl~aeologicalthought

Soviet Union. As part of this move, the Soviet governmeilt adopted disappeared as the confiscation of the wealth of the aristocracy
an accommodative policy toward the intelligentsia, although most brought the financing of research under government control. Pro-
of the latter had not supported the Bolshevik revolution. Lenin was fessional archacologists also wrote the first generalizing works in
convinced that, because of the lack of education among working- Russian dealing with archaeoloh and prehistory. Although these
class people, the party could not manage the economy, conduct studies were of varying quality, they set new standards for students
scientific research, or run the government without the services of the and provincial researchers (Miller 1956: 60). On the other hand, the
educated classes. H e also rejected the radical proposal that cultural main interpretive schools that had been founded before the revo-
power could be seizcd by revolutionary action. Instead he believed lution still dominated archaeology. The formalists continued to
that a socialist society had to be built on the foundations of bour- elaborate a typological approach and followed Montclius in viewing
geois cultural achicvcrncnts and t h ~peasants
t and industrial workers the development of technology ,as the cumulative result of the use of
had to learn about that culture gradually from the intelligentsia. 11uman intellect to gain increasing control over nature. Diffusion
Some othcr Communists, including Anatoly Lunacharsky, the and migration were rclicd on to explain changes in the archaeo-
Commissar of Enlightenment, went further and hoped that, by logical record. The empirical school remained contcnt to dcscribc
being assigncd a positive role in the building of socialism, the archaeological finds as precisely a s possible, without making gen-
intelligentsia could be brought into the mainstream of Soviet life eralizations srtrying to relate these finds to the societies that had
and turned into Commullists (O'Connor 1983: 36-7). During the produccd them (Miller 1956: 49-55). Contacts with foreign archae-
period of the New Economic Policy (1921-8) established intel- ologists were unimpeded and Soviet archaeologists continued to
lectuals, to thc disgust of hardline revolutionaries, were trusted with publish their works abroad. The journal Eurasia Septentrionalis
positions of influence and powcr, given well-paid jobs, and allowed Antigua, edited by the Finnish archaeologist A.M. Tallgren (1885-
a reasonable mcasure of scholarly indepcndcncc, so long as they did r945), was devoted largely to'lussian archaeology and published
not openly criticize the regime. papers by Russian archacologists ,in French, English, and German
As J result of thc revolution, J few wcll-linown Russian archac- tr,lnsl.itions. T l l r o ~ ~ gtlicse
h c~\itactsE ~ ~ r o p c aarchaeology
n con-
ologists left the Soviet Union, most not,lbly M.I. Rostovtscv (1870- tin~icdto cxcrt significant influincc on work clone throughout thc
1952),who was to beconlc one of the world's leading cxpcrts on the Soviet Union. Mikhail Miller (1956: 53-5) notcs the impact of con-
economy and society of ancient Grcccc and Rome. Those who temporary European thought, ,such as the diffusionist Viennese
remained continued to occupy prominent positions. Gorodtsov was school of anthropology, Oswald Spengler's cyclical views of history,
still a leading archaeologist in the Moscow area, where his principal and even racist theories, on the interpretation of Soviet archaeo-
collaborators were his former students. Spitsyn, Miller, and other logical data.
archaeologists wit11 prc-revolutionary views all remained active On the other hand, most archaeologists avoided applying the
members of the GAIMIC. Because of their influence its scientific concepts of historical materialismto archaeology. They appear to
character and dircctio~lwcrc little diffcrcnt from those of the formcr have assumed that, becausc they wcrc studying thc history of mater-
Imperial Archaeological Commission. Although Marr continued to ial culture, their work accorded suffici&tly with the materialist
elaborate his bizarfe linguistic theories, his leadership of the perspective of the new social and political order. Yet even formalists,
GAIMK did not result in significant changes in its approach to wlao believed technological inn&ation to be a major cause of social
archaeology (Miller 1956: 46). change, did not interpret their data as if it were a basis for under-
During the period of the New Economic Policy a large amount of standing historical and cultural processes. Instead they treated them
archaeological research was accomplished and many new archae- as objects unrelated to a social context. The history of the socio-
ologists werc traincd. The more spectacular manifestations of ama- ccoi~omicrelations that had produccd the archaeological record was
teurish archacology that had flourisld in the ninctccntl~century viewed as something to be studi'cd by historians using written
 A Ilistory of archaeological thought Soviet archaeology
I

rccords (Miller 1956: 55). The New Economic Policy has been foreign archaeological publicatio~lscould be found only in the
described as a 'golden c ~ of a Marxist thought 11; the USSR' (S. GAIMIC library (Miller 1956: 73, 93-4).
Cohcn 1973: 272). Thcrc is no evidence that any archacologists i s t had been cstablishcd in the
111 the late 1920s 3 C o i i i r n ~ ~ ~cell
participated in this ~ntcllcctualferment. Even within the framework GAIMK. It was conlposcd mai~llyof postgraduate students and
of traditional intcrpretations, Russian archaeologists appear to have research associatcs. At the bcginnillg of the cultural revolutio~lthis
been cautious .ind rc,lctionary rather than innovati\.c. group st.irtcd to criticize arc11,~cologistsof tlic old schools, cli.lllcng-
ing them to reveal their attitude towards Marxism. I11 1929 Professor
Vladislav 1. Kavdonikas (1894-1976)~a middle-aged archaeologist
who had joined rhc Communist Party a number of years before, 011
Dunng the 1920s rc\~ol~t10i1,11-y \lctcran~,c~~ltural radic~ls,~ n d u s t r ~ a l orders from the GAIMK party organization rcad a rcport it1 thc
workers, members of the Union of Commun~stYouth (I<omsomol), academy cntitlcd 'For a Sovict history of material culture'. This
and Commun~ststudents became ~ncrcas~ngly c r ~ t ~ c of
a l the New paper was published the following year and widely rcad by archnc-
Econom~cl'ollcy ~s ~t was dppl~cdto c u l t ~ ~ ratfa~rs.al Thcy rcscntcd ologists throughout the Sovict Union. I t criticized thc thcorctical
the sk~llsof the old cultural and educational el~tesand saw the positions of prominent archaeologists and called for a 'Marxist
entrenched priv~legesand o p p o s ~ t ~ oton educational reforms of this history of material culture' to replace the old archaeology. Thc vcry
group as imped~nle~lts to t h c ~ row11 advancement. They therefore conccpt of archaeology was rcjccted as that of a bourgcois scicnce
denounced the acco~nmodat~o~l with ,the old intelligentsia as a
betrayal of the October rcvolut~onand demanded that the polltical
rcvolut~o~l be extc~ldedinto the cultural rcalm. Political struggles
w~thlnthe Icadcrshlp of the Comnlu~listParty following the death of
Lcn~np1'1ycd a role 111 dec~dlllgcultur~lpolicy at t h ~ sjuncture.
Joseph Stalln's programme of intensive industr~al~zatlon and the
collect~\~iz.~t~on of agr~culturc,w h ~ c hbegan with the first F~vc-Year
Plan 111 1928-9, reversed the basic cconomlc princ~plcsof the New
Econom~cPol~cy.As part of h ~ campaign s to consolidate power, he
allicd h~mselfw t h the cultural radicals who dcmanded that intel-
lectuals should bc subjected to strlct party discipli~ic(F~tzpatrick
1974; O'Conncr 1983: 54, 89). The cultural revolution, w h ~ c hwas
i n ~ t ~ a t cby
d thc arrest of cllglnecrs and tcchn~c~ans on charges of
sabotage a ~ tre'lson,
~ d lasted from 1928 to 1932. It ~nvolvcdn masslvc
campalgn to bnng Sovlct ~ntcllcctuall ~ f cInto 11ncwith the tcilcts of
Marx~stph~losophyas thcy wcrc understood by thc Sovict Com-
~nunistParty. Man? non-Marxist ~ntcllectualsand lnstltutlons were
purged as the S t a l ~ n ~ bureaucracy
st sought to suppress all oppo-
slt~on.Among the early VIC~IIIIS of t h ~ scampaign were the regio~lal
stud~cs soc~ctlcs Thcy wcrc d~sbandcd and later replaced by
go\~ernment-controlled reg~o~lal studies bureaux, w h ~ c hdid not
command popular support. From 1930 on contacts between Sovlct
and fore~gnscho1'11-s wcrc forb~ddcnand for a t ~ m currcnt c ~ssucsof
 A history of archaeological thought Soviet archaeology

hostile to Marxism. At the Pan-Russian Conference for Archaeology mative years was Ravdonikas, whom even his enemies credited with
and Ethnography hcld at the G A M K the following May, thc party cxccptional ability. Thc Communist Party, whilc supporting thc
organization of thc acadcmy mounted an exhibition of Soviet crcation of a Marxist approach to~archacologyand rcserving the right
archaeological literature in which boolcs and papers written since to pass judgement on its theory and practice, does not appear to have
1917 wcrc denounced for their adherence to formalism, bourgeois provided archaeologists with e'xplicit guidelines. Nor could these
nation~lism,and othcr anti-communist tcndcncies. The Montclian guidclincs be found in the writings of Marx and Engcls. Thc most
typological method was criticrzed for its idc,xlism, for nlalcing relevant statement that Marx had made about archacology was that
I
fctishcs of artifacts (artifactology), and for ~mproperlyinterpreting Relics of by-gonc i~lstrurne~lts OF labour posscss thc samc
human history in biological tcrnls (Millcr 1956: 71-8). The countcr- importance for the investigation of extinct econon~icalforms
suggestion that archaeology might cut its linlcs with history and seclc of society, as do fossil bones for the determi~latio~l of extinct
within a Marxist framework t o develop its own rncthods to study species of animals. It is not the'articles made, but how they are
past human bchaviour was dlso firmly rejected (Dolitsky 1985: 361). h~ndc,and by what instruments, that cnablcs 11s to distinguish
different econo~nicalepochs. Instruments of labour not only
This criticism was followed by the dismissal, and in somc cases the supply a standard of the degrce of devclopn~cntto which
arrcst and cxiling, of archacologists who wcrc unablc or unwilling t o human labour has attained, but they are also indicatc)rs of the
alter their views. At lcast 20 archaeologists in Leningrad, including social conditions under which labour is carried on.
Alelcsandr Miller, were exiled. In Moscow Gorodtsov was dismissed I ('
(Marx 1906: zoo)
from all his duties, although the Soviet government later awarded
Moreovcr, Marx had devoted most of his career to studying capital-
him the Order of the Red Banner for his contributions to Russian
ist societies and how they had developed from feudal ones. H e had
archaeology. This suppression was documented and condemned by
bcgun to investigate pre-class and early class societies late in life and
Tallgren (1936) after he visited Leningrad in 193s. I11 retaliation he
had to dcpcnd on thc highly dcfcctivc and polemical anthropologi-
was dcprivcd of his honorary mcmbcrship in the GAIMIC and
cal literature that w ~ av,~ilablc
s in thc late ninctccnth century (Bloch
denied further entry to the Soviet Union. The cvcnts of this period
1985: 21-94). Thus hc ,uld Engclslcft nlany qucstiolls about thc sorts
havc sincc bccn chronicled it1 greater dctail by thc Lmigve' Russian
of societies that archacologists study una~~swcrcd, including how
a~-cl~acologist Mild~ailMillcr (1956: 96-10s). At thc same time that
these societics had cvolved. This meant that archaeologists had to
this was happening, thc power of the GAIMIC and its centralized
rely, not on the well-developed concepts that werc available to most
control of Soviet archaeology was enhanced when RANION,
other social scientists, but on the basic principles of Marxism, as
together with its Archaeological Section in Moscow, was completely
these werc formulated in Marx's and Engels' own writings and in
abolished. In its place a Moscow Branch of the GAIMIC
later exegeses.
(MOGAIMK) was organized in 1932 with the historian A. Udal'tsov
Marx summarized the basic principles on which he based his
as its director.
analyses of socicty in thc preface to his Contribution t o the Critique of
The youngcr generation of Marxist archaeologists, who under
Political Economy (1859):
Ravdonikas' leadership came to occupy leading positions, had to
elaborate a Marxist approach to archaeology. These scl~olars In thc social production that human beings carry on, they
included Ycvgeni Krichevsky (1910-42), who studicd Neolith~ccul- enter into definite relations that are indispensable and
tures, A. P. Kruglov (1904-42) and G. P. Podgayetsky (1908-+I), independent of their will, relations of production which
correspond to a definite stage of development of their mater-
who studied the Bronze Age in southern Russia, and P. N. Tret'ya-
ial forces of production . . . The mode of production in
kov, who studied the Old Russian and Slavic cultures. Most of them material life determines 'the general character of the social,
wcrc enthusiastic, but not very cxpcrienccd in Marxism or in archae- political, and intellect~ialprocesses of life. It is not the
ology (Bulkin e t al. 1982: 274). The leading thcorctician in thcsc for- consciousness of humans that determines their existence; it is
 A history of arcl~aeologicalthought Soviet archaeology

on the contrary their social existence that determi~lestheir ious beliefs, aesthetics, and philosophical and organizational aspects
consciousness. (Marx and Engels 1962, r: 362-3) of scientific activities. All of,tbesc are collectively referred to as
Traditionally Marxism is characterized by an unswervi~lgdevotion- society's superstructure. Marx did not believe that technological
t o a materialist analysis of the hunlan condition. I t is frequently change came about as a result of human beings using their intellect
asserted that at the same time it rejects the positivist doctrine that to develop more cffcctive ways to control thcir cnvironmcnt, as
science can be b'lsecl only on the direct data of sensory cxpcrie~~ce, in Victorian cvolutio~iists and Enlightenment philosophers had
favour of pliilosopl~icalrealism, which cmphasizcs the discovery of assumed. Instead he argued that tecl~nologicalchange itself must be'
~inobscrvablc underlying structures which gcncratc obscrvablc understood in a social context. Wliilc ncw tcchnologics bring about
phc11o1ncn.1,in this case the Inner csscncc of soc~occonomicfill-- s o c ~ , ~anti
l politic.11 cli,~ngcs,they tlicmsclvcs arc thc products of
mations (I),IVIS198;: 408). Yet t h ~ sdist~nctionmay be cx~ggcratccl. specific social contcsts tliat ,infludncc what innovations arc liltcly o r
Lcnin argued that 'Marxism docs not base itsclf on anything othcr ~inliltelyto occur. This is what Engels meant when he wrote that 'thc
than tlic facts of history and reality' (Pctrova-Avcrkicva 1980: 24). determining c1~111cntin t11c liistorical proccss in the final a~~nlysis is
Marx and Engcls cmphasizcd the s)~stcmicintcrdcpcncicncc of all production, and the reproduction of human life . . . If S O I I I C ~ O ~ Y
aspccts of social lifc and n ~ o r particularly
c viewed hunian socictics as distorts this principle into the bclicf that the elconomic Iclemcnt is the
systems that organized production and rcproduction. Thcy also only determining clement, then [that person ] has trar;~sformed[the
stressed internal contradictio~isand conflicts as prominc~ltfeatures materialist understanding of history] into an C L I I ~ L Y , ~
sm.>t., *h~ ~ j s t rphrase'
act
'
of complex (historical) human societies and the most important (Marx and Engcls 1962, 2: 488).
source of social changc. Marxis111 analyses every socicty as containing within itsclf ten-
Marx, like lnany other ninctccnth-century social theorists, viewed dencies tliat pron~otcand oppose changc. Thus cach socicty contains
Iiuma~ibeings as having cvolvcd the ability to coopcratc as ~ilcnibers tlic seeds of thc destruction of its prcscnt statc and at the samc time
of social groups to the cxtraordin,li-p extent that soc~cticswere ablc the embryo of a future condition. The antagonisp bctwccn thcsc
routinely to transform thcir rcl~tioilsto the 1lat~ir;11 world and to two tcndcncics produces the encrgy that brings about changc. Marx
modify human nature. Yet he diffcrcd from most analysts in idcntl- did not deny that supcrstr~icturalfactors, such as cntrcnchcd poli-
fying the organization of labour as tlic ~iiostinlporta~~t means by tical hierarchies or powerful religious beliefs, can bc of great his-
which human be~ngswcrc ablc to confront nature as onc of her own torical importance but he maintained that this is so only insofar as
forccs. Thc crucial factor shaping social systems was the economic they are capable of preventing change. Wholesome changes can
base, w l ~ i cco~isists
l~ of the forccs and relations of production. While occur only when economic transformations arc not ovenvhelme,d by
there have been scrious diffcrcnccs of opinion among Marxists such forces. A progressive society is thcrcfore one that provid.es a
concerning tlic definitions of thcsc terms, the forces of production large number of possibilities for the unfettcrcd dcvclopmcnt of
are widely i~itcrprctcdas cmbraci~lgnot only all forms of technology human productive forces ( ~ c t i o v a - ~ v c r k i e v1980:
a 2 0 ; Tringham
but also all utilized rcsourccs, human and non-human, and alb 1983: 95-6).
scientific knowlcdgc (Graham 1967: 34-5). The relations of pro- In his own research Mars cndcavourcd both to cxplain~concrctc
duction signify the m-ays in which individual human beings rclatc historical events and to gcncralizc about evolutionary trends in
with one another to utilize the forccs of productio~ito produce and human history. In TheXVIIIth hi ma ire ofLouis Bonaparte and The
distribute goods. They therefore cmbracc not only what Wcstcrn Class S t r u ~ l ein France, 1848-50 lie sought to account for historical
anthropologists would identifj? as ccono~nicbehaviour, but also events not as collcctivc rcspo~~ses to environmental and economic
various facets of social bchaviour. The economic base is seen as conditions but in terms of the 'conflicting interests of social and
playing a powcrf~llrole in shaping othcr aspccts of socicty, such as economic groups that were seeking to preserve or enhance their
concepts of property, family lifc, political organization, law, rclig- power. Thcsc studies stress intcntionality and thc social rcproduc-
 A hisrory of archaeological thought Soviet archaeology

tion of reality rather than trcating human behaviour as the passive set themselves was to explain in Marxist terms the changes that had
consequence ofsocial forces. H e also obscrvcd that every socicty was occurred in prehistoric times. The primary context in which such
thc product of its own separate history and therefore responded fo changes were held to be comprehensible was n o longer technology
cconomic changes - in a distinctive-fasliio~i.Bccausc of this it was but social organization. The concept of succcssive ages of stone,
impossible to for~nulatcgeneral laws that would cxplain all of thc bronze, and iron was abandoned on the ground that it had its source
concrete reality o f cult~~l-;il
ch;~ngcin 3 predictive f:~sliion.I n some of in .in undcrst.inding not of society but too narrowly of the raw
his writings thcrc is 3 suggestion that lie bclicvcd in m~~ltilincar matcri,ils prevailing in thc dcvelopmcnt of technology. Archac-
evolution, 3t least in the short and miclcllc range (Hobsbawm 1964). ologists wcrc c~llcdupon not only to dcscribc thcir finds but also to
Yet he also bclicvccl in an idcnl ~ O L I I for
- s c 1i~11ii;in
cicvclopmcnt that reconstruct the socictics that had produccd them. This involved
\vould run from primitive cga1itari;un societies, through class soci- defining thcir ~liodcsof production and dctcrn~ini~lg as much as
ctics, to the tcclinologicallp advanced, egalitarian societies of the poss~bleabout their technology, social organization, and ideological
future. Over tlic ycars Marxists have varied in the degree to which concepts (Miller 1956: 79).
thcy have cmphasizcd the historical complexity or evolutionary This approach had many valuable conscqucnccs. By dirccting the
rcgularitp of human history. Sovict scholarship, rooted in the attention of archaeologists to bow ordinary people had lived, it
writings of G. V. Plcklianov (1856-1918) and reinforced by Stalin's encouraged thcm to undertake large-scale horizontal excavations of
own vicws, tended to stress a strongly evolutionar~rand determin- settlements, camp sites and workshops (Davis 1983: 410). Greater
istic view of social change (Blocli 1985: 95-123). attention also was paid to the evidence of dwellings and the relation-
Finally Marx dcnicd that human bchaviour is biologically dctcr- ship of different types of artifacts to thcsc structures. This rcsultcd in
mined to a significant dcgrcc or that a large number of gencrali- the first identification of Palaeolithic dwellings anywhere in the
zations are applicable to all human societics (Childe 1947a). Instead world (Childe 1950) and some of the first total excavations of
he believed that ~iiostof the rules governing socicties change as the Neolithic villages. When ccmctcries were cxcavatcd it was mainly to
modc of production changes. Social evolution thus produces investigate religious beliefs and to ascertain the social structures of
gcnuinc novcltics in thc rules governing human behaviour rather the socicties that had produccd thcm.
than mcrely varied permutations and combinations of a fixed set of Some of tlie interpretations of this period were unsound, such as
regularities. H e also denied that it was possible to create a socially P. I. Boriskovsky's suggcstion that female statuettes were evidence
and politically neutral social science in a class society, since such of matriarchal clan societies in Upper Palaeoiithic times (Davis 1983:
studies inevitably arc influenced by the class prejudices of the scliol- 413-4). O n the other hand, in 1934 P. N. Tret'yakov determined
ars who undertake them. Yet Marx would not have viewed tlie from fingerprints on the interiors of vessels that the pottery associ-
ancient Sumcrian and modern capitalist world vicws relativistically. ated with prehistoric hunter-fisher cultures of northern and central
Instead he would have intcrprcted them as positions that are qualita- Russia was manufactured by women. H e went on to argue that the
tivcly distinct in tcrlns of their potential for human action. H e unifor~nityof pottery styles within individual sites and the considcr-
would also have claimed for Marxism a privileged position com- able variation between sites indicated a matrilocal marriage pattern,
pared to all other philosopliical or scientific approaches to under- which resulted in the potters of each small community handing on
standing human behaviour. their traditions from onc generation to the next undisturbed by
Kavdonikas and his colleagues attc~ilptedto render archaeological external influences (Childe 1943: 6). Similar interpretations were not
data of value to society by making them useful for the Marxist study attempted by American archaeologists prior to the 1960s and these
of history. Archaeologists wcre to use thcir data to illustrate the laws studies were less archaeological in that the identification of the sex
and regularities of historical processes and by doing so demonstrate of the potters depended entirely on the direct historical approach
tlic accuracy and utility of Marxist concepts. The specific task thcy (Binford 1972: 61).
 , <

A history of archaeological thought Soviet al-chacology

important in evolving societies, the greed of heirs gradually cur-

tailed thc burial of large amounts of valuablc possessions with thc
dead (Childe 1942d: 133).Thc latter argument was to inspire Childc's
(194~a)cross-cultural gcncralizations about thc development of
funcrary,custol~~s, which aftcr dccadcs of ncglcct have oncc again
bccomc of intcrcst to arcl~acologists(M. Pcarson 1982). 13ccausc of
their concern with social change Sovict archaeologists also rcvivcd
an intcrcst in cultural evolution as wcll as in associated concepts of
dcvclopmcnt and progress, at a tinic whcn diffusionism was still in
the ascendant in North Amcrica altd thc rcst of Europc.
Yct Marxist studies of archacological data laboured under scvcrc
conceptual restrictions at this time. Social cvolution was conccytual-
izcd in terms of a unilincar schcmc of sociocco~~omic formations
looscly dcrivcd fro111Engcls' The orbin of the Family, Private Prop-
erty, and the State, which in turn had bcen bascd largely on Marx's
study of Morgan's Ancient Society. Pre-class socictics wcrc dividcd
into succcssivc prc-clan, matriarchal clan, patriarchal clan, and tcr-
minal clan stagcs followcd by thrcc forms of class society: slavc,
fcudal, and capitalist; and two ,more forms of classless socicty:
socialist and communist. Thc latter was rcgardcd as thc final stagc of
human dcvclopmcnt and not subjcct to further changc (Millcr 1956:
78-9; Yu. Semcnov 1980). This formulation was accordcd ca~lonical
status dul-ing the Stalin pcriod and scientific criticism of it was 11ot
.~Ilo\vc~i.
Arcl~~cologist~ I I ~ I L to
~ inrcrprct thcir fi ndings in accordance
with this scheme and also in agrccmcnt with thc classics of
Marxism-Leninisn~. The only lccway allowcd rcflcctcd thc recogni-
tion that many culturcs wcre in a transitional rathcr than a purc state
with respect to thcir stagc of dcvclopmcnt. Therc was also debatc
33 Plan of Palaeolithic hut found at.Buryet, reproduced in Antiyuity by
Childe, 1950 concerning tllc archacological critcria that might rcvcal to which
stagc of dcvclopn~entan archacological culturc bclongcd. The dog-
Arcl~acologistswcrc also cncouraged to explain changes in the matism with which socia!scientists adhered to this scheme contrasts
a.rchaeological rccord not in terms of migration and diffusion but as sllarply with the views cxprcsscd by Marx and Engels, who wcrc
the result of internal social dcvclopmcllts. For cxamplc, in their Clan preparcd to consider ~llultilincar modcls of social evolution,
Societies of the Steppes of Eastern Europe I<ruglov and Podgayetsky cspccially with regard to earlier and less wcll understood periods of
(1935) related changes in Coppcr Agc burial customs in s o u t h c r ~ ~ human development.
Russia to developing conccpts of propcrtp. They suggested that Still worse, within the GAIMK, Sovict archacological rescarch
collective tombs correlated with the communal ownership of the was now subjected to the intcllcctuil influence as wcll as the adminis-
means of production and individual barrows with patriarchal pasto- trative dircction of Marr. By denying commonly acccptcd evidence
ral socictics. Thcy also suggcstcd that as propcrty bccarnc morc of linguistic continuity, his thcory of linguistic change encouraged
 A history of archaeological thought Soviet 'ar~haeology

archaeologists to ignore even the most blatant evidence of ethnic ology). The attention paid to'classification in the past was con-
movements in the archacological record and to interpret the demned as part of a bourgeois tendency to ignorc thc social and
archaeological sequence for each region from earliest times xo the political significance of archaeological data. Hence it, like diffusion
present as stages in the history of a single people. Ravdonikas argued and migration, acquired negative political connotations. The
that in the Crimca an autochthonous population had in turn been neglect of classification has had long-term adverse cffects on Soviet
Iranian-speaking Scythians, German-speaking Goths (whose Ian- arcl~~lcology, which to the present day has continucd, in tcrlns of
guagc was ncvcrthclcss proclaimed to be l~istoricallyunrelated to typology, cultural chr01101ogy, *andthc defining of cultural units t o
German languages farther west), and finally Slavs. Milthail Arta- lag behind research bcing do& in Central and Wcstcrn Europc
monov maintamed that the ICh,lzLlrshad not C O I ~ Cfroill farther east (Bulkin e t al. 1982: 288-90).
to thc Don Vallcy and the northern Caucasus but had cvolvcd locally Although the Sovict cultural revolution is gcncrally dcscribcd as a
and hence wcre not Turlts; while M. I<hudyakov asserted that the period when creativity was swamped by aggressive and intolerant
Volga Tatars wcre liltcwisc not Turlts but had dcvclopcd as a result scctarianis~n(Fitzpatrick 1974: 52), thc approach to archacological
of thc amalgamation of local tribes (Miller 1956: 81-2). This view also interprctation that was pionccrcd at that tirnc was onc of grcat
tended to inhibit an interest in physical anthropology, insofar as the origihality and importance.' The conceptualizations of this initial
latter was directed towards distinguishing ethnic groups in the phase in the development of Soviet archaeology were not without
archacological rccord (letter of V.G. Childe cited in Trigger 198oa: flaws and excesses. chief,among these was a superficial and poli-
104). Whilc Soviet archacologists profcsscd to be intercstcd in the tically constrained understanding of Marxism, which was accom-
prehistory of varlous ethnic groups, their unilincar evolutionary panied by an ovcrcnthusiasm for intcrprcting archacological data in
,~pproach
.. discouraged the ~nvcstigation of the sorts of cultural terms of human bchavio~~r, oftc1.l' without ncccssary formal studics.
e cthnic significance. D ~ f f u s ~ owas
variati011that might h ~ v had n also Such shortcomings wcrc to bc cxpcctcd in the early stagcs of a ncw
rejectc d as a dcnigrat~onof human crehdvity. Marr's conccpt of the approach to archaeological interpretation. These flaws were identi-
autocl- thon no us devclopmcnt of pcoplcs was seen as a rcjcction of thc fied and havc bcen increasingly ovcrcomc as Sovict archaeology has
anti-c\iol~~tionary and often r,lclst theories of cultural devclopmcnt matured.
prcvai ling in Wcstcrn Europe. Interprctatio~lsthat i n v o l ~ dpro- Sovict archaeologists shared an intcrcst in cultural evolution and
cesses of diffusion and migration were condemned for embodying learning how people had lived in prehistoric times with the Scandin-
concc~ )ts of bourgeois nationalism and trying t o provide a spurious avian archaeologists of the early nineteenth century. What was
scicntific basis for chauvinist, impcrial~st, and racist doctrines. co~nplctclyncw was their determination to understand how social
Hence to advocatc such views became evidence of counter- and cultural systems changed in terms of their own internal
rcvolu tionary sympathies (Millcr 1956: 80-4). Aftcr Marr died in dynamics. This niarkcd a sharp brcak with carlicr cfforts by archac-
I934 1111s doctti~lcscontinued to enjoy official esteem and patronage ologists to explain cultural change in terms of external influences or
and dc~minatedarchacological i~lterpretatio~ls until 1950. At that human inventiveness considered without rcfercnce to social and
time Stalin, in his cssay 'C~nccrningMarxism in linguistics' den- cconomic conditions. Thc new approach was also charactcrizcd by
OUllC cd Marr's tcachiags as absurd; pointing out that thc same an explicit rcjcction of the racism and pessimism about human
Russ ian language continued to be spoken in the Soviet Union as had creativity that characterized archaeology in Central and Western
been spoken in tsarist Russia. Europe in the 1920s. Instead it adopted a dynamic view of society
TkLC heavy emphasis that was placed on the sociological interpre- that accorded with the new social outlook within the Soviet Union.
tatio n of archacological data and the rejection of the Montelian In particular, it reflected the belicks of a new generation of archae-
approach inhibitcd an interest in the systcmatic classification of ologists, trained since the revolution, that society could be altered
artifacts, which was labcllcdgolo~~e veshchel7edeniye (naked artifact- and irnprovcd through collcctivc social efforts.

' 227
 A history of archaeological thought Soviet archaeology

thc Institute of Archaeology. It has continued to exert a controlling

Consolidation influence on setting the obj&tives of archacological research for
The cultural revolutio~lwas followcd by a period of consolidation. five-year plans, organizing.major conferences, allocating space for
Beginning in 1934there was a call, i n all branchcs of Sovict historical publications in major journals and monograph series, and regulating
scholarship, for grcatcr profcssiol~alization,better techniques, and foreign contacts. It also continues t o grant a largc numbcr of the
higher-cl~~alit)~ work. The polemical and progr,ummatlc litcrat~irc 111ghc1-dcgrccs in archacolo~y((Davis 1983: 408).
that had dom~natedthc previous pcr~odwas abandoned in favour of During the 1930s chairs and dcpart~ncntsof archacology wcrc
more conventional empirical st~ldics.The latter became morc cstablishcd in a largc number of univcrsitics, new monographs and
popular as growing Inslstcncc on politic,~l orthodoxy nladc any monograph series were published, and Sovetskaya Arkheolog.iya,
innovation wit11111 the Marxist tradition, or cvcn thc serious which was to bccorne thc leading Sovict archacological journal, was
academic discussio~lof theoretical problems, increasingly danger- begun. Archaeological salvage work expanded rapidly in coiljunc-
ous. Postgraduate degrces and thc dcfcncc of dissertations, which tion with the massivc industrial projccts that startcd in 1928. Spccial
had been abolished after the revolution (Graham 1967: I ~ I )were , archacological cxpcditiolls wcrc attached to each nlajor construction
rcintroduccd. As part of this consolidation the term archaeology was project. These investigated the affected terrain bcfore and during
revivcd, early in 1931, as the name of a discipline, although to construction, carried out excavations, and studied thc findings. In
distinguish it from 'bourgeois archacology' the form practised in thc the 1930s nearly 300 expeditions were at work annually (Bulkin et al.
Sovict U11io1lwas henceforth to be called Soviet arcliacology (Miller 1982: 276). Tours of excavation8; exhibitions, and popular publica-
1956: 108-9). Archaeology continued to be regarded as a branch of tions scrvcd as Illcans of public instruction. Archacologists also
history, but was sccii as embracing a set of problc~nsthat were appl~cdthcmsclves to practical work, such as studying ancient irriga-
studied by means of material culture. It was also possible once again tion systems as guides to modesn development and locating ancient
to refer to the traditional technological stages of development, mining sites which might still be of commercial value. This practice
although tecl~~iolog)~ alone was no longer accorded cxplanator)~ was cspeciallp common bctwccn 1935 and 1941 (Miller 1956: 112).
significance. During the 19los there was n dramatic incrcasc in ki~owledgcof
Whilc Sovict archaeology was clcccptcd as being adequately dcvcl- the prehistoric 'irchacology of the Caucasus, Ccntral Asia, and
oped in a polit~calsense, grcatcr tcch~~ical expertise was now said to Sibcria. These regions wcre studied in order to enhance the cultures
be required to improve the general standard of the discipline. Thc of national groups that had been exploited and kept underdeveloped
GAIMIC was expanded and given the right to award postgradqtc in tsarist Russia (Frumkin 1962). Various rich finds werc made in
degrees. In 1934 it was divided into four branches, one each to study these areas, such as remains of the ancient states of Urartu and
the history of pre-class, slavc-holding, and feudal societies and a Parthia and the tumuli at Trialcti and Pazyryk. Thc cultural diversity
fourth to deal with technical aspects of research common to archac- of thc archaeological record became increasingly evident and this in
olog)~.A separate chair (professorship) was established for each turn raised questions about how such data were t o be analyscd and
socioeco~~omic period. In 1937 the GAIMIC was rcnamcd the Insti- rclatcd to the prevailing unilinear evolutionary scheme. These ques-
tute for the History of Material Culturc and attachcd to the pres- tions acquired greater urgency in the late 1930s a n d during World
tigious Soviet Academy of Sciences, which by the 1930s had regained War 11, when thc sovereignty and v q y survival of the peoples of the
the role that the Imperial Russian Academy had playcd under the Sovict Union wcrc threatcncd by Gcrman military cxpansion. Soviet
tsars as the 'dircctoratc of the cultural and scientific life of the nation' scholars responded with an asscrtion of patriotism and by fostering
(Graham 1967: 23). The main ccntre of the Institute for the History national self-consciousness, which continhed during the period of
of Material Culture was now located in Moscow, although a branch the Cold War.
remained in Lcn~ngrad.In the mid-1950s the Institute was renamed In archaeology this new interest cxprcsscd itself in a growing
 A history of archaeological thought Soviet archAeology

concern with ethnogencsis, which involved searching for ways to

distinguish ethnic differcllccs from other forms of cultural variation
in order to trace the origins of specific nat~onalgroups. Archac-
ologists began to spccializc in thc study of specific periods and
cultures and thus to move in the direction of J culture-historical
approach. Pjcviously Soviet archacolog~stshad r~diculcdthe dcbatcs
carried on bctwccn Polish and Gcrman arcl~acologistsas to wl~ctl~cr
thc late Neolithic and early Bronzc Age Lusatian culturc was Slav~c
or Gcr~nan.Thcy rightly observed t h ~ tl~csc t two linguistic groups
had probably not yet diffcrcntiated at that time (Millcr 1956: 83-4).
They also noted that Marx had rcjcctcd the notion that historical
claims p v c natlon,~lgroups r~ghtsto terrltorlcs they did not currcnt-
ly occupy. Ncvcrthclcss, in the late 193os, Russian arch~~cologists
became anxious to dcmonstratc that from ancient timcs their
ancestors, the East Slavs, had occupied the Europcan tcrritory of thc
Soviet Union, as wcll as to rcfute Gcrman cla~msthat throughout
history the Slavs had been culturallp backward peoples. Both before
and after World War I1 research was carried out that sought to trace
the origins of the Russian pcoplc and thc dcvelopn~cntof t h c ~ r
allclent culturc and h ~ n d ~ c r a f(M~llcr
ts 1956: 135-44) The study of
mcdieval Russian towns, especially the cxcavat~onsat Novgorod, set
new standards for urban archacolog!~for that period. The recovery
there of n ~ ~ r n c l -Icttcrs
o ~ ~ s WI-1ttc11
011b1rc11b.11-krc\~c.ilcci,in uncxpcc-
tcd dcgrcc o f 11tcr.1cy o ~ ~ t s ~of
c i thc
c clc~gy.Thc\c s t ~ l d ~ cdcmon-
s
stratcd that the development of towns in nllclcnt R L I S Sst,~rtcd I~ at
the samc time as, and wcnt on s i m ~ ~ l t a ~ ~ c owith,
u s l ythe dcvelopmc~~t
of towns in Wcstcrll and Central Europe. Thcy also showed that thc
Russians wcrc abreast of other Europca~lgroups in the devclopme~~t
of crafts, trade, and culturc (M. Thompson 1967). The long-held
view that Russian towns had begun as Scandinavian colonies was
vchemcntly rcjcctcd. Yet, in the course of thcsc studies of cthno-
genesis, thc concept of a u t o c l ~ t h o ~ ~dcvclopment
ous was frcqucntly
ignored and cautious use was madc of diffusio~land migration to
cxpla~nchangcs in the archaeological rccord.
Thcsc tendencies wcrc strengthened when Marr's linguistic the-
ories were repudiated in 1950 and with them the main ideological
underpinning for the concept of autocl~thono~~s dcvelopmcnt. Faith
diminisl~ed111 formcrly rcspectablc stationary scl~cmcsof cthno-
gcnesis dnd by the 1960s somc migrations wcrc seen as coming from 34 Plan from excavations at Novgorod, 1977-83
 A history of archaeologic~lthought Sovict arc~laeolbg~

C *

xcavations

d~stanthomelands. Kcsearchers were now taking : IE char- I

acteristics of the arcl~aeologicalrecord and of prc human bone tc ltally identifying esscs tha.t had
, . ,
behaviour which they had previously ignored. The arcllac~lnulcll ,-aa--- caused ~ L L L W a r r L l l l a "l ~ > ~ - w c ~ dthelll. r v 11uithis ~ ~ ~h,- I W U L I I ,
f ao ru ~ on
record was becomi~lgmore diverse and collourful as it was see11 to be which i:s closely a a Marxis t interest in producxion, hacI been
filled with ethnic groups whose cultural different es were (lf con- pioneer ed by Ni the first 1lalf of th e ninetee nth cent1Iry, it
--.,..
- , -.., . was i ~ l l ~ l \ , a L<.?L,. \ , l l l t ,lLLcry rg110r~db y, ur,.,.+,..-,
~

<idcrahlc intcrc\t (Rulk~nct al. 1982: 276-8). W I I I I tllesc

~ cw\i(.tnn- In',*
v v c ; r L L t ,l, l .,,-,I.,.,,
ILell,lL ~ l oU~,..+:I L ~t ,
~ iI ~ ~
I
CL
u

mcnts were less ~nnovativcthan those of the carly 19; 10s and 11: id their translat ion of Semenov's Preh kchnology (1964) was
I

roots in n~nctecnth-centuryEuropean culture-hi storical ,archae- publish1ed. Thus, without in any wa ning the Marxist g;oalof
ology, t h e ~ ri~lcorporatio~l
into Sovict archaeology represcntcn 3 explainill5 LulLural tran~forrnatioi~~ lLLationship Lw cllallf;lly,
definite cnrichmcut of that approach. modes of production, archaeologists becarrle aware that ther e was
At the same time Sovict archacologp made sign more evidence that required explaination. V dhile stay ing with in the
. . n'-;,-,1
along its own I~nes.S. A. Senlc~lovhad c o n s i d c r a ~ ~sue--..-
c Marxist tradition,. they, adopted a more hlstb,,,at, 0 0
a o opposed Lw all
+nn n

dctermin~ngthe uses t h ~ ht ~ bccn

d mdde of prehistoric sto~lcand evolutic)nary, view of the past.
 A history of archaeological thought ~o$ietarchaeology

torical poles that have been complementary approaches in Marxism

Recent developments
from the beginning.
The post-Stalin era saw significa~ltliber~lizationof So\iiet scholar- All Soviet archaeologi&s 'work within the framework of Marxist
ship and in Soviet Life generally. While this period has been historical or dialectical materialism, which constitutes the idco-
described as one of problems (Gcning 1982) or even crisis (Soffer. logical basis of Sovict $ocict)l This requires all studies of human
1985: 8-15) in Sovict nrch,icologp, it 11.1s ,ilso been .i time of growing beh.lviour to be c o ~ ~ ~ c p t ~ ~ adcvclot~mcntally,
lizcd with special attcn-
complexity and diversity in the intcrprct~t~on of .irchacological d<ita. tion being p.~id to the causes and conditions that bring about
The centralized control of archacology lessened somewhat as new change. Marxism also encourages thc analysis of bchavioural
dcgrcc-granting centres of the Inst~tutcof Archaeology wcrc estab- phcnomcna in as holistic a context as possible. The marked divisions
lishcd in No\~osibirsk, Irk~~tslc,Chita, KCIIICI-OVO, MLigGidC~n, bctwccn socicil science discipli~lcsin the Wcst are vicwcd as an
Dushanbe, and Samarkand and the amount of research originating arbitrary impediment to ,a scientific understanding of human
in Moscow and Leningrad dropped to 2s percent by 1970 (Davis bchaviour. Such divisions arc interpreted 1' s synlptomatic of a
T *.:U 3 409). Wcstcrn books became morc widely available and morc
'OY declining society in which an objective understanding of human
COllltacts were established with Wcstcrn archaedlogists. These con- bchaviour is no longer dcsircd by the donlinant class. Sovict archac-
tact:s have been justified on the basis of Lenin's observation that ology is also ~ i o separated
t 'Into self-contained branches, such as
.," .y important trend in bourgeois science reflects as well as distorts
c=xrPr
.,L prehistoric, classical, and Near Eastern a'rchaeology. These different
real,ity and that by applying a dialectical materialist critique to such types of arcl~acologyare all studied in history departments and
wor k it is possible for Marxists to discover what is of value in these higher degrees in archacology are always in history. I t is argued that
a n n roaches (Bulkin e t a/. 1982: 278). Soviet archaeologists now this unity of history and a k c l ~ a e o l oand
~ ~their shared commitment
-rr
recc,gnize that valuable insights can be derived from Western archae- to a historical approach helps arcl~aeologiststo understand their
;y, whereas in the past such behaviour would have been den- material from a holistic perspective that combines an interest in
--.xed as a 'manifestation of fawning and subservience to the Wcst specific culturc-historkal processes with a morc general concern
and its capitalist cu.lturc' (Miller 1956: 146). According to Sovict with the evolution of society and culture. Sovict arcl~acologyt h ~ i s
archaeologists this new collfide~lccdocs not mean 'the end of ideo- lacks much of the theoretical tension that - rightly o r wrongly - has
logical struggle' but signifies that it has become 'less sharp in form pitted culture-l~istoricaland evolutionary approaches against one
but more ~ r o f o u n din substance' (Bulkin et al. 1982: 278). another in Wcstcrn ~ u r o i c2nd America sincc the ninctccntl~
Greater self-consciousness and creativity are also manifested in century and which also has encouraged much methodological
tl~eoreticaldiscussio~lsof Marxism, which is no longer obligatorily innovation in the West in recent decades.
identified with the traditional Soviet scheme of unilinear evolution. Yet there is growing discussion about how archaeological data can
In recent years the status of the Asiatic mode of production has been contribute most effectivcly' to a Marxist analysis of human
hotly debated (Dunn 1982), as have the relationship between socio- bchaviour. Many of the mdrc traditional Sovict archaeologists
economic formations and specific cultures, the impact that inter- believe that historical information can be extracted from archaco-
acting societies at* different levels of' development have on one logical data using only common sense and the theoretical apparatus
another, and the nature, of sociocultural change in precapitalist of conventional historical analysis. These data can then be combined
societies (Danilova 1971). Wcstern observers have noted a rejection with written historical sokces, ethnography, historical linguistics,
of dogmatism and a trend towards theoretical diversification, art history, folk lore, and any qther information that is relevant for
although always within the framework of Marxist philosophy the study of the past. While not denying that they employ distinctive
(Fortes 1980: xix). What is happening is perhaps more accurately methods to recover and analyse their data, these archaeologists d o
described as a contillui~lgshift from the evolutionary to the his- not believe that it is necessary t o elaborate any specifically archaeo-
 A history of arcl~aeologicalthought Sovict archaeology

logical concepts that would distinguisl~arcl~aeologicalintefpreta- A more critical attitude towards traditional stadial theory has
tion from the general stream of historical analysis. dcvcloped in Palacolitl~icarchaeology, whcrc archaeologists have
This approach characterizes thc work of arcliactllogists who arc attempted to dctcrnlinc in a rigorous fisl~ionthe archacological
intcrestcci in studying not only $pccific culturcs but also the evolu- indices by which tlic various stages of social evolution can be
tion of society. The cvolutionarp approach, which V. M. Masson recognized. In 193s Boriskovsky mailltailled that matriarchal clan
calls 'sociological archacologp', cspcci,llly embraces rescarcli being society had rcplaccd thc pri~~icval hordc at the beginning o f the
dolie in the Caucasus and Central Asia, where the earliest agri- Uppcr Palaeolithic period. H e 'cited Vcnus figurines and what
c~~ltural economics and the first urban civilizations cvolvcd within appeared to be the rclnains of lar& long1iouscs as evidcncc of this.
the territory of the Soviet Union. Sociological archaeology seclcs to Since the latc rg~os,however, the social contrasts bctween thc
reconstruct the economic, social, and ideological structures of Mousterian and Upper Palacolithic periods havc become less appar-
ancient socictics in order to establish the laws as wcll as tlic par- ent. More recently G. P. Grjgor'cv has maintaincd that no major
ticular pl~cnoiiicn~land processes that bring bout change (Bulkin et difkrcnccs can be dctccted in comniunal orga~iiz~~tion from latc
al. 1982: 281). Systcniatic studies bcgun i1-r 1937 by S. P. Tolstoy in Acheulcan through Upper l'alacolithic times. H e concludes that the
Turklilcnia documented the dcvclop~i~cnt of ancient irrigation nuclear fanlily probably existed alrkady in the Lowcr Palaeolithic
systcms. Sincc then research in southern Turlunenia has demon- and that there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate the exist-
strated the devclopn~eiitof a food-producing cconon~yand later of ence of clan organization in Upper Palacolithic times. I t is now
Bronze-Age class societies in that region (Kohl 1981a). widely recognized by Soviet arcl~aeologiststhat existing stadial
Although major cfforts havc bccn made to reconstruct tool use, theory provides no visible transition markers for the Palaeolithic
tlic operatioii of irrigation spsterns, and the economy and social sequence and that archacological finds cannot be interpreted in
composition of urban centres, at lcast one American comllientator soc~oevolutio~~ary tcrms (Davis 1983:411-IS). This critique has dcvcl-
has noted the absence of detailed discussions of the relative import- oped as part of a general reappraisal of periodization schemes by
,uncc of population prcssurc, irrigation agriculture, scttlcmcnt pat- Sovict cthnolo~istsand historians (Gellncr 1980).
terns, warfare, economic cxcIi,ungcs, and religious ~ntcgr~ltion as Sincc the 1930s ,~rcl~.~eologistsinterested in cthnogcncsis havc
factors bringing about change (Lambcrg-ICarlovsky 1981: 388). H e sought to discover 'ethnic iadicatoks' and to use thcsc to identify
attributes this to the 'historical-descriptlvc' rather than 'analytical- prehistoric ethnic groups. Yct ethnographic r&.earch has weakened
explanatory' iliodcls that charactcrizc Soviet archaeological research. this position by demonstrating the complexity of the relationship
On tlie other hand, some Sovict arcliaeologists have suggested that between material culture, language, and group identity as revealed
the chief shortcoming of their evol~~tionary interpretations is that by a sclf-appointed namc (Dragadze 1980). This has Icd to the
evolutionary patterns, often derived in part from the writings of realizatio~lof the polyetlinicity o f certain archacological culturcs,
Wcstern arcliaeologists such as V. G. Childe, R. J. Braidwood, and including ones that have played a decisive role in interpreting the
R. McC. Adams, are imposed on the data, rather than derived from a origins of modcrli ethnic groups (Bulkin e t al. 1982: 280). V. P.
detailed study of the objective characteristics of the archaeological Liubin's contention that systematic variations in Mousterian
record (Bulltin et al. 1982:*281).TOat least some degree this approach assemblages in the Caucasus reflect ethnic divisions has been chal-
reflects a continuing belief that Marxist stadial theory already pro- lenged by I. I. ICorobkov and M. M . Mansurov's arguments that
vides a detailed explanation of cultural change rather than a desire to these differences reflect functional 'variations in site behaviour,
use archaeological data to refine and elaborate an understanding that giving rise to a debate that has much in common with that between
would take a c c o ~ nof
t the distinctive features of the archaeological Bordcs and Binford concerning the Mousterian of Wcstcril Europe.
record, such as the wcalc dichotomy bctwccn urban and rural society G. P. Grigor'cv maintains that, 'becausc thc 'prc-tribes' that existed
found in Ccntral Asia during tlie Bronze Age (IColil 1984: 131-2). prior to the Uppcr Palacolitliic wcrc closed systcms, stonc tools
 A h~storyof arch,~cologicalthought

provide adequate indices of tribal o r ethnic affiliations that extend as and relations of production rnrlicr than in the natural realm o r the
far back as late Achculcan times. A nurnbcr of Sovict Palacolitliic general adjustment of cha~igingsubsystems to one another. The
archacologists d o not agrcc wit11 Grigor'cv pr Liubin that formally sphere of 'social production' is viewed as central t o understanding
defined stone tool assemblages arc adequate indicators of cthnicity human rcsponscs even t o the most d r a ~ n a t ~changes
c in the natural
(Davis 1983: 419). cnvlronmcnt. Thus, even in the sphere of ecology, Marxists adopt a
A growing number of Sovict archaeologists appc31-to believe that liuman-ccntrcd rathcr than an ccosystcmic approach (Dolukl~anov
the progress of their discipline has bee11hampered by failure to pay 1979). It has bccn obscrved, however, that the analysis of empirical
aclcc1~1,ltc'~ttcntionto the pal-tic~~lar c11,lrnctcristics of ~rchacological d ' l t ~IS st111 the weakest point in the study of prcliistoric ecology as
cl.~t;l.N o one p~~blicly q u c s t i o ~ ~the
s st.ltus o f .~rc'hncolog!: ,IS ,I well as In ,~rchacologygcncr,~lly.l ' a ~ ~Dolukh~nov
l (1979: 200) has
historic~ldiscipline or the appl-oprintcncss of interpreting human pointed to anibigu~tiesin such clcmciltary concepts as attribute,
behaviour in tcrnis of Marxist theory. The question is how hunlan type, asscmblagc, and culture.
bclia\~iouris to be inferred from the material remains of the past, This concern has given rise t o a growing interest in thc formal
which by their vcl-)Inaturc d o 'not contain cvidencc fixccl by means analysis of archacological data. Rather than dismissing such con-
of language' (I<amcnctslty, Marsliak and Sher 1975, cited by Bulliin et cerns as cv~denceof bourgeois obscurantism, as was done in the
al. 1982: 282). These archaeologists bclicvc that treating archaco- 19ios, Inany Sovict archaeologists now regard these studies as essen-
logical findings h~~manistically, as ~ i ~ c r c anotlicr
ly form of historical tial for acli~evinga dctailed historical and social u~lderstandingof
or sociological ciat;~,f'lils to cic.11 with this p1-0blc111.A v,l~-ictyof arch,leolog~caldata. I'roponcnts of the descriptive approach havc
trcncis in current Sovict arch,lcology represent implicit or explicit ~lrgcdthe necessity for strict operational definitions and stan-
attempts t o ovcrcomc this shortcoming. d'lrdizcd proccdurcs for the analysis of archacological data. The
The niost con\~cntionalof these trends, within the context of importance of standardized analysis is particularly evident in situ-
Soviet archacolog~~, is the increasing attelltion being paid to the atlolls where vast c l n i ~of~data ~ t t~o be processed. As a result
~ ~havc
study of prehistoric tcch~~ology. The finclings of petrography, metal- of years of neglect, much research of t h ~ ssort remains t o be done.
lurgy, and other n.ltural science disciplines, as well as the use-wcnr W h ~ l cCentral Europeati archacologists can rcfcr t o specific types of
analysis pio~ieercdby Scmcnov, arc usecl to identify sources of raw fibul.~e,such as A l n ~ g r e67 ~ ~o r 236, w111ch have carefully defined
materials and to dctcrnlinc how artifacts were rnadc and ~ v h a they t formal cliaracter~sticsand temporal associations, Soviet archae-
were used for. Tlic advocates of these approaches, like their c o ~ ~ n t e r - olog~stsuse dcscript~veterms, such as 'fibula with a high catch-
parts in the West, arc fond ofcontrasting the scientific rigour ofthcir guard' (Bulltin et al. 1982: 288; Klcjll1982). 111the Soviet U ~ l i o nthere
work with the guesswork of traditional archacologists (Bulkin et al. IS st111 no widely accepted typology for Palaeolithic artifacts,

1982: 282-3). althougl~attempts arc being nladc t o develop such systems ( D a v ~ s

There is also growing interest in the Soviet Union, as in the West, 1983: 419-21). Some work is being done using attribute analyscs and
in ecological analyses of the rclations bctwccn prchistoric societies conlplcx ~ilathcn~at~cal-statistical procedures (Bulkin et al. 1982:
and their natural environments. For Sovict arch:~cologists the 282). Tllcsc proccd~~rcs arc making it possible to rccog~lizcartifacts
guiding principle ofithis approach, which structurcd earlier interests as ~nultivariatcphenomena rather than s~mplyas products of cultural
in prchistoric environments and subsistence patterns, is Marx and norms. Some typolog~calstudies raise issues of technological and
Engcls' observation that 'the history of humanity and the history of historical importance, such as tlic debate between L ~ u b i nand Gri-
naturc . . . are inseparable . . . While the human race exists, the gor'cv about whether the Levallois technique for manufacturing
history of humans and the history of naturc mutually i~lflue~icc one stone flakes represents a necessary i~ltermediatestep between disc-
another' (cited by Doluklianov 1979: zoo). Soviet archacologists oidal and pr~smaticblade cores (Davis 1983: 421). Opponents of this
carcfully locate the source of socioc~~ltural dcvelopn~e~it in the forces trend in archaeology accuse it of exaggerating the correlation
 A history of archaeological thought Sovlietarchaeology

bctwccn formal traits and tlicir historical significance and more dates. Leo Klcjn and other adhcrents of 'theorctical archaeology'
gcncrally of overestimating the potential of a typological approach arguc that, bccausc of thcir failurc to cvolve a morc dctailed chron-
to rcvcal liistorical information (Bulkin c t al. 1982: 282). ology, Sovict arcl~acologists are unable to correlate changcs
In the Sovict Union archaeological cultures arc gcncrally large- obscrvcd in material culturc in adjaccnt regions with sufficient
scnlc taxonomic units, \vIicre;~s i n (:cntraI 3ncI Wcstcr~i Europe precision and to rclatc tlicsc changcs to know~lhistorical cvcnts.
smaller divisions, corrcsponcli~igto indi\~idu;ll,soci3lly significunt Tlicy urge tliat, as a first step in their rcscarch, archacologists should
site clusters, arc bcing identified. This discrcpancy is partly arrange l~istoricallyrclatcd cultures as co-traditions and dctcrmine
accountccl for by the large areas tli:~thave to be stndicd in the Sovict thc influcnccs that contemporary culturcs cxcrtcd upon onc another.
Union cvcn in I-cl,ltionto tlic cxtcnsivc 31.cl1;1coIogic;III-CSOLII-ccs.
It is This approach w ~ aliens to Sovict arcl~acologyin its carly stagcs as a
also SCCII,lio\vc\~cr,lil<e tlic r~~di~iicnt;lry
c l e ~ ~ I o p ~of~ typology,
i~nt rcsult of its prcoccupation with unilincar evolution and autoch-
as reflecting a poorly dcvclopcd concern for the formal properties of thonous devclopmcnt. Once these external comparisons have beell
the arclincological rccord, that stems fi-om tlic ~ ~ > p ~ - o towards
acli ~nndc,it bccomcs possible to asscss the historicnl rolc that migra-
archaeology that was adopted in the carly 1930s. Today thcrc is a tions and diffusion havc played in shaping thc archacological rccord.
growing interest in defining arcliaeological c u l t ~ ~ r e(Bullcin
s et al. Only then can archaeologists proceed to illterpret the arcl~acological
1982: 289-90). Sovict archacologists follow ethnologists in distin- record in tcrms of the economies, social structures, and belief
guishing bctwccn 'historical-ctl~nogt-ap11ic communities', which systcms of ancicnt socictics and to explain the development of these
denote specific social groups, and ‘economic-culture types', which socictics in terms of laws, causal mcchanisms, and specific processcs
may cmbracc a number of ethnic groups at a similar level of develop- (Bulkin e t al. 1982).
11icntand occupying similar cnvironmcntal zones. Most Palaeolithic No Sovict arcl~acologistqucstions the validity of historical mater-
archacologists define thcir archacological cultures as being ialism as an explanation of human behaviour. His or her aim is to
economic-culture types, whilc more recent cultures tend to be provide information about human behaviour that will contribute to
rcgnrdcd as historical-cthnog1-apliic entities (Davis 1983: 415-16). tlic dcvclopmcnt of Marxist palacohistory (prchistory, protohistory,
Sincc the early 1970s efforts havc bccii made to for~nulatca uniform 'lnd ancicnt Illstory), l~istoricalsociology, and thc study of cultural
definition of the archaeological culturc for usc tl~roughoutthe evolution. IClcjn and some other Sovict archacologists emphasize
Sovict Union. In 1972V. M. Masson suggested a hierarchy of units - that matcrial culture constitutes a very different source of infor-
local variant, archacological culturc, and culturc group - which was mation about human behaviour than d o written records. They also
explicitly ~nodcllcdon the schemc that D. L.-Clarke had prcscntcd in argue tliat Marxism, as a study of human bchaviour, does not
his Ana(ytica1 Aychaeolog3~(1968). Masson also proposed that the provide a dctailcd guide for tra~lsformingarchacological data into
lcvcls of this hierarchy could be dcfincd in tcrliis of coincidcncc of information about human bchaviour. It is thcrcfore the duty of
artifact types. An even niorc elaborate system has bccn proposed by archacologists to claborate such methods. They also imply that
Leo I<lcjn (1982). AS yet, l~owever,thcrc is no general agreement many of the basic techniques uscd to a~lalyscarchaeological data are
about how archaeological cultures arc to be dcfincd, what is thcir rclativcly immunc to social and political bias. This explains why
prccisc sociological nrcaning, and how tlicy fit into a Marxist analy- Sovict archacologists, including many who rcject 'thcorctical archae-
sis of social cliangc. ology', havc been able s~~cccssfully to borrow numerous tcchniqucs
It is also objected that in the past, in order to escape thc sin of from Wcstcrn arcl~acolog~~ in rcccnt years. Thoroughly delineating
'artifactology', Soviet arcliacologists shunned not only artifact typo- spatial, temporal, and formal variations in the archaeological record
logy and defining arcl~acologicalcultures but also tlic construction and documenting the external factors, such as cnvironmcntal
of rclativc chronologies by mcuns of striation. Sincc the 1950s this changcs, intcrsocictal conipctitio~~, diffusion, and migration, that
tcndcncy 113s bccn rcinforccd by n growing rcIi;~iicc011 r;~cli~carbon account for some of thcsc variations, arc ncccssary prcrcquisites for
 A history of archaeological thought Sovict archacology

understanding how the forces and relations of production bring Soviet archacologists initially rejected a formalist, or Montclian,
about changc within the contest of specific socictics. methodology bccausc they saw it as standing in thc way of dcvelop-
ing a Marxist approach to intcrprcting archaeological data. It con-
Conclusions tinucd to bc rcjcctcd during thc idcologically rcgimcntcd Stalinist
period bccausc of its Wcstcrn and bourgcois connotations. Today
Sovict and Wcstcrn archacology havc devclopcd in ways that con- Sovict archacologists arc oncc again employing 'formalist'
trast'with cach othcr. Yet over time both appear to have come to approaches to examine the archaeological rccord and discover thc
address the same range of problems. In the 1930s Soviet archae- full range of rcgularitics that rcquirc cxplanation. Thc growing
ologists pionecrcd thc dcvclopmcnt of settlement archaeology and dcbatcs in Soviet archacology and the widening range of analytical
the societal cxplanation of archacological data. Later they spcar- techniques bcing cmploycd by Soviet arcl~acologistsarc indications,
headed thc modern rcvival of usc-wear analysis. A Marxist oricnta- not of thcir rcjcction of Marxism, but on the contrary of thcir
tion led them to bccomc the first archacologists to attcmpt to explain growing sell-co~llicicncc'1s Marxist histori~ns.l'hcrc is 110 basis for
changes in the archaeological rccord in tcrms of internal social Wcstcrn archacologists, including sclf-stylcd Marxists, who know
factors. Only in the 1950s did thcsc start to become frontier areas of littlc o r nothing about what is going on in Soviet archaeology, to
rcscarch in Wcstcrn archacology. Convcrscly, an increasing number dismiss it as a fossilized relic of the past from which there is littlc to
of Sovict archacologists arc currently advocating that more systcm- be leanled.
atic attention should be paid to the construction of cultural chrono-
logics and the study of diffusion and migration at a time whcn thcsc
topics have comc to seem routine, and eve11old-fashioned, to many
Western archacologists. At thc samc time both Sovict and Wcstcrn
arcliacologists share a growing interest in studying thcir data from
an ecological viewpoint.
Sovict archacologists began to take account of cxtcrnal factors
bringing about changc in social systems at thc samc time that
Western ones were becoming more interested in internal factors.
TIic political and economic influences that adjaccnt societies exert
up011 onc another can be analyscd easily in terms of a traditional
Marxist framework by enlarging the scale of thc unit bcing studicd
and thereby treating a nunibcr of interacting cult~~scs as pasts of a
world systcm. Yet ecological analyses and thc study of cultural
diffusion rcquirc the consideration of external factors that Marxist
archacologists havc hitherto avoided. This docs not constitutc,
howcvcr, a break with Marxist theory but rather an attcmpt to
claboratc it to take account of the complexity of the archaeological
rccord. By avoiding cxtcrnal dctcrminism and stressing thc socially
conditioned evolution ofthc relations of production as the principal
factor bringing about cultural evolution, Soviet archaeology
remains unique in tcrms of thc primary role that it assigns to human
action in csplaining history.
 F~~nction~llism
in Western archaeology

The development ofsocial anthropo1ooy

In the United ICingdom ctllnoldgists reacted against thc stcrilc
diffusionism of Elliot Smith and,his followers by adopting thc
structural-functionalist approach of Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-
CHAPTER 7
1942) and E. R. Radcliffc-Brown (1881-1955). Their first major
Functioilalism in Wester11 archaeology works, Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western PaeiJic and Radcliffc-
Brown's The Andaman Islanders, wcrc both published in 1922,
although Malinowski had done his unprcccdc~ltcdly dctailcd
Forms and types, that zs, products, have been rejarded as more real ficldwork in the Trobriand islands bctwccn 1915and 1918 and Rad-
and alive than the society which created them and whose needs cliffc-Brown had worked in thc Andaman Islands bctwcc~i1906 and
determined these manifstations of life.
1908. Both men argued that human Gchaviour can be u~ldcrstood
A. M TA L L G K L N , ' l h c ~iictllod~t p r c h ~ s t ~ .r~~~c c l l ~ c ~ l(o1p~) 3~ 7'p) ~155
best in relation to social systems%thatare conccivcd as made up of
functionally interdependent elcmkntb. Malinowski stressed that thc
Although the culture-historical approach has continued to serve institutions that composed social systcms wcrc groundcd in bio-
significant necds until the present, especially in countries where logical needs, a view not shared by Radcliffc-Brown, who sought
interc:sts in ethnic origins remain strollg or whcre detailed cultural only to define the social role playcd by institutions. Thcir common
chroriologics have not yet been worked out (Schrirc et al. 1986), its approach camc to bc called social anthropology to distinguish it
inadcquacics for understanding how prehistoric culturcs functiolled from ethnology, which was associatcd with unili~lcarevolutionism
and how they changed soon became evident to an increasillg number and diffusionism.
of Western archaeologists, just as they had become evident to British social anthropology was grounded on the carlicr work of
archacologists in the Soviet Union. While Childe (193ja, 194oa) the French sociologist Emilc Durlzhcim (1S58-1917). Like Karl Marx,
conti~lucdto producc dctailcd regional culturc-historical syntheses, Durlzhcin~viewed socictics as systems made up of intcrdcpcndcnt
long before these works were published he began to doubt that parts. Coming from a family of mqdcst mcans whose status was
much could be learned about ethnicity from archaeological data threatened by the rapid social and economic changcs taking place in
alone or that ethnicity was a concept that could be central to the late nineteenth-century France, he rcgarded these changcs as
study of prehistory (Childe 1930: 240-7). H e dismissed the culture- encouraging rapacity and an excess of individualism which thrcat-
histo;rical approach as an archaeological substitute for old-fashioned cned the equilibrium of society. As a Jew, and hence a mcmbcr of a
.. .
polit]cal history in which cultures replaced statesmen and migra- threatened minority group, he did not seek to promote social
tions replaced battles (Childc 1958b: 70; scc also MacWhite 1956). In cohesion by emphasizing racial or ethnic unity. Instead he assumed
due (:ourse other Western European and American archacologists rhat only stable socictics wcrc healthy and vigorous oncs. Like Hcnri
L d l l l L to share this view and adopted a new approach to the study of
-,.-a
dc Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and Augustc Co~lltc(1798-1857)~ he
prehistory which was. based upon a systemic understanding of advocated sociology as a practical means to countcract what he saw
human behaviour. This approach was stimulated by the ccological as social disintegration in a capitalist society. At the same time he
tradiltion of Scandinavian archaeology, the example of Soviet avoided a critique of the economic basis of such societies by viewing
archa~eology,and the rejection of diffusioilism by Western European social relations as causal in their own right and therefore capable of
ethnc being regulated without significant reference to the economy (Wolf
1982: 9 ) . While Marx had elaborated theories of internal conflict to
explain social change, Durkhcim dirccrcd his attention towards
 A history of archaeological thought Functionalism in Western archaeology

factors that promoted social stability. His interprctations were elab- significance apart from the in&stigation of this morphological
orated in a series of major publications: De la division du travail social variation.
(1893),Les Ri~Lesde la mbthode sokzologague (1895),Le Suicide (1897), Whilc this rejettion of an interest in historical processes might
and Les Fovnzes blbmentaires de la vie religieuse (1912). seem to have been an unpromising basis for a relationship between
Durkhcirn argucd that thc~objcctivcof social science studies was social anthropology and archaeology, social anthropology and
to understand soci'll rcl,ltions and that the origin of all social Durkhcimian sociology cncouragcd an intercst among archac-
prdccsscs should be sought in the internal constitut~onof human ologists in how prehistoric cultures had functioned as systems. This
groups. Individual aspects of culture, whcthcr they wcrc invcntcd intercst increascd as archaeologists became disillusioned with thc
intern.lll!~ or catcrnally, \\ crc s.~icito ,~ccluirct h c ~ rsignlfic.lncc 111 limitations of a diffusionist or culture-historical approach. With its
terms of their functio~lalrelationship to specific social systems. He conservative views of human behaviour, social anthropology pro-
rejected the culture-historical view that social systems and the cul- vided a respectable alternative toiMarxism for archaeologists who
tural norms that wcrc associatcd with them could bc understood as a were primarily intcrcsted in how socictics 'worked rathcr
mechanical collectio~lof traits that diffusion had brought together how change came about. Yet it i's clear that a functional
largely as a result of the operation of chance. Instead he argucd that archaeological data had begun in archaeology prior to the develop-
societies constituted integrated systems, whose institutions were ment of social anthropology. In its early stages this interest had
interrelated like the parts of a 1iving.organism.Thc science of society taken the form of a concern with relations between pre historic
I
was thus conceptualized as a comparative study of social morpholo- cultures and their environments.
gics, similar in its objectives to comparative anatomy.
Durkhcim also maintained that 110changc could occur in one part Environmentalfinctwnalism
of a social system without bringing about varying degrees of change
in other parts. Yet he believed that the normal state of society was As early as the 1840s Worsaae had argued that archaeological finds
one of social solidarity and that rapid changes led to a feeling of had to be studied in relationship to their palaeoenvironmental
anomic or alienation. Thus he agrccd with the diffusionists that settings and had cooperated with biologists and geologists to d o
change was contrary to human nature. This suggcsts that in his this. Thus began a tradition that has continued to the present in
interprctations of change he aligned himself w i ~ h the anti- Scandinavian archaeology. Archaeologists studied the retreat of
cvolutionists of the late nineteenth century. Nevertheless he was glaciers and the combined results,of changing sea levels and isostatic
interested to some degree in problems of social evolution, which he rebound in altering the distributioils of land surfaces, lakes, and
studied using ethnographic data. H e argued that as societies became oceans as a background for determining the impact that these
more complex they ccased to be held together by mechanical soli- changes had on the prehistoric,populations of Scandinavia. They
darity, or shared beliefs, and were increasingly united by organic also investigated changes in climate and in the reciprocal relations
solidarity, resulting from economic interdcpcndcncc. This new form between flora, fauna, and human land use. Beginning in 190s the
of cohesioll freed individuals from the tyranny of custom and geologist Gerard de Geer (1858-1943) used successions of overlap-
tradition. Ma1inowski"and to a still greater cxtcnt Radcliffe-Brown ping annually deposited varves to date the retreating ice front in
rejected all evolutionary and historical interpretations of ethno- Sweden beginning 12,000 years dgo. This varve sequence was tied in
graphic data as speculative and argued that the comparative study with 3 0 metres of annual silt deposits on the bed of former Lake
of the structure and functio~li~lg of societies currently available Raganda, which had been drained in 1796. Another Swede, E.J.
for dctailcd cxaminatio~l was sufficient to produce generalizations Lennart von Post (1884-I~S?),utilized Gustav Lagerheim's observa-
that would explain the morphological variation among all societies. tion that pollen grains could be preserved for thousands of years to
For Radcliffe-Brown in particular, thc study of changc had no elaborate Steenstrup's pioneering studies of post-glacial floral
 A history of archacological thought Functiollalislll in Western archaeology

changes. By 1916he had produced graphs that purported to show the In Origines Celticae the Oxford University historian Edwin Guest
pcrccntagcs of various trccs at succcssivc pcriods of Scandinavian (1800-80) urgcd that thc history of England had to bc understood
prchistory. The old scqucncc of birch, pine, oak, and bcech forcst against the background of British geography (1883). Shortly aftcr,
was vindicated but, bccausc pollcn floats through the air and is the Oxford geographcr H. J. Mackinder (1861-1947) argucd that the
prcscrvcd clscwhcre than in bogs, it was now possible to examine geographical location of nations in relation to each othcr played a
plant.communitics ovcr larger areas and to provide evidence of tree major role in shaping their political and economic history. In 1912
cutting and thc introductio~lof domcstic plants. It also bccamc F.J. Havcrficld (1860-1919) demonstrated a correlation bctwccn thc
possiblc to tracc fluctuations in diffcrcnt plant spccics ovcr much extcnt of Roman scttlcmcnt in Britain and particular typcs of gco-
srnallcr intervals of timc than had bccn done prcviously. Forcst graphical terrain, whilc John Myres was inspircd by Gucst and
contour lincs wcrc worked out showing the northern limits of Mackindcr to cxpound the valuc of a gcographical approach to
various trccs at diffcrcnt pcriods and these wcrc correlated with Dc archaeology. Beginning in 1912, O.G.S. Crawford (1886-1957), who
Gccr's gcochronology of glacial margins to achicvc a high dcgrcc of had studicd at Oxford and was to work for many ycars for thc
calendrical precision (Bibby 1956: 183-94). Pollen analysis was intro- Ordnance Survey, concentrated on studying prehistory in rclatioll
duced into England and applicd to archaeological problems by the to the geographical environment. Among his many contributions,
biologist Harry Godwin (1933). he encouraged the use of aerial photography to detect ancient
I11 1898 thc gcologist Robert Gradmann noted a close correlation ditches, banks, and crop marks that were not visible from thc
bctwccn wind-dcpositcd locss soils and carly Ncolithic scttlemcnt in ground. Thc importance of aerial r c c o n ~ ~ a i s s a for
~ ~ carchacological
e
Central Europc and concluded that, bccausc carly farmcrs wcrc rcscarch had first becn rccognized during military operations in thc
incapable of elcaring forcsts, thc first agricultural scttlcmcnts had course of World War I (Crawford 1923; Crawford and ICcillcr 1928).
bccn in arcas that wcrc ~laturallycithcr devoid of trccs or lightly The mapping of artifact distributions led to detailed studics of
forcstcd (Gradmann 1906).Thc rclatio~lshipbctwccn locss soils and specific periods, with a spccial emphasis on reconstructing original
Ncolithic s c t t l c ~ ~ ~ continued
cnt to be examined by Alfred Schliz pnttcrns of vcgctation. W. G. Clark, J. 1.' Willial~~s-Frccm,~~~,
(1906),Ernst Wahlc (1915), and Max I-Icllmicli (192.3)and inspired Herbert FICLI~C, s c , Cyril Fox undertook
W. E. W l ~ i t c I ~ o ~ ~and
si~llilarstudics of the correlations betwcen soil typcs and archaco- studics of thc relationship bctwccn prehistoric scttlcmcnt and
logical culturcs in England (Daniel 1950: 304-5). It was not until thc ecology in various parts of Britain (Daniel 1950: 303-6). This work,
1940s that pollcn analysis made it clear that locss and othcr light soils which culminated in Fox's (1882-1967) The Archaeology ofthe Cam-
had been forcstcd when they wcrc first settled by Neolithic farmers bridge Region (1923), showed that carly agricultural settlement had
and that their original attraction had not bccn lack oftrccs but rather becn on light, pcrmcablc soils, whcrcas in thc Iron Agc and cven
the prcscncc of soil that was easy to till (G. Clark 1974: 4 3 ) . more in Anglo-Saxon times it had shifted to heavier soils, that wcrc
In the account of his excavations at the stratified site of Anau in harder to work but morc drought resistant and productive. In The
Russian Turkcstan in 1904, the American gcologist and archac- Personality of Britain Fox (1932) con~bincd thc ccological-
ologist Raphael Pumpclly (1837-1923) proposed the desiccation or distributional approach of Gradmann and Crawford with the posi-
oasis thcory of the origins of food-production (1908, 1:65-6). H c tional geography of Macltindcr to producc somc major gcncrali-
argucd that, as thc Near East became much drier following the last zations about the relationship bctwecn landscapes and culturc-
Icc Agc, hunter-gathcrcrs wcrc compcllcd to gather around surviv- history. His principal contribution was a distinction bctwccn thc
ing sources of water and to 'conquer ncw means of support' by lowlands of southeastern England, which he saw as cxposcd to
domcsticati~lgwild animals and grasscs. This theory was to bccome migrations and diffusion of culture from continental Europe, and
cxtrcmcly popular among Old-World archaeologists in succeeding the highland arcas of wcstcrn and northern Britain, which were I
decades. morc sheltcred from such disruptions and hcncc more sclcctivc in
 A history of archaeological thought ~unction~lism
in Western archaeology

adopting 11cw items of culturc. This approach has sincc been applied bccn unless archacologists could detcrminc what factors within
to othcr arcas (Daniel r963b; Trigger 1969). prchistoric culturcs favoured thc adoption of new idcas and influ-
As carly as 191s Elliot Smith had championed the idca that the cnccd the roles that these idcas would play. Childc sought to
invention of agriculturc, which he bclicvcd had occurrcd as a rcsult cmulatc the work of cconomic historians by searching for broad
of' fortt~itouscirct~nistanccsin Egypt, was thc primary criterion of cconomic trends in prchistorp, in tcnns ofwhich specific inst.~nccsof'
rlic Ncolithic and marked onc of the crucial turning-points in human diffus~onmight be explained. I-Ic prcscntcd thc r c s ~ ~ l t01.s this
history. 130th this idca and Pumpclly's oasis hypothesis wcrc popu- rcscarch in thrcc books: The Most Ancient East (1928), T ~ JHrurrcr
C
larized by Harold Pcakc (1867-19+6) and H. J. Flcurc (1877-1969) in A8e (rgjo), and Neil~Light on theMostAncient East (1934).Economic
tlic third volume of thcir T / JCorridors
~ r#?'imc (r927), a widely rcad intcrprctations of prehistoric data also played .I signilic.int role i l l
multi-volun-rc series dealing with prehistory. About the same tinlc ThcDanubc in Prehistory (1929), which was written prior to 'f'/~cMo.ff
W. J. Pcrry (1924: 29-32) popularized the claim of the agronomist Ancient East.
T. Chcrry that agriculture had bccn invcntcd in Egypt whcn pcoplc Whilc Childc's concern with cco~lomicfactors has been inter-
bcgan to incrcasc the amount of nlillct and barlcy that grcw spon- preted as an carly rcflcction of his commitmcllt to Marxism, Ilc dict
taneously on thc flood plain by irrigating dry land adjacent to wild not claim to bc a Marxist at this time and nothing that is spccilically
stands and scattering barley secds in the wct mud lcft behind at thc Marxist is evident in his work of this period. British archaeologists
end of the annual flood. Thcsc contributions raised thc discussion of such as Peakc and Flcurc had alrcady been offcring cconomic intcr-
the origins of agriculturc to a new lcvcl of thcorctical importancc. prctations of thc archaeological rccord and Childc uscd many of
Whilc not constituting analyses of whole cultures, growing intcr- thcir idcas to construct a morc comprchcnsivc modcl of cconomic
cst in the relatioriship bctwccn human societies and thcir cnviron- dcvclopmcnt. It is .11so &dent that his thinking evolved only slowly
mental settings c~icouragcda fu~lctionalvicw of one major aspect of from a primary intcrcst in subsistcncc pattcrns to a vicw that
human bchaviour. This stimulated thc analysis of palacocnviron- cmphasizcd aspccts of thc CCOIIOIII~ that wcrc not primarily rclatcd
nlcnts and of thc ecological adaptation of cultures to thcsc cnviron- to subsistcncc pattcrns. Thc importa~lccthat hc ascribed to vicwing
mcnts. It was generally assumcd that the natural environment set prchistoric cultures as pattcrns of social relations rcflccts a know-
limits to the sorts of adaptations that wcrc possible ratl~crthan lcdgc of Durltl~cimiansociology that he acquircd primarily as a
dctcrmincd thc spccific naturc of the rcsponsc, which was also rcsult of translating into English From Tribe to Empire by Alcxandre
i~lfluenccdby historical traditions and u~~prcdictablchuman choiccs. Morct and Gcorgcs Davy (1926). Davy was a student of Durkheim
This vicw accordcd with thc human geography of thc period which who had collaborated with Morct, an Egyptologist, to produce a
was dominated by thc cnvironmcntal possibilist approach of the Durkhcimian intcrpretation of the dcvclopmc~ltof ancient Egyptian
Frcnch gcographcr Paul Vidal dc La Blachc (1845-1918). Possibilism civilization.
and diffusionism both stressed indeterminacy as the dominant TheMostAncient East was writren as a textbook and a companion
fcaturc of cultural changc. volumc to The Dawn ofEuropean Civilization. I t sought to tracc thc
orlglns of the technological innovations that h;ld latcr sprc,ld to
Europc. Childe followcd Smith and Flcurc in stressing thc dcvelop-
Economic approaches mcnt of agriculturc as a crucial turniilg-point in human history. H c
As Childc turncd away from thc culture-historical approach, which also agrced with Pumpclly that desiccation in the Ncar East at thc
he came to rcgard as an intellectual dead cnd, hc did not deny the end of thc last Icc Agc had causcd pcoplc to domcsticatc plants and
importance of diffusion as a forcc bringing about cultural change. animals in order to fccd thc highcr dcnsitics of population that
H e did, howcvcr, rcalizc that diffusion was of no morc valuc for gathcrcd around surviving sourccs of watcr. In kccping with the
explaining such changes thn~iunilinc:~r cvolutionar)~conccpts had cnvironmcntal possibilism that currently was fasl~ionablcin non-
 A history of archaeological thought Functionalism in Wester11arcl~aeology

Marxist geography, he stressed that individual hunter-gatherer to ensure the regular dclivcry of supplies of copper and tin. While he
bands could have perished or moved north or south into areas where viewed bronze working as an important prerequisite for the devel-
big game survived rather than developing agriculture. Only three opment of civilization in thc Ncar East, 11e argucd that in Europe it
regions in the Ncar East had enough fertile soil to support the was mainly used to supply wcapons to tribal societies, as an increas-
dcvclopma~t of a major early civilization: the Nile, Tigris- ing population and spreading forests (rcsulting from climatic
Euphrates, and Indus Valleys. In each of these areas s ~ i r p l wealtll
~~s c11,lngcs) led to greater cornpetition for agricultural land.
increased even fistcr than pop~~lation, resulting in the concentration In New Lhht o n the Most Ancient East, whic11 was written after a
of political power, the rise of city life, and the progress of the visit to major archacological excavations in Iraq and the Indus
industrial arts. Yet, whilc these civilizations cvolvcd from a common Valley, Childe synthcsizcd and claboratcd the arguments advanced
Neolithic base and maintained contact with each other, Meso- in his two previous books. Hc,maintained that two revolutions had
potamia developed as a series of city states while Egypt quickly was occurred in prehistoric times in the Near East that were equivalent
united as a divine monarchy. Technological knowledge spread fro111 in their inlportancc to the Industrial Kcvolution. These were the
these early civilizations to outlying regions, such as Europe, as a transition from food-collecting to food-producing and from self-
result of the trading of surplus food and manufactured goods for raw sufficient food-producing villages to urban societies. H e believed
materials, especially copper and tin. While Childe based this model that each of these revolutions had resulted in a more productive
on relations between modern industrial and Third-World countries, technology and a massive increasc in population. The population
11c argued that it was necessary to give 'trade' a precise definition increase was, however, assumed rather than demonstrated. H e also
whenever the term was used by specifying the particular socio- overestimated the extent to which the inhabitants of ancient Near
logical, economic, and environmental conditions that shaped such Eastern cities engaged in industry, trade, and commerce rather than
activities in a spccific area and at a given point in time (Childe 1928: agricultural activities. Migrations of surplus population, the
221). exchange of manufactured goods for raw materials, and surplus
In The Bwnze Aje Childc studied the origins and spread of craftsmen seeking employment spread the tcchnologics produced by
metallurgy, as documented in the arcl~aeologicalrecord. H e con- these rcvolutio~~s to Europc. The result was the dcvclopmcnt in
sldcred the possibility that metallurgy might have been ~nvcnted Europe of Neolithic and Bronze Age socictics that wcrc structurally
independently in Egypt, the Near East, Hungary, and Spain, but, different from those that had evolved in the Ncar East. I11 duc coursc
like most diffusionists, concluded that it was such a complex process conspicuous consun~ptionby the upper classes and the military
that it likely was invented only once in human history. H e also conflicts of the Near Eastern civilizations began to waste more
interpreted spccific similarities in the processes used to work bronze goods than they produced, while the growth of secondary civili-
and in the shapes of the earliest mctal artifacts in Europe and the zations reduced the amount of raw materials that was reaching thcm.
Near East as proofs of a single origin. Childc was convinced, almost As a result of both processes, economic progress eventually ground
certainly wrongly, on the basis of Homeric texts that metal casting to a halt in the Near East. At the same time European societies
required full time, although initially itinerant, specialists, who, continued to progress until they wcre able to outstrip and dominate
along with p r o s p ~ c t ~and
r s miners, became the first human beings those of the Ncar East. With this economic explanation Childc was
to function independently of tribal affiliations. The adoption of a able to cxorcizc the ethnic stereotypes and semi-racist theorics that
metal tool technology thcrcfore was thought to have produced a he had invoked to explain the ulti~natcdominance of European
double loss of Neolithic self-suffic~ency,since it required communi- cultures in The Arynrzs.
ties to bcconle dependent on craftsmen who were often unrelated to Childe's interest in economic, development in prehistoric times
then1 as well as on the development of extensive trade routes that drew its inspiration from trends that were active in the European,
were not interrupted b y periodic outbreaks of trib.11 warf,lrc in order and more specifically the British, archaeology of that period. Yet he
 A history of archaeological thought Functionalisnl iA Wcstern archacology

advanccd bcyond the interpretations of Elliot Smith, Pcakc, and was imprcsscd by the lavish government support for archacology,
Flcurc in the consistcncy with which hc applicd an cconomic the vast scale on which archaeological rcscarch was being con-
approach to the study of prchistory and in the scope of his formula- ducted, and the use being made of archacological finds for public
tions. Also, instcad of interpreting cultural change as the result of education. Abovc all he was fascinated by the cfforts of Sovict
tcchnological innovation, hc saw broader cconomic and political archacologists to explain prehistory in terms of proccsscs intcrnal to
contcxts influencing thc uscs that wcrc made of i ~ ~ n o v a t i oThis
~~s. socictics and on explicitly matcrialist priiiciplcs. Thcir work rcvcalcd
allowcd him to explain how thc samc tcchnological innovations the narrowness of his own cconomic intcrprctations, which hc
could producc very diffcrcnt typcs of socictics in Europe and the henceforth contrasted unfavourably with, the Marxist vicw that thc
Ncar East. forces and relations of production play a major role in dctcrmining
A multilinear evolutionary perspcctivc was inherent in such an the general character of socictics.
cconomic approach. Yct Childe was not primarily conccr~ledwith 0; the basis of his own experience, Childc did not accept the
cultural cvolution at this timc. H c stated categorically
- that 'archac- entire programme of Sovict archaeology. H c rcfuscd to adopt its
ology's rcvclations . . . disclose not abstract evolution but the inter- detailed scheme of socioeconomic formations or any othcr unilincar
action of multiplc concrctc groups and the blcnding of contri- formulation of social cvolution. Latcr he was to criticize thc Sovict
butions from far-sundcrcd rcgions' (Childc 1928: 11). Liltc other approach for compelling archaeologists to assumc in advance to bc
Europcan archacologists hc acccptcd that increasingly complex true what it was their d u b to prove was so (Childc 1951: 28-9).
tcchnologics had dcvcloped in thc Near East and latcr in Europc. Moreover, he did not sec how archacologists might hopc to infer
Yet hc rcgardcd human beings as inherently u~linvcntivcand rclicd many of thc spccific dctails of social organization that could rclatc
hcavily on diffusion and migration to cxplain cultural change. this formulation to their work.
Rcadcrs wcrc told at thc cnd of New Light on the Most Ancient Emt H e also rchscd to stop viewing diffusion as a major factor
that thc principal aim of the book was to justify 'thc gencral doctrine promoting cultural dcvclopment. For Childc diffusion was a
of cultural diffusion' (Childc 1934: 301). Nor was his materialist conccpt that had moral rclcvancc. Hitlcr's scizurc of powcr in
pcrspcctivc ~oniplctc: at this time. Whilc hc interpreted somc Gcrniany in 1933 had madc him morc kccnly awarc of how dis-
cconomic ch,l~igc.IS .I response to environmental challcngcs, n i ~ ~ c h astrously archacology and racist political movcmcnts had bccomc
innovatio~iwas attributed in a Montclian fashion to thc spontaneous intcrtwincd in that country. Long bchrc, hc had invokcd diffusion
cxcrcise of human intclligcncc to achicvc grcatcr control over nature as an antidote to the nationalist theorics of Kossinna and othcr
and ~nakchuman life casicr and morc sccurc. Nevertheless, by Gcrman archaeologists. Now, like Boasian anthropologists in thc
examining thc way in which cconomic activities brought about United Statcs, hc argued that increasingly rapid cultural progrcss
changcs within culturcs, he had hclpcd to narrow the gap bctwccn had rcsultcd from the brcakdown of isolation among ncighbouring
static rcconstructions of prchistoric culturcs and the appeal to groups and the pooling on an ever increasing scale of the innova-
cxtcriial factors to cxplain changc that had characterized his carlicr tions of all branchcs of the human family (Childe 1933a,b). Bccausc
culture-historial studics. of this hc was distrcsscd to discovcr that Sovict archacologists,
undcr the influence of Nikolay Marr, had rejected this concept.
Childe and Soviet archaeoloay Whilc agreeing that as far as possible archacologists should attempt
to explain changcs in terms of devclopmcnts within culturcs and
In 1935 Childc visited thc Sovict Union for thc first timc. Whilc he altcrations in thc natural cnvironmcnt, he asscrtcd that it 'cannot bc
was tlicrc hc mct Russian archacologists, toured museums, and unMarxianYto invoke diffusion to account for thc spread of dom-
gathcrcd information about rcccnt archacological discoveries relat- estic plants and animals and by extension many othcr classcs of idcas
ing to thc prchistorp of Eastcrn Europc (S. Grccn 1981: 76-7). H e (Childe 1946a: 24).
 A history of archaeological thought Functionalism in Western archaeology

H e also refused to abandon the major emphasis he had placed on and conservative tendencies. The contradictions between these ten-
typology, which he saw as essential for constructing regional chron- dencies provided the energy that brought about irrcvcrsiblc social
ologics and tracing cultural influcnccs between one region and changc.
anothcr. H c had littlc respect for thc sloppy manner in which Sovict H c did not cmbracc unilincar evolutionism in thcse studies any
archacologists handled thcsc mattcrs. 111 1957 hc dcscribcd thcir morc than hc had done prcviously or was to d o later. Yct hc was
prchistoric chronologies %ISa series of hopelessly vague guesses that crroncously accuscd of doing so by Julia11 Stcward (1953; 1955: rz),
did h o t cvcn attract, still less convince' him (Danicl 1958: 66). His who influenced many Amcrican anthropologists to rcgard Childe as
cxpericncc as a prchistoric archaeologist led him to incorporate what a typical ninctccnth-century evolutionist. In Man Makes Himselfand
hc bciicvcd wcre the i ~ ~ l p o r t ainnovations
~lt of Sovict urchacology What Happened in Histoy, by conccntrating on thc dcvclopmcnt of
into his own work and t o reject what lie saw as its shortcomings. I11 culturcs in thc Near East, Childc prcscnts a morc unilincar vicw of
the post-Stalin era Sovict archaeologists have confirmed the wisdom cultural changc than in his works where developme~ltsin Europe
of his choices by working to modify precisely those features of early and the Near East are examined alongside onc another. Nevertheless
Sovict archaeology that Childc found objcctionablc. , cvcn in thcsc studies he attributed thc diffcrcnccs bctwccn thc city
Following his visit to thc Sovict Union Childc sought to replace statcs that dcvclopcd in Mesopotamia and thc divine monarchy that
his carlier emphasis on economic factors as the principal cause of united Old Kingdom Egypt to divergent social and political tech-
social changc with analyscs that wcrc morc in accord with Marxist niques for controlling agricultural surpluses that had been created in
principles. H e also paid attention for the first time to cultural the course of the transformation of tribal societies into class soci-
cvolution, which was a topic of theoretical interest that had eties. Writing under the shadow of expanding Nazi power and
rcmained important in Marxist scholarship but which had not been World War 11, he also rejected the naive faith in the inevitability of
significant in his own writings or in crcative Western European progress that characterized many vulgarized versions of Marxism as
archaeology since thc 1880s. In the course of a decade he published well as thc unilincar cultural evolutionism of the nineteenth century.
tl~recbooks dealing with cultural evolution: Man Makes Himself Yet his pessimism led him to make a significant contribution to
(1936), What Happened in Histovy (1942a), and Progress inArchaeology Marxist studies of change by providing a detailed analysis of the
(1944a), as well as a case study Scotland Befive the Scots (1946a).The social conditions that impcdc progress.
first two wcrc written for the general public as well as for pro- Childe argued that at any level of social de\iclopment, but
fcssional arcl~aeologistsand continue to be read widely. especially in the early civilizations, entrenched political hierarchies
In Man Makes Himself Childe intcrpretcd the archaeological and inflexible systems of religious beliefs can slow or even halt social
record as evidencc of a directional process whereby the scientific and economic change. H e distinguished between progressive soci-
knowledge accumulatcd by human beings gave progrcssive societies eties, where relations of production favour an expansion of pro-
cvcr greater control over nature and led to the formation of new and ductive forces and there is a harmonious relationship among the
morc complex sociopolitical systems. Hc later rcgardcd thcsc views mcans of producrion, social institutions, and the dominant systcm
as not being significantly diffcrcnt from thc idealist Montclian of bclicfs, and conscrvativc oncs, in which social and political factors
conception of cultural change (Childc 19~8b:72). In WhatHappened block changc. The ruling classcs, according to Childe, sought to
in History he attempted in a morc explicitly Marxist fashion to prevcnt technological changes that might threaten their control of
forrnulatc explanations of cultural change that wcre focused not on society. They did this by monopolizing surplus wealth, exercising
techilological knowledge as a prime mover but on social, political, bureaucratic control over craftsmen, inhibiting the pursuit of tech-
and economic institutions and the role they played in bringing it nical lu~owledgc,and patronizilig magic and superstition on a lavish
about. In accordance with the principles of dialectical materialism, scale, as well as by the exercise of force. They only succeeded,
hc viewed every society as cont'lining witli~nirsclf both progrcssivc howcvcr, at thc cost of making it morc difficuilt for thcir, own
 A history of archaeological thought Functionalism in Western archaeology
I
societies to compete-with more progressive neighbouring ones. This modern hunter-gatherer socicties were probably unlike the Palaeo-
explanation of thc evcntual backwardness of Ncar Eastern civili- lithic oncs from which morc complcx societies had cvolvcd. Thc
zations by comparison with those of Europc rcplaccd his own morc same dichotomy held at thc lcvcl of tribal cultivators. Childc thus
narrowly cconomic explanation in New L&ht on the Most Ancient proposcd two gcneral iineq of cultural evolution: a progrcssivc one,
East. Cllilde now ascribcd important roles in shaping history to both charactcrizcd by continuous tcchnological dcvelopment combined
the economic base and the supcrstructurc of socictics. Yet he was with a flexible social organization and ideology, and a conservative
carcful t o specify that where the supcrstructurc is dominant, its one, characterized by static technology and the elaboration of con-
influcncc can only bc ncgativc. Soviet anthropologists have since voluted social structures and ideologies (1936: 46). While based on
maintained that this vicw accords with orthodox Marxism (Petrova- Marxist idcas, this model borc little relationship to gcncrally held
Avcrkicva 1980: 24). Marxist evolutionary concepts. His interpretation of cultural dcvcl-
This position provides a definitive answer to those British Marx- oprncnt, like his changing efforts to explain the eventual superiority
ists, such as Gcorge Thomson (r949), who accuscd him of ignoring of Europcan culture, looks curiously like an attcmpt to reformulate
class conflict in thc carly civilizatio~~s. Childc argued that social Lubbock's vicw of human evolution in non-racist terms.
evolution occurrcd slowly, if at ail, in thosc early civilizations In Scotland Before the ScotslChildcattcmptcd to apply a Sovict-stylc
precisely bccause such struggles werc blunted by highly effective approach to the interpretatioq of a specific corpus of Western
political and religious techniques of social control. H e did not archaeological data. H e sought to usel information concerning sub-
ignore the concept of class struggle in the early civilizations or reject sistence patterns, houses, handicrafts, trade, and burial customs to
it becausc he thought it i~lapplicablcfor studies based on archaeo- infc? changing modes of production and the accompanying develop-
logical data. O n the contrary, he did not find it useful for explaining ment of larger and more unequal groups and new ideologies.
ancient Near Eastern civilizations, which he believed remained static Inspired by Kruglov and Psdgayetsky's explanation of the evolution
for long periods. In his analyses of classical civilizations and in of Bronze Age society in southern Russia, he saw Scotland dcvelop-
p a r t i c ~ ~ of
l ~ ~thc
r Rolnan En~pirc,he placed grcatcr C I I I P ~ ~ S on
~S ing from .I nctwork ofcga1it.u-i.ln tribal socictics bascd o n communal
strugglcs among groups within socictics to control wealth and property into a hierarchical statc socicty. Thc kcy factor bringing
power and on the shifting patterns of polltical control. His differing about change was the emergence of private property, which he
treatment of ancient Near Eastern and classical civilizations may believed was mirrored in the replacement of communal tombs by
have been based on Marx's own distinction between Oriental and individual ones expressing status 'differences. Childe concluded that
Slave societies. Yct it seems more likely that he was unaware of this this approach produced 'a picture of Scotland's dcvclopment which
distinction, since orthodox Marxists did not discuss or write about was far more realistic and far mQre historical' than he had achieved
the concept of Oriental Society during the Stalin period (Bailey and by means of migrationist hyporheses in his early studies of Scottish
Llobera 1981; Dunn 1982). In either case, his analysis was filling a prehistory (1958b: 73). Yet he refused categorically to subscribe to
major gap in current Marxist theory. the dogmatic scheme of social evolution used by Soviet archae-
Despite his growing interest in evolutionary processes he ologists or to rule out diffusion and migration as significant factors
remained as sceptical as vOere most culture-historical archaeologists bringing about social and cultural change.
about the value of ethnographic analogies, exccpt where historical
continuities were apparent. He regardcd modern hunter-gatherer Cbilde us a Marxist arcbaeologst
socictics as ones that had failed to develop technologically. H e
suspected that instead they had elaborated complex forms of social After World War I1 Childe continued to refine and develop a
organization and 'painful' and 'incoherent' rituals that had blocked Marxist understanding of social change. As a result of growing
further tcchnological development. Hence in crucial respects disillusionment with the quality of archaeological research then

259
 A history of arcl~acologicalthought Functionalism in Western archaeology

bcing done in the Sovict Union, he turned away from Sovict patterns, fortuitous contacts with othcr cultures, and interaction
arcliacology as a major source of crcativc inspiration and began to between nciglibouring socictics that it canllot bc predicted in dctail.
investigate the philosophical basis of Marxism itself. In thc last Childc alrcady had obscrvcd that thc prccisc form of the British
dccadc of liis lifc lie worked hard to acquire 3 morc profound and constitution in the ninctcentli century could ncvcr be dcduccd from
less dogmatic understanding of Marxism as an atialptical tool and to the capitalist mode of production alone (Childc 1936: 9 8 ) . This
apply it to the study of arcl~acologicaldata. As part of this effort he a~ialysisimplicd that thcrc was no ,easy way to prcdict thc prccisc
rc;id widclp i l l the field of philosophy in ordcr to gain a better nature of onc aspect of a socictp on the basis o f knowlcdgc of somc
understancling of Marxis~u. othcr aspcct. Insofar as encli fcaturc o f a prehistoric culture was to bc
1,iliu a11 Mnrsists hc regarded 3 historical approuch as uniting 311 of rcconstructcd, this would havc to bc d o ~ i cinductivcly, using
the soci;il scicnccs. Hc bclicvcd th;lt n o ~ C I I C I fi)r~ii~ll;~c
-31 call ~1iscIosc .ircliacologic.~ldat.1. Childc's rejection of dctcnninism is now widely
the total ordcr of history - 'that can only be reproduced in thc rccogtiizcd as bcing in accord with orthodox Marxism, which dcnics
concrctc wliolc of history itself, which n o book and no library of tli,~tgcncml laws can cxpl~inall of the diverse fc~turcsof concrctc
books . . . could contain' (Childc r947a: 69). Laws arc merely h~lmandevelopment (l'ctrova-Avcrkicva 1980: 24).
gcricral descriptions of what is observed and, as such, statclllclits of In Social Evolzction (1951)Childc reaffirmed liis bclicf in multilinear
probabilities with varying dcgrccs of applicabilit)~.H e argucd that cvolution, but argucd in accordance with Marxist principles that
thcrc wcrc a certain ~iurnbcrof gc~icrallaws of history, such as the over time culturcs sharing thc samc modc of productio~itend to
primacy of thc social rclatiolis of production with respect to thc cvol\lc increasingly similar social, political, and cultural institutions,
s u p c r s t r ~ i c t tlic
~ ~ ~pcriodic
, dcvclopmcnt of conflicts bctwccn the which w o ~ ~ bel d in cvcr greater harrno~~y with the cconotnic basc.
forces and rcl;ltions of production, and the rc\,olutionary rcsol~ltion Yet thcsc instit~ltionsdevelop in v.lricd ways and in diffcrcnt
of thcsc contradictions. Yet lie bclicvcd that a far larger number of scqucnccs cvcn in adjacent cultures bccausc of cnvironmcntal differ-
cross-cultural gcncralizations wcrc valid only for socictics that ences, historical accidents, and the socictics involved bcing initially
s1i;ircd a p;irtic~~I;ir modc of production and hcncc \vcrc at the samc dissimilar. TIILISthcrc arc many more ways to move from one lcvcl of
general st;lgc of dc\~clop~iic~it (Cliilcie 104.73). soci;ll organization
- to another than thcrc arc forms in which thc
H e f~irtlicrargued that thc sigllific;111~u of ; I I I ~gc~i~ralizatiotl
can supcrstructurc is in closc accord with the basc. Bccausc of this, social
only be cstablishcd in relation to specific historical contexts bccausc rcality rarely corresponds with an ideal type. This view of culturcs
the rulcs that account for human bchaviour, and hunlan bchaviour as less than perfectly intcgratcd systems was shared by a number
itself, changc as new fortiis of socictics dc\~elop.Bccausc of this, of non-Marxist Anicrican antliropologists, most notably G. P.
human cvolution is gcn~iinclycrcativc. It is capable of bringing into Murdock (1949).
existence novel and often ur~forcscclisocial orders and new forms of Childc gradually cxtctidcd his materialist analysis of socicty to
human self-awareness. Yet he continued to be convi~iccdthat such crnbracc cognitive aspccts of bchaviour. Hc dcfincd knowlcdgc as
progress was not inevitable. Some socictics rcniain static, whilc sli.~rcd mental approximations o f thc rcal world tliat pernlittcd
others rcgrcss or cvcn dcstro)~thcmsclvcs (Childc 1947a). human beings to act upon it and insisted that arcl~acologistsmust
In Childc's vic\v a Marxist analysis, whilc assigning a privilcgcd trcat artifacts as concrctc cxprcssiolls of human thoughts and idcas.
role to the relations of production, ruled out any form of narrow H c also argucd that human beings adapt not to rcal environments
determinism. Functional constraints account for many similar but to thcir idcas about tlicm, cvcn if an cffcctivc adaptation rcquircs
features of social organization and ideology possessed by liistoricallp a reasonably closc corrcspondcncc bctwccn rcality and how it is
ul~rclatcdculturcs tliat share a common modc of production. Ncvcr- perceived. Innovations and tllcir applications to social nccds also
thclcss thc specific content of cultures and of individual sequences of rcqulrc ncw forms of thought that havc ramifications cxtcnding
changc is dctcrmincd to so great ;I dcgrcc by prc-existing cult~iral through entirc socictics. Advances in tcchnology thus rcflcct not
 A history of archacological thought Functionalism in Western archaeology

simply an incrcasc in scientific information but also thc cvolution of Yet Childc also bclicvcd that the cvolution and functioning of
the total knowlcdgc at thc disposal of a socicty, including how technology could only bc understood if archaeologists were ablc to
human bcings pcrccivc thcmsclvcs and thcir rclations to nature. rcconstruct thc social contcxt in which-it had opcratcd. This was thc
H e maintained that notions of causality had rcrnaincd anthropo- problcm that hc turncd to in his last book, The Prehijtory ofEuropean
morphic until thc growing usc of inanimate power to work Society (19~8a).H c identified social rclations, which in a Marxist
machincs had cngcndcrcd the idca of mechanical causality cmbodicd fashion hc vicwcd as including thc rclations of production, as thc
in the thinking of Isuac Ncwton. Hc had n o clualms about pro- principal aspcct of human bchaviour that was capable of ordcrly
nouncing modern civilization to be superior to 311 prcccding ones cross-cultural cxplanation. H e obscrvcd that variation in thc csscn-
insoFar ns it was ahlc to provide a reli;~bleguicic to a fit- grcntcr ti.11 ~C;I~LII-CSofcconomic, social, and political organization was far
number of actions (Childc 1949). morc limitcd than variation in most cultural traits and argucd that
In Society a n d Knoudedge (1956b) hc claboratcd his conccpt of thc lattcr acquircd thcir functional significancc in tcrms of thcir
knowlcdgc in tcrms of thc Marxist dichotomy bctwccn truc and relation to thc social system. Thc main practical problcnl that hc
falsc consciousness. Truc consciousness is charactcrizcd by the confronted was how arcl~aeologicalcvidcncc could be uscd morc
operational corrcspondcncc bctwccn views of reality and external cffcctively to infcr prchistoric sociopolitical systems. This problcm
rcalitp itsclf. In the form of tcchnological knowlcdgc, it exists to troublcd him more than it did Soviet archaeologists in thc 195os,
varying dcgrccs in all socictics. By contrast, an objective understand- since he believed that archacological evidence must be uscd objec-
ing of social rclations and of the social significancc of bclicfs and tivcly to tcst Marxist thcorics (Childc 1951: 29). Hence indcpcndcnt
values is rarc in any ancient or modern socicty, although Marxists and vcrifiablc means had to bc found for inferring social organi-
rlinintain that SLICII ~ ~ n d c s s t a ~ i dwill
i i ~ gclini-actcr-izcthe tccl~nologi- zation from archacological data.
cally advanccd, classless socictics of thc futurc. False co~~scioust~ess H c was not optimistic about how much could be accomplished
occurs in situations where thcrc is 110 operational corrcspondcncc along these lines (Childe 19~8a:12-14). At this time he scerned morc
bctwccn what is bclicvcd and cxtcrnal reality. It cmbraccs thc myths constrait~cdthan cvcr by the typological method that had bccn the
that all socictics crcatc to mask and compcnsatc for thcir tcchnologi- basis of his carly work and lcss ablc to makc cffcctivc usc of
cal incompctc~~cc and that class socictics use to disguise exploitation scttlcmcnt-pattern or funcrary data. Whilc hc had donc much
as altruisnl. Childc obscrvcd that falsc co~lscious~~css, in the form of archacological field work in Scotland, his most innovative rcsults
rcligious bclicfs, magic, and superstition, lcavcs its mark on the camc from his carly use of ethnographic comparisons with rustic
archacological rccord no lcss conspicuously than docs technological highland Scottish houscs to interpret the use of house-space in the
knowlcdgc. Yct, bccausc thc possiblc variations in thc details of Neolithic village of Skara Brac (Childc 1931) and his survey of
magical and rcligious bclicfs are infinite, thc archaeologist has no megalithic tombs to estimate the size and distribution of the popu-
hope of bcing ablc to infcr the spccific contcnt of thcsc beliefs in the lation on the island of Rousay in the Neolithic period (Childe
abscncc of writtcn records or oral traditions. By contrast, the num- 19420. Although he had evolved some very sophisticated models of
bcr of practical solutions to any tcchnological problcm is limitcd by social changc, hc now scemed unable to apply thcsc rcsults to thc
matcrial constraints that can be infcrrcd with a high degree of synthesis of archacological data. I t is perhaps indicative of failing
accuracy, using the laws of phpsics arid chcmistry. Childc therefore crcativity in thc last years of his life that his earlicr involvcmcnt in
concluded that thc archacological study of knowlcdgc must be scttlcmcnt-pattern rcscarch did not suggest to him cffcctive tech-
rcstrictcd largely to tcclinological niattcrs and franlcd in tcrnls of niques for studying prchistoric social and political organization.
practical results rathcr than thc subjcctivc goals of those who pos-
sessed it. Becausc of this the investigation of prchistoric technology
bccomcs a cl~roniclcof thc triumph of truc over falsc co~~sciousncss.
 A history of archacological thought Functionalism in Western arcllacology

acliicvc that goal archacological finds had to bc cxamincd from a

functionalist point of vicw. H c furthcr argucd that thc primary
An altcrriative and in many ways complc111cntary functio~lalist function of a culturc, or way of lifc,_was t o cnsurc the survival of a
approach was pioncered by Grahamc (J. G . D.) Clark. Through liis socicty; which implied that all aspccts of culturcs wcrc influcnccd at
training of numerous graduate students at Cambridge University least to somc dcgrcc by ecological constraints. Thc aim of archac-
this approach has cxcrtcd a stro~lginflucncc on the dcvclopmcnt of ologists should bc to dctcrminc how human beings had livcd in
archacology in many parts of the world (Murray and White 1981; prchistoric times by reconstructing as far as possiblc thcir ccono-
Clark 1988a). Altl~oughhe was cornniittcd to a materialist pcrspcc- mics, social and political organizations, and systcms of bclicfs and
tivc for niost of his carccr, he consistently criticized Childc's values and trying to understand how these diffcrcnt aspccts of
attempts to apply Marxist concepts to archacology. H e also culture rclatcd to each othcr as parts of functioning systcrns. Likc
attempted to develop new methods of fieldwork to complcmcnt liis many social anthropologists, Clark strcsscd thc rolc of culturc as an
theoretical innovations. ,~d.lptivcsystcm ~t the s.1111c time t h ~ hc
t s t ~ t c dt h ~ his
t ~ i m
w ~ to
s
Clark studied at Cambridgc University, whcrc hc became a document social lifc. This formulation rcflcctcd the conviction that,
lccturcr in 1935. His doctoral thesis was a. co~~vcntional typological by influencing individual human bchavi$ur, culturally transmitted
study of Mcsolithic matcrial from Britain and a comparison of this patterns facilitated the social interaction upon which the survival of
n1atcrial with Mesolithic finds from co~ltincntalEurope (Clark 1932). ~ndividualsand groups dcpcndcd.
Yct during liis carly ycars at Cambridge tlircc different influcnccs Clark systematically asscsscd thc strcngths and limitations of
oricntcd him towards a functio~ialistvicw of prehistoric cultures. archacological data for studying prchistoric social life. H e noted that
The first was his growing awareness of the manner in which Scandi- some aspccts of matcrial culturc arc bcttcr prcscrvcd in thc archaco-
navian archacologists studied prcliistoric culturcs in their environ- logical rccord than arc others: bronzc survivcs bcttcr than iron o r
mental setsing. This awascncss \\::IS cnco~~sngcd by tlic close similuri- silvcl- .~ndbone bcttcr thnn soft plant parts. On thc othcr hand,
tics bctwecn Mcsolithic finds in England and the Maglcmosian bccausc of its v ~ l u c ,gold is lcss likcly to makc its way into thc
culturc of Denmark and the cvcntual realization that thc luttcr archacological rccord or to cscapc plundcrilig than is a lcss valuablc
culturc had cxploitcd marshlands extending across the prcsent bed mctal. H c also observed that material culturc gcncrally survives
of tlic North Sea prior to their flooding by rising sea lcvcls. H e also bcttcr in dcscrt or arctic c~ivironn~cnts than in tropical forcsts,
worked closcly with Harry Godwin, tlic biologist who liad intro- Bccausc people living in tropical forests tcnd to use pcrishablc
duced pollen analysis into Britain. Secondly he was cxposcd to t.he materials and because of the difficulties of prcscrvation and rccov-
functionalist views ofsocial anthropologists such as Malinowski and cry, it is likcly that archacologists will always know ICSS about
Radcliffc-Brown. Finally hc 'responded eagerly' to the call by thc prehistoric cultural dcvclopmcnt in thcsc regions than In dcscrts or
Finnish archaeologist A. M. Tallgrcn (1885-194s) that archacologists thc high arctic. Finally, hc concluded that, whcn working only with
should stop regarding artifacts as more real and alive than the archacological data, archacologists arc likcly to learn morc about the
societies that liad crcatcd thcm and the pcoplc whose nccds had ccononlics of prehistoric socictics than about thcir social organi-
brought tlicm into being (Tallgrcn 1937; Clark 1974). Ironically zation and religious bclicfs. This is bccausc thc tcchnologies and
Tallgrc11's vicws had bccn shaped in largc part through his close economies of socictics arc largcly shaped by matcrial constraints that
contacts with Sovict archaeologists. can be understood through thc natural scicnccs. O n the othcr hand,
In 1939 Clark published the first cditio11ofArcClneoloj~~nv~dSocie[y, cco~~omic factors mcrcly constrain rathcr than dctcrminc the nature
a thcorctical study of arcliacology wl~icliremains a milcstonc in thc of social organization and rcligious bclicfs; hcncc much of the
history of the discipline. H c maintained that archacology should bc spccific contcnt of thcsc highcr lcvcls of human bchaviour is not
'the study of how [human beings] livcd in the past' (p. I ) and that to subjcct to thc samc kind of scientific analysis as arc tcchnology,
 A history of archaeological thought Ful~ctionnlismin Western archaeology
1
subsistence economies, and trading patterns. Although Clark's general hc prcferrcd to use analogies derived from folk lore rather
general view of culture was formulated in ecological terms rather than from comparative ethnology for the interpretation of Euro-
than on thc priority of the mode of production, his conclusions pean prehistory, because he believed that historical continuity guar-
about the potential of the archaeological record for reconstructing antecd the greater relcvancc of the former. H e argued that when
different aspects of culturcs closely rcscmblcd those reached by archaeologists were seeking to intcrprct data about prehistoric times
Childe. The notion of a scale of ascending difficulty in rccon- 'it was helpful to know how pcoplc occupying thc samc territory
strutting prehistoric technology, economics, sociopolitical organi- nlanagcd to provide for thcmsclves before thc risc of modcrn econo-
zation, and religious beliefs has continucd to play a major rolc in mics' (Clark 1974: 41).In this respcct as wcll, his positio~iwas similar
British discussions of prehistory from the 1930s to the present to that of Ch~ldcdnci in line with earlier diffusionist doctrines.
(Piggott 1959: 9-12; Fricdn~anand Rowlands 1978b: 203-4). This During the ncxt decade Clark sought to develop techniques for
conccpt was given its most elaborate treatment by Christopher using archaeological evidence to documcnt social life and par-
Hawkcs (1954), who concluded that archaeology, unaidcd by ticularly the ways in which natural rcsourccs had bccn utilized. In
written tcxts or oral traditions, is ablc to rcvcal morc about what is Prehistoric England (1940) his chapters were organized not chrono-
gcncrically animal in human bchaviour than about what is specific- logically but functionally to provide a rcview of what was known
ally human. This scalc of ascending difficulty is frequently called about subsistence patterns, dwellings, handicrafts, mining, trade,
'Hawkes' hierarchy' or 'ladder' after his study. communications, defence, burial, and sacred sites from Palaeolithic
In Archaeology and Society Clark asserted that the ultimate aim of times to the end of the Iron Age. This was followed by a series of
-
archacologists should be to intcrprct thcir data in tcrms of social papers on the utilization of various resources in prchistory and on
history. Thcp could d o that, howcvcr, only after they had dcfined a basic subsistcncc activitics such as scal hunting, whaling, fowling,
succession of culturcs in the archacological record and had a clcar fishing, forcst clcarancc, farming, and stock raising. In a paper on
idca of how the prchistoric commu~liticsassociatcd with thesc 'Bccs in antiquity' he outlincd an ecological pcrspcctivc that linkcd
culturcs had functioned. H c regarded an archaeologist studying a an increase in the number ofwild bees in Europc to thc introduction
prchistoric habitation sitc as the equivalent of an ethnologist study- of farming and dcmonstratcd how the resulting incrcasc in the
*inga living community. Vcry littlc attention was paid to thc appro- supply of becswax facilitated bronze casting (Clark 1942). While
priateness of this analogy or to the social anthropologists' assump- these papers all addressed biological problems, Clark sought, by
tion that a single community was representative of some larger identifying the functions of artifacts and the seasons when specific
cultural unit, a conclusion now gcncrally repudiated. Hc also subsistence activities took place, to use the archaeological record to
acccptcd that cthnographic analogies had to be used to interpret document economic and social life. The need to d o this was stresscd
archacological data. H e repeated the Victorian argument that just as by Donald Thomson (1939), who demonstrated ethnographically
palacontologists use living animals to reconstruct the anatomy of that the same group of Australian aborigines used totally different
fossil finds, so archaeologists must use cthnographic data to inter- material culture assemblages at different times of the year, when they
pret thcir discoverics. Yct his belief in the relatively loose articu- exploited the resources of different areas. These remains could easily
lation bctwccn the diffcrcnt parts of a cultural system led him to be mistaken for different cultdres within a traditional cultural-
rejcct the unilincar evolutionary vicw that culturcs at the samc stage historical framework.
of dcvelopmc~~t would be similar to one another in any detailed Between 1949 and 1951Clark excavated a waterlogged Mesolithic
fashion. H e specificd that ethnographic analogies had to be drawn site at Star Carr in East Yorkshire. The primary objectives of this
between individual artifacts, as Nilsson had done, rather than excavation were to recover organic materials as well as stone tools, to
bctwccn whole culturcs, in the unilinear evolutionary fashion, and date the site in relation to post-glacial vegctation patterns, to recover
that they had to be treated as suggestive rather than definitive. In food remains that would reveal the subsistence pattern, and to
 A history of archacological thought Functionalism in Western archaeology

D ' E ' F r G ' H ' I ' 1 ' K ' L ' M ' N ' O ' P ' Q ' R ' S ' T ' Euvope was the first appl~cationto archaeology of the botanist A. G.
North South Tansley's (1871-1955) concept of thc ccosystcm, with its notion of a
Modern surhcc self-corrccting mechanism, or homeostat, which kccps thc whole
system in balancc (Tanslcy 1935; Odum 1953). Similar ecological
co~lceptshad becn applied by the social a~ithropologistE. E. Evans-
1'1-itchard (1940)in his s t ~ ~ of d ythe ecology of the Nucr people of the
sotitlicin Sud.1n and they n~ci-cin .~ccoi-ciwith .I I)~~rltIic~rni.un
c m p h , ~ \ ~ons \oc~alIntcgr'itlon and cqu~libnum.Clark v~cwcdcul-
~ L I I . Ich.ungc
~ 1' s a rcsponsc to 'tcmpor~ryd~scquilibrlum' brought
about by e~lvironmentalchanges, fluctuations in population, labour-
saving ~nnovations,and cultural contact. H e thus ascribcd change to
all thc major factors that c\lolutlon~ry and diffusionist archac-
olog~stshad invoked o\ler the previous century, without rcvicwing
the status of thcsc concepts. Nor did hc attempt to intcrrclatc thcm,
~ - 2 B t r c hwood L 7 ' B l r ~ hbark BGlacai pcbble 0 C h r apart from the commonplace observation that thc natural cnviron-
37 Plan and scction of C u t t i n g 11, Star C a r r
mcnt i~uposcdcertaln rcstr~ctionson cconomic cxploitatio~~ at par-
ticular stagcs of technology.
I11 Pvehistovic Euvope Clark was concerned primarily with
determine what sort of social group had used the sitc. With the help economic processes. In later studics he paid increasing attention to
of palacobotanists and zoologists hc was able to conclude that a how the integrity and cohcsion of social groups arc reinforced by
small group of hunters had visited it ovcr a number of winters in d~stinctivcpattcrns of behaviour in the same way that individuals
ordcr to hunt dccr. This study sct a nc\v standard for the archaco- s~gnaltheir identity by confor~llingto or ignoring social norms. His
logical invcstigatio~lof huntcr-gatherer sitcs and callcd into qucs- intcrcsts turned to the social and symbolic significance of artifacts.
tion the value of all previously cxcavatcd sites for cconomic studics More recently hc has argucd that so long as form and style arc
of prehistor~i(Clark 1954, 1972; cf. Andrescn et al. 1981). stud~cdin order to definc the territories of social groups rather than
At the same timc Clark was cxcavating at Star Carr, he was writing as ends in thcmselvcs, they have a significant role to play in scientific
Prebistovic Euvope: The Economic Basis (1952).111 this book hc sought archacology (Clark 1974: 53-4; 1975).
to 'mine and quarry' existing archacological literature and muscum At the same t i ~ n chis idcas about thc forces that bring about social
collections to see what could be learned from thcm about the change appear to havc movcd away from a materialist pcrspcctivc.
econonlic dc\lclopmcnt of Europe from late glacial times to the H e maintains that human beings are free to the extent that they can
historical period. Thc maill topics that hc addressed wcrc subsis- reason but cmphasizcs cultural traditions as a nlajor constraint on
tencc pattcrns, shcltcr, technology, trade, travel, and transportation. change. In~lovationoccurs only when the cost of maintaining the
H c did not examine data m relation to specific societies or archaco- status quo cxcceds that of change. The Industrial Revolution is
logical culturcs but sought to trace economic changes as they related attributed to major alterations in patterns of thinking rather than to
to thrcc major climatic and vcgctation zones: Circumpolar, Tcm- economic developments, while the preindustrial civilizations are
pcrate, and Mediterranean. The relationship bctwccn culturc and seen as contributing to cultural elaboration and divcrsification
environment was vicwcd as reciprocal and thc ccononly defined as becausc resources, power, and patronage wcrc concentrated in the
'an adjustment to specific physical and biological conditions of hands of a wealthy and sophisticated ruling class (Clark 1983, 1986).
certain needs, capacities, aspirations and valucs' (p. 7). Pvehzstovic Clark played a major role in moving British archaeology away from a
 A history of archaeological thought Functionalism in Western archaeology

preoccupation with typology and encouraging efforts to undcrstand Harlan Smith's (1872-1940) The Prehistoric Ethnology of a Kentucky
prchistoric ccollomics and related forms of social organization. Yet, Site ( I ~ I Owhich
), was bascd on the analysis of artifacts that hc had
if he cxcclled Childc in thc detailcd rcconstruction of prehistoric rccovercd from the Fox Farm site in 1895. H e sought to reconstruct
subsistcllcc activitics from archacological data, his work falls short the lifcways of thc inhabitants of that sitc, which was later assigned
of Childc's as an attempt to explain cultural changc. This in turn to thc latc prehistoric Fort Ancient aspect. Artifacts were described
reflects his failure to develop an explicit model of cultural ch,~ngcto and analyscd in tcrms of a scrics of functional catcgorics: Rcsourccs
complc~ncnthis bchavioural interpretations of archacological data. in Animal and Plant Materials; Sccuring Food; Prcparation of
Clark spurred major dcvclopmcllts in British archacology. The Food; Habitations; Tools uscd by Mcn; Tools uscd by Women;
laboratory study of biological remains, such as animal bones and Proccsscs of Manufacture; History of Manufacturcd Objccts (stages
plant seeds, rccovcrcd from archacological sites, and their intcr- in the manufacture of tools as illustrated by unfinished artifacts);
prctation in ecological and economic tcrms, has bccomc a major Gamcs; Religious Objccts; Pipes and Amusements; Warfare; Dress
interdisciplinary specialization, partly covered by tcrlns such as and Ornament; Art; Injurics and Discascs; and Mcthods of Burial.
zooarchacology, palacocthnobotany, and bioarchacology. Under Individual artifacts wcrc discussed from diffcrcnt points of vicw
thc lcadcrship of his student Eric Higgs (1908-1976) and the British under multiple hcadings. Although ethnographic analogies were
Academy Major Rcscarch Project in the Early History of Agri- cmployed to dctcrminc thc functions of specific artifacts, guesswork
culture, a school of palacoeconomy has dcvelopcd that attcmpts to played a major role in assigning artifacts to specific classes.
intcrprct thcsc findings in rclation to the total resources available in There was widespread interest in this sort of functional interpreta-
the vicinity of thc scttlcmcllt where thcy wcrc discarded and a tion in the early twentieth century. William Wintemberg (1876--
prcsumcd seasonal pJttcr1.1 of exploitation (Sicvcking 1976: xxii). 194r), whosc profcssiollal carccr dcvclopcd under thc supervision of
This ii~volvcssitc catchment analysis, which strives to dctcrmit~cthc Smith, followcd this approach in his analysis of material from the
resources that would havc bccn available prehistorically within an Iroquoian sites that he excavated in southern Ontario (Trigger
cxploitablc radius around an archacological sitc (Vit~-E'inziand 197%). A former craftsman, hc conducted many cxpcrimcnts to
Higgs 1970; Higgs 1972, 1975; Jarman ct nl. 1982). Both Higgs atid dctcrminc how artifacts wcrc madc and uscd. Hc also acquircd an
Jarnlan claimed that artifactual analysis has not been very informa- cxtcnsivc lulowlcdgc of traditional Indian matcrial culture and ways
tive about the nature of prchistoric subsistcl~ccadaptations and of life (Swayzc 1960: 178). A. C. Parker's (1881-1955) report on the
denied it a 'prior place' in archacological investigations, although Iroquoian Ripley sitc, in northwcstcrn New York State (1907), has
thcy did not rule out thc importance of technological devclopmcnt. been described as 'an early attempt to dclincate the entire culturc of a
Thcy also vicwcd ccollomic factors as being thc only oncs that arc of group from archacological rcmains intcrprctcd in thc light of cth-
long-tcrm explanatory importance or significantly dctcctablc in the nography' (Brosc 1973: 92). M. R. Harrington, who workcd for thc
archacological rccord. Much of thc work of David Clarkc (1968) was American Museum of Natural History when Smith was employed
a reaction against the narrowness and dctcrminism of thc Higgsian thcrc, consulted local Indians in order to extend his knowledge of
approach (Sherratt 1979: 199-200). the material hc cxcavatcd at thc Shiilnccock sitc on Long Island in
1902 (Harrington 1924). Beginning with Ancient Lqe in Kentzlcky
(Webb and Funkhouscr 1928), William S. Webb (1882-1964) studied
Early functionalism in the United States how prchistoric Indians had madc and uscd artifacts and how these
In thc United States a functionalist approach to archacological artifacts rcflccted less tangible ancient customs. H e was trained as a
analysis began in thc ninctccilth century. It took the form of an physicist and is said to havc approached archaeology with an
interest in how artifacts were manufacturcd and what use had beell amateur's 'interest in local antiquities and the ancient life of the local
madc of them. This approach was dcvclopcd and systcmatizcd in Indians' (Taylor 1948: 75). Working in Kentucky hc had special
 A history of archacological thought

reason to be influcnccd by Smith's rcport on thc Fox Farm sitc.

Similarly William Ritcllic's carly publications on thc 'prc-Iroquoian'
sites of Ncw York State had been manifesting a widely ranging, if
unspstcmatic, intcrcst in using artifacts to reconstruct prchistoric
human bchavio~tr.After they were influenced by the Midwestern
Taxonomic Method, both Webb and liitchic conccntratcd o n the
c1.1boration o f trait lists .ind ccascd (in Kitchic's c ~ s only
c until tllc
1950s) to study the bcha\riour of prehistoric peoples (Taylor 1948:
70-80).
Tlic 1.1rgc horizontal csc.i\~ationscarricd out during thc cicprcss-
ion years hclpcd to r e v i ~ ethe intcrcst of American archaeologists in
thc functional analysis of archaeological data. Now, howcvcr,
instead of this concern being mainly with artifacts, it was focused
increasingly on features, housc pattcrns, and village plans, in rela-
tion to which the distribution of artifacts took 011additional sig-
nificancc. Thesc cxcavatiolls expanded knowledge about the con-
struction of houses and sacred structures, while plans of entire
\~illagcsacldcd 3 new dimcnsion to tlic ~~ndcrstancling of the prc-
historic social org.inization of eastern North A~ncrica(Willcy and
Sabloff 1980: 123-7).
Yct this work was initially justified as a means of expanding trait 38 Structures o n mound platform, from Hzwassee Island,
lists and only slo\vly stir~~ulatcd an interest it? how people had lived by T . L c w ~ sand M. Knebcrg, 1946
in prchistoric times. In Rcdiscovcrin~Illinois (1937), a rcport on
arcl~acological excavations carried out in and around Fulton tools, U~CIISIIS, WCJ~OIIS,~I~C S,
costumes, ornan~cnts,and burials. In
County, Illinois, Fay-Cooper Cole (1881-1961) and Thorne Deucl each of these cases, despite a growing variety of data, thc cmphasis
listcd a11 the artifact typcs from a single occupation level within a sitc was largely 011 listing traits in an ethnographic o r pscudo-
under a number of broad funcrional headings, which they labelled cthnographic format rather than on trying to interpret material
complcxcs. These included Architecture and House Life, Costume culturc as cvidence of human behaviour. Although interpretations
and Dress, Ccrcmonial, Military and Hunting, Economic and prior to the 1930s havc been castigated for remaining 'on a rclativcly
Artistic, Agricultural and Food-Getting, and Pottery. Yet they made supcrficial level' consisting 'mainly of thc obvious inferences t o be
1 7 0 attcmpt to infer specific activities from thcsc artifacts. The sarnc is drawn from artifacts . . . by visualizing how thcy might havc been
ti-uc of Charles Fairbanks' (1942) effort to arrangc a list of artifact L I S C ~ ' (Rouse 1972: 147), they constituted a more serious cffort to
typcs from tlic Stallings Island midden in Georgia in a functional infer human behaviour from archacological remains than did thc
ordcr according to whether thcy appeared to relate t o subsistence, ethnographic trait lists of the 1930s and 1940s. This indicates that the
cornniunity plan, burial, or technological and artistic activities. In classificatory orientation of thc Midwcstcrn Taxo~lomicMethod,
Martin, Quimby, and Collier's Djdinv~sBefire Colwmbw (1947) all of and of chronological studies gcnerallp, suppressed a professional
the major archacological cultures so far defined for North Arncrica intercst in the behavioural interpretation o f archaeological data in
wcrc summarized by regions and successivc periods under the head- North America for a longer period than Taylor (1948: 91) o r Willey
ings: location, people (physical type), village, livelihood, pottery, and Sabloff (1980: 134) havc belicvcd.
 A history of ,~rchacologicalthought Functionalism in Western archaeology

Nc\~crtheless a growing minority of Anlcrican archacologists distributions in Mexico and Peru, such as the Chavin and Tiahua-
began to call for the functional interpretation of archacological data naco horizons, which had hitherto been intcrprctcd purely in diffu-
within the framcwork of niorc holistic vicws of culture than had s ~ o n ~tcrms.
st In each of these studics efforts wcrc made t o identify
bccn adoptcd hitherto in American archaeology. They ~iiayhavc sociopolit~calor religious characteristics of thc material by consider-
been I-csponding to the more f~lnctionalist vicws of human ing thcir ~ntrasitcpl-ovcnicncc or other fcat~lrcsthat typological
behaviour t h ; ~wcrc hcing popul~rizcdin American anthropology stud~cshacl ~gnorcd(W. 13c1lnctt1945; Willcy 1948). I11 a st~ldyoftllc
by Radcliffc-Brown, who taught at thc University of Chicago from contentious issue of Mesoamerican influcnccs on tlic culturcs of thc
1931to 1937, and by Mslinowski, who taught at Yalc University from soutlicastcrn U n ~ t c dStates, John W. Bcnnctt (1944) strcsscd thc
1938 until his dcarli in 1942. Arcli~cologistswcrc also increasingly nccd to consider the funct~onalimplicat~onsof traits, the social
awarc of the interpretations of archacological data offcrcd by contcxt from which thcy wcrc dcrivcd, and, abovc all, thc contcxt
Childc, Clark, and othcr European archacologists. This provided into which thcy would have been introduced. H e hypothcsizcd that
thcorctical as wcll as practical cvidcncc that Icading American cthno- somc Mcsoamcrican traits would havc been rc.ldily .~cccptcdby the
logists, such as Robcrt Lowic and Frank Speck, crrcd when they less complcx cultures of the U n ~ t c dSt'~tcs,wllilc others W O L I I ~ havc
clairrlcd that, bccausc archacologists could study only matcrial becu rcjcctcd, howcvcr many tlmcs tlicy were transmittcd. Hcncc he
culture, they were unable to sap anything significant about non- mainta~ncdthat dlffusionist explanations rcquirc a dcta~lcdfunc-
material aspects of human bcliaviour. T o d o this, liowcver, archac- tional understanding of thc rccipicnt culturcs. Still other archae-
ologists had to intcrprct artifacts as parts of total cultural systcms ologists sought to interpret the interaction between ncighbouring
and as integrated within social, political, and economic organi- cultures in tcrnis of thc concept of acculturation, w h ~ c hwas becom-
zations, ratlicr than as niatcrial objects that had only typological ing popular at that tinic among ethnologists (I<cur 1941; Lewis and
significance. Kncberg 1941). W h ~ l cthesc and other studics wcrc highly disparatc
This dcsirc to understand archacological rcmains from a func- and provisional, cnough of thcm had appeared by 1943 t o be rccog-
tional point of view Icd archacologists to rcncw thcir tics with nizcd as const~tutinga trclid in Anicrican archacology, whlch J. W.
cthnologists, which had bccomc attenuated during thc period whcn Bcnnctt (1944)labcllcd as a 'funct~onal'o r 'sociolog~cal'approach to
thcir primary interest had been to construct cultural chronologies. archacological ~ntcrprctation.Thesc studics and Kluckhohn's (1940)
I11 1936 William D. Strong (1899-1962) stressed the i~ltcrdepe~ldence advocacy of a 'scientific' approach preparcd the way for Waltcr
of archaeology and ethnology and argued that archaeologists should Taylor's A Stgdy ofArcbeology (1948), a polemical work that exam-
look t o cthnologists for thcorctical lcads as wcll as factual infor- incd thc differences between traditional culture-li~storicalarchac-
mation. H e applicd this principle in his dircct-historical approach to ologp and the new functionalist intcrcsts.
Ncbraskan prehistory, as did Paul Martin (1899-1974) whcn hc uscd
Robcrt Rcdficld's coliccpt of 'folk culture' to cxplain variations in
the sizc and contents of Pucblo ruins (,Martin e t nl. 1938; Martin and
The conjunctive approach
Rinaldo 1939). In his study of nativc subsistence economics on thc Taylor observed that thc majority of An1crica1-r archaeologists said
Grcat Plains, Waldo R.cWcdcl (1941)stressed the importance of the that thcir goal was t o reconstruct prehistory, while some of them,
relation between culturc and environment and argued that factors like Kiddcr, \vent further and expressed the liopc that eventually
othcr than historical accidents shapcd archaeological cultures. A. J. arcl~aeologicaldata would provide a basis for gcncralizing about
Waring, Jr and Preston Holder (1945) interpreted claboratcly dccor- human beliaviour and cultural changc. Yet few culture-historical
atcd coppcr and shell artifacts in widcly dispersed Mississippian sitcs archacologists displaycd any interest in systematically recon-
as cvidcncc of a widespread religious cult. structing prchistoric ways of life o r explaining cvcnts that had taken
Similar filnctional cxplunations wcrc used to account for stylistic place In prchistoric times. Instcad thcy occupicd tlicmsclvcs with
 A history of archaeological thought Functionalism in Western archaeology

'mcrc chronicle', working out thc geographical and temporal distri- that Taylor, like Clark, attachcd to sitcs as primary units of analysis.
butions of archacological matcrial and explaining changes by attri- H e sought to avoid the problems inherent for archaeologists in
buting them to cxtcrnal factors groupcd under the headings of the concept of material culture by following Krocber and other
diffusion and migration. Boasian anthropologists in defining culture as mcntal constructs and
Taylor proccedcd to dcmonstratc that the limitcd goals of archae- viewing material remains as products of culturc rather than culture
ologists encouraged slackness in a~hacologicalfieldwork and analy- itself (Osgood 1951).Mental constructs, which are partly a heritage
sis. Many classcs of artifacts, cspccially those that wcrc not regarded of the past and either idiosyncratic or shared by varying numbers of
as important for defining cultures, wcrc not examined and dcscribcd people, constitute beliefs and valucs and provide guides for social
in detail. Pottery and iithic rnatcrial wcrc studicd much more care- activitics as wcll as thc technical h~owlcdgcrcquircd to produce
fully than was surviving evidence of baskctry. Floral and faunal nlatcrial culturc. H e concluded that, while culturc was idcational
remains often were inadcquatcly rccovcred and identified; hcnce and hence did not survive in thc archaeological rccord, many aspects
archaeologists did not know what foods were eaten and why par- of culturc othcr than the luiowlcdgc that went into manufacturing
ticular sitcs wcrc used or at what season. Archaeologists also failcd artifacts wcrc rcflcctcd archaeologically. H e also distinguished
to rccord, and morc often to rcport, the intrasitc provenience of bcnvcc~lculturc as a holistic concept, or proccss, and culturc as a
artifacts in sufficicnt dctail. Bccausc of this it was difficult for them partitive one (the individual archaeological culture).
to dcfinc activity arcas within sitcs and to dctcrminc how artifacts Taylor maintained that archaeologists must strivc to recover as
might vary from one part of a sitc to another. Finally, although much information as possible concerning archacological sites,
archacologists sought to claborate lists of all the types of artifacts including seemingly trivial evidence. They must also collect infor-
associatcd with particular sitcs and made statistical comparisons of mation concerning thc palacocnvironmental contcxt of the sitc and
thcsc lists in an cfOrt to dctcrrninc thcir dcgrccs of cultural affinity, any rclatcd historical or ethnographic data. This matcrial had to be
they wcrc normally content to compare merely the presence or studicd and classificd as wcll as rcportcd in sufficicnt dctail that it
absence of types. As a result, quantified data, that might be vcry could be rcanalyscd by othcr archacologists. The first analytical task
important for understanding thc role played by particular hnds of relating to the site as a wl~olcwas to work out its internal chronology
artifacts, wcrc lacking. Taylor dcvoted much of his study to provid- and thus to determine what evidence was synchronous or successivc.
ing a detailed critique of the shortcomings of the work of leading Archaeologists should ncxt turn to the major task of synthesizing
American archacologists in order to dcmonstratc how thcir thc matcrial from the site, or from cach pcriod that it was occupied.
cultural-chronological objectives had limited thcir investigations of Two sorts of synthesis had to be done. The ethnographic synthesis
thc archaeological rccord. consisted of determining cvcrything possiblc about how pcoplc
T o remedy thesc defects Taylor offered the conjunctive approach. lived at the sitc. The arcl~aeologistilike an ethnographer, should try
T o the traditional investigation of chronological problems and to fill out the Outline of Cultural Materials (Murdock et al. 1938), a
intcrsite relations hc proposed to add dctailed intrasite studies in checklist documenting all conccivablc patterns of cultural
which careful attention would .be paid to all artifacts and features behaviour. The conjunctive approach also required that archae-
and how they wcrc interrelated. Special note would be taken of ologists should try to understand how life was lived at a site as a
thc quantitative aspccts and spatial distributions of archacological functionally integrated pattern. Thc ethnographic synthesis was to
finds, as wcll as of their formal properties and evidcnce of how they be followed by a historiographic one that traccd how ways oflife at a
wcrc made and used. In this way arcl~acologistsmight hope to learn sitc changed in the course of its occupation and tried to account for
as much as possiblc about the nature of life in prehistoric times how these changes came about.
and about thc functional relations within a prchistoric culture. A Having synthesized the cultural significance of individual sites,
distinctivc aspcct of the co~~jut~ctivc approach was thc importance archaeologists could undertake comparative studies. Taylor believed
 A history of archaeological thought Functionalism in stern archaeology
that these should involve the comparison of whole cultural contexts closely to the notion of configuration or psychological consistency
as manifested at individual sites rather than of individual items of advocated by Boasian anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict (1934)
culture, and that their immediate aim should be to understand how a than to the ideas of structural and functional integration cham-
site rclated to the broader pattcrn of lifc in a surroundi~lgterritory. pioned by social anthropologists. He contrasted the lack of sym-
In this way, seasonally occupied hunter-gathcrcr sites could be metry in Coahuila Cave basketry designs in the southwestern United
linkcd'to for111 year-round pattcrns or peasant hamlcts associated Statcs with t l ~ crcgularizcd pattcrns that dominatc San Juan baskets
with clitc ccntrcs to provide information about the hierarchical several hundred miles to the south. These variations, which cannot
structures of ancicnt civilizations. Thus a functional understanding be attributcd to differences in materials or weaving techniques,
could be gained that was equivalent to the ethnologists' insight into constitutcd a discontinuity in cultural pattcrn that Taylor bclicvcd
the nature of living cultures. Archacologists could thcn procccd to descrvcd a functional explanation. Finally, becausc of his idcalistic
work alongside ethnologists to achievc the principal goal of anthro- and inductive approach, he was compelled to remain at the level of
pology: a gcncral undcrstandillg of the naturc and working of discussing how yrchistoric pattcrns might bc rcconstructcd. Hc
culture. contributed almost nothing towards explaining how or why changes
There has been considerable discussion concerning to what extent occurred. Like Clark he failed to'use a functional view of prehistoric
Taylor's approach represented a break with the past and marked the cultures to promote a new understanding of cultural change. His
beginning of the New Archacology of the 1960s (Taylor 1972; work was mainly important as. a critique of current standards of
Binford 1972: 8-9; 1983a: 229-33). At the same time lateral connec-
tions have received littlc attention. Taylor's emphasis upon the first
task of archaeologists as that of using archaeological evidencc to
a
archaeological research and as a'call for arch eologists to recover and
analyse archaeological data in far greater d tail than they had done
hitherto. The result was ta reihforce the trend toward functional in-
reconstruct how people lived at individual prehistoric sites closely terpretation already under way in American archaeology rather than
paralleled thc approach Clark had advocated in 1939. So too did his to challenge the basic tenets of Boasian historical particularism or
insistcncc upon palacocthllography as a vital goal of archaeology introducc any major innovations into archacological interpretation.
and his view of cultures as f~lnctioningentities embracing social, 1

political, and ideological as wcll as cconolnic componcnts that thc Ecolgical and iettlement anhaeolo~y
archaeologist must try to study holistically from the inside. Yet he
did not follow Clark or anticipate the New Archaeology in viewing Julian Steward (1902-72), who was one of the first American eth-
cultures as ecologically adaptive systems. Instead hc adopted an nologists to adopt an explicitly materialist view of human behaviour,
idealist view of culture as a collection of shared concepts, a view greatly enhanced an awareness ?f the role played by ecological
which closely resembles the traditional Boasian position. Like the factors in shaping prehistoric sociocultural systems. In 1938 he and
Boasians he did not presupposqhat any one part of a culture plays a F. M. Setzler published a paper in which they argued that archae-
morc important rolc than any other in bringing about cultural ologists as well as ethnologists should seek to understand the nature
change. Instcad he rcgardcd defining thc relations between parts and of cultural change and that both disciplines could contribute to an
explaining change as problems that must be approached inductively. ecological analysis of human behaviour. T o play a significant role,
H c was amenable to the idea that different aspects of culture might however, archaeologists would have to stop concentrating on the
play a leading role in bringing about change in different societies stylistic analysis of artifacts and begin to use their data to study
and continued to believe that much change occurs as a result of changes in subsistence economies, population size, and settlement
fortuitous contacts between human groups. patterns. Steward himself had carried out and published archaeo-
Taylor's concept of the integration of individual cultures also logical research on the Ancient Caves ofthe Great Salt Lake Region
tcndcd to bc wcakcr than that adoptcd by Clark. It rclatcs morc (r937a) and writtcn a papcr in which hc had drawn together archaco-
 A history of archaeological thought Functionalisn~in Wester11archaeology

logical and ctlinographic scttlcnicnt-pattcrn data in a study of inter-

action bctwccn culturc and c~ivironmcntin the soi~thwcstcr~i Unitcd
Statcs (1937b). Of all thc American ethnologists of this period, lic
had tlic greatest respect for arcl~acologicaldata and awarcncss of
thcir potential value for studying problems of huinan behaviour
over l o ~ i gperiods.
After World War I1 increasing awarcncss of the importance of an
ccological approach, resulting from the writings of Steward and
Clark, stimulated major Amcrican research programlilcs involving
intcrdiscipli~laryteams. Onc of the niost important of tlicsc was the
Iraq J a r n ~ oProjcct, dircctcd by Robert Braidwood, which bctwccn
1948 and 1955 cxamincd a series of late Palacolithic t o early Neolithic
sites in the Kirkuk region of thc Ncar East (Braidwood 1974).
Another was the Tchuacan Archaeological-Botanical Projcct, led by
Richard S. MacNcish, which between 1960 and 1968 rcvcalcd an
unbrokcn 12,000-ycar cultural scqucncc from PalacoIndian times to
thc Spaiiisl conqucst in highland Mexico (MacNcish 1974, 1978).
Both of thcsc projects, which wcrc fundcd at least in part by tlie
Unitcd Statcs National Scicncc Foundation, brought together
archaeologists, botanists, zoologists, geologists, and other special-
ists to carry out rcscarch rclating to the origin of food-production in
tlic Ncar East and Mcsoamcrica. They succcedcd in delineating
changes in the subsistencc cconomics of thcir rcspcctivc regions,
wliilc MacNcisli, with a sample of 456 sites, was also ablc to i~ifcr
changcs in group composition and lalid utilization. With tlic help of
radiocarbon dates they dcmo~istratcdthat in both thc Old and the
Ncw Worlds food-production had bcgun earlier and incrcased in
economic importance far more slowly than arc1iaeologists, including
Childc, had previously believed. In tlic Cold War atmosphere prc-
vaililig in the U~iitedStatcs, thcsc findings wcrc welcomcd as proof
of the nornialcy of gradual evolutionary changes and a major 39 MacNeish's intcrpretat~onof subsistence-settlement pattern of Ajuereado
sct-back for Childc's apparently Marxist-inspired theory of a Nco- Phase (11,000-7,000 B.c.) in Tchuacall Valley
lithic 'rcvolution'. Biaidwood's worlt also ruled out the likelihood
that desiccation had played a significant role in initiating the dcvcl- I11 T ~ e n dand T~aditionin the Prehistovy of the Eastern United States,
opmctit of food-produci~lgcconomics in thc Ncar East. Both of Joseph Caldwcll(1916-73) adopted an ccological approach t o under-
thcsc studies wcrc landmarks in tlic use of arcliacological data to standing cultural cliangc (1958). H e argucd that ecological adjust-
study one of tlie major economic and social transformations of nicnts to tlic disappcarancc of big gamc at tlic cnd of the last Ice Agc
human history. They also dcnionstr3ted the iriiportancc of a multi- had resulted in morc complex and intcnsivc patterns of food collcc-
ciisciplin,lry ;~ppro.~cli in which archac:>logists ;i~id~ i a t ~ ~scic~ice
ral tion that I i ~ d~ I I C K C ; I S C ~the c ~ r r p i n gcapacity of most arcas and
specialists worltcd together to analysc archaeological data.
 A history of arcl~acologicaltliouglit

promoted s c d c ~ l t a r ~ z a t ~and
o n denser p o p u l a t ~ o ~ throughout
ls the
reglon. These developn-ie~ltsc~icouragcdthe acqulsltlon o f h e a v ~ e r
and Inore v a r ~ c dtypes of cqulpnicnt than had bccn useful prc-
v~ously,~ ~ l c l u soapstone,
d ~ ~ ~ g and later ccramlc, c o o k ~ n gvessels. H c
stressed not only the capaclty for lnter~lallyi ~ l ~ t i a t cchange d among
the natlve culturcs o f the Eastern Woodlands but also the need for
archaeolog~stst o u n d c ~ s t a n dart~factssuch JS pottcrv vessels wltll
rcfcrcilcc t o the roles they had playcd w1th111 a d a p t ~ v csystems Such
Interpretations had bccn f-orcshc~do\vcdIn Ralph L~nton's (1944)
study o f dcvclopmcntal trends in the sliapc o f castci-11 North
American ceramic vcsscls.
Steward also inspired the dc\~clopmcntofsettlcmcnt archaeology,
which was initiated by (;ordon Willcy's 1'~ehistovicSettlement l'at-
terns in the Virzi Valley, Peru (1953), a study that was carried o u t in
connection with a combined archacological and a~lthropological
i~lvestigationo f a small coastal valley in Peru by Amcrica~land
Peruvian a~lthropologistsin 1946. I t was Steward w h o persuaded
Willep t o conduct 3 scttlcmcnt-pattern survey as part o f the project
(Willey 1974b: 153). Yet Willcy's interpretation o f the data collccted
by this survey marked a significa~ltdeparture froin Ste\vard's cco-
logical approach. 111previous studies archacological scttlcmcnt pat-
terns had bccn viewed as cvidcncc o f relations bctwccu human
groups and tllc natural c~i\lironment.Willcy chosc illstcad to vicw
scttlcmcnt patterns as 3 'strategic starting point for the f ~ l ~ i c t i o ~ l a l
interpretation o f arcl-~acologicalculturcs'. H e went o n t o assert that
scttlcmcnt patterns 'reflect the natural cnvironmcnt, the lcvcl o f
technology o n which the builders operated, and various i~lstitutio~ls
of social interaction and control ~ v h i c hthe culture maintained'
(p. I ) . H c did n o t deny that ecological factors playcd a significant
role in shaping settlement patterns but observed that many other
factors of a social o r cultural nature were also rcflcctcd in the
archacological record and was unprepared t o vicw thcsc factors as
mcrcly a rcflectio~lo f the general patterns o f ecological adaptation.
Instead he treated scttlemc~ltpatterns as a source o f illfor~nation
about many aspects o f human bchaviour. T h e great advantage o f
scttlcmcnt patterns over artifacts nras that, while artifacts ficquently
urcre found in co~itcxtswhere they had been disposed, scttlcmcnt
patterns provided direct cvidellce about the settings in which h u ~ n a n
activities wcrc carried out. Willcy recognized the pote~ltial o f
 A history of archaeological thought Functionalis~llin Western archaeology

settlement-pattcrn data for the systematic study of thc economic, structures, associatcd activity areas around structurcs, communitics,
social, and political organization of ancicnt societies. and the distribution of communitics across landscapes. Each of thesc
Although he viewed settlement pattcrns as a stratcgic starting- lcvels was rccog~lizcdas having bccn shapcd by factors that differ in
point for the fi~nctionalinterpretation of nrchacological cultures, he kind o r degree from those (lint influence otlicr Icvels. Iiidividual
mainly used the concept of culture to distinguish successivc phases structures rcflcct family organization, scttlcments community struc-
in the development of the Viril Valley and hence to group together ture, and spatial distributio~lsthc impact of tradc, administration,
sitcs that had bccn in L I S at
~ approximately the same time. Ccmcter- and regional dcfcilcc. Because of this the combincd study of two or
ics, habitation sitcs, palaces, temples, forts, and irrigation networks more lcvcls is likely to shed lilorc light on archacological cultures
that appeared to be contemporary were used to try to reconstruct the than is the study of only one lcvcl (Triggcr 1968b; Flanncry 1976;
changing patterns of social a i d political organization of the valley Clarltc 1977; Kent 1984). O f all thc filnctio~lalistapproaches, scttlc-
over several millennia. Instcad of viewing social and political ment archaeology, with its focus on inferring pattcrns of social
phenomena as attributes of culture, hc intcrpretcd them as an bchaviour and its rcjcctio~lof ccological dcterininism, is thc onc that
cvolving system cjf' social relations that providcd a behavioural most closely approximatcs social anthropology of thc Durkhcimian
contcxt intcgrating orher aspects of culture. Thus, in addition to variety.
recognizing social orgnniz~tionas 3 legitinlate object of archaco- Willcy's research in thc Virii Valley inspircd intcnsivc surveys of
logical study, as Childc was to do in The Prehistory ofEuropean Society changing scttlcnlc~ltpatterns in various parts of thc world. As thc
(1958a),Willep providcd an analytical device for studying prehistoric result of a prolonged study in southern Iraq, Robert McC. Adams
social organization, which Childc hiled to do. Recognizing long- (1965, 1981; Adams and Nissen 1972) was able t o demonstrate that
term continuities in the population inhabiting thc Virii Valley also irrigation systems tended to elaborate and collapse as a consequence
Icd Willcp to emphasize understanding changes in the archaeo- of political changcs rathcr than being a major causc of thcsc changcs.
logical record in tcrnls of internal transformations rather than attri- K. C. Chang (1963) has shown continuity in the development of
buting them to diffusion and migration as had comn~onlybeen done social and political systcms in northcrtl China from tlic beginning of
in thc past. His study was thcrefore an important pionccring cffort thc Neolithic pcriod through the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynastics,
in using archacological data to interpret long-term social change. while Makkhall L d (1984) has traced the interaction bctwcc~ltech-
Within the contcxt of settlement archaeology, individual sitcs nology and c~lvironmcntin northern India during the pcriod that
ccascd to be studicd as ends in themselves or to be regarded as saw the devclopmcnt of Gangctic civilization. Karl Butzcr (1976)
rcprcscntativc of a particular culture or region. Instead they were dcmonstratcd that ovcrall population prcssurc could not have
sccn as forming nctworlts in which single sites played very different played a major role in the risc of a~lcientEgyptian civilization, which
and complementary roles. Sitc surveys no longer sought to locate dcveloped most rapidly in the far south, where the exploitation of
thc largcst or most rcprcscntativc sitcs for excavation but instead the smaller natural basins required less effort than did that of the
sought to rccover information that was important in its own right larger and morc productivc basins farther north. Triggcr (1965) uscd
for archacological analysis. While ccological studies of scttlcmc~lt nlainly cemetery data to study how changcs in technology, thc
pattcrns have continued and are recognized as often, if not always, natural environment, tradc, and warfarc altcrcd the sizc and distri-
bcing a ncccssary prcliminary for social and political interpretations, bution of population in Lower Nubia over 4,000 years. Richard E.
a growing number of American archacologists came to view settle- Blanton (1978) has correlated changing scttlemcnt pattcrns in the
rncnt pattcrns as an important source of information about demo- Oaxaca arca of Mexico with changing configurations of political
graphic trends and the social, political, and religious institutions of organization. Finally, while William T. Sandcrs' detailed study of
prchistoric societies. They also came to think of settlement patterns the Valley of Mexico was designed from an ecological perspective, it
in .terms of a hierarchy of lcvels: activity areas within structurcs, has shown that changing forms of political and economic organi-
 A history of ilrchilcolopicill thOl1gllt

zntion, ns wcll as idios)rncratic I~istoricalfactors, havc playcd a major

rolc in shaping the size and distribution of thcsc scttlcmcnts
(Siindcrs ct nl. 1979). Tlicsc studies have cliallcngcd sin~plisticviews
that popillation increase or irrigation agriculture alone playcd a
~ ~ r c p o ~ i d c rrolc
a n t in shaping the dcvclopnicnt of complex socictics
;111dt l ~ct~ ~ l t i ~changes
ral invariably occur in a slow, gradual fashion.
Almost from thc beginning arcl~acologistsrecognized the value of
scttlcmcnt patterns for studying social change at the tribal lcvel as
\\~cII;is thc origin and dcvclopmcnt o f ci\filiz;~tions.This thinliing
rccci\~cdearly cxprcssion in a unilincar schcmc of types of commu-
nity pattcr~iingdcviscd at a seminar on the functional and cvolu-
tio~iaryimplications of such patterning held undcr the chairmanship
of Richard Bcardslcy in 1955 (Beardslcp e t al. 1956).As a result of this
scl~iillartcrnIs.such as frcc wandering, restricted wandering, ccntral
based wandering, and scn~ipcrma~~cnt sedentary came to be used to
dcscribc thc scttlcmcnt and subsistcncc systcms of native North
Alncrican pcoplcs. Ovcr the ycars systematic studics of the scttlc-
nwit pattcrns of particular regions have increased archacologists'
a\varcncss of the regional diversity and complex it)^ of adaptations as
\vcll ns of the rapidity with which thcsc adaptations somctimcs
changcd (Willc)r 1956; Ritchie and Funk 1973; B. Smith 1978).

Fu~~ctionalist intcrprctations of archaeological data had long been

inhcrcnt in studics of the relations bctwccn cultures and their
environments and of how artifacts were made and used. Yet thc
proliferatio11 and increasing sophistication of such views that rcprc-
scntcd a significant trcnd in British and American anthropology,
beginning in the 193os, cncouraged archacologists to view prc-
historic cultures as internally differentiated and to some dcgrce
intcgratcd ways of lifc. This in turn promoted a consideration of thc
internal as wcll as the cxtornal causcs of change. At first the examin-
ation of intcrnal causcs was mainly directed towards ecological

-
factors. Yct, whilc Taylor and in an cvcn morc explicit fashion Clark
did much to dcvclop the usc of archaeological data for recon-
structing prehistoric patterns of life, they made few contributions
to\v.lrds cxp1,lining changcs in the arcli,icological record. In con-
---,-.-... - .""".G -.-..
trast, Childc, while developing some very interesting models of 41 Sanders e t al. settlement pattern of the Basin of Mexico for the Late Horizon
 A history of at~cliacologicnItliought

social changc, failcd to addrcss how tllcsc 111odclscould be applicd in

any dctail to thc study of thc archacological rccord. Scttlcment
archacology, by contrast, e~lcouragedthe relatively holistic study
both of prchistoric culturcs at specific points in time and of how
thcsc cultures changcd. This dcvelopmcnt of a concern with changes CHAPTER 8
in structural and functional relations over time marlicd the begin-
ning of a proccss~ial, as opposed to a synchronically functional, Neo-evolutionism and the New Archaeology
study of prehistoric cultures.
Tllc dcvclopmcnt of functional and then proccssual approachcs to
we can predict the transience of the Ncw Archaeolo~j~itself-
nrcl~acologicaldata rcprcsc~ltcda replaccmcnt of the increasingly but we should not confuse transience with insigniJicancc.
sterile preoccupation of culture-historical archaeology with eth- D L (1979), p. 101
C L A R K E , Ana[Yt~calArchaeolo~~t
nicity by a vital new interest in how prchistoric culturcs operated
and changed. A functio~lalistoricntation was cncouraged by the T11c two decades following World War I1 were an era of unrivalled
development of social anthropology, which initially was no more economic prosperity and unchallenged political hegemony for the
concerned with problems of internal social change than earlier United States. Despitc the threat of nuclear war, this was a time
diffusionist explanations had been. Growing interest in change was of grcat optimism and self-confidence for most middle-class
rclated to social developments after World War I1 that will be Americans. As had happened in Britain and Wcstern Europc in the
cxa~nincdin the ncxt chaptcr. middle of the ninctccnth century, this self-confidence cncouraged a
From an internal point of view culturc-historical archaeology was rclativcly ~natcrialisticoutlook and a readiness to belicve both that
a logical preludc to thc systematic study of prchistoric cultures from there was a pattcrn to human history and that technological progress
functional and proccssual perspcctivcs. The culture-historical was the key to human betterment. I11 Amcrican anthropology these
approach had revealed the basic fi-amcworli of cultural distributions trends were m,~nifcstcd in the rcvival of an interest in ci~ltural
in time and space and of intcrcult~~rulrelations that W L ~ complemcn-
S
cvolut~onlsm.Whilc cvolutionism did not bcconlc the predominant
tcd by a functionalist cmphasis on the systcnlatic study of thc trcnd in Amcrican anthropology, it grcatly increased in popularity
internal configurations of c~~lturcs. Yet, while initially building on in thc 1950s and 1960s and cxertcd a significant influence throughout
traditional culture-historical chronologics, functional and process- the discipli~lc.
ual approachcs soon raised archacological questions that required
refinements in chronology and the understanding of spatial vari-
ation (especially intra-site variation) in the archaeological record.
American archaeologists strcngtl~encd and renewcd their long- The neo-evolutionism that developed in the United States in the
established tics with anthropology in a search for ethnographic 1960s was pet another attempt by anthropologists living in a poli-
parallels and theoretical concepts that would assist them to interpret tically dominant country to 'naturalize' their situation by demon-
thcir data from a functional or proccssual point of view. I11 doing so strating it to be the inevitable outcomc of an evolutionary process
they reaffirrncd a relationship first established in the nineteenth that allowed human beings to acquire greater control over their
century. European archaeologists tended to remain sceptical of cnviron~ne~ltand greater freedom from nature. Yet neo-
analogics in the abscncc of somc sort of direct historical connection cvolutionism differed in certain crucial fcatures from the unilinear
between the cultures bcing compared and vicwcd thcir worlc as an cvolutionism of the nineteenth century. Its ecological, demo-
enrichment of thcir continuing analysis of archacological data. graphic, or technological deterininism left n o room for the idea that
cultural change occurred becausz gifted individuals used their
 A history of arcliiicololr;iciil thought Nco-evolutionism apd the New Archaeology

illtclligcncc and lcisurc time to dcvisc ways to co~ltrolnature morc logical components and that 'social systems are . . . dcterrnined by
cffcctivcly and thus improve thc quality of human lifc. Instcad tcchnological systcms, and philosophies and the arts express cxperi-
nco-evolutionists argucd, as diffusio~iistsand social anthropologists ence as it is dcfincd by technology and rcfractcd by social systcms'
had done, that human beings sought to preserve a familiar style of (White 1949: 390-1). H e formulated his conccpt of tcchnological
Iifc i~nlcsschange was forccci o n them by factors that were beyond dctcrnlinisrn In terms of a 'basic law of evolution' which statcd that,
thcir control. This position, which was rationalized in terms of all things being equal, culturc cvolvcs as thc amount of cncrgy
ccosystcmics, cnlbodicd views about human bchaviour being natur- harncsscd per capita incrcascs, or as thc efficiency of putting energy
ally conscrvativc that wcrc far removed from thc individual creati- to work is increased. This law is surnmarizcd in the formula
vity that hacl been lauded by Spcnccr o r that no st ~ ~ i n c t c c ~ l t h -
Culture = E11crgy x Technology (C = E x T ) .
ccntury c\~olutionistshad used to explain cultural change. This
alteration appears to reflect the difference between an early stage in Despite the sweeping claims that White sometimes made for his
thc dcvcIop~nentof capitalism, when individual initiative was still theories, he strcsscd that, while thcy account for thc general outlincs
highly valued, and a more dcvclopcd phase dominated by multi- of cultural dcvclopmcnt, thcy cannot be uscd t o infer the specific
national corporations, whcn the individual is 110 longer idealized as a fcaturcs of individual cultures (Whitc 194s: 346).
major factor bringing about economic growth. Altl~ough White's technological dctcrminism has often been
The two principal exponents of nco-evolutionism in the 1950s statcd to be of Marxist origin, conceptuall~it has nothing in
were the ethnologists Lcslic White (1900-75) and Julia11 Steward common with Marxism except a general materialist orientation.
(1902-72) (see White 1949, 1959; Steward 1955). White regarded Instead, it reflects onc of thc principal thcmes of American social-
himsclf as the intellectual heir of L. H. Morgan and of the indige- scicncc scholarship, which has been described as privileging the
nous, evolutionary tradition of American anthropology. H e rejected relationship bctwecn technology and society at thc expense of other
the historical particularism, psychological reductionism, and belief kinds of relations, such as thosc bctwccn self and society (Krokcr
in frcc will inherent in Boasian anthropology. In their place he I 1984: 12).
offcrcd the conccpt of 'General Evolution', which trcatcd progress Stcw.lrd championed .In altcrnativc multilinear, ecological, and
as a charactcristic of culture in gcncral, although not ncccssarily of more empirical approach to thc study of cultural cvolution. H e
cvery individual culturc. White dcliberatclp ignored the influcncc of assumed that thcrc were significant rcgularitics in cultural develop-
cnvironmcnts and of one culturc upon another and conccntratcd on ment and that ecological adaptatio~lwas crucial for detcrmi~lingthe
explainilig thc main line of cultural development, which was marked limits of variation in cultural systcms. H c sought by means of com-
by the most advanced culturc of each succcssivc period rcgardless of parative studies to determine the diffcrcnt ways in which culturcs
their historical relationship. H e argued that this approach was had developed in diffcrcnt typcs of natural cnvironments, bclicving
justified because in the long run cultures that failed to keep ahead
were supcrscdcd and absorbed by morc progressive ones. Hcncc
from an evolutionary point of vicw they arc irrclcvant.
Whitc defined culturcs as elaborate thermodynamic systcnls. I11
his early writings he argucd that they functioned to make human life
!
that they would tend to assume the same forms and ollow similar
dcvclopmcntal trajcctorics in similar natural scttings hcsc similari-
tics constituted the 'cultural corc', which consisted f thosc fcaturcs
of a culture that wcrc most closcly relatcd to subsistence activities.
The corc embraced economic, political, and religious patterns that
more secure and enduring, although later he rcjcctcd that vicw as could be empirically determined to have major adaptive significance.
anthropocentric and claimcd that thcy evolved to serve their own Stcward argued that thc aim of cvolutionary anthropology should be
needs (Whitc 1975: 8-13) His perception of cultural changc was to explain the common fcaturcs bfcu~turesat similar levels of devcl-
matcrialistic and narrowly deterministic. H e maintained that cul- oplncnt rather than '~uniquc,exotic, and non-recurrent particulars'
tural systc~nsarc composed of techno-ccono~llic,social, and ideo- which can be attributed to historical accidents (Stcward 195s: 209).
 A history of archacological thought Nco-evolutionism and tlic Ncw Arclincology
M. D. Sahlins and E. R. Scrvicc (1960) tried to reconcile thcsc ologists wcrc constructing scquenccs to describe thc dcvclopmcnt of
two approaches by differentiating bctwccn general and syccific native cultures in the New World (Wilson 1862). These approaches,
c\rolution. Thcsc wcrc dcfitlcd as being concerned with progrcss and which located the main centres of dcvclopmcnt in Mesoamerica and
adaptation rcspcctivcly. Although the concept of evolution was Peru, did not disappear following the adoption of a culture-
thereby dissociated fro111 automatically implying progrcss, in latcr historical approach. In Ancient Civilizations of Mexico and Central
studies Sahlins (1968) and Scrvicc (1962, 1975) used ethnographic America H . J . Spindcn (1928) distinguished three lcvels of dcvclop-
data to collstruct speculative and highly gc~lcralizcdscquenccs of mcnt, Nomadic (hunting and gatherii~g),Archaic (agriculture), and
unilincar dcvclopmcnt, employing conccpts such as band, tribc, Civilization; whilc in Method and Theoly in American Archaeology,
chiefdom, and state. Implicit in thcir npproachcs, and in the schcmc Willcy and Phillips (1958) assigned all Cultures to five stages of
of political evolution dc~clopcdby Morton Fried (1967), was the increasing complexity: Lithic (big-game Jlunting), Archaic (inten-
assuinption that the greater sclcctivc fit~lcssof technologically sive collecting), Formativc (villagc agridlture), Classic (early civili-
advanced societies cnsurcd that progrcss characterized c u l t ~ ~ r a l zations), and Post-Classic (latcr prchispanic civilizations). Despite
change as a gcncral feature of human history. thcir cvolutiollary appearance thcsc forn~ulationssought to dcs-
The most tlicorctically sophisticated approach of this sort is cribc, rather than to JCCOLIII~ for, c ~ ~ l t u rclla~lgc
al in dcvclopmcntal
Marvin Harris' (1979) cultural materialism. H e assigns a privilcgcd tcrms. They also rclied as heavily o n diffusionist explanations as did
role in shaping cultural systems to an array of material conditions, othcr culture-historical formulations.
including technology, dcmography, and cconomic relations, and Yet, with their growing interest in functionalist and processual
seeks to cxplain all sociocult~iralphenomena in tcrms of the relative explanations of the archaeological record, many Anlerican archae-
costs and bcncfits of altcrnativc strategies, as measured in tcrms of ologists werc predisposed to be reccptivc to neo-evolutionary con-
thcsc critcria. Much of his work has bccn dircctcd towards trying to cepts, which empl~asizedregularities in culture. They noted that
csylain the origin of food taboos, religious bclicfs, and othcr cul- many of thc key variables that White and Stcward posited as major
tural csotcrica in tcrms of the relations that. tl~csccustonls have to causes of c ~ ~ l t ~change
~ r a l wcrc relatively acccssibic for archaeological
basic cconomic considerations (Harris 197+, 1977).While overtly lcss study, unlike tlic idealist cxplu~iationsof the Boasians. Sccausc of
conccrncd with delineating cvolutionar)! scqucnccs thlui were their lack of direct information co~lccrni~lg human bchaviour and
Sahlins, Scrvicc, and Fried, Harris' approach is no lcss evolutionary beliefs, archaeologists werc also less inclined to be critical of the
than theirs. shortcomings of 1x0-evolutionary thcory than wcrc ethnologists.
What distinguished the various materialist approaches that dcvcl- Only a few objcctcd that nco-evolutionism cncouragcd simplistic
oped in Amcrican anthropology in the 1960s from the cvolutionar)! explanations and did not rule out adequately the possibility of
schcmcs of the ninctccnth century was thcir vicw of causality. Whitc altcrnativc oncs (Lamberg-Karlovsky 197s: 342-3). Nco-evolution-
adopted a very narrow form of tech~~ological determinism that ary anthropology intensified and gave new directions to trends
reflected faith in technology as a sourcc of social progrcss, whilc alrcady at work in prehistoric archaeology.
Stcward embraced a lcss rcstrictivc ecological and Harris a still One of the first applicatiolls of neo-evolutionary theory to archae-
broader cconomic detcr~~~inisnl. Judged by Marxist standards all of ology was B. J. Mcggers"T11c law of cultural evolution as a practical
these approachcs are cxamplcs of vulgar materialism, bccause they research tool' (1960).She argued that bccause of the absence of non-
vicw human beha\fiour as shapcd nlorc or lcss cxclusivcly by non- human sources of energy in small-scale societies, Whitc's law, as it
human constraints. Marxism, by contrast, includes humanly applied to them, could be rcwrittcn in the following fashion:
arranged relations of productioll in the cco~lomicbase that deter-
mines social change. Culture = Environme~ltx Technology.
Already by the micldlc of thc ~ ~ i n c t c c ~ccntury
lth some archac- This s~lggcstcdthat any archaeologist who was able to reconstruct
 A history of archaeological thought Neo-evolutionism and the New Archaeology

the technology and environme~itof a prehistoric culture should be number of general historical processes. Finally he adopted the
able on the basis of that information to determine what the key neo-evolutionary position that not all cultural facts arc of equal
features of the rest of the culture were like. Furthermore, any importance in bringing about change. The primary aim of archae-
sl~ortcomingswere not the responsibility of archaeology but ologists must be to explain changes in archaeological cultures in
resulted from the failure of ethnologists to elaborate adequate terms of cultural processes.
theories relating technology and environment to the rest of culture. Caldwell's paper reveals that during the decade following the
Mcggers believed it to be an advantage that archaeologists were publication of Taylor's A Study ofArcheology the concept of process-
'forced to deal with culture artific~allyseparated from human beings' ual change within cultural systems had achicvcd a new level of
(Mcggcrs 1955.129) ,~ndth,lt her formuI.it~onpl,~ccclso I I I L I C ~c1iip1i~-
~ imyort,uicc in Amcric.un ~rchacology.While this was cncour~gcdby
sis on techno-cnvironme~~tal dctcrrn~nisnithat it saw no need to use developments within arcl~aeology,in particular the study of ccology
archaeological data to study non-material aspects of cultural and settle~ncntpatterns, it was also promoted by thc growing
systems. Her attitudc towards tlic use of etlinographic analogy popularity of nco-evolutionary anthropology, with its emphasis on
resembled that of many nineteenth-century evolutionary anthropo- cultural regularities. The essential and enduring elements of the
logists. Her position was, however, too lack~ngin direct applicat~on New Archacology were thc collcctivc crcation of a considcrablc
to attract significant support among archaeologists. Likewise, number of American archaeologists during the 1950s.
White's treatment of technology as an 111dependentvariable bring- These concepts were popularized among thc younger gcncration
ing about change too closely resembled Montclius' view of change of American archaeologists by Lewis Binford, who added new
occurring as a result of the desire of human beings to control nature elements to create the approach that since the 1960s has been
more effectively. To a growing number of archaeologists, who were recognized around the world as the Amcrican New Archaeology.
beconling aware of cultural ecology and were anxious to provide a Binford engaged in a series of vigorous polemics in which he sought
~natcrialistexplanation of what factors promoted or discouraged to de~l~onstrate the advantages of the New Archaeology over tradi-
tcc11nologic.1l ~nnovations, Whitc's v~cwsS C C I I I C ~ old-fasliioncd, tional approaches, which hc idcntificd primarily with the modified
idealist, and teleological. Ncvcrthclcss, some archaeologists form of the Midwestern Taxonomic Method practiscd at the Uni-
ndniircd 111s dccluctivc , ~ p p r o ~ to
c l ~understanding cultural change versity of Michigan while lie had been a graduate student there in the
(Binford 1972: 110-11). 1950s.The resulting polarization madc the New Archaeology appear
to be a dramatic break with the past rather than a continuation and
intensification of the functionalist and processual trends that had
TheNew AYzhaeology been developing in Amcrican and Western European archaeology
In 1959 Joseph Caldwell published an articlc in Science titled 'The since the 1930s. Although there was considerable passive support for
ncw American archeology'. 111 it he surveyed major trends that he old-fashioned culture-historical archaeology, many so-callcd 'tradi-
saw transforming archaeology. H e cited growing interest in ecology tional' archaeologists were adherents of thcsc recent trends who
and settlement patterns as cvidence of a new concern with cultural merely objected to particular facets of Binford's programme. The
process. Archaeological cultures were no longer regarded merely as rapid adoption of the New Archaeology thus reflected the predis-
thc sum total of their preserved artifact types, each of which can be posing tendencies at work in the IWOS, while Binford's polemics
treated in a stylistic fashion as indcpe~idcntand equally significant. disguised a considerable degree of consensus about the general
Instcad they have to be analyscd, as Taylor had proposed, as con- direction in which American archaeology should evolve.
figurations or even as functionally integrated systems. H e also Binford outlined the programme of the New Archaeology in two
supported the neo-evolutionary belief that behind the infinite papers: 'Archaeology as anthropology' (1962) and 'Archaeological
variety of cultural facts and specific historical situations is a finite systematics and the study of culture process' (1965). H c idcntificd rhe
 A history of arcl~acologicalthought Neo-cvolutionisn~and the New Archaeology

goal of archacology as being the same as that traditionally assigned evolving social systems. Steward (1955: 182) had argued that every
to anthropology: to explain the full rangc of similarities and diffcr- cultural borrowing might be construed as an 'independent recur-
cnccs in cultural bchaviour. H e also maintained that arcl~acological rence of cause and cffcct' and Harris (1968: 377-8) had dismisscd
data were particularly uscfi~lfor studying charigcs that occurred over diffusion as a 'nonprinciplc'. Chang (1962: 190-1) maintaincd that, if
long periods of tili~c.These explanations were seen as taking the in the coursc of its developmellt Chinese civilization had been
for111of generalizations about systemic change and cultural evolu- unable to borrow new tcchnologiral proccsscs from thc outside, the
tion. As a student of Lcslic White, Binford was prcdisposcd to Chincsc would have invented thc same processes o r oncs of similar
belicvc that thcrc were strong regularities in human bchaviour and econornic and social significance. Thus Binford differed from tradi-
that thcrc ur3s little ~fiffCrcnccbctn~ccnexplaining a single instance tional A m c r ~ c , ~archaeologists
~l by emphasizing humanity's capacity
of social change and 3 wl~olcclass of similar changes. Hcncc his main for innovation at the sanlc tinlc that he agrccd with them in vicwing
concern was to account for cultural similarities rather than diffcr- undisturbed cultures as normally static.
cnccs. Tl~roughouthis career he has dcvotcd l~imsclfto explaining Like Caldwell, Binford stressed the internal differentiation and
problcms such as increasing complcxity in hunter-gathcrcr soci- systcmic integration of culturcs. H e objcctcd to the cstablishcd
ctics, the dcvclopnicnt of agriculture, and to a much lesser degree 1 normative view, which regarded cultures as collections of ideas held
thc evolution of civilization (Binford 1983b). in common and transmitted over generations by members of par-
Like Grahamc Clark, Binford viewed cultures as humanity's extra- ticular social groups. In somc of his writings his objections to views
somatic means of adaptation. Changes in all aspects of cultural of culture as a mental phenomenon appear to rule out White's
systcn~swcre therefore intcrprctcd as adaptivc responses to alter- concept of culture as being symbolic in nature, although hc other-
ations in the natural cnvironmcnt or in adjacent and competing wise praises White's views (Binford 1972: 105-13). Like Caldwell, he
cultural systems. Binford described cvolutio~las 'a process operative also objected to each item of culture being regarded as equal in
nt tllc interface of a living systc~nand its field' (1972: 106). This significance to all others and thc pcrccntagc of similarities and
ccosystcmic view csscntiallp ruled out human inventiveness and diffcrcnccs In artifact types being trcatcd as a mcasurcmcnt of the
innovation within cultural traditions as indcpcndcnt forces capable ainount of cffcctivc conlrnunication bctwccn groups. H e main-
of bringing about major changes. It also treated culturcs as normally 1 tained that traditional arcl~aeologyattributed diffcrcnces between
tcnding towards equilibrium or homeostasis, with change being1 cultures t o geographical barriers or resistant value systems, while it
induced by cxtcrnal factors. viewed ideas as being spread from one culture to another by diffu-
Although Binford viewed cultural change as being initiated by sion and migration. Although this description may have represented
non-cultural or external factors causing perturbations in what would accurately the views about cultures held by traditional culture-
otherwise tcnd to be homeostatic systems, he insisted, as Clark and historical archaeologists working in the midwestern United States
Taylor alrcady had done, that it had to be undcrstood in terms of the or even those of Walter Taylor, it did not take account of the views
rcspo~~scs that occurred within cultural systems. H e thus shared thc of a growing nurnbcr of functionalist archacologists in thc Unitcd
tcndcncy, already cvidcnt in scttlcment archacology, to concentrate States or of Clark and Childe in Britain. As early as 1925 Childe had
an understanding cultural change from an internal point of view. cmployed a functio~lalistview of culture to facilitate his culture-
This approach emphasized systcmic relations and thcreforc conti- historical analyses when he distinguished between ethnic traits,
liuities in changc as opposed to the discontinuities brought about by which did not diffuse readily, and tecllnological ones, which did.
migration and diffusion. Within the general context of neo- Binford argued that cultures were not interllally homogeneous.
evolutionism there was a growing tendency to believe in the capacity All of them wcre differentiated at least according t o age and sex roles
of l i u r n a ~bcings
~ to invent and reinvent new forms of technology, and the degree to which they were internally shared by individuals
nocinl bchaviour, and beliefs and valucs as these wcre rcquircd by varied inversely with their complcxity. Individuals always partici-
 A history of archacological thought Neo-evolutionism and the New Archaeology

pated in cultures differentially, malung a total cultural system a set of

hnctionally interrelated roles. Because of this, it was wrong for
archaeologists to treat artifacts as equal and comparable traits.
Instead thcy must try to determine the roles they had played within
living cultural systems. This necessitated an effort to achieve a
relatively holistic view of these systems.
At this point Binford could have attempted, as Willey (19yj),
Childe (1958a), and various scttlcmcnt archaeologists had done, to
reconstruct sosi.11 systcnls. This .~pproachconccntratcd o n del~neat-
ing patterns of human interaction .~nddetermining tlie f ~ n c t i o ~ l a l
relationship of cultural traits to social systems. Instead he followed
White in viewing culturcs as adaptive systems composed of three
interrelated subsystems: technology, social organization, and ideol-
ogy. Thus he supported the view that human behaviour was deter-
mined by forces of which human beings are largely unaware and
which frequently are located in the natural realm.
Binford argued that material items do not interact within a single
subsystem of culture but reflect all three subsystems. Technomic
aspects of artifacts reflect how thcy were used to cope with the
environment; sociotechnic ones have their primary context in the
social system; and ideotechnic ones relate to the ideological realm.
In 1962he s~~ggestcd that each type of artifact might be interpreted as 42 Binford's plan o f a modern Nunamiut butchery area at Anavik Springs,
rclating primarily to one of these classes, but by 1965 he noted that Alaska, showing whcrc caribou wcrc dismcmbercd and wastc products
inlvidual artifacts frequently encoded information about all three. were disposed
A knife might be used for cutting, but its gold handle could denote
the upper-class social status of its owner and a symbol engraved on
the blade might invoke divine protection for him. still continued to pervade much American archaeology in the early
Binford went further than either Clark or Taylor had done in 1960s. They were anxious to, demonstrate that ethnologists were
arguing that, because artifacts have primary contexts in all sub- wrong when they smugly proclaimcd that archaeology was 'doomed
systems of culture, formal artifact assemblages and their contexts can always to be thc lesser part of anthropology' (Hocbel1949: 436).
yield a systematic and understandable picture of total extinct cul- Binford observed that archaeologists had already made significant
tures. H e maintained that the archaeologist's primary duty is to progress in using lu~owledgedcrivcd from thc physical and bio-
explain the relations that are extant in the archaeological record. In logical sciences to interpret those aspects of the archaeological
particular he repudiated the idea that it was inherently more difficult record relating to technomic behaviour, especially subsistence pat-
to reconstruct social organization or religious beliefs than it was to terns and technological practices. O n the other hand, anthropolo-
infer economic behaviour. The idea that archaeologists could study gists did not know enough about correlations between social
any problem that ethnologists could, and over much longer periods behaviour or beliefs and material culture to infer much sociotechnic
of time, won support among many young archaeologists who were or ideotechnic information from the archaeological record. Only
frustrated by the artifact-centred, culture-historical approach that after such correlations had been established and archaeologists had
 A history of archaeological thought Nco-evolutionism and the New Archaeology

acquired a holistic knowledge of the structural and functional cliar- a constant articulation of spccific variables in a system. Only if a
actcristics of cultural systems could they begin to investigate prob- particular bchavioural trait could bc shown always to correlate with
lems of evolutionary changes in social systems and ideology. Binford a spccific item of niatcrial culturc, whcrcvcr both could be obscrved,
argued tliat in order to cstablish sucli corrclatio~isarchacologists could such bchaviour be infcrrcd from the occurrence of that item in
must bc trained as e t l i n o l o g i ~ tOnly
~ . by studying living sitnations tlic arcliacological rccord. This in turn ncccssitatcd a dcductivc
in which bcll.i\~io~~r 2nd iclcas ca11 bc obscl-vcd in conjunction \vitIi approach in which relations between variables tliat arc arcliac-
material culture W ~ itS possible to cst:lblis11 co~-~-eIatio~is tllat co~tld ologically obscrvablc and oncs that arc not arc forniulatcd and tcstcd
be uscd to infcr social bcliaviour and idcology reliably from the in a statistically significant number of cth~iographicsituations in
.~rcl~acologic~~l s.liv tIii> AS .I p r o ~ n i s i111
i-c.corci. l{i~~li)~-ci ~
3 >~-o.lch
~ ~ to m~liich both variables can be obscrvcci. Only by mcans of such
understancling the past bccausc, as 3 nco-evolutionist, hc bclicvcd mcasurcmcnt of concomitint variation can regularities be cstab-
that there was a high dcgrcc of regularity in human bchaviour which lishcd that are useful for u~idersta~lding prchistoric cultural systems.
comparative cthnograpliic studies could rcvcal. These rcgularitics Analogies arc mcrcly a source of liypothcscs to be testcd in this
could then be used to infcr many aspects of prehistoric culturcs that manner (13inford 1972: 33-51). Binford cliampioncd the positivist
were not directly obscrvablc in the archacological rccord. If 11~1n1an view that cxpla~iationand prediction are equivalent and that both
bcha\~iourwere lcss regular than lie assumed, sucli corrclatiorls rcst upon the dcmonstration of a constant articulation of variablcs.
\vould bc fewer in number and lcss ~ ~ s c f for u l reconstructing pre- Tlic rigorous application of a positivist approach was seen as elimi-
historic culturcs and understanding changc. nating subjcctivc clemcnts and establisliing a basis for the objective,
Some of tlic principal carly applicatio~isof tlic New Archaeology scientific intcrprctatioll of arcl~acologicaldata. T o achicvc tliis level
were attempts to use ceramics to infcr the residence patterns of of rigour, howcvcr, arcliacologists had t o adhcrc t o dcductivc
prchistoric communities. It 1vas 3ss~11iied tliat, if \voniell ~iiadcthe canons which utilized wcll-cstablislicd corrclations, as outlined by
pottcry uscd by their families, design clcnlcnts would tend to cluster Carl Hcmpcl (1962, 1965) in his covering-law model of explanation.
wlicrc knowlcdgc of pottcry maliing was transmitted from motlicrs From tliis pcrspcctivc the most useful corrclations arc those that
to clauglitcrs in nic~trilocalsocieties but would bccomc randomized hold true wlicncvcr spccific conditions arc present. Since then
in patrilocal oncs wlicrc fc~iialcpottcrs from diffcrc~ltlincagcs Ii\icd archacologists have rcalizcd that, because of the complexity o f
adjacent to one anothcr (Dcctz 1965; Whallon 1968; Hill 1970; human bcliaviour, most corrclations arc statistical rather than abso-
Longacrc 1970). The sex of pottcrs was detcrmincd by applying thc lute in naturc and that most statistical corrclations arc of a lower
direct historical mctliod rathcr than by nicans of forensic cvidcncc as ratlicr than a higher dcgrcc of magnitude, a problcm that ctlinolo-
Trct'yakov had done in the 1930s. In thcsc carly studics the altcr- gists engaged in cross-cultural studics have lolig had to colitcnd with
native possibility that some pottcry was professionally made and (Textor 1967). Under these circumstances the problem of equifina-
cxcliangcd ovcr long distances was not cxamincd, nor wcrc tlic lity, or different causes producing the same cffcct, becomes increas-
conditions under which brokcn pottcry was discarded (S. Plog ingly troublcsonic, as archacologists engaged in simulation studics
1980). Thcsc pioneering efforts by American archacologists to infcr have rcalizcd (Hoddcr 1978; Sabloff1981).Yet Billford has co~itiliued
social organization from archacological cvidcncc tlicrcforc did not to pay much lcss attention to dcductivc-statistical than t o
reach the high standards Binford had set for sucli worli. They also deductive-~io~~iological cxpla~iatio~ls(M. Salmon 1982: 120-2).
map have provided a misleading impression of the Itind of Tlic cxtcnsion of the covering-law method to the explanation of
opcrations that were required bp tlic dcductivc approach. cultural changc tended to cxcludc consideration of all but situatio~is
Among Binford's principal original contributions at tliis time was of notable regularity. This correlated with Binford and his followers
his insistc~iccthat the correlations used to infer human beha\~1our '
repudiating historical studics, which they equated with chronology,
from archacological data had to be based on the dcmonstration of description, and a preoccupation with accidental occurrences
 A history of archacological thought Neo-evolutionism and the New Archaeology

(Binford 1967b: 235; 1968b). This line of reasoning had been intro- theology to equate rcason and volition with free will. If human
duced to American archaeologists by the ethnologist Clyde ICluck- behaviour is to be explained it must therefore be shown to be
hohn (1940) when 11e wrote that Mesoamerican archaeologists had determined by something other than reason. This factor has been
to cl~oosebetween historical studies that sought to recrcatc unique variously identified as culture (Tylor, Kroeber), society (Durk-
cvcnts in all of their idiosyncratic detail and scicntific research that heim), subconscious drives (Freud), or ecosystems (Stcward).
addrcsscd significant trends and uniforniitics in cultural changc.
This invidious dichotomy bctwccn history and scicncc, which paral-
Systems theov
leled the distinction that American anthropologists drew bctwcen
his tor)^ and evolution, was rcinforcccl by Taylor (1948: 156-7) and Binford's ideas quickly attractcd a large following among American
Willep and Phillips (1958: 5-6), who regarded culture-historical arcl~acologists,cspccially younger oncs. At lcast one scnior scholar,
integration as an objcctivc that was inferior to formulating general Paul Martin (IWI), rallied publicly to his support. Binford's work
rulcs of cultural bchaviour. Binford vicwcd archaeologists' cfforts to also influenced Colin Renfrcw (1979,1984), an English archacologist
explain particular historical cvcnts as inductive bchaviour that who taught for a time in thc United Statcs, and had much in
would doom archaeology to remain a particularistic, non- common with thc formulations of David Clarke (1968)~another
generalizing ficld. H e argued that archaeologists instead must seek Englishman who was, however, independently influenced by the
to for~nulatelaws of cultural dynamics. While in historical retrospect locational analysis and general systems approaches of the New
this position can bc sccn as rcflccting the belief that human history is Geography that had developed at Cambridge University (Chorley
govcrncd by strong regularities, it deflected archacological interest and Haggett 1967). In America also attempts wcrc soon made to
from significant aspects of cultural changc that d o not display such account for cultural changc in terms of General Systems Theory.
regularities. This was a body of concepts that the biologist Ludwig von Bkrta-
Binford also denied the relevance of psychological factors for lanffy began to develop in thc 194os, which sought to dclineatc thc
undcrstanding prehistory. Hc identified the use of such concepts underlying rules that govern thc behaviour of cntitics as divcrsc as
wit11 Boasian idealism and the culture-historical approach and tl~ermostats, digital computers, glaciers, living organisms, and
argucd that thcp had no cxplanatory value for an ecological interpre- sociocultural systems. It was assumed that all of thcsc could be
tation of culturc and cultural changc. O n thc contrary, within an conceptualized as systems madc ub of interacting parts and that rules
ecological framework spccific psychological factors could be vicwcd could be formulated that described how significant aspects of any
as an epiphenomena1 aspect of human behaviour that arose as a system functioned, regardless of its specific nature (~ertalanfG1969;
consequence of ecological adaptation. H e also argucd that archae- Laszlo 1972a, b, c). Systems theory allowcd archaeologists to tran-
ologists arc poorly trained to function as palaeopsychologists scend the limitations of traditional social anthropological analyses of
(Binford 1972: 198). static structures by studying not only structure-maintaining but also
New Archacologists have continucd to condemn explanations of structure-elaborating (or morphogenctic) processes. Many of the
change that invokc cithcr conscious or unconscious psychological most important of thcsc studies wcrc bascd on cybernetics, which
factors. Instcad they have identified relations bctwcen technology sought to account for how systems functioned by mapping feedback
and the environment as the key factors determining cultural systems between their various parts. Negative feedback maintains a system in
and, through them, human bchaviour. In this respect they clearly an essentially steady state in the face of fluctuating external inputs,
differ from Marxists who see individual and collective perceptions of while positive feedback brings about irreversible changes in the
self-interest as a major cause of changc. On. the other hand this structure of thc system. The concept of feedback offered archae-
rejection of perceptions is shared by many other Western social ologists a more precise, and potentially quantifiable, mechanism for
scientists. It seems to rcflcct a tendency that has its roots in Christian interrelating thc various components of a changing cultural system

303
 A history of archaeological thought Neo-evolutionism =nd the New Archaeology

than did the essentially static social anthropological concept of American prehistory. There, gvkrywhere except in the Southwest,
functional integration (Watson et al. 1971: 61-87). where calendrical dates for'sitcs back' to t h c beginning of the
There was, however, no agreement about how feedback was to be Christian era had bccn derived dendrochronologically since thc
measured. It has been identified with goods, energy, or information, 1920s, radiocarbon chronologies revealed that cultural sequences
and with all three combined. The concept of energy was especially had developed over longer periods and far more slowly than had
congenial to ecological approachcs. In an influential pioneering previously bccn believed (cf. Ritchic 1944, 1965). By grcatly slowing
study Kent Flannery (1968) argucd that favourablc genetic changcs the rate of cultural changc in the 'eastern Unitcd Statcs and Wcstcrn
in maize and beans encouraged Mesoamcrican hunter-gatherers to Europe, radiocarbon dating madc it easier f o r archaeologists to
rcschcdulc their food procurcmcnt pattcrns in order to increase their crcdit thc possibility that major changcs had come about as a rcsult
dependence on these two plants, thus setting in motion systemic of internal changes- rather than a'ttributing- thcm to diffusion and
changes that did not stop until maize and beans had become the migration as they had previously done.
principal foci of intcnsivc agriculture. Soon after, the conccpt of Although thc Ncw Arcliacologists agrccd that thc main causcs of
informatio~~ processing bccame central to a discussion of the dcvcl- cultural cliangc wcrc not to be found within sociocultural systcms o r
opmcnt of social hierarchies and complex societies. This theorizing identified with human volition, they did not agrce - about cither thc
drew upon and helped to elaboratc a body of propositions derived specific causes of change o r tlie degree to which social behaviour was
from Gcncral Systems Thcory concerning disproportional growth. shaped by these factors. Ecological explanations of change con-
These propositions attempted to explain the effects of increasing tinued to be very important, although unicausal theories, such as
scale on the evolution of new institutions for collecting- information those that attributed the origins o f civilization t o the development
and making dccisions (Flanncry 1972; Rathjc 197s; Johnson 1978, of complcx irrigation systems', wcrc gradually abando~icd(Hunt
1981). While archacologists wcrc rarcly able to apply General 1972). Ecological factors bncc a'gain camc to bc vicwcd more as a
Systems Theory in a rigorous mathematical fashion, it has provided constraint upon human behayiour than as an explanation of the
a model for studying cultural change that gave new meaning to spccific forks that human behaviour has taken. At the same timc
Binford's call to d o this in terms of systcmic analyses. other causal factors were considcrcd. Estcr Boserup's The Conditions
The development of an intcrnal view of cultural change was ofA~riculturidGrowth (1965) tevivcd an interest in speculations
grcatly assisted by radiocarbon dating, which was invented by dating back to the cightcenth century that gradual population
Willard Libby in the late 1940s and immediately applied to dating increase could be a major independent variable bringing about
-,cultural change. Although her theory had been devised to explain
archaeological material (Libby 1955). This new technique reduced
the need for archaeologists to rely on seriation and cross-cultural
- the development of more intcnsi"e forms of agriculture, archac-
trait distributions to construct cultural chronologies.
- It also became ologists applicd it to explain the origins o f agriculturc (P. Smith
possible for the first time to datc sites around the world in relation- 1976) and civilization (Young i972), ,and finally the totality of cul-
ship to one another and to assign calendrical dates rather than only tural change (M. Cohen 1977).'While it provided a major stimulus
relativc ones to prehistoric sites. Archaeologists
- were thus able to for palaeodemographic studies', the results werc rarely sufficiently
study rates as well assequcnces of change. Renfrew's (1973a, 1979) dctailcd or co~nprchcnsivcto pcrmit a substantial test of the theory.
reinterpretation of European prehistory was based almost cntircly I11 due coursc archaeologists began to stress the cultural and bio-
on calibratcd radiocarbon dates, which hc uscd to dcmonstrate that logical factors that influence thc ratc o f population growth and
Neolithic and Bronze Agc sites north and wcst of thc Acgcan wcrc I demographic factors have ceascd to b e widely regarded as indepcn-
considerably older than Montclius and Childe had determined on dent causes of change (Cowgill 1975; Binford and Chasko 1976).
the basis of cross-dating. Robert Dunnell and some of his students opted for a different sort
Radiocarbon dating had a similar effect on the study of North of systemic approach, that uses biological ('scientific') evolutionary
 A h~storyof arcli,~cologicalthought

theory t o cxplain cultural as well as biological variability (Dunncll

198oa; Wcnkc 1981; Rindos 1984). They argue that traditiortal cul-
tural evolutionism has failed to intcrnalizc such lccy tenets of scienti-
fic evolutionism as random variation and ~iaturalsclcction. While
admitting that mechanisms of trait transmission arc more varied and
the stability of the units 011 which selection operates is lcss so with
respect t o cultural than t o biological phcnonicna (both issucs that
Krocbcr [19(2]and other anthropologists d i s c ~ ~ s s clong d ago), thcy
m.~int.tin tl1.11 . ~ I I.lpproacI~l~.tscciO I I ge11e1-;11 ~)~-i~lcit>lcs
~Sscic~itilic
c\~olutionismcan offcr explanations of human bcha\liour that arc
superior t o those offcrcd by cultural cvolutionar~:approaches. This
'

often involves the radical reformulation of traditional questions. For

exaniplc, David Kindos (1984: 1 4 3 ) has defined domestication as a
mutualistic relation ofvarying degrees between different species. H c
docs not view the adaptation o f plants and animals t o human needs
as differcnt in llaturc from the adaptation o f human bcings t o the
needs of plants and animals. This approach carries t o an cxtrernc the
denial that consciousness and intentionality play a significant rolc in
shaping human b c h a v i o ~ ~ r .
Although spstems thcory inspired some highly specific cxpla-
nations of cultural cl~ange,such as Flanncrj:'~ hypothesis concerning
the dcvclopme~ltof plant domestication in Mesoamerica, in the long
run it cncouragcd arch.lcologists to note thc complex r.lmificntions
of C L I I ~ L IPI-OCCSSCS.
~;~~ This s t i m ~ ~ l a t cidcntific,ltion
d o f the numcrous
interlinking factors that brought about cultural change and led some
archaeologists to recognize that even key variables might have
played a lcss important rolc in shaping cultural systems than thcy
had hitherto bclicvcd. This in turn has led Inany archacologists to
adopt a morc inductive approach to explaining causality. I t was also
recognized that because of the complexity of cultural systems the
same factors might have different effects o r different ones thc sainc
effect depending o n indi\~idualcircumstances. Flannery (1972) s ~ g -
gestcd that cxplanatio~is~of cultural dc\~clopmcntshould concentrate
less o n the conditions bringing about cultural change than o n thc
types of systemic changes that could be obscr\~cdin the archaeo-
logical record. H c offered, as cxa~uplcsof c\~oIutionarymechanisms,
'promotion' and 'linearization'. Promoti011 in\lolvcd established
institutions rising in a developing hierarchy of co~ltrolt o assume I
transfor~ncdand morc far-reaching roles. Lillcarization o c c ~ ~ r r c d 43 Systelll flow chart for Shoshonean Indian subsistence cycle, by
D. H. Thomas, 1972
 A history of arcl~aeologicalthought

when higher-order controls cut past and eliminated traditional

lower-order ones after the latter had failed to function in a more
.T 0
complex setting. 13gr
Flanncry's approach was extremely valuable for gaining an under- - a

standing of change from a social-structural point of view. It also

drew attention to a source of constr~int011 hu~nan~ C ~ . Z V ~ O L that
IL-
was different from, and scenlingly independent of, the ecological
constraints that American archaeologists previously hacl been con-
s~dcring.If social and political systenls could only ass~lmea Iinlitcd
-. \
c
."
Y

* \I
7ibg
-p\\\ N
..A
number of general forms (a point Childe had already made in Social 1 d
A

Evolution),these forms restricted the variation that was possible in

human behaviour and the routes that cultural change can follow. Yet
such limitations d o not explain why changes occurred in the first
place. In terms of causal factors, a systems approach serves t o
describe rather than to explain change;
Many archaeologists havc concluded that, because a systems
approach makes fewer assumptions about causality and is more
inductive, it is conceptually superior to theories that assume in
advance why change takes place. These archaeologists have been
accused of using systems theory in a Boasian fashion to beg the I \

question of causality (Leone 1975). Yet Sanders, Parsons, and

Santley (1979: 360) have failed in their efforts to demonstrate that
ultimately four or five ecological variables can account for as much as
I
SO per cent of the variation in the archaeological record.
Archaeologists soon began to move further away from rather than
nearer to a consensus about factors governing sociocultural change. I

Working within a neo-evolutionary tradition, processual archae-

I \
ologists tried hard to demonstrate that a limited number of eco- '
logical and demographic variables played a predominant role in
\\
shaping sociocultural systems. Yet the regularity in these systems \
\
consistently turned out to be less than neo-evolutionary theory /
/

predicted. It was also more difficult than neo-evolutionary theory /

U /
suggested for archaeologists to infer one aspect of sociocultural A
systems from known characteristics of another part, especially
features of social organization and ideology from lu~owledgeof the
economy. Stuart Struever (1968) argued, for example, that the means
by which a population derives its subsistence from the environment
plays such an important role in shaping the entire cultural system
that the nature of settlement patterns can be predicted and hence
 A history of arcliacological thought

cxplaincd in terms of tcchnology and thc natural cnvironment. H e

viewed scttlcmcnt patterns as 'an csscntial corollary of subsistcncc'
and intcrprctcd 'variations bctwccn culturcs [as] responses to diffcr-
ing adaptive rcquircments of specific cnvironmcnts' (p. 133-5). H c
tlicrcforc bclic\rcd that archacological scttlcmcnt patterns only
scrvcd to confirm that rcl;ltionslii~.Yct ;I growing ~~ndcrstanciing of
scttlcmcnt patterns has indicated that prediction is not so simple and
that significant factors other than technology and c m' '~ r o n n ~ c n t
shape thcir dc\lclopmcnt (Triggcr 196th; Clarkc 1977). Under thcsc
circu~nstancesan inductivc systcms approach offcrcd a growing
number of archaeologists a methodology that sccmcd morc produc-
tive of insights into the C;ILISCS of \l;lri;~tiontli;ln did thc narrowly
dctcrniinistic explanations suggested by nco-evolutionists. Tl~csc
archaeologists either implicitly o r explicitly rejected tlic rigidly
deductive approach originally advocated by thc New Archacology.
The New Archacology promoted a morc sophisticated and pro-
ductivc view of sampling by revealing the often unconscious biascs
that had governed traditional archacological rcscarch and the inade-
quacies of thcsc approaches for understanding prehistoric culturcs
as systcms. Prior to the dcvcloplncnt of scttlcmcnt arcl~acology,thk
cxcavations of urban centres had couccntratcd on ccrcmonial prc-
cincts and palaccs, whilc gcncrally ignoring how ordinary people
had lived. Rcgional in\lcstigations often paid little attention t o thc
seasonality of huntcr-gathcrcr sitcs and ignored low-lcvcl sites, such
as pcasant hamlets, in hierarchical socictics. Scttlcmcnt studies, such
as Gordon Willey's systematic investigation of pcasant hamlcts in
thc Bclizc Valley (Willcy e t al. 1965) had already begun to correct
thcsc biascs. New Arcliaeo1ogists ~ldvocatcdthe use of sampling
stratcgics t o guidc both survcys and cxcavations and cco:~omizco n
thc timc and labour nccdcd t o carry out research. Underlying this
advocacy was thcir bclicf that, bccausc strong rcgularitics wcrc
inherent in cult~iralsjrstcnls, a s11ia11 part of a s)lstcm could be
rcprcscntati\~cof thcbholc. Now, howcvcr, it was no longer a singlc :
sitc, but somc portion of a sitc nctwork that was thought t o bc
I
typical of thc wholc.
Various fornis of sampling helped archacologists t o rccovcr a
morc rcprcscntativc selection of the ~natcrialto bc foulid in large
hctcrogcl~coussitcs. Yet random sampling has comc to be sccn as an
initial cscavation strategy that must be supplcmcntcd in thc latcr
 I '

A history of archaeological thought Neo-evolutionisn~and the New Archaeology

stagcs of rcsearcl~by an increasing number of judgemental decisions nationalistically oriented middle"c1ass that has its base in the central
about what areas should be excavated (Redman 1986). Studies of and western parts of the United States rather than from the more
early civilizations based upon total regional survcys have provided internationally inclined east-cpast ' elite that had dominated
the data to allow simulated examinatio~lsof the rcpresentativcness of American ccono~nicand intellectual life during the carly years fol-
various sampling strategies. Sandcrs, Parsons, and Santley's (1979: lowing World War 11. At the'most basic level the nomothetic
491-53a) survey of the Vdllcy of Mexico rcvcalcd marked divcrsity in orientation of the Ncw ~ r c h a c d l o ~appcalcd
y to the tcndencics of
local patterns ofdcvelopment and ~ l s othe need to srudy the entire these Amcric.z~isto vnluc what was tcahnologically useful at thc sanlc
region in order to understand what was happening in its various time that they remained suspicious of pure science because of what
parts. For example, the massive incrcasc in populatio~land growth they saw as its elitist tclldcncics, as'wcll as its suspected disrcgard for
of urbanis~liin the Tcotihuacan Valley early in the Chr~stianera can conventional religious bcliefs. ~lz'c'contempt for what was not
only be understood when it is realized that similar population practical also manifested itself in the low respect accorded to his-
growth was not occurring elsewhere in the Valley of Mexico, but on torical studies in America (Bronowski 197,1:195), an opinion epito-
the contrary the population of those areas was declining at that time. mized in the industrialist Henry 'Ford's rcmark that 'Histor- ' -
Robert Adams (1981) has shown similar local diversity in his studies bunk' (Lowenthal 1985: 244). The low value accorded to
of Mesopotamian settlement patterns. These findings have severely further reflected the 'present-mindcdness' of American 5
challenged the belief that patterns from one area are necessarily which roma~lticallyviewed itself as having prospered by throwing
representative of a whole region. As a result it is now agreed that off the shacklcs of the past, as reprcscntcd by traditional claims of
much larger san~plesthan had hitherto bccn thought ncccskary arc descent, class, and tradition, and creating a ncw society rationally
rccluired before they arc rcprcscntativc of a whole and that the study designed to serve the intcrcsts of the enterprising individual (ICrokcr
of changes ovcr long periods requires something approaching total 1984: 8). Even though prehistorir archaeology was a branch of
samples. These changes in views of sampling correlated with the anthropology, its culture-historical approach rcduced its prestige
rcalizatio~lthat regularities in cultural systcms had been ovcr- and led it to be regarded as a dilettantish pursuit by the Amcrican
estimated during the initial stagcs of thc New Archaeology. public and by other anthropologists.
The New Arcl~aeologyfollowe'd the lead of the generalizing social
scicnccs, such as cconon~ics,political scicncc, sociology, and ethno
logy by claiming to be ably to produce objective, ethically neutral
Critics have argued that the New Archaeology represented a revo- generalizations that were useful for thc management of modern
lution in the technical and methodological spheres rather than in societics. This desire to conform to a more prestigious model of
archaeological theory (Meltzer 1979). Yet the stand that Binford scholarly bchaviour was reinforced as thc National Science Foun-
took against the still influential culture-historical approach in the dation emerged as a major source of funding for archaeological
United States was no less a break with that past in terms of high-level research. It was argued that arch&ology could provide information
theory than it was mctl~odologically.The questions that must bc about the nature of long-term idtcractions bstwccn l~umangroups
answered are why did his approach appeal so powerfully to a rising and thc environment that tvould be of va1ue;for modern economic
generation of American archaeologists and why, apart from Bin- planning (Fritz 1973), a view shared even b&some archaeologists
ford's undeniable charismatic qualities, was he able so quickly to who rejected the general philosophy and methodology of the New
popularize views that until then had only slowly been spreading Archaeology (Dymond 1974). The study of prehistoric irrigation
through American archaeology? systcms in Arizona might revcal'~unsuspectedproblems associated
Thomas Patterson (1986a) has argued that the majority of New with modern ones in the samk area, while stratified archaeological
Archaeologists were recruited from the increasingly powerful and sites in California were looked to for information about the fre-
 A history of archaeological thought Neo-evolutionism Bnd the New Archaeology

quency of major earthquakes that could help t o decide whether or archaeology' and of any co&elation between archaeology and
not atomic-energy generators should be installed nearby (F. Plog nationalism, asking archaeologists instead to embrace a 'universal
1982).These suggestion~arc rcminisccnt ofthc practical applications 11u111anism'. By dcnying thc worth of such studies thc New Archae-
that were used to justify Soviet archacology in the 1930s and later by ology suggested thc unimportancc of national traditions themselves
Childc (1944b) as a practical reason for public support of archaeo- and of anything that stood in tlie way of Amcrican economic activity
logical rcscarch. In TheArchaeolo~yo f A ~ i z o n aPaul Martin and Fred and political influence. The corrosivc ct'fccts of similar arguments in
Plog (1973: 364-8) argued that generalizations about human rcac- other fields upon the national traditions of ncighbouring Western
tions to stress derived from ecological studies of prchistoric Arizona countries have been well describcd for this period (G. Grant 1965).
might help to explain the bc1iaviou1-of underprivileged b l ~ c kand In p.~rtic~Iar,it has been docutncnted how thc Anlcrica~lpromotion
hispanic groups living in the ghettos of modern American cities. aftcr World War I1 of &~bstract cxprcssionist art as thc dominant
This emphasis on the possible practical applications of their international style resulted in the'disintegration or trivialization of
research encouraged social scientists to abandon holistic attcmpts to many national and regiorial traditiions of painting. There is also
undcrstand human behaviour, and instead led them to seek solutions strong evidence that the prom?tion o f this art style was carricd out
to problems coi~ceivedin limited technical terms (Wolf 1982: ix). deliberately and with financial support from the United States
Such research was endowed with further scientific credentials by government as well as from private foundations (Lord 1974: 198-21s;
positivist claims of ethical neutrality. T o produce 'relevant' findings Fuller 1980: 114-1s). While New Ar'chaeologists may not have been
that would justify an honoured place for archacology in a society in coilscious agents in the promotion of United States political and
which 'technocratic efficiency is considcrcd as the supreme value' ecoilornic hcgcmony, their progyammc appears to have accordcd
(Kohkowslti 1976: 229), many American archaeologists saw them- with that policy.
selves having to turn away from a historical understanding of the The most striking impact df this anti-historical viewpoint was
past to create the generalizations about human behaviour that were exhibited in relation to native North American 'prehistory. By
the hallmark of successful social scientists. It is within this context making the explanation of i ~ l t c h achangcs
l central to its intcrprcta-
that we must understand Binford's (1967b: 235) claim that historical tioil of archaeological data, thc New Archacology stresscd thc
interpretation is unsuitcd to play morc than a 'role in the general creativity of native North Americans t o a much greater extent than
education of the public'. H e was not the first archaeologist to diffusionist explanations had done and for the first time placed
promote the idea that such generalizations were to be regarded as native people on an equal'footi'ng in this respect with Europeans and
archaeology's supreme achievement. Kidder (1935: 14) had argued other ethnic groups. Only amateur archaeologists, such as Barry Fell
that the ultimate goal of archaeological research should be to estab- (1976, 1982) R. A. Jairazbhoy (1974, 1976) and Irvan van Scrtima
lish generalizations about human bel~aviour,while Taylor (1948: 151) (1977), have continued to belittle native people by attributing major
and Willey and Phillips (1958: 5-6) saw them as constituting a elemeilts of their cultural heritage to prchistoric visitors from the
common anthropological focus for archacological and ethnological Old World. The Ncw Archacolog~rthus in~plicitlyended ovcr a
research. century of c o i ~ d c s c e ~ ~ dand
i i ~ often
g overtly racist interpretations of
The anti-historical bias of the New Archaeology can also be native prehistory by white archaeologists. Yet from the beginning
viewed as an ideological reflection of the increasing economic and processual archaeologists ignored the significance of their achieve-
political interventionism of thc United States on a global scale aftcr ment as a result of theirlinsistence that generalizations were thc
World War 11. Its cmphasis on nomothetic generalizations was principal goal of their discipline and by studying ecological adapt-
accompanied by the obvious implication that the study of any ation at the expense of histo;ically spccific artistic traditions and
national tradition as an end in itself was of trivial importance., religious beliefs. I

Richard Ford (1973)calleci into question the legitimacy of 'politiwl By doing tliis, New Arcliacologists used data concerning thc
I
 A history of arch~cologicalthought Neo-cvol~~tionism
and tlic New Archaeology

heritage of native North Anlcricans to formulate gcncralizations dealing with this subject arc charactcrizcd by a concern for the
that they clainied wcrc rclcva~ltfor understanding Euro-American ccological basis of cuItural dcvclopmcnt, attention t o thc social
society. This tendency t o use data about native North American nlilicu in whic11 ccononlic transactions occurred, and a balanccd
prehistory as a basis for gcncralizing about human bchaviour sug- interest in local dcvcloymc~ltand rcgional nctworks of interaction.
gcstccl that for the most part the significance of native pcoplc for 111 'Thc cco~lomiccontext of tradc and industry in barbarian Europc
arcliacologists h:ld not changed. Despite some in\iolvcmcnt on till Roman timcs' (Clarlcc 1979: 263-331), which hc wrote for The
behalf of Indians in land-claims cases, most proccssual archac- Carnbvidge Ecor~omicHistory, hc attempted to summarize thc rclcvant
ologists remained as spiritually nlic~latcd f r o n ~ native North archacological data in tlic light of Karl Polanyi's thcorics concerning
Amcric'lns .IS their predecessors had been in the ninctcenth century. the social cmbcddcdncss of pri~nitivceconomics. This papcr has
This alienation has pro\~cclincrcnsingly costly to the interests of been described as 'a great adva~icco n prcvious work in its discussion
nrchacologists at a time when the nativc population of North of: the social fi~nctionsof artefact-types and its inference of thc
Amcricn is rnpidl\[ groiving .ind 11;ltivc~ ) c o l ) 31-c
l ~ I>csorning militant ci~-c.t~Iat
ion-systc~nsof \\~hiclithey arc the fossilized rcmnins' (Shcr-
in their struggle t o control thcit- own socinl, cco~lornic,and political ratt 1979: 197). His morc dctailcd studics addrcsscd s ~ ~ ccentralh
dcstiny. Efforts by nativc pcoplc to forbid or rcgulatc access to issues of European prchistory as a reinterpretation of thc social
prehistoric sites have resulted in a growing nunlbcr of legal con- organization and cco~lonlyof the late Iron Age settlement at Glas-
frontations bet\vccn archacologists and native pcoplc and only tonbury (Clarlcc 1972b) and a survcy, taking account of ecological,
limited and often ineffectual efforts ~t accomn1od3tion (Mcighun ethnographic, demographic, and economic, as well as archacological
1984).While some native groups, such as the l'ucblo of Zufii, havc data to counteract the traditional faunaily oricntcd interpretations
sponsored thcir own programmes of archncological research in an of the Mesolithic ccono~nicsof Europc (Clarkc 1979: 206-62). Colin
effort to achic\~e3 morc dctailcd sccnratc vicw of thcir history Kcnti-cw (1979) has also devoted his career to studying Europcan
(E. Adums r9S+; Fcrguson rgS+), most ~iati\rcpcoplc have been prehistory. In ;~dditiont o a nlajor revision of the continent's chron-
repelled by the negative attitudes toward thcm that traditionally ology, hc 11.1s ~ ~ s tcchniqucs
cd introduced by the Ncw Archaeology
Iia\~cbccn rcfcctcd i l l interpretations of arch3cologicaI data and in to address problems of tradc, political dcvclopmcnt, and changing
particular by the rcfi~salof archucologists to s t ~ ~ dthe p past as a social organization in prchistoric timcs.
record of nativc American history and culturc. While American archacologists, traditional and New, havc tcnded
British arcl~aeologistswho were infl~~cncccl by the Nc\v Archac- to cquatc history with the study of chronology and idiosy~lcratic
ologjr did not aclopt the anti-historical attitudes of their A~ncrican events, Clarltc and Rcnfrcw, who wcrc traincd in a European tradi-
counterparts. ll:l\lid Clarke, 3 highly original tl~i~ilicr who w,ls cvcn tion that views prchistory as an extension of historical enquiry into
morc deeply influe~lcedby the systemic approach of the New Gcog- periods that lack written records, wcrc familiar with historiography
raplip than by Binford, was rightly critical of the intuitive manner in and thcrcforc rccognizcd the unrealistic naturc of the dichotomy
which many British archacologists sought to compose 'historical that American anthropologists (and for~i~crly British social anthro-
narratives' without first analysing archaeological data in a rigorous pologists as well) drew bctwccn history and scicnce. The British
manner in order toe,cxtract as much behavioural i~lfor~nation as, historian E. H. Carr (1967: 117) obscrvcd that 'Every historical
possible fro111 thcm. Yet he did not condemn the historical a~lalpsis argument revolvcs around the question of thc priority of causes'.
of archacological data. After the publication of Analytical Archae- The American arcl~acologistA. C. Spaulding's (1968) claim that the
oloyy (1968), ~ ~ I i i cbhr o ~ ~ g lal t 110s~of quantitative nicthods pio- chief distinction bctwcen scicncc and history is the latter's ovcr-
nccrcd by other social and biological sciences to bear on problems of whel~ningdepcndcnce on common-scnsc explanations did a grave,
archacological classification and explaining cultural change, hc injustice to the work of many twcnticth-ccntury historians, in whosc
returned to tlic s t ~ ~ dofy European prchistory. His later papers writings interpretations of an impressionistic sort havc been
 A 111atorpof archaeolog~calthought

replaced by ones based 011 solid bodies of social-science theory.

Whilc thc cxtcnt of the role playcd by chancc factors in shaping
historical cvcnts is a subject for dcbatc, historians agree that indi-
vidual bchaviour is not random and must be viewed in relation t o a
social and C L I I ~ L I I - ~ matrix
I that can be explained, if not predicted, by
general rules (Carr 1967: 113-43). Clarke, in particular, was willing in
trying to explain complcx historical situations to rnovc beyond
Binford's Hcmpclian logico-dcductivc positivism, which hc was
aware was already considered outmoded by nlost philosophers. H c
also maintained the ncccssity to compare alternative explanations
and that 'spcculation is both csscntial and productive if it obeys the
FIG.2 1 . 1 . T h c modular unit - the social and architectural building block of which the cardinal injunctions that it must prcdict and that some of those
scttlcmcnt is a niultiplc. T h e analyscs of vcrtical and horizontal spatial relationships,
structural attributes and artcfact distributions convergently define a distinct range of predictions must ultimatcl)! bc tcstablc' (Clarke 1979: 259). The early
structures (I-VII) repeatedly reproduced on the site. Each replication of the unit work of Clarke and Rcnfrcw has providcd strong cvidcncc, as havc
appears to be a particular transformation of an otherwise standardized set cf relation-
ships between each structural category and every other calegory. T h e basic division more rcccnt contributions b y other Wcstcrn Europca~l archac-
bcrween the pair of major houses (Ia) and their satellites, and thc minor house (Ib) and ologists (Rcnfrcw and Shcnnan 1982), that historical interpretation
its ancillaries may be tentatively idcntificd with a division between a major familial,
multi-role and activity area on one hand and a minor, largely female and domestic area and evolutionary gcncralization arc not antithetical approaches but
(see Fig. 21.6). instead may proceed concurrently and to their mutual advantage in
Below: the iconic symbols uscd to identify the structures in the schematic site
models, Figs. 21.2-21.5. archacologp.

- I a Major house )r) - IIf Annexe hut

- Ib M ~ n o rhouse - 111 Workfloor

B c g ~ n n ~ nin
g the 1970s the cultural-evolutionary paradigm that
guided thc high-level intcrprctations of thc New Archacology

I IZ~] - I l a Anc~llaryhut

- I I Workshop
~ hut
0

A
-

-
IV Clay patch

V Granaries or
Storehouses
underwent a major changc. Since the late 1950s the optimism and
security of the middle classcs in the United States had bccn scriously
eroded by a succession of chronic and deepening cconomic crises
a - IIc Courtyard
P - V1 Stables
that were cxaccrbatcd by repeated failures of foreign policy,
especially in Vietnam. Tlicsc cvcnts produced a marltcd decline of
0 - IId Bak~nghut 0 - VII S t ~ e or
s faith in the bcncfits t o bc derived from technological dcvclopment.
Kennels
This In turn spawned n prolifcration of middle-class protcst mo\rc-

I
I
@ - Iie Guard h u t

. ........
- Waggon stance

P a l ~ s a d eor fence
I
1
mcnts. While these movements consistently h ~ v cavoided addrcss-
ing the crucial economic and political proble~nsof American society,
they havc profoundly altered social values and influcnccd the social
46 Modular housing unit at Glastonbury Iron Age site, as identified by sciences.
D. L. Clarke The oldest of thcsc is the ecology movcmcnt, which views unrcst-
raincd technological dcvclop~ncntas poisoning and gradually dcs-
troying the world ccosystcm. Its beginnings were signalled by the
publication of Rachel Carson's Silent S p ~ i q(1962). I t has sincc
 I

A history of arcl~aeologicalthought Neo-evolutionism and the New Archaeology

' I

promotcd awareness of an immcdiatc danger to public health from a humanity's ability to solve prbblems and make life easier and more
bfoad array of technological proccsscs and warncd that in thc 1o11g fulfilling wcre in fact responses t o forccs bcyond human control.
term cvcn niore catastrophic consequences may rcsult from thc Throughout history thcsc forccs had co~l~pcllcd pcoplc to work
continuing poll~~tion of the cnvironmcnt. Thc second nlovcnlcnt, to hardcr, suffcr increasi~lgexploitation, and dcgradc thcir environ-
promote a conserver society, stresses that certain natural rcsourccs ments. ,
csscntial for industrial proccsscs arc available only in finitc quantities The dcrnonstration by Richard L ~ Cand Irvcn DcVorc (1968) that
in nature; 11cnce the world is rapidly reaching a point where further hunter-gatherer economics cduld support a low populatio~ldcnsity
industrial expansion may bccomc impossible. It is predicted that the with less effort than was rcquirkd by cven the least dcmanding forms
exhaustion of kcy rcsourccs will rcsult in d c c l ~ n ~ nliving
g standards, of food production not o111y was intcrprctcd as support for Boscr-
or even the col1.1psc of civil~zntion.Hitherto it lnnd generally bccn up's position but also 1cd arclfa~oldgiststo adopt ncw intcrprcta-
assumcd that new raw materials or sourccs of energy would be found tions of prchistoric hunter-gatherers. Instead of being viewed as
bcforc old oncs bccanlc depleted. Paul Elnrlich's The Population living 011 the brink of starvation, thcy wcrc portraycd as lcisurcd
Bowb (1968) drew attention to yet another causc of anxiety. H c groups with plcnty of spare timc to dcvotc to religious o r ii~tellcctual
argued that if unprecedented population growth wcrc not checked, pursuits. Even relatively conservative arcl~aeologistsbegan to ideal-
the results would be disastrous in the near futurc. As a result of these ize the more egalitarian prehistoric cultures as examples of 'con-
movcrnents, social scientists and thc gcncral public bccamc increas- serving societies' that provided models of how we ourselvcs should
ingly sceptical about the bencfits of tcclinological progress. As their behave in relation to the envkonment (Cunliffc 1974: 27). Some
political and cconomic insecurity increased, thcy, like thc latc nine- archaeologists questioned the evidence o n which these formulations
tccnth-ccntury European middle classes, came to vicw cultural were based and their gcncral ,applicability (Bronson 1972; Cowgill
evolution as a_sourcc of danger and pcrhaps ultimately of disaster. 1975; Harris 1979: 87-8). Yet the'rapid and relatively unchallenged
Evcn rapid cultural changc was condcn~ncdfor producing dysfunc- way in which these studies came t o influence the interpretation of
tional 'futurc sl~ock'(Toffler 1970). archaeological data, oftcn in 'thc abscncc of adequatc mcasurcs of
These shifting attitudes laid the groundwork for a conceptual prehistoric populatio~lsize or even of relative population change,
reorientation of archaeology that was as dramatic as the latc nine- suggests the degree to which they accorded with the spirit of the
tcenth-ccntury shift from unilincar evolutionism to the culture- time.
historical paradigm liad been. The new paradigm marked yct Archaeologists also began 't? 'express reservations about conven-
anothcr rctrcat from thc optimistic vicw of changc formulated tional neo-evolutionary theories that analysed change as if it occur-
during the Enlightcnmcnt and intensified nco-evolutio~iisn~'~ rcjcc- red in slow, gradual trajcctories of the sort that Braidwood and
tion of the bclicf that technological innovation was the rcsult of a MacNeish had documented in their studies of the origins of agri-
process of rational self-improvement and the driving forcc pro- culture in the Ncar East and ,Mesoamerica. Robert Adams (1974:
moting cultural changc. Two specific dcvcloprncnts in economics 248-9) pointcd out that thcre were abrupt shifts in the development
and social anthropology scrvcd as a catalyst for this shift. of early civilizations, sometimcs separa'tcd by long periods when
Boscrup (196s) liad argued that while increasingly labour- rclativcly few changes occu~red. Soon after Renfrew (1978)
intensive modes of agriculture yicldcd more food per unit of land, attemptcd to use catastrophe theory, which had been invented by
thcp required niore labour for each unit of food produced. Thcrcfore the French mathematician ~ k h t ' T h o m to
, cxplain changes in the
only the necessity to support slowly but inevitably increasing popu- arcliaeological record. Catastrophe thcory treats the question of
lation dcnsitics would liavc Icd groups to adopt such systems. Her how, as the rcsult of particular conjunctions of internal states, a set
tlicsis was construed as cvidcncc that dcvcloprncnts which prcvious of fluctuating variables can producc discontinuous cffccts (Saunders
gcncmtions of ~~rchacologists Inad intcrpretcd as dcsirablc rcsults of 1980). Whilc it rcrnains to bc dcmonstratcd how rigorously Thom's
 A history of archacological thought Neo-cvoluti6nism and thc Ncw Archaeology

mathematics, which can treat only four variables at once, can be used such an order, cataclysmic evolutionists strcsscd a fixed process of
to explain social bchaviour, the col~ccptattracted considerable atten- change that at best human bcings might hopc to slow or halt, but
tion among archaeologists in Britain and America (Rcnfrcw and w l ~ i c othcnvise
l~ would rcsult,in tllcir ruin (Triggcr 1981a). Only a
Cookc 1979). Although Thom and Renfrcw were both interested in few archaeologists who sec ,trouble ahead for their own society
'catastrophes' that produced more complex as well as simpler states, continue to arguc that it is possible to learn from the past how to
the ready acceptance of catastrophe theory as an analogue of social 'adjust and cope' (J. Bradlcy 1987: 7).
process reflected widespread fears that Western societies might be Cataclysmic evolutionism, with its curious resemblances to the
sliding towards a catastrophc in the conventional as well as the medieval vicw of history, but with God replaced by an evolutionary
mathematical sense. Finally archacologists havc sought to imbue the process that renders human beings the victims of forccs beyond their
concept of disconti~luouscultural change with additional sciclltific control, seems to be thc product of an advanced capitalist society
prestige by drawing parallels between it and that of punctuated that is not performing to the satisfaction of largc numbers of the
equilibrium being promoted by some evolutionary biologists (S. middle classes. Signifi~~untly, neither evolutionary archaeologists
Gould 1980; Eldrcdgc 1982). Thcsc vicws of cultural change havc nor most of the opponents of cnvironn~cntalpollution, unchecked
made arcl~aeologistsmorc aware of the need to distinguish varying population growth, and rhe wastage of natural resources treat these
rates of change in the archaeological record, sometimes over rela- problems as ones that can bc resolved by means of concerted
tively short periods of time. Gaps arc also being recognized in the economic and political reforms carried out on the national and
archacological record that in the past would havc been filled by international levels. Instead they mystify these problems by locating
unwarrantcdly projecting k~lowncultures backwards and forwards their causes in a general evolutionary framework and scck when
in time or hypothesizing undiscovered intermediary forms. This has possible to ameliorate them in discrctc, picccmcal ways. By exculpat-
challenged archaeologists to acquire ever greater control over cul- ing leading industrial societies of explicit political responsibility for
tural chro~~ologies. It has also rei~iforcedthe belief that cultures are what is happening, cataclysmic archaeology helps to reaffirm the
more fragile and cultural changc morc fraught with dangers than expansionist goals of American socicty in the midst of a growing
arcl~acologistshad bclicved Ilithcrto. intcrnation,~l economic and ecological crisis. It also seeks to
These ncw idcas about thc nature of cult~iralchangc havc pro- promote social solidarity by denying the political origins of social
moted a pessimistic and cvcll tragic vcrsion of cultural evolution that conflict. O n the downswing of a long cycle, cataclysmic evolution
interprets demographic, ecological, and cconomic factors as con- attributes the shortcomings of a world economy t o largely immu-
straining change to occur along lines that most human beings d o table evolutionary forces rather than to spccific and altcrablc poli-
not regard as dcs~rablebut which thcy are unable to control. This tical and economic conditions that have evolved undcr American
eschatological materialism implies that the future is always likely to hegemony. This explanation has attracted a willing audicncc
be worse than the present and that humanity is journeying from a amongst the insecure middle classes of othcr Western nations, who
primitive Eden, filled with happy hunter-gatherers, to a hell of are as anxious as are their American counterparts to believe that they
thermonuclear annihilation. We have already noted that neo- are not responsible for the fate that they fear is overtaking them.
evolutionism differed from nineteenth-century evolutionism in its While the origin of ideas has no necessary bearing on whether or
rejection of the belief that cultural change occurred as the result of not they are correct, it is fairly obvious that the high-level evolu-
rational and willing action by human beings who sought to acquire tionary theories that guided the interpretation of archacological
greater control over their environment. This new cataclysmic evolu- evidence in the 1970s reflected a serious and prolonged cconomic,
tionism also differed from previous disillusionment about progress, political, and social crisis in which the interests of the dominant
which had resulted in diffusionists denying that there was any middle classes were perceived as deeply threatened. It is also evident
natural order to human history. Instead of denying that thcrc was that these high-level vicws influenced the expectations of archac-
 A history of archaeological thought Neo-evolutionisn~and thc Ncw Archacology

ologists concerning how the archaeological rccord might bcst bc to most people. Other archacologists havc argued that, on the
intcrprctcd. All of this seriously calls into qucstion thc objcctivity contrary, in late prchispanic timcs thc cconomy of the Vallcy of
that thc New Archaeology claimed on the basis of its positivist Mexico was strongly controlled by t l ~ cAztccs, who uscd thcir
mcthodology . military powcr to cc~~tralizc lucrative craft production in thcir
A number of archacologists, cspccially among those doing capital Tcnochtitlan (Parsons et al. 1982;Hassig 198s). Petcr Wells
research or employed in the soutl~wcstcrn Unitcd States, have (1984) has assigncd a major role to' cntrcprcncurs coming from
proposcd interpretations of the arcliacological rccord that closclp outside the cstablisl~cdlocal clitcs in tiringing about social changc in
approximate thc central values of conscrvativc American political Iron Age Europc, thus making this period an cxcmplar of 'Thatcher-
ideology. In Tile Archaeulug?, @Arizona Martin and Plog (1973) itc enterprise culturc' (Champion 1986).
viewed culturcs 3s adaptive systems and argued that those posscssing While these intcrprctations look likc rationalizations of Arncrican
the grcatcst amount of random variation were bcst fittcd to survivc and British laissez;-faireidealism, many of them havc sought thcoreti-
when confrontcd by cnvironmcntal or demographic challcngcs or cal justification at thc highest possible levcls. Martin and Plog
compctition from neighbouring groups. Dunncll (198oa) and grounded thcir discussion in ecological theory and Rathje rclatcd his
Cordcll and Plog (1979) also assume that there is prcscnt in cvcry to General Systems Theory. Yet no ipecific attempts wcre made to
socicty a broad spcctrum of alternative bchavioural patterns on adapt thcsc theories to the archaeological study of human
which thc cultural cquivalcnt of natural selection can opcratc. This behaviour. The advantagc of random variation was presented as a
vicwpoint cmphasizcs thc adaptivc valuc of individual choice in a universally valid principle without any attempt to inventory the
manncr analogous to cconomic frcc-market thcorics. William cxtcnt of such divcrsity cmpirically or to identify thc factors that
Rathjc (197s) utilizcd certain principles concerning disproportional detcrminc its rangc. This is a wcakncss parallcling thc lack of
growth to construct a schcmc that sccks to account for how concern for factors causing variability in ratcs of population growth
expanding carly civilizations coped with the problem of processing in thcorics that invoked this factor as an indcpendcnt cause of
incrcasing amounts of information. H e proposcd that in the carly cultural changc. Nor did thc cxponcnts of intracultural divcrsity take
stages increasing complexity was managed by employing grcatcr account of the requirements that the ~lcccssityfor thc safe and
numbers of officials to process information and makc decisions. cffcctivc dcployn~cntof increasingly powerful technologics might
Later an attempt was made to forestall the growth of burcaucracy generate for planning and consensus. Likewise Rathje did not
bcyond cconomically acccptablc limits by resorting to grcatcr stan- consider thc possibility that, unlike modern states, the rulcrs of carly
dardization. Thc dcvclopmcnt of uniform system-wide codes (such civilizations might have limited the intervcntions of thcir cumber-
as fixcd weights and mcasurcs) dccrcascd the amount of accounting some data-processing systems into the affairs of ordinary people to
that was ncccssary. Still latcr, cfficicncics wcrc attempted by cncour- those matters that related directly to securing the goods and services
aging grcater autonomy at lowcr Icvcls, while thc whole socicty was rcquircd to achicvc their own specific goals. The dcvclopment of
integrated as a series of cconomically intcrdcpendcnt regional com- Near Eastcrn civilization suggcsts a gradual but continuing incrcasc
poncnts. Blanton et al. (1981) havc applied the basic idcas of this in burcaucracy and thc usc of military force rather than thc rcvcrsc.
scheme to the cvolution oEcomplcx socictics in highland Mesoamcr- What is most interesting about their thcorics is that, despite their
ica. They. arguc
- that, while the cconomics of the earlier Classic potential ovcrt attraction to American archaeologists, who generally
civilizations were dceply embedded in thc political organizations of tcnd to bc conscrvative, they havc aroused lcss interest than has
the region, latcr cconomics wcrc more cntrcprcncurial and func- cataclysmic cvolution. The appeal of explanations that disguise or
tioncd more indcpcndently of statc control than cvcr before. The naturalize stressful economic and political relations seems to be
archacologically attcstcd results of such laissezyaire arrangcmcnts greater than that of ones that exprcss a conscrvativc ideology more
arc said to have bccn a vast incrcasc in thc quality of goods available directly.
 A history of archaeological thought Neo-cvolutionisrn and thc Ncw Archacoiogy
A conscrvativc ideology may, however, be exerting a more power- bringing about change outside the cultural system and treated
ful influcncc 011 interpretations of prehistory with respect to the human beings as thc passivc victims of forccs that n~ostlylic beyond
study of fossil hominids. Under the direct or indirect influence of their understanding and control. On thc othcr hand, dialectical
sociobiology, there is a growing tendency to stress evidence of materialism, while not denying the importance of ecological factors
biological and behavioural differcnccs and to treat these differences as constraints on human bchaviour or minimizing the role they
as correlated. This in turn leads to growing suspicion of intcrprcta- played, especially in the carly stages of cultural dcvclopmcnt, locates
tions of the bchaviour of Lower l'alacolith~c hon~inidsthat arc based the major cause of cultural transformations squarely within the
on analogies with modern hunter-gatherer societies. We are social realm, where it takes thc form of competition to control
informed that the Australopitl~ccincswere more like spccializcd apes wealth and power between different groups within the same society.
and that the tcchnological and bch~viouralcapacities of carly Homo Even in its most mechanistic and evolutionary formulations, such as
increasingly appear to have been unlike our own (Cartmill et al. prevailed in the Soviet Union in the 193os,Marxism accords a central
1986: 419). While former tendencies to emphasize the human-like role to human beings pursuing their self-interest as members of
qualities of carly hominids are interpreted as an ideological ovcr- social groups. What was most striking about the New Archacology
reaction to Nazism, no attention is paid to the possible ideological was its unwillingness to accord human co~~sciousness or volition any
basis of currently popular alternative explanations. role in bringing about cultural change. Marxists could argue that
1x0-evolutionism's denial of a creative role for human beings reflects
Conclusions the dehumanizing effects of the growth of corporate capitalism,
which effectively has destroyed the concept of an economic system
Both Soviet (Klejn 1977) and American (Davis 1983: 407) archae- built upon individual initiative that was the ideal of the middle
ologists have drawn attcntio~lto some striking similarities between classes in the nineteenth century.
the New Archaeology and the archaeology created in the Soviet Although the New Archaeology advocated studying all aspects of
Union in the carly 1930s. These parallels arc the more interesting cultural systems, archaeological publications indicate that most New
becausc all but a handful of American archaeologists re~nained Archaeologists conccntratcd on subsistence patterns, trade, and to a
almost completely unaware of the strengths and weaknesses of lesser degree social organization. Binford's own research largely has
Soviet archaeology until rhc late 1970s. Both approaches were based been concerned with technology and subsistence patterns as they
on an evol~itionarpview of cultural change and sought to under- relate to ecological adaptations. Major aspects of human bchaviour,
stand the regularities exhibited by that process. They agreed that such as religious beliefs, aesthetics, and scientific knowlcdgc,
these regularitics were strong and could be studied by using a received little attention. The scope of the New Archaeology does not
materialist framework. Migration and diffusion were played down appear to have expanded beyond that already embraced by the
in favour of tryi:lg to explain the changes that occurred within ecological and settlement-pattern approaches that developed in the
cultural systems ovcr long periods of time. Traditional typological 1 1950s. The fields investigated by the New Archaeology also fall
studies that sought to elucidate chronologies and spatial variations ii within the lower echelons of Hawkcs' hierarchy, although Binford
in material culture were regarded as old-fashioned and there was a 1
corresponding increase in functional interprctations of archaeo-
logical data.
4 rejected the claim that this hierarchy established inevitable restric-
tions on the archaeological study of any aspect of human behaviour.
The explanation for this failure to study all aspects of human
Yct, despite thcsc sin~ilarities,there was a marked difference in the bchaviour lies with the ecological approach. The New Archaeology
high-level theories that guided the interpretation of archaeological shared the neo-evolutionary belief that cultural systems were char-
data. The New Archaeology c~llbracedvarious forms of ecological acterized by a high degree of uniformity and that it was possible to
and demographic determinism, which located the major factors account for this uniformity by identifying the ccological constraints
 A history of archaeological thought

that shapcd human behaviour. Yct it now appears that, while whole
cultural systcms can be vicwed as constraincd to somc degree by the
nature of thcir adaptation to thc ccosystem, the constraints exercised
on the technology and cconomy are far stronger and morc immedi-
atcly recognizable than are thc ones on social organization, and CHAPTER 9
thcsc in turn arc grcatcr thail arc thc constraints on specific beliefs
and values. Hence the techniques adopted by the New Archaeology The explanation of diversity
work bcst whcn dcaling with those aspccts of culture that are subject
to thc grcatcst restraint. The Ncw Archaeologists appear to havc . . . theoretically informed histoy and hktoricalb in.rmed theoy
crrcd in assuming that ecological constraints would cxcrt the samc must be joined together t o account for populations specifiable in
degree of influence on all aspccts of culture and hencc in feeling time and space, both as outcomes of significant processes and as
justified whcn they ignored alternativc factors that shapcd the their carriers.
archaeological rccord. Paul Tolstoy (1969: 558) was correct when he E R I C WOLF, Europe and the People ttjithout Histaw ( 1 9 8 ~ )p.
. ZI

statcd that dcterminists consider worthy of attc~ltiononly those

traits with which thcir theories appear equipped to dcal. During the 1970s a growing number of Amcrican archaeologists
Yet, almost from the beginning, doubts were cxprcsscd about the becamc convinced that thcrc was morc divcrsity in prchistoric
adcquacy of this forn~ulation,cspccially by thosc who attcmptcd a culturcs than could be accounted for by gencral cvolutionary
systemic approach. In the 1970s and 1980s growing awarencss of schemes, such as those of Sahlins and Scrvicc, or cvcn by Steward's
thcsc weakncsscs challcl~gcdsomc Western archaeologists, includ- multilinear evolutionism. Thcrc was also a slowly but continuously
ing ones who had playcd a key rolc in establishing the New Arcliac- growing rccognition that nco-evolutionism had unduly rcstrictcd
ology, to rethink thcir basic .~ssumptionsabout h11111anbehavio~r thc questions about the past that archaeologists wcrc prcparcd to
and how the archaeological rccord shoulci be intcrprctcd. This .dso consider i~ilportallt(Leach 1973). In her conclusiol~to a comparison
led .I growing number of arcl~acologiststo recognize for the first of the cultural dcvclopmcnt of the adjaccnt Mixtcc and Zapotcc
t ideological underpinnings of archaeological intcrprc-
time t h ~ the peoples, Joyce Marcus (1983a: 360) obscrvcd that 'If we arc
tations were something other than thc niistakc~lnotions of thc past gcnuincly intcrcstcd in understanding individual Mcsoamcrican cul-
and to challcngc the positivist prctencc of ethical neutrality. tures, we cannot ignorc drift, adaptive divcrgcncc, convergcncc, and
parallcl evolution whilc concentrating singlc-mindcdly 011 advance
through stagcs of sociopolitical organization'. Shc also statcd that
'the familiar variables of agricultural intensification, population
growth, warfarc, and intcrrcgional tradc arc by thcmsclvcs insufft-
cicnt to cxplain thc divcrsity of Mesoamerican cultures'. Kcnt Flan-
ncry (1983) addcd that unilincar cvolution is inadcquatc to rcalizc
the general anthropological goal of explaining sociocultural differ-
ences as well as similarities. ,
Ethnological critiques, cspccially thosc made by anthropologists
who are not basically hostile to evolutionary studics, havc also
undermined the credibility of gcneral cvolution. It has bcen pointed
out that nco-cvolutionists have dcli~~eated tribal groups mainly on
the basis of New Guinea big-men societies, which have vcry differ-
 A history of archacological thought The explanation of diversity
ent social and political structures from native societics in eastern (1982: ix) has argued that anthropologists, especially under the
North America (such as those of thc Iroquois) that sharcd thc samc influcncc of nco-cvol~~tionisn~,'sccm to havc forgottcn that human
modc of production and arc gcncrally asscrtcd to bc at thc samc populations construct their cultures in intcraction with onc another
stagc of dcvclopmcnt (Whallon 1982: 156). Morton Fricd's (1975) and not in isolation'. H e goes on t o state that the cultural connec-
claim that many of the more complex features associated with tribal tions that an older generation of anthropologists studied as diffu-
societics are products of acculturation resulting from contacts with sion can only bc rcndcred intelligible in systcmic tcrms when thcy
Wcstcrn peoples, rathcr than spontaneous intcrnal dcvclopmcnts, arc set into a broader political and economic contcxt.
has Icd somc archacologists to view this stagc with great suspicion Thc study of intcraction bctwecn socictics was ncvcr ruled out by
(Rcnfrcw 1982~).It has similarly been dcrnonstratcd that many the New Archacology. Binford (1972: 204) strongly npprovcd of
fcaturcs of chicfdoms arosc JS a result of their political and cconomic Caldwcll's (1964) conccpt of an 'intcraction sphere', which he had
articulation with more advanced societics (Wolf 1982: 96-100). AS a developed to explain how a Hopewellian burial cult, which involved
rcsult of such observations archacologists havc bccomc increasingly
the interment of goods manufactured from exotic materials with
intcrcstcd in trying to explain thc cultural diversity that uscd to individuals of high status, came to be sharcd by many prehistoric
intriguc the historical particularists (Renfrew 1982b). There is societies in the American Midwest. Yet growing interest in the
growing willingness to admit that human behaviour is shaped by development of specific sociocultural systems and the neo-
divcrsc factors and that at least somc forms of behaviour may not be evolutionary emphasis on independent invention led many follow-
recorded in an unambiguous fashion in the archacological rccord. ers of scttlcment archaeology and the New Archacology to minimize
While most archacologists continuc to interpret thcir data from a the importancc of intcrsocictal contact and competition.
materialistic, and often more specifically an ecological, perspective In rcccnt years a numbcr of archaeologists working in the Ncar
(P. Watson 1986: ++I), thcrc is also increasing questioning of thc
East havc advocatcd thc need to view Mesopotamian civilization as
extent to which ccological and cconomic factors play a dctcrlnining part of a much largcr zonc in which from carly times many cultures
rolc with respect to human bchaviour. Thcsc dcvclopmcnts havc influcnccd onc another's dcvcloprncnt through various forms of
brought about many changcs in archacological analysis and how political and economic intcraction (Lamberg-Karlovsky 197s; Kohl
archacologists vicw human nature. Alison Wylie (198~a:90) has gone 1978; Alden 1982). There has also been discussion of 'peer polity'
so far as to observe that 'there is a strong case to be made that [idio- interaction in prehistoric Europe (Renfrew and Shennan 1982) and
syncratic variability at a societal or individual level] is the distinct- elsewhere (Renfrew and Cherry 1986) and of 'cluster interaction' in
ivcly human and cultural feature ofthe archacological subjcct; hence, Mesoamerica (B. Price 1977). Blanton and his co-authors (1981) have
it should bc the special interest of an anthropological archaeology'. argued that because of the intensity of economic, political, and ritual
At least somc of these trends have involved a revival of interest in interaction among the ruling classes throughout Mesoamerica in
topics associatcd with culture-historical archaeology that were prchispanic times, the devclopment of any one region, such as the
ignored as a rcsult of the dcvcloprncnt of thc New Archacology.
Valley of Mexico, cannot be understood indcpcndcntly of that of
neighbouring regions. Thcy therefore propose to treat the whole of
Infersocietal contact Mesoamerica as a single 'macroregional unit' bound together by the
interaction of local elites; an approach that places prodigious
One of thc dcvclopments that has charactcrizcd this changing pcr- dcmands upon the information-gathering capacity of archac-
spcctivc has bccn a tcndcncy to abandon the vicw that socictics or ologists. This approach also raises major qucstions about how thc
cultures arc closed, or tightly bounded, units that can be studied boundaries of macroregions arc to be defined. Blanton and his
indcpcndcntly of onc another and to pay morc attcntion to thc rolc co-authors argue that what is recognized as Mesoamerica was a
played by cxtcrnal stin~uliin bringing about cultural changc. Wolf nctwork of states and chicfdoms unitcd by intcnsivc rcciprocal
 A history of archaeological thought Thc cxpla~r~tion
of diversity

interaction of a political and ritual nature, which can be recognized times. In particular, hc argucs that thc rankings of cores and peri-
in thc arcl~acologicalrccord. It has long becn surmised that pheries may have becn less stable than they arc 1 . 1 0 ~ and that political
economic and ritual influences of Mcsoamerica~lorigin also influ- force may havc playcd a morc overt rolc in rcgulating them. What is
cnced the cultural dcvelopme~ltof the southwestern United States of general importance is thc growing realization that societies are
and castcrn North America, although it is not oftcn possible to not closed systems with respect to neighbouring ones any more than
dcfirrc thc social contexts in which these presumed contacts occurred in rclatio~lto thcir natural cnvironlncnt and that thc dcvclopmcnt of
(Griffin 1980). a society or culture may be constrained or influenced by the broader
It is also rccognizcd that not only goods, persons, and idcas but social network of which it is a part. Thcrc is also increasing recogni-
also wholc institutions call spread from onc society to another. The tion that thc rules governing these proccsscs arc thcmsclvcs worthy
introduction of the Cl~ristianchurch as a l~icrarchicalorganizatio~l of scientific investigation. Tllc cl~allcngcis to broaden not merely a
with its own trained pcrsonncl into Anglo-Saxon England and of functional but also a systemic analysis to cover processes that used to
Buddhism into Japan, both in the sixth century A. D ., left a marked bc explained in tcrms of diff~~sion. The studies of economic intcr-
and lasting impact 011 the cconomic, social, and political organi- action bctween a Ncar E'lstcrn corc and Europcan periphery that
zatio~lof those countries and one that was clcarly different from were begun by Cl~ildcin The Most Ancient East (1928) anticipated
what could be cxpcctcd if an indigenous statc cult had developed. In world-system theory in many important aspects and havc no doubt
both cases the imported clcrical burcaucracy played a crucial role in predisposed European archaeologists to accept Wallerstein's
strengthening the administration of nascent states (Sansom 1958: approach. Childe's ideas in turn were based on patterns of inter-
60-81; Trigger 1978a: 216-28). That societies can be influenced by action established by Montclius in his diffusionist studies.
thcir neighbours in these ways makes their trajectorics of devclop- Thesc observations have raised additional questions about the
ment harder to predict than neo-evolutionary archaeologists had concept of sociocultural systems. N o one will deny that various
assumcd (Green and Perlman 1985). social boundaries arc defined by reduced levels of interaction. Yet
Some archaeologists havc attcmptcd to introduce more theoreti- can a hierarchy of levels be distinguished in which individuals are
cal rigour into the 'study of interaction bctwec~lsocictics. Carl grouped as members of families; families as parts of communities,
Lamberg-ICarlovsky (198sa) has used the historian Fcrnand Brau- co~n~l~unitics as components of socictics, and socictics to form largcr
del's conccpt of thc longue duric (Stoianovich 1976) to distinguish interaction sphcres? Or do individuals participate differentially in
between gradually cumulative processes and periods dominated by patterned interactions at many levels and as members of many
alternating ccntripctal and centrifugal forces that transformed the different kinds of social groups (R. McGuire 1983)? One must not
social and cultural ordcr and altered relations between the societies minimize the importance of brokers and decision-makers, such as
of Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau bctween 3400 and chiefs, government officials, and kings, who mediate bctween differ-
1600 B.C. More archaeologists have been attracted by Immanuel ent levels of society and thereby effect varying degrees o f closure.
Wallerstein's (1974) world-system theory (Kohl 1978, 1979, 1987; Yet a detailed analysis of networks of social, political, and economic
Ekholm and Friedman 1979; Blanton e t al. 1981; Renfrew and intcraction calls into questio~lthc idea that socictics or culturcs are
Shennan 1982: 58). This approach involves the study of large-scale morc significant units of analysis than are numerous larger and
spatial systems, assuming an intcrrcgional division of labour in smaller catcgories (cf. Clarkc 1968). The social entity to be studied is
which peripheral arcas supply corc ones with raw materials, the core determined by the problem that is bcing investigated.
areas are politically and economically dominant, and the cconomic There is also growing interest in the degree to which cultures or
and social devclopmcnt of all regions is constrained by their chang- societies constitutc systcms in any rigorous sense. Are they in fact
ing roles in the systcm. ICohl has suggested that the world systcms of strongly integrated and hence highly selective with respect to
antiquity probably only suycrficially rcscmblcd thosc of modern innovation or, providing that thcy fulfil a minimal numbcr of
 A history of archacological thought The explanation of diversity
\

prcrcquisitcs to supply enough food, clothing, shcltcr, rcproduc- (Ramsdcn 1977; Cordcll and Plog 1979; Wilcox and Massc 1981). It is
tion, and child carc to cnsurc tltcir continuity (Abcrlc et al. 195o), is possiblc that every huntcr-gatherer and tribal society in the world
the rcst of thcir contcnt frccly variable and l~cnccliltcly to bc was influenced to some degree by contact with tcchnologicaIIy more
influcnccd by a random selection of idcas pickcd up from ncighbour- advanced societies prior to ethnographic study (Brasser 1971; Fried
ing culturcs? Wolf (1982: 390-1) argues that we cannot 'imaginc 1975;Wobst 1978; Monks 1981: 288; Triggcr 1981b).There is growing
cultures as intcgratcd totalities . . . [thcy] arc only cultural scts of! arcltacological and historical cvidencc that thc Bushman way of life
practices and idcas, put into play by dctcrminatc human actors has bccn modified significantly in reccnt ccnturics by contacts with
under dctcrn~inatccircumstances'. Thc lattcr view of culturc as a Europcan scttlcrs and ovcr a longer period by interaction with their
collection 'of multifarious and often ~ I I C O I I ~ ~ U O L I~SI C I I I C I ~ ~ S pastoral Bantu and Hottentot ncighbours (Schrirc 1980,1984). Thc
work(ing] togcthcr in tolerable harmony' (Hunburp-Tc11iso111986: impact that thcsc otllcr groups havc had on thc southcrn African
108) is closc to that of historical particularism, cspccially when we environment also may have altcred Bushman life in many ways.
rcmcmbcr that Boas and his s t ~ ~ c l csaw
~ ~ tthe
s nccd for some degree Undcr such circumstnnccs, it is dangerous for anthropologists to
of pspchological consistency in cach culturc (Bcncdict 1934).While assumc that Bushmen, or any othcr modern huntcr-gathcrcr soci-
fcw archacologists have cxplicitly abandoned thc terminology asso- ctics, arc ncccssarily equivalent to Palaeolithic ones. These studics,
ciated with a systcmic vicw of culturc, many would no longcr agrcc although revolutionary after a long pcriod dominated by neo-
with Stcward that diffusion can d o no morc than duplicatc intcr~tal cvolutionism, rcsumc a pattern cstablished by Strong (193s) and
processes of causc and cffcct. A largc number of archacologists now Wedel (1938)~with their archaeological demonstration that thc
acknowledge that socictics can bc altcrcd not only by political and highly mobile equestrian hunting populations found on the Great
cconomic prcssurcs from ncighbouring groups but also by idcas that Plains of North Amcrica in thc historical pcriod wcrc a rclativcly
arc borrowcd from adjacent socictics, to the cxtcnt that the rccipicnt rcccnt phcnon~cnonand that in sornc arcas scdcntary agriculturalists
culturc may dcvclop in ways that it would not havc donc in the had prcccdcd thcm.
absence of these external stimuli (Lanlbcrg-I<arlovsky 19853:58-60). Thc various cconomic tics that link modcrn hunter-gathcrcrs to
Accon1panying this is a growing intcrcst in thc roles piaycd by non- thcir nan-h~~ntcr-gathcrcrncigltbours also call into qucstion
economic factors, such as religious bclicfs, in bringing about social whcthcr modcrn and ancient 'hunter-gathcrcrs (or tribal socictics)
changc. While nlost arcl~acologistsprofcss a lnatcrialistic oricnta- sharc the same mode of production and can thcrcforc bc trcatcd as
tion, thc dcgrcc to which ecological adaptation dctcrrnincs cultural societies at the same stage of development. Binford (1983a: 337-56)
systems is increasingly scen not as givcn in thc study of society but as used northern native groups that havc been engaged for generations
an issuc that in due course must be answered empirically. in trapping and exchanging furs with Europcans as a basis for
Changing vicws of interaction among culturcs havc rcopcncd the suggesting certain generalizations about thc nature of huntcr-
oftcn-dcbatcd question of the significance of ethnographic analogies gatherer adaptations to high-latitude environrncnts. Some anthro-
for archacological intcrprctation. Evolutionary anthropologists pologists bclicve that because of the inherent flexibility of their
assumed that thc carlicst rccordcd dcscriptions of native culturcs adaptation to thc boreal forest, the cconomies of at least some of
revcalcd what thcsc had bccn likc prior to Europcan contact and that thcsc groups havc not bccn radically altered by the fur trade (Francis
such information could bc uscd without scrious question for cross- and Morantz 1983: 14-15); othcrs disagree. Only detailed archaeo-
cultural studies of bchavioural variation. For example, thc San, or logical studies can determine objectively to what extent ethno-
Bushmen, of southcrn Africa wcrc trcatcd as a paradigmatic hunter- graphic descriptions of hunter-gatherer or tribal agricultural
gatherer society. Archaeology is now rcvcaling that many native socictics provide a rcpresentativc picture of what these socicties
culturcs wcrc vastly altcred as a rcsult of Europcan contact before wcrc likc in prchistoric times (D. Thomas 1974). Until more such
thc carlicst dcscriptions of thcm wcrc rccordcd by Europcans investigations havc been made, the significance of major cross-
 A history of archaeological thought The explanation of diversity

cultural studies based on ethnographic data must remain doubtful. A body of evolutionary theory that seeks to explain not only
It has already bcen demonstrated that the comparison of socicties ecologically gcncrated change but also transformations resulting
that havc been influcnced by Europcan colonization can givc a falsc from interactions bctwccn diffcrent socictics ncccssarily must bc
impression of thc dcgrcc of variation in cultural phenomena such as exceedingly complex. It is probably unrealistic to think of such a
kinship tcrminologics (Eggan 1966: 15-44). thcorctical structure cver being complctcly elaborated (Trigger
Archacologp thus has JII important role to play not o111y in 1984~). On the contrary, it will continuc to bc rcfincd as long as the
unravelling thc coinplcx history of thc past but also in providing a social scicnccs makc progrcss in undcrstanding human behaviour.
historical pcrspcctivc for undcrstanding thc significance of cthno- Such a body of theory will also tcnd to bc morc eclectic and
gr,lphic d,lt,~.A growing n ~ ~ m bof.~nthropologists
cr .~rccoming to inductive it1 its origins than the tcncts of thc Ncw Archaeology
bclicvc that ethnologists .lnd soci.11 .~nthropologists,whcthcr study- would approve. It will, howcvcr, provide a illorc substantial and
ing social structure or change, are investigating the results of accul- realistic basis for understanding cultural change than has neo-
turation bccausc thcir data arc dcrivcd from small-scale socictics that evolutionary anthropology with its almost cxclusivc preoccupation
arc being cithcr dcstroycd or intcgratcd cvcr morc complctcly into with ccological explanations. It will also move archaeology closer to
the modern world systcm. History and archaeology alone can study the general practices of the social sciences, both methodologically
the cvolution of cultures in the past. It is also becoming clear that no and theoretically.
socicty can bc properly understood or even classified from a structu-
ral point of view without taking account of its rclationship with
othcr socictics (Wolf 1982; Flanncry 1983).
Relations among coexisting socictics, espccially ones at different At thc samc timc that archaeologists are pcrcciving the need to
lcvcls of dcvclopmcnt, are oncc again bcing vicwcd as constituting as broadcn thc range of thcir thcorctical gcncralizations, thcy arc
important a sourcc of cl~angc,and thcrcforc ,IS strong an cvolu- considering thc possibility that individual socictics arc so complex,
tionary forcc and as lcgitimatc an object of anthropological under- thcir structures so loose, and thc external forces influencing them so
standing, as arc thc ecologically gcncrated changes that havc been eclectic that the precise cause of their development can at best be
studied by nco-evolutionary anthropologists. Evolutionary theory predicted only partially and for the short term. For many archae-
should not be concerncd only with ecologically stimulated change. ologists the complexity of any human society renders the concept of
It should scck to understand how ncighbouring societies have causality of little value for understanding its origin (Flannery 1972;
influenced each other's dcvclopmcnt throughout history (Wolf 1982; Rowlands 1982). It is realized that if historians, after generations of
McNeill 1986). In particular, anthropologists should try to develop intensive research, continuc to debate the reasons for the rise and fall
gcncralizations about how societies, especially those with different of thc Roman Empire, it is unrealistic for archaeologists to conclude
types of economies, influence each othcr. Social anthropologists are either too optimistically that the processes thcy study can be defini-
alrcady doing this for prcscnt-day, small-scale societies that arc tively explained by simplistic formulations or too pessimistically that
bcing drawn into the capitalist world systcm. Archacologists arc complexity prccludcs undcrstanding (D. Fischcr 1970). This has led
challcngcd by the formidable task of dcvcloping similar gcnerali- to a growing rejection of thc positivist view that all cxplanation must
zations for a vast array of pre-capitalist societies. Alexander and be equivalent to prediction. M. Salmon (1982: 109; see also W.
Moharnmcd (1982) have pioneered this sort of approach by elabo- Salmon 1984 and W. Salmon et al. 1971) has argued that much of it
rating a frontier model to explain thc interaction of hunter-gatherer takes thc form of a statistical-relevance model, whereby an cvent is
and carly agricultural socictics in the Sudan. Golson (1977) has explained when all factors statistically relevant to its occurrencc and
strcssed the need to considcr competition among diffcrcnt typcs of non-occurrcncc arc asscmblcd and thc appropriatc probability
hunter-gathcrcr societics as a major sourcc of change. valucs for its occurrence arc detcrmined in thc light ~ f t h e s factors.
c
 A history of archaeological thought Thc cxpla~iationof diversity

What she docs not point out is that this approach is almost identical archacology has not bcgun to see society itsclf or individual human
to thc traditional method of historical cxplanation. Yct historians bcings as thc sourcc of any significant amoulit of sociocultural
tend to be morc sceptical about thc possibility of identifying all changc (for cxccptions, see R. Adams 1965; Willcy 1986). The lattcr
rclc~antfactors and rccognizc that, in thc short tcrm, probability vicw, together with a growing cmphasis on 'mind' and 'valucs', is
valucs can be assigncd to many of thcm only provisionally and on the currently reprcscntcd by a minority but rapidly growing movement
basis of con~monscnsc (Dray 1957).This docs not diminish thc valuc in British and A~llcricanarchacology that variously labcls itsclf
of archacology for producing gcncralizatio~ls about human symbolic, structural, or critical archacology (Kcnfrcw 1982~).This
bchaviour or long-tcrm trends in cultural dcvclopmcnt. It docs movcmcnt has largely bccn inspircd by Marxist approachcs that datc
suggest, however, that cxplanations of changc in spccific socictics from thc latc 1960s in Frcnch and British anthropology. Thcsc havc
must bc based on dctailcd knowlcdgc of what happcncd as well as thcir roots not in orthodox Marxism but in thc efforts to combine
sound thcorics, and cvcn thcn allowanccs must bc madc for the Marxism and thc structuralism of thc anthropologists Mauricc God-
intcrvcntion of uncxpcctcd factors. clicr, E. Tcrray, and 1'. P.Rcy and thc philosopher L. Althusscr; the
Thc prolonged, and by archacological standards, sophisticated, antipositivism of the Frankfurt School, J'para-Marxist movcmcnt
debatc conccrning thc collapsc of thc Classic Maya civilization dating from thc I ~ ~ Ocspccially
S, as rcprcscntcd in thc writings of
demonstrates that more data are necdcd to narrow the range of Jiirgcn Habcrmas (1975) and Hcrbcrt Marcusc (1964) and thc anar-
possible cxplanations and permit thc formulation of more refined chistic thcory of knowledge of Paul Fcycrabcnd (1975); and finally
rcscarch problcms (Culbcrt 1973; Hammond 1977).While increasing thc cconomic analyscs of Claudc Mcillassoux (1981). Dcspitc thcir
thcorctical sophistication rcduccs the range of the unpredictablc, it diffcrcnccs in dctail, such archacological works strcss thc complcxity
is no morc possiblc for social sciclltists to rctrodict the past in detail of modcs of production, thc importaiit role played by human
than it is for thcm to prcdict the future. The cxplanation ofthe past is consciousness in brillging about changc, the major significance of
thus sccn as bcing of ncccssity idiographic, cven though general clashcs of intcrcst bctwccn mcn and womcn or pcoplc of diffcrcnt
principles must bc invoked to support arguments in every possiblc agcs in promoting conflict in classlc'ss socictics, and the incscapablc
instance. ,impregnation of all h ~ ~ n i aactivities,
n incli~diiigscientific research,
Historical knowlcdgc, in the scnx of ~lndcrstandinghow and why by ideology. Thcy also sliarc tllc convictio~lthat Marx and Engcls
spccific socictics dcvcloped as thcy did in thc past, is csscntial for failcd to produce a dctailcd analysis of prc-class socictics and that it
explaining thc currcnt statc of socictics around thc world. Because is the duty of Marxist anthropologists to rcmcdy this dcfcct not by
only archaeology and documentary history provide the evidence returning to the works of thc foundcrs of Marxism but by construc-
required to delineate cultural development in the past, they arc ting ncw Marxist thcorics of prc-capitalist socictics on thc basis of
essential for understanding thc historical background of the data currcnt knowlcdgc of thcsc groups (Bloch 1985: 150).
which all of thc othcr social scicnccs analysc. The growing reali- Through thcsc cl~annclsa nunlbcr of important Marxist conccpts
zation that this is so is slowly providing thc basis for a ncw and havc bccn introduced into British and Amcrican archacology as
complementary rclatio~lsh~p bctwccn archacology and ethnology. In altcr~lativcsto thc tenets of proccssual archacology. Forcmost
this relationship archacology docs not try to emulate ethnology but, among thcse is a concern to cxplain sociocultural change in tcrms of
by studying the dcvclopment of co~lcrctcsocial systems, provides an a gcncral thcorctical framcwork that accords a central rolc to social
indispensable basis for producing rcliablc gcncralizatiolls about rclations. Proccssual archacology, along with nco-cvolutionism,
structure and changc. Far from being pcriphcral to thc othcr social structuralism, cultural matcrialism, and cultural ccology, arc
sciences, archacology and history arc crucial for understanding rejccted bccausc they unduly rcify stability, trcat thc causcs of
them. cultural change as bcing cxtcrnal to social rclations, and regard
Dcspitc thcsc dcvclopn~cnts,mainstream American proccssual human bcings as passivc objccts that arc mouldcd by cxtcrnal
 A history of archaeological thought The cxpla~latio~l
of divcrsity

factors. Ecology is vicwcd as constraining rathcr than directing plays a dominant rolc in shaping the social, political, and religious
changc and ncw tcchnologics arc intcrprctcd both as rcsponses to superstructure of any socicty, although they d o not rule out a
social and economic changc and as a major forcc bringing it about. rcciprocal relationship bctwecn thcsc two levels. Other archae-
Social conflicts arising from contradictory intcrcsts arc idcntificd as ologists emphasize reciprocity to such an extent that they deny the
vital and pcrvasivc features of human socictics and a major source of primacy of the cconomic base. Susan Kus (1984) and Peter Gather-
change. This vicw is contrasted with thc intcgrativc concerns of colc (1984) qucstion the vcry distinction bctwecn base and super-
functio~~alism, classical structuralism, and phc~~omc~~ologp, to thc structure, which Gathcrcolc suggcsts is a rcflcction of Western
lattcr's great disadvantage. socictyYspreoccupation with economics. John Glcdhill(1984) claims
The new approachcs also champion a h~~mun-centred vicw of that Wcstcrn Marxists gcncrally vicw non-economic factors as domi-
history. Marxism rcfuscs to cxplain meaning, symbolism, and social nant in prc-capitalist socictics.
phcnomcna in terms of non-social dctcrn~inantsin ordcr to provide A preoccupation with non-cconomic phenomena is strikingly
archaeology with a vcnccr of convcntional social scicncc (Tillcy cvidcnt in thc vast amount of attciltion that is accorded to rcligion
1984: 144). Instcad of trcating human bchaviour as passivcly shaped and idcology (Miller and Tilley 1984; Conrad and Dcmarest 1984).
by cxtcrnal forccs, Marxist archacologists strcss intentionality and Ideology is dcscribcd by Kristian Kristiansen (1984) as an active
the social production of reality. They also insist on a holistic factor in social relations, while Michael Parker Pearson (1984: 61)
approach. Ideally, parts of socicty arc always studied in rclation to states, without any reference to thcir economic function, that tools
thc \vholc and individual social systcms in terms of broadcr net- arc as much thc products of idcology as is a crown or law code. Some
works of intcrsocictal relations. Marxist archacologists scck to archacologists discuss ideology within an explicitly matcrialist
cxplain not only cross-culturnl rcgularitics but also thc particulari- context. Thus Kristianscn dcscribcs thc megalithic religion of
ties, individual diffcrcnccs, and spccific contcxts that distinguish onc Western Europc as an extension of production, while Millcr and
concrctc instancc ofsocial changc fro111another. In striving to crcatc Tillcy (1984: 148) state that idcology is not an autonomous comment
a unified social scicncc, Marxism ignores the distinctions betwccn but part of efforts to producc, maintain, and rcsist social changes
history and evolution and bctwcc~lhistory ;11ic1SC~CIICC.The st~1~1y of that rclatc to thc clashof interests bctwccn groups. On thc othcr
history is rcgardcd as scientific in nature and as embracing gcncrali-. hand M. 1.' Pcarson's (1984: 63) suggestion that idcology can dircct
zation. Finally thcsc approachcs insist on thc social basis of know- cconomic activity, Mary Braithwaite's (1984: 107) statement that
Icdgc. Knowlcdgc and sclf-consciousness arc vicwcd not as abso- understanding the role of material culture in ritual and prestige
lutes but as thc products of specific socictics. Thc social context of practices is a necessary first step in reconstructing other dimensions
currcnt archacological rcscarch is sccn as influencing intcrprctations of changcs and patterns rcprcscntcd in the archacological record,
of thc past. This suggests that certainty of the sort envisioned by and Christopher Tillcy's (1984: 143)approval ofHabcrmasYcfforts to
positivistically oricntcd rcscarchcrs cannot be obtaincd. clcvatc the ideological sphere to 'an important explanatory role'
must bc intcrprctcd as support for an idealist intcrpretation of
human bchaviour.
Ideglisnz and neo-Mamism
Even more indicative of an idealist position is the recurrent
Thcrc arc, howcvcr, significant diffcrcnccs in the way that crucial description of ritual as a 'discourse' that is dcsigncd to reaffirm
issues are trcatcd not only bctwccn Marxist-inspired Wcstcrn existing social relations by making them appear to be part of the
archacologists and Sovict oncs but also among different Western natural order or to cnhancc the power of privileged groups or
Marxist archacologists. It has traditionally bccn assumed that a individuals. Tilley (1984: 143)~however, following Marx and Engels
matcrialist pcrspcctivc is fundamental to Marxism. Marxist archae- closely on this point, reminds us that such views underrate the
ologists such as Antonio Gilman (1984) maintain that the economy ability of opprcsscd individuals to a~lalysethcir situations and that
 A history of archaeological thought The explanation of diversity

ideology is therefore never all-embracing in its control. Instead it and relations of production. This does not imply technological
becomes part of a dialogue between two or more parties, including determinism since the relationship between the mcans and relations
exploitcrs and exploited. Yet lie did not g o on to observe that it of production is a reflexive one. Marx and Engels assumed that in
follows from this that the continuity of a ritual suggests that the class societies change took the form of a struggle between different
niatcrial nccds of all groups of participants were perceived as being classes to control and exploit the relations of production. Primitive
satisfied in some manner as a result of it. In his analysis of Neolithic societics wcrc vicwcd as classless and tl~crcforcas oncs in which such
Swedish burial liiounds, it wot~ldhave bccn more in accord with struggles could not occur. Thcy looked to prc-class societics to
traditional Marxist proccdurcs to clctcrniinc wliat factors in the prove that thc basic institutions of class socictics wcrc transicnt and
economy promoted individualism and a breakdown of lineage-bascd not groundcd in an inlmutably competitive human naturc. This,
social co~itrolthan to attribute this changc in the first iiistancc to the however, has led to queries whether a specifically Marxist analysis of
collapse of legitimation ceremonies (7. Thomas 1987: 422). It also has change in pre-class societies is possible (Gilman 1984: 116). Marxists
not bccn demonstratcd that in prc-class socictics ritual scrvcs only to havc accorded adaptivc factors a more important role in bringing
cnhancc group prestige. Much of it appcars to have bccn directed about cultural change at this stage, which is explained as according
towards disguising and symbolically counteractilig the inef- with the weaker forces of production. Using such an approach,
fcctivcncss .of a rudimentary tcclinology to cope with natural forces Engels was able to go far bcyond any Darwinian biologist of his
(Godclicr 1978: 4-6). It is also not clear that in classless socictics time, including Darwin himself, in proposing a materialistic theory
social rclatio~isas such had to be or were disguised by ideology. of human origins that accorded a primary role to labour in the
Tlicsc archaeologists also disagrcc concerning how much must be context of social groups (Trigger 1967b; Woolfson 1982). Engels
known about prehistoric ideologies to establish what role thcy describcd the human hand as a product as well as an organ of labour.
played. Some arguc that spccific symbolic meanings and social H e suggested that natural selection operating on a rudimentary
processes are 'recursively related' and therefore the former must be ability to use tools resulted in bipedalism and then in the expansion
known in some detail if cultural change is to be explai~ied(Hoddcr of the human brain. This led not only to new and more complex
1984a). Braitliwaite (1984: 94) suggests that the exact contcnt of forms of cconomic bcl~aviourbut also to thc emergence of languagc
belief systems may be irretricvablc arcliacologically, although their as a more effective instrument of communication and of a new form
operation is not. Her 'operation' seems little different from a func- of consciousness and self-objectification that allowed flexibility and
tjonalist approach to ritual and ideology. planning to become uniquely important elements of human adapt-
Vicwcd from a cross-cultural perspcctivc, thc reconstructions of ations. Thus, by combining Marxist theory with Darwinian biology,
belief syste~nsso far attcmptcd secm conceptually limited and cthno- Engels deductively formulated a view that it took non-Marxist
centric. O n the basis of randomly sclccted ethnographic analogies, biologists another 80 years to achieve independently (S. Washburn
artifacts placed in graves havc been describcd as sacrifices to dead 1960). Engels' formulation also indicates clearly that, if traditional
ancestors who had tlic power to influcncc the well-being of their Marxists assign adaptive factors a major role in bringing about
descendants. Tilley's (1984) generalized linking of death and de- changc in small-scale societies, these factors are not seen as operating
struction with the pr'bmotion of fertility, life, and social order is not automatically. Instead they are viewed as bringing about changes in
substantially different from the speculations of James Frazer. There relations of production as a result of decisions consciously made
is no evidcncc of techniques that would allow dctailcd insights into within a social context.
culturally spccific aspects of rituals, except tl~oscassociated with the Many French neo-Marxist antl~ropologistshavc adopted a diffcr-
direct historical approach and the use of written documents. cnt approach to explaining cllangc in classless socictics. Thcy have
Marxists traditionally havc assumed that thc lliost influential atternptcd to minimize the diffcrenccs bctwccn classlcss and class
contradictions that bring about social change are between the means societies and to extcnd a Marxist analysis of changes in class societics
 A history of archaeological thought The explanation of diversity

to explain cha~lgesin simpler ones. This approach has been adopted reactionary causes, a charge that the Polish philosopher Leszek
by a number of archaeologists. M. P. Pearson (1984) maintains that I~olakowski(1978~:400-2) has definitively refuted.
in pre-class societics 'interest groups' consisting of young and old, An incrcased understanding of the pervasiveness of ideology ha5
men and women, or members of different clans or lincages, struggle led to growing awareness that not only the questions asked but alsc
in much the same manner as classes do in more advanced ones. H e the answers that are judged to bc acceptable in archaeology are
also asserts crro~~cously that an essential premise of Marxism is that influenced bp the general beliefs and attitudes of individual archae-
all human beings arc nlotivated by self-interest and seek power to ologists and the socicties in which they livc (Saitta 1983). This is a
pursue such interests. Tillcy (1984) follows Mcillassoux and Tcrray vicw shared by many non-Marxists. The latter include Stuart Piggott
in claiming that exploitative social relations exist in all social for- (1950)and Glyn Dan~cl( r g ~ o )who
, long ago exa~llincdthe impact of
mations. Such uniformitarian views of society run contrary to the intellectual fashions, such as rationalism and romanticism, in their
traditional Marxist claim that human nature is transfornlcd in sub- histories of archaeology. The new rclativis~llhas cncouragcd analy-
stantial ways by social change (Fuller 1980: 230-64; Gcras 1983). ses that reveal thc dcgrcc to which archaeological intcrprctation and
They also tc.nd to undermine thc Marxist hope that in the future popularization havc expressed the idcologics of domina~ltgroups in
socictics can be crcared that are not based on exploitation and, what Anlcrica and elscwhcre. It has become fasl~ionablcto believe that
is more important, ignore overwhelming ethnographic evidence historical interpretations are 'always produced in the service of class
that in small-scale socictics prcstigc is acquired and maintained interests' (Leone 1986: 418). This approach has also begun to
through redistribution and generosity rather than by the hoarding promote awareness of how private sponsors and govcrnment agen-
of material wealth (Sahlins 1968). cies have shaped the development of arcl~aeologythrough selective
, Marxists had viewed false conscious~lcssas a cl~aracteristicof all support of research (Wilk 1985; Patterson 1986a) and how the sexist
pre-class and class societies. They maintain that for these societies to biases of archaeologists have influenced thcir interpretations of the
operate Cffcctively it is necessary for them to disguise thcir tccl~nolo- past (Gero 1983; Conltey and Spector 1984). Archaeologists have
gical helplcssncss and to maltc exploitation appear as altruism. This bee11 rcnlindcd that even what thcy rcgard as data arc mental
vicw, particularly in the form in which it was expounded by Gyorgy constructs and hence not independent of frcqucntly unconscious
Lukacs, provided a point of departure for the virulent antipositivism presuppositions (Wylic 198jb: 73). As a result there is a growing
of some members of the Frankfurt School. That in turn has appealed bclicf that arcl~acologicalinterpretation must be understood in a
to Western archaeologists rebelling against the strictures of posi- social, political, and historical context and that arcl~aeologistsmust
tivism. They refuse to accept that, while the qucstio~lsthat archae- pap attention to how societies, or groups within a society, shape the
ologists pose may be influcnccd by the milieu in which thcy livc, so interpretation of the past for their own ends (Leone 1986: 432).
long as thcy have sufficient data and follow sound analytical pro- Yet among the relativists therc is a sharp disagreement w l ~ c t l ~ e r
cedures, the results will be the closest possible approximati011 of archaeological interpretation can ever be more than an expression of
scientific truth, uncontaminated by ideology or personal prejudice. ideology and personal opinion or whcther knowledge of the social
Daniel Miller (1984: 38) asserts that positivism, which 11c defines as factors that influence it can help archaeologists to transcend these
accepting only what can be sensed, tested, and predicted as know- limitations and acl~icvcgreater objectivity. Some relativists have
able, seeks to produce technical knowledge that will facilitate the claimed that archaeologists have no moral right to interpret the
cxploitation of human beings by oppressive elites, while Miller and prehistory of other pcoplcs (Hoddcr 1984b) and that their main duty
Tilley (1984: 2 ) claim that it encourages the acceptance of unjust should be to provide individuals with the Illcans to construct their
social orders by persuading people that human societies are irresisti- own views of the past, although it is not clear how this information
bly shaped by external pressures. These charges parallel Marcuse's can be supplied without introducing inherent biases into it.
(1964) assertion that positivism always has supported politically These extreme views have powerful implications for any theory of
 A history of archaeological thought The explanation ,of diversity

knowledge in archacology. While a growing number of Marxist and nd empiricism encourage the belief that all so-called scientific
non-Marxist archaeologists agree that, bccause of the complexity of nowledge of human behaviour consists of nothing more than
concrete human situations, predictions and explanation cannot be elf-serving fantasies. This in the long run can only assist those who
cquatcd, Millcr and Tilley (1984: 151) follow B. Hindess and P. Hirst eek to discredit the social sciences, and reason generally, as a guide
(1975: 1-5) in rcjccting any positivist or empiricist conccption of o human action.
knowlcdgc. They claim that statcmcnts about the past must bc The incursion of Marxist concepts into Wcstcrn archacology has
judgcd cxclusivcly in tcrms of their internal cohcrcncc, 'w11icl1 can allcd into qucstio~la number of prcvious certainties and raiscd
only bc criticised in terms of internal co~lccptualrelations and not in nportant ncw debates. Yet thosc who champion these concepts
tcrms of cxtcrnally imposed standards or criteria for "measuring" or ' xhibit an asto~~isl~ing lack of intcrcst in Soviet archacology, in the
"dctcrmining" truth or falsity'. Gathcrcolc (1984) and othcrs stress hcorctical differences bctwccn anthropological and orthodox
the subjectivity of archaeology by portraying it primarily as an darxism, and in the work of Gordon Childe, although Leone (1972:
ideological discipline. M. 7. Rowlands (1984) sees cxtrcmc rcla- 5) oncc rcmarkcd that one of the reasons Childc was 'the best
tivism as a danger threatening archacology. Kolakowski (1978~:300) rchacologist the field has produced is that he possessed and used a
goes much further with respect to the social sciences as a whole when lowerful paradigm, Marxian materialism'. Many Western archae-
he denounces Lukics' efforts to isolate Marxism from empirical llogists go out of their way to characterize Soviet archacology as
criticism as an irrational as well as an antiscicntific development. ,taleyand 'unproductive', without trying to learn what it has accom-
This trend is carricd further when archacologists such as Miller and dished. Their attitude contrasts curiously with the more serious
Tilley follow scholars of the Frankfurt School in interpreting Iterest in Soviet archaeology displayed by a few conservativc
Marxism as simply another subjcctivc pcrspcctivc on thc human Iritish and American archaeologists (Rcnfrcw 1970: 174). This
condition. Marx's claim for a spcclal scicntific status for his approach onforms with IColakowski's (1978~:524-5) perhaps exaggerated
is rcjectcd as a vain effort to give his work a 'veneer' of positivist laim that, while Marxist views have permeated the historical
science. cicnccs and humnnitics, Marxism as a system has ceased to bc an
What is not taken into account is that Mnrx's recognition of the ~ t e l l c c t ~forcc
~ , ~ lin Wcstcrn socicty. Morc spccificully he argues that
phcnon~c~lon of falsc c o ~ ~ s c i o u s ~was
~ c s not
s accomyanicd by a total hc Frankfurt School and its 'critical theory' arc 'not so much a
rejection of what is now called positivism. Engels noted that while ontinuation of Marxism in any direction, as an example of its
absolute knowledge is unattainable, in trying to approximate it issolution and paralysis' in the West (ibid. 395). Matthew Spriggs
human beings comc to posscss an increasingly completc and accur- r984b: 5) rccollccts that in 1977 French anthropological Marxism
ate picture of reality as a whole, which is confirmed by the effective- eemcd to offer archaeologists 'a potentially unifying perspective'.
ness of their actions (Kolakowslti 1978a: 396). Through G. V. Plek- 'et it is now commonly observed that Western Marxism seems t o
hanov and Lenin this position has become ccntral to Soviet Marxism uplicate internally most of the schisms found in the non-Marxist
(Bloch 1985: 95-123; Kolakowski 1978b: 305-527). Extreme relativism, ocial scic~~ccs. In arcl~acologythis clcarly has happened bccause for
on the other hand, makes definitive claims about what can be known hc most part intcrprctations arc based 011 selected Marxist prin-
concerning the nature "of reality that contradict its own basic posi- iples rather than on Marxism as a philosophical system.
tion that nothing- can be known for certain. It also denies the role of
archaeology and the other social sciences as sources of increasing
knowledge that can be used to control the natural world and help to
shape human destiny. In addition to reflecting growing despair
among Amcrican intellectuals that scicntific knowledge can help t o
bring about constructivc social change, these attacks on positivism
 A history of archaeological thought

Although Ian Hoddcr has participatcd in and cvcn inspired many of

the trcnds notcd above, his contcxti~alapproach to archacology
stands apart from thcnl ill certai~lrespects and is now recognized as
tlic principal cliullcngc and rival paradigm to proccssual archaeology
(Binford 1986, 1987). Basic to contcstualism is Hoddcr's cthno-
graphically wcll-documcntcd claim that material culturc is not
IIICI-CI~ a reflection of ecological adaptation o r sociopolitical organi-
zation but also an activc clement in group relations that can be used
to disguise as wcll as t o reflect social rclations. Overtly competing
groups map usc matcrial culturc to emphasize thcir dissimilarities,
wliilc an cthnic group wishing to use another's resources may
attempt to minimizc thc matcrial inanifcstations of such differences.
High-status groups activcly use matcrial culturc t o legitimize their .
authority (Hoddcr 1982b: 119-22), while in some African cultures
calabash and age-gradcd spear styles, which cut across cthnic bound-
arics that arc marked in terms of other aspects of matcrial culture,
signal the gcncral opposition ofwomen and young lncii to dominant
elders (ibid. 58-74). Even tensions within certain extended families
havc been shown to bc exprcsscd and reinforced by variations in
pottcry decoration (ibid. 122-4). Hoddcr's vicw that matcrial
culturc is used as an activc clcment in social interaction contradicts
thc carefully dcvclopcd argulncnts of proccssual archaeologists that
the relative claboratio~lof graves within a society accurately mirrors
the degree of social diffcrcntiation (Saxc 1970; J. Brown 1971; O'Shca
1984). Research by Hoddcr and his students has shown that complex
ideas relating to religion, hygiene, and status rivalry also play
significant roles in influencing burial customs (M. Pearson 1982). In
some societies simplc burials reflect a social ideal of egalitarianism
that is not effectively put into practice in everyday life (Huntington
and Mctcalf 1979: 122). Thus to dctcrminc the social significance of
burial customs archaeologists havc t o cxaminc other aspccts of the
archacological rccord, such as settlement patterns. As a result ofsuch
rcscarcl~,it may quickly bccomc apparcnt that a particular society
with simplc burial custon~swas not egalitarian in practicc and this in
turn will rcvcal thc idcological status of thcsc customs.
The contextual approach is based upon the convi&ibn that archae-
ologists nccd to cxaiuinc all possible aspects of an archacological
 A history of arcl~aeologicalthouglit The explanation of diversity

culturc in ordcr to understand thc sig~lificanccof cach part of it. It is mythology. Basic to this form of analysis is the conviction that
assumed that in the case cited abovc the discrcpa~lcybetween burial wherc the richness and variability of the archaeological record is too
and scttlcmcnt pattcrns would reveal thc idcological colouration of grcat to bc cxplaincd only as a rcsponsc to environmental constraints
the burials, provided that arclincologists were convinced tliat burials or stimuli, factors intcrnal to the system must also bc considcred
representing all social classes had been found. By drawing attention (Wylic 1982: 41). Erncst Gcllncr (1985: 149-51) has elegantly con-
to properties of ~ilatcrialculturc that hithcrto had been ignored, trastcd ccology and economics, which study thc rcgularitics rcsult-
Hoddcr has rcvcaled thc dangers inhcrent in i~itcrprctationsof ing from a scarcity of resourccs, and structural approaches, which
archacological evidence that is analyscd in isolation from its broadcr study the order that human beings imposc o n those areas of their,
cultural context. He has also dcn~onstratedmatcrial culture to have lives that, bccausc of thcir syn~bolicnaturc, arc not subject to any
dynamic symbolic propcrtics that accord better with a Marxist or form of scarcity. Yet thc relationship of the symbolic order to
historical particularist intcrprctation of culture than they do with a economic and adaptive forms of behaviour still remains to be
nco-evolutionary one. By arguing that an archacological culturc dcfined. It is no longcr possiblc to lnai~ltainthat synlbolic aspccts of
cannot bc intcrprctcd adcquatcly in a picccrneal fashion, Hoddcr matcrial culturc arc mcrely a passive reflection of more pragmatic
places new dcmands on archacologists for a con~prchensivci~ltcr~lal bchaviour. Yct how can thc arcl~acologistdctcrmine in spccific cascs,
study of archacological cultures, which complement the demands of except pragmatically, whether the relationship is one of reflection,
world-system advocates for broadcr rcgional coverages. This is very inversion, or contradiction? Furthermore, linguistic analogies ~
diffcrcnt from the belief of proccssual archacologists that a few suggest that the relationship between material culture and its sym-
sclcctcd variables can be studied at a singlc.sitc to answer n spccific bolic nicaning may bc csscntially arbitrary (Gallay 1986: 197).
archacological problcnl (Brown, and Strucvcr 1973). Structural archacologists express admiration for thc pionccring
Contextual archaeology also rcjccts the validity of thc nco- work of Andrk Leroi-Gourhan (1968), who documented patterns in
cvolutionary distinctio~lbctwccn what is culturally specific and thc locations and associations of the different animal species repre-
cross-cult~~r~lly gcncrnl that was the hasis of Steward's dichotomy scntcd in Uppcr Palacolitliic cavcs in Wcstcrn Europc and intcr-
between science ancl history. This validates an interest in culturally prctcd tlicsc as rcfcrring to myths dcaling with the rclations betwccn
spccific cosmologics, astronomical lore, art styles, religious beliefs, malc and fcnialc principlcs, as wcll as for Alcxandcr Marshack's
and other topics that lingcrcd on thc fringes of processual archae- (1972) demonstration of scasonal pattcrns in associatcd mobiliary
ology in thc 1960s and 1970s. As Dun~icll(1982a: 521) has observed, art. Thcse works encouraged the discovery and exploration of
the ecological and cvolutionary approachcs borrowed from the further patterning in the archaeological record that had been
biological scic~iccswcrc not designed to explain motivational and ignored by proccssual archaeologists, such as the oricntation of
symbolic systems. Hoddcr cncouragcs archacologists once again to Neolithic tonibs in Swcdcn (Tillcy 1984) and similarities in thc
takc account of the complcxitics of human phc~iomcnaand to realize patterning of Neolithic tombs and houscs in Western Europe
that universal gcncralizations d o not cxhaust the rcgularitics that (Hodder 1g84a). Yct so far no archaeologist has discovered how to
charactcrizc human bchaviour. Tlicy arc urgcd to look for ordcr get b c y o ~ ~spcculation
d in interpreting the cultural meaning of such
within individual cu1turL"sor historically related oncs both in terms regularities for carly prehistoric times. Gallay (1986: 198-200, 281)
of spccific cultural catcgorics, such as the canons governing artistic has argued that no way can bc found to demonstrate an isometric
productions, and in the way different cultural catcgorics rclatc to relation betwcen our ideas about the past and ideas that were
one another (Bradley 1984). actually hcld in thc past.
Thc study of patterning in matcrial culturc has bcen influc~lccd Archaeologists have had more succcss in relating the designs of
strongly by Claudc LCvi-Strauss' structural approach, especially his houses and gardens in colonial Virginia and New England to class
investigation of the symbolic patterns underlying nativc American values and attitudcs that are documented in the written records of
 The explanation of diversity

that period (Glassie 1975; Deetz 1977; Isaac 1982; Leone 1982). This
cxpcrience is similar to that of art historians who can find order in
thc thcmcs and stylcs of Grcek statuary as it changed over time. Yct,
while they can relate this to a definable, changing aesthetic, they
cannot understand the significancc of that aesthetic in vcrbal terms
without written rccords. Hoddcr (1982b: 192-3; 1g8zd) has bccn
iintcrcsted in seeing if cross-cultural rcgularities can be discovered in
attitudes toward dirt or the elaboration of pottery designs. If such
regularities could bc found, thcy would probably have a basis in
human psychology. Thcy would also indicatc patterning in human
bchaviour that cross-cuts both of the levels (adaptive and stylistic)
that Gellner has identified. Such relationships remain, howevcr,
problematical.
The study of the symbolic meaning of material remains during
recent millennia has been facilitated by the dircct historical
approach. R. L. Hall (1979) has drawn upon ethnographic and
material concerning native religious bcliefs and sym-
etl~nol~istorical
bolism collected in eastern North America since the seventeenth
century to explain thc structure of Adcna burial I I I O L I I I ~ Sin that
rcgion over 1,500 ycars carlicr, as wcll as why ccrtain classcs of
artifacts wcrc included in latcr Middlc Woodland burials. George
Hamcll (1983) h,ls used rcg~~l,l~-iticsin historically rccordcd Iro-
quoian, Algonkian, and Siouan myths to cxplain thc significancc
of the inclusion of natural crystals, objects made from marine shell
and native copper, and certain other materials in eastern North
American burial contexts for over 6,000 ycars, from late Archaic
times into the historical period. Both of thcsc anthropologists offcr
detailed syn~bolicexplanatio~lsof rcgularities in burial customs for
which no cross-cultural gcncralizations could account. The main
problem that is poscd by this work is that of verifiability. In the cases
of Hall and Hamcli, proof rcsts upon thc applicability of analogies
drawn bctwccn ethnographic and archacol~gicaldata that thcrc are
sound rcasons to believe are l~istoricallyrelated. Hamell's evidence is
particularly convincing becausc there is strong proof in the archaco-
logical record of continuity in the use of these materials from their
earliest appearance into the historical period. In recent years San
ethnography has bee11 used to indicate the shamanistic significance
of much southern African rock art and the mcaning of specific
symbols, such as thc eland (Schrirc ct al. 1986: 128). Yct in his study
 A history of archaeological thought The explanation of diversity

of Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period Erwin Goodenough Ironically these developments appear to reflect yet a further stage
(1953-68) has dcmonstratcd the fallacy of assuming that continuitics in the growing despair that it is possible to d o anything to change
in iconography ncccssarily indicate continuity in mythology, since thc dircction in which Amcrican society is moving by those who
thc significallcc accorded to rcprcscntations is as likely to changc n ~ ~ g hlilcc
t to see it changed. Many of the self-styled Marxists
ovcr timc as arc the ways bclicfs arc symbolized (GofY 1963: xxxv). perceive the ideological factors buttressing the structures of capital-
Yct a gencral continuity in cultural colltcxt and in a total symbol is111and SCCIII to bclicvc that ideas alone may bring about or prcvcnt
systcm argucs strongly in favour of a continuity in meaning (Vasto- social change. Orthodox Marxism claims that such a naive idealism
kas 1987). dooms its cxponcnts to political impotence. This trend towards'
Hoddcr, like Childc, further stresses the importance of cultural idealism in archacology may be vicwcd as a sccular equivalent of thc
traditions as factors playing an activc role in structuring cultural increasing prcoccupatioll with religion in middle-class American
changc. These traditions supply most of the knowlcdgc, bclicfs, and socicty in gcncral and thcrcforc as marking a further stage in the
valucs that simultaneously influcncc economic and social changc and disintegration of thc self-col~fidcnccof thcsc classes (Harris 1981).
arc resl~apcdby that change. Thcy can also play an activc role in Long ago Engels postulated a positive correlation between the
resisting or promoting specific changes. This corrcsponds with self-confidcncc of thc middlc classes and their propensity to adopt a
Marx's observation that 'human beings make thcir own history . . . materialist outlook (Marx and Engels 1957: 256-80).
not under circumstanccs chosc~lby thcmsclvcs . . . but dircctly Wl~iletllcsc idealist archaeologists recognize that a variety of
encountered, given, and transmittcd from the past' (Kohl 1981b:' mental, symbolic, and social factors bring about sociocultural
112). It is not possible to predict cithcr the content of a cultural change, they are unwilling to accept the Enlightenment view that
tradition in all of its spccific dctail or the dctailcd trajcctorics of planning and intentionality also play a significant role in doing so,
cultural changc. Yet when these trajectories arc known from the even if it is admitted that thc effects of change are often not the ones
archaeological record thcy incrcasc the archacologistYsability to that wcrc forcscen. Yet, as Lcach (1973: 763-4) has observed, our
account for what has happcncd in thc past. capacity for 'original speech creativity' is closely linked with non-
Both thc Marxist-inspired vcrsions of archacological intcrprcta- verbal fornls of crcativity as well as with human consciousness. This,
tion and contextual archacology began as semi-pcriphcral, and hc added, implies that human beings arc not just part of a world
specifically British, critiqucs of the imperialist prctcnsio~ls of govcrncd by 'natural law' but have .a unique ability to engage in
Arncrican processual archacology. These critiques have bccn 'work' (praxis) that allows them to alter their surroundings intentio-
adopted by a growing number of Amcrican archacologists who havc nally. Givcn that foresight and planning are characteristics of human
bccome aware of somc of the contradictions bctwecn rhctoric and bchaviour, thcrc is no reason why thcsc features should not be
rcality in their own socicty as it has grown increasingly reactionary assigned a significant role in any account of social changc, evcn
and dcfensivc in recent years. Exposurc to Marxist idcas, usually at though the constraints that channel and select bchaviour cannot be
second or third hand, has hclpcd to rcvcal thc mechanistic stricturcs ignorcd. Thc principal error of Enlightenment philosophers and
of neo-evolutionary theory, which treats human bcings as passive ninctcenth-century unilinear cvolutiollists was the autonomous role
instruments rather t h a ~ t h emakcrs of history. Thcrc is a growing they assigncd to human creativity. In the future a major subject of
awareness of the complexity of cultural changc, of the need to view dcbatc may be between materialists who identify the principal
this process in its totality, and of thc inadcquacy of the dichotomy cndogc~~ous locus of change with relations of production and
bctwcen history and evolution. Ncw intcrprctatio~lsgenerally havc idealists who identify it with pure intentionality. A dichotomous
movcd in thc dircction of grcatcr idealism and cxpress growing trcatmcnt is not, however, inherent in thcse concepts.
doubts that anything approachitlg an objective undcrstallding of thc In North America, prehistoric archacology as a whole still has not
past is possible. movcd f ~ enoughr away from nco-evolutionism to see itself as
 A history of arcl~acologicalthought The explanation of diversity

constituting, not merely a branch of anthropology, but also a how other types of information can be combined with archaeo-
tccl~niqucfor studying the past witliin a broadcr discipli~lcof logical data to promote a bcttcr undcrstanding of the past. The
prehistory. The latter position is commonly held in Europc and in result will be a still broader and morc enriched version of contcxtua-
thc past has bccn discussed sympatl~cticallyby a few Amcrican lism. Implemc~ltingthis sort of approach requires cultivating a
archaeologists such as Irving Rouse (1972).There is growing rccog- wider range of cultural i~ltercststhan have been associated with
nition that thc human skelctal cvidence studied by physical anthro- processual archaeology. In their book on thc Inca town of Hudnuco
pologists may tcll us as much about prehistoric diet as do floral and Pampa, Craig Morris and Donald Thompson (1985: 58-9) are
faunal a~lalyscs(Cohcn and Armelagos 1984) and even morc about content to describe the ushnu or platform in the celitrc of the town as
band exogamy than docs the study of artifact styles (ICcnncdy 1981). a structure rclatcd to aspects ofcercmo~~ial life. While thcy discuss its
Yct thcrc is littlc gcncral awareness of the value of combining the use in statc ceremonies, thcy do not note that the ushnu was
study of archaeological data with that of historical linguistics, oral symbolically the place where the powcrs of heaven and earth met and
traditions, historical ethnography, and I~istoricalrccords, although that control of these powers was a central claim of thc statc (Gasya-
it is clcar that many arcl~acologicalproblems can be resolved in this rini and Margolics 1980: 264-80).
way. In American studies of African prehistory, there is a strong
tradition of such interdisciplinary studies (Murdock 19sga; D.
Avzhaeolog;y as itself
McCall 1964). The same is true of Polynesia (Jcnnings 1979) and
Joyce Marcus (1983b) follows J. E. S. Thompson (1898-1975) in In mainstream Wester11 archaeology there has been a growing
arguing the benefits of such an approach for Mayan research. The awarcncss of the distinctive qualities of archaeological data and of
resistance sccms to come from the view, widely held by proccssual thc nccd to understand these qualities if archaeology is to provide
archacologists, that thcir discipline must be based as exclusively as rcliablc informatio~labout human bel~aviour.In England this has
possiblc on the study of material culturc. Even thoug11 most of them taken thc form of an enhanced awareness of the differences between
agrcc that the ultimate goal of archaeology is to understand humall arcl~aeologicaland historical mcthods (Clarke 1968: 12-14) and in
bchaviour and cultural change, thcy seek maximum disciplinary America a growing co~lvictionthat arch,lcology is different from
autonomy by rclyii~gonly o n universal gcncralizations about rela- ethnology and the othcr social scicnccs. Thc most obvious difference
tions bctwcc~lmaterial culture and human bchaviour to translate is that prchistoric archacology is the only social science that has n o
arcl~acologicaldata into informati011 about such bchaviour. This direct access to information about human behaviour. Unlike econo-
desire to pus11 the interpretative potential of archaeology as far as mists, political scientists, sociologists, and ethnologists, archae-
possiblc without relying on other disciplincs for information about ologists cannot talk to the people they study or observe thcir
t h e past is partly justified by thc fear that i~lterdisciplinary activities. Unlike historians they have no written accounts of what
approachcs can dcgc~lcrateinto an exercise in dilettantism. Such human beings thought or did in prchistoric times. That must be
:onccrns do not, llowcver, nullify the value of interdisciplinary inferred as far as this is possible from the remains of what they made
research, provided that it is understood that such studies must and uscd.
cxploit the h i s t o r i d potential of each discipline to the greatest It has long been recog~lizedthat the archaeological record nor-
cxtent possible, using its own data and mcthods before comparisons mally contains a far from complete sample of the material remains of
of findings arc attcmptcd. the past. In 1923, John Myrcs (1923a:2) observed that it consisted of
Growing rcalizatio~lthat many aspects of past human bchaviour thc equipment which the people 'of each generation were discard-
can be undcrstood through corrclations of a morc culturally specific ing'. In Archaeology and Society, Grahame Clark (1939) examined in
nature cvcntually should suggest the linlitations of a purely archaco- grcat dctail factors that influence the preservation of archacological
logical approach and encourage archaeologists to scck to discover data. I11 thcir initial cntl~usiasm,New Archaeologists tended to
 A history of archacological thought The explanation of diversity

assumc that the archaeological record, if adequately interpreted, logical record and what is recovered. It is largely a theory of
offered a rclativcly complcte and undistorted picturc of the societies sampling, excavation procedures, and flcxiblc rcsponse strategies.
that had produced it. Gradually, however, following Robert Ascher Analytical thcory dcals with the opcratio~laltrcatmcnt of rccovercd
(1961: 324), thesc archaeologists became aware that artifacts wcrc data including classification, modelling, testing, a11.d experimcntal
made, uscd, and frcqucntly discarded in diffcrc~ltcontexts, not all of studies. Finally, interpretive thcory dcals with rclations betwccn the
which wcrc equally rcprcsented in the arcl~aeological record. archacological patterns established at the analytical levcl and directly
Archaeological sites wcrc distorted or destroyed by subsequent unobservable ancient bchavioural and cnvironmcntal patterns. Thus
human activities and naturai proccsses, and finally the recovery of interpretive thcory infers thc processes that pre-depositional theory
archacological i~~fc)rn~ation was dcpcndcnt upon thc knowledge, explains. Clarke bclievcd that thc cl~allcngcfor arcl~acologistswas to
interests, and resources of individual arcl~acologists.I<nowing what dcvclop a corpus of thcory appropriatc for each of thcsc categories.
happened at each of thcsc stages was vital for understanding the Only a small portion, mainly relating to thc pre-depositional and
limitations and significance of the arcl~acologicalrccord. interpretive Icvcls, could be dcrivcd from the social scicnccs. The
Thc first major step towards formalizing such knowledge was rest had to come from the biological and physical scicnccs. The
taken by David Clarkc in 1973 in a paper entitled 'Archaeology: the totality of this thcory, together with metaphysical, epistemological,
loss of innocence' (Clarke 1979: 83-103). H e argued that archaeology and logical theory relating to archaeological operations, was ncccs-
would remain 'an irrespo~lsibleart form' unless a body of theory was sary to create a scientific discipline of archaeology.
systematized that related archaeological remains to human In the United States, Michael Schiffer (1976) independently pio-
bchaviour. The basis for such a systcrnatization was the recognition neered an analogous but less inclusivc approach (in that it did not
that al-chacologists posscsscd only an attenuated sample of what they cmbracc Clarkc's analytical Ievcl), which 11c called 'bcl~avioralarch-
proposed to study. This observation was cncapsulatcd in Clarke's eology'. H e proposcd that archacological data consisted of materials
memorable comment that archaeology was 'the discipline with the in static relations that have been produced by cultural systems and
theory and practice for the recovery of unobservable hominid subjectcd to the operation of non-cultural proccsscs. Because of
bchaviour patterns from indirect traccs in bad samples' (p. roo). The thesc two sets of processcs the archaeological rccord is 'a distortcd
scientific interprctatio~lof archaeological data depends on recog- reflection of a past behavioral system' (p. 12). Thc challenge is for
nizing that, of the full range of hominid activity patterns and social archaeologists to eliminate this distortion in ordcr t o gain an accur-
and c ~ ~ v i r o ~ ~ r nproccsses
c ~ ~ t a l that occurred in the past, archae- ate understanding of past behaviour. Schiffcr was optimistic that
ologists have access only to the sample of associated material this could be done provided that thrce sets of factors wcrc con-
remains that in turn have been deposited in the archaeological trolled. The first are 'correlates', which relate rnatcrial objccts or
record, survived to be recovered, and actually been recovered. spatial relations in archacological contexts to specific types of human
Clarkc defined five bodics of thcory that archacologists intuitively bchaviour. Correlates allow archaeologists to infer how artifacts
employ in thclr interprct~veleaps from excavated data to final report. wcrc madc, distributcd, uscd, and rccyclcd, oftcn in cxcecdingly
The first of these was pre-depositional and depositional theory, complex ways, in living societies. If a cultural system wcrc frozcn at a
covering the relations of human activities, social patterns, and specific moment in timc, as to some cxtcnt happcncd t o thc city of
environmental factors with each other and with the samples and Pompeii as a result of being buried under the ash of Mount Vesuvius
traccs that arc deposited in the archaeological record. Post- in A.D. 79, and perfectly preserved, n o additional factors would
depositional thcory treats the natural and human processcs that have to be taken into account in order to undcrstand lifc at that
affect the archacological record, such as crosion, decay, ground momcnt. Thc interpretation of archaeological sites normally,
n~ovcmcnt,plundering, ploughing, and thc reuse of land. Retrieval however, requires arcl~acologiststo takc account of site-formation
thcory dcals with the relations bctwcc~lwhat survives in thc archaco- processcs, which involvcs dctcrmining how material was transfcrrcd
 A history of archaeological thought The explanation of diversity

from a systcmic to an archacological contcxt and what happcncd to artifacts functioncd. This can be done by formulating laws about the
that matcrial in the archacological rccorci. The first of thcsc arc rclationships bctwccn material culture on the one hand and human
'cultural formation proccsscs', or C-transforms, which attcmpt to bchaviour and natural forccs on tllc other. Thcsc laws includc many
undcrstand thc proccsscs by which itcms arc discarded in thc normal low-level empirical generalizations: This had led Binford (1983a: 237)
operation of a cultural system. Through the dctailed study of discard to describe Schiffer as being primarily an inductivist.
rates, discard locations, loss probabilities, and burial practices, C- . Binford (1983a: 23s) has challcngcd Schiffcr's vicw by arguing that
transforms can predict the materials that will or will not bc dcpos- thc archacological record cannot bc 'a distortion of its own reality'.
itcd by a social systcm in thc archacological rccord and thus establish H c maintains that the challcngc of archaeological interpretation is
a set of relations that will permit the c i ~ l t ~ ~systcm
r a l to be inferred to undcrstand thc 'distorted' rnatcrial as a significant part of thc
morc accurately from its rcmains. Ethnographic rcscarch on prob- archacological
- rccord and that most of Schiffer's C-transforms, such
lcms of this sort suggcsts that artifacts and artifact dcbris arc morc as periodically cleaning out hearths, werc cvcryday activities. Yet,
likcly to bc abandoncd in thc localities whcrc thcy wcrc uscd in since Schiffer sccks to undcrstand processes, it sccms unreasonablc
tcmporary hunter-gatherer sitcs than in largcr and more scdcntary to suggest that hc treats past cultural systems as frozen in time. What
oncs, whcrc thc disposal of wastc rnatcrial was much morc highly Binford does dcmonstratc is that it is naive to bclieve that archac-
organized (Murray 1980). ologists can totally purge the archaeological record of thc various
Thc realization that large numbcrs of artifacts arc found in con- disorganizing processes that controlled its formation and, having
texts of disposal rathcr than tllosc of manufacturc or use has done that, reconstruct the cultural system as Schiffer hopes to do.
stimulated much ctl~noarchacologicalrcscarch that aims to discovcr Schiffer's approach has helped' to stimulate much rescarch that has
rcgularitics in pattcrns of thc disposal of rcfusc. It has a rcsultcd in a morc sophisticatcd undcrstanding of the behavioural
ob2crvations that archamlogy ----
- m a y _ o f e s - m m significance of archaeological data. Previously factors such as discard
--
scicncc of g a ~ b a ~ c : ~ ; - - ~ - ~ oand
o r A.
e S. Kccne (1983: 17) have
pro11ouiiE3h&-ies of s i t ~formation proccsscs to be 'thc archaco-
rates were barely considered by archaeologists except in assessing
the significance of animal bones. It is now increasingly recognized
logical agenda for the 1980s'. Other studies scck to dctcr~nincthe that many cultural proccsscs arc so complcx and varied and that thc
transformations that artifacts undergo in the coursc of usagc. Stone chances of cquifinality arc so great that thc neutralization of distort-
tools arc likcly to bc curatcd and rcuscd much morc intensively in ing influences cannot produce a complete intcrpretation of the
sitcs lacking casy access to sourccs of raw material than in oncs close archaeological record from a behavioural point of vicw (von Gernet'
to such sourccs (Binford 1983a: 269-86). C-transforms also include 1985; P. Watson 1986: 450). As belief in neo-evolutionism wanes and
post-depositional human activitics, such as ploughing and looting, thc diversity of human behaviour increasingly is accepted, this1
that may distort the archacological rccord. This may often happcn in limitation tends to be acknowledged as illherent in the data rather
prcdictablc ways, such as thc grcatcr likelihood that robbers will than as a methodological- weakness. Hence, while archacologists -
removc gold objccts rathcr than commonplace oncs from gravcs. contilluc to apply Schiffcr's approach profitably, many of thcm d o
Finally non-cultural formation proccsscs, or N-transforms, allow not cxpcct his full programrnc to bc rcalizcd.
archacologists to dctcrminc thc intcractions bctwccn cultural matcr- Binford (1977,1981) has also contributed to a growing awareness
ials and aspccts of t11c non-cultural cnvironmcnt from which they are of the distinctiveness of archacology from anthropology with his
rccovcrcd. SchitTer argucs that by accounting for thc ways in which . H e argucs that the dcpendencc of
archacological data functioned in systc111ic contexts, cntcrcd thc an bchaviour in thc past on infcr-
archacological rccord, and wcrc transformed by it, archacologists cncc rathcr than dircct observation oftcn rcndcrs the indcpcndcncc
should bc ablc to clin~inatctllc 'distal-tions' caused by formation of observations and cxpla~~ations suspcct and lcads to thc fallacy of
proccsscs and infcr thc original systcrllic context in which thc 'confirming the consequent' (1981: 29). From this he concludes that
 A history of archaeological thought The explanation of diversity

archaeologists cannot use the archaeological record or the inferred some long-standing interpretations of early hominid behaviour. H e
past to test their premises and assumptions. T o develop reliable has also demonstrated that, in,their support of particular theories
means for knowing the past they must engage in middle-range about hominid behaviour, archaeologists have failed to consider
research, which consists of actualistic studies designed to control for possible alternatives or to analyse the data sufficiently thoroughly.
the relations between the dynamic properties of the past, about Binford's concept of middle-range theory has stimulated an
which they seek knowledge, and the static material properties increasing amount of ethnoarchacological research as well as experi-
common to past and present. As in his earlier work, Binford sees the ments that duplicate the manufacture and use of prehistoric artifacts.
kcy for understanding archaeological data from a positivist perspec- Ruth Tringham (1978) has discussed how these two approaches can
tive as lying in the establishment of valid correlations between be combined to their mutual advantage, thereby carrying forward an
material culture, which archaeologists can observc, and behaviour, argument originally advanced by Svcn Nilsson 150 years earlier.
which they cannot. His present formulation clearly distinguishes, Binford's (1978) own work cxcmplifics the careful application of
however, between gcncral theory, which seeks to explain human etl~noarcl1acologica1research t~ archaeological problems. His desire
behaviour, and middle-range theory, which is concerned with infer- to uilderstand the behavioural significance of the wcll-documcntcd
'ring such behaviour from archaeological data. Middle-range theory variability in the Mousterian assemblages of Western Europc Icd
is therefore of interest exclusively to archaeology, as opposed to gen- him to carry out fieldwork among modern hunting groups in Alaska.
eral theory, which is the common concern of all the social sciences. H e has since applied what hc learned about their economic and
Middle-range theory embraces acts of identificat~on,such as dis- spatial behaviour to a whole series of problcms relating to Old-
tinguishing different classes of habitations, hide scrapers, or base World Palaeolithic archaeology (Binford 1983b).
camps, as well as diagnosing the economic, social, and ideological At least two major difficulties have been identified with the use of
functions of artifacts. It also includes identifying patterns of human middle-range theory. The first objection is that ethnoarchaeological
behaviour as these may relate to fam~lyorganization, village struc- studies are 'theory dependent' and 'paradigm relative' (Wylie 1989).
ture, and pol~t~cal relat~ons,although 112 t h ~ case
s growing respect is Just 'IS in arcl~acologp,what is acccptcd as a valid correlation is partly
shown for the obscrvat~onmade long go by David Abcrlc (1968) influcnccd by the prcsuppositiolls of the investigator. The principal
that concepts that arc very useful for ethnographic interpretation advantage of ethnoarchaeology, or any ethnographic study, is that
may not be well suited for interpreting archaeological data. For bchaviour is observed, not inferred, hence the opportunities for
example, archaeologists find it easier to deal with behavioural cate- speculatioils to multiply are more limited.
gorics, such as matrilocal residence, than with jural concepts, such as A second and related problem is the relevance of middle-rangc
matrilineal descent. Middle-range theory also subsumes the study of theory for archaeological interpretations. Binford is aware that
cultural and natural site-formation processes. It thus embraces the using present regularities to explain the past involves uniformitarian
study of regularities in physical processes as well as in cultural assulnptio~lsand argues that these claims must be warranted by
behaviour. Much of Binford's (1984) most important research in supporting arguments. H e suggests, for example, that the ecological
recent years has involved using arguments about natural site- and anatomical characteristics of still extant species which ancient
formation processes to challenge the human origin of many of the human beings exploited are 'enduring objects for which uniformita-
patterns observed in the archaeological record for Lower Palaeo- rian assumptions'might be securely warranted' (Binford 1981: 28)
lithic times. H e has shown that many of the data interpreted as and expresses the hope that other domains can be elaborated as
evidencc of big-game hunting or even major scavenging at that time research progresses. Other archaeologists see these uniformitarian
could be merely natural distributions of bone in incidental associ- assumptions as involving as great a leap of faith as those Binford
ation with traces of human activity. While this issue is far from suggests affirm the consequent (P. Watson 1986: 447-8). Uniformi-
settled, Binford's research has called into question the validity of tarian assumptions have their dangers. One of these is ignorance of
 A history of archaeological thought The explanation of diversity

what is l~appeningat the present time. Scientists may misunderstand

the past because thcy fail to take account of long-term processes, as
was the casc wit11 geology prior to the recogpition of plate tectonics
and continental drift. Another proble~nis that social scientists may
consider to be universal, characteristics of human bel~aviourthat are
specific to a particular stage of cultural dcvelopn~cnt.Marxists, who
believe that human nature is substantially altered by cvolutio~lary
change, arc lcss willing to invoke universal features of human
bchaviour than arc arcl~aeologistswho assume, along with the
philosopl~crsof the Enlightcnmcnt, that human bcl~aviourremains
unaltered by social change. Problems can also rise in applying
analogies, because arcl~acologistsarc unable to distinguish what is
characteristic of humanity in general (or of a particular mode of
production) and what is specific only to historically related cultures.
Antl~ropologists remain unable to distinguish on theoretical
grounds between analogies, resulting from convergent evolution,
and homologies, that owe their similarity to historical relations.
Instead, thcy must d o so empirically, using historical or archaeo-
logical evidence. The variety of forces bringing about social change
also complicates the question of what modern socictics can serve as
true analogies of prehistoric ones. We have already noted that, while
Binford found that the settlement patterns of huntcr-gatherers in
high latitudes shared many features that distinguisl~edthem from
hunter-gatherer patterns in warmer climates, all of these northern 50 Model of drop and toss zones, as developed by Binford from his
societies were engaged in trapping and selling furs to Europeans etl~noarchaeologicalstudy of the Nunamiut of Alaska
long before they were studied by anthropologists. We do not know
whether tlie common features Binford described represent an eco- continues to believe. Much more ethnographic documentation is
logical adaptation extending back thousands of years or had dcvel- needed before we can agree with his assertion that all hunter-
oped in recent centuries as a consequence of new economic rela- gatherers use their camp space in much the same way, producing
tions. In this casc arcl~aeologicaldata about prehistoric settlement easily recognizable features such as bedding areas, drop zones, toss
patterns are essential to provide insights into the devclopmcntal zones, and aggregate dumping areas, and proceed to interpret all
significance of modern behavioural patterns and produce con- Palacolitl~icarcl~aeologicalsites in terms of models derived from the
vincing warranting arguments. Yet, despite such cautionary tales, a Bushmen and Nunamiut (Binford 1983b: 144-92). Even if the use of
blanket rejection of uniformitarianism may be far more dangerous camp space can be proved to be relatively uniform, there are many
for the development of archaeology than its opposite. Despite this aspects of human behaviour that cannot be accounted for in terms of
problem, middle-range theory is a very useful dcvicc for interpreting universal generalizations, wl~cthcrthese concern behaviour in gen-
arcl~acologicaldata. eral or societies at specific levels of dcvelopmcnt (Watson e t al. 1984:
A more important limitation appears to be that human behaviour 264). Hence more culturally specific explanations, such as have been
is considerably lcss uniform than Binford, as a nco-evolutionist, proposed by Hoddcr and other structuralist archaeologists, arc likely
 A history of arcl~aeologicalthougl~t The explanation of diversity

to play an important role in explaining archacological data alongside technique for bridging thc gap between the archaeological and
Binford's middle-range theory (von Gernet and Timmins 1987). behavioural spheres will remain unexploited.
A final, morc narrowly empiricist approach advocated by Andre
Lcroi-Gourhan (1968) and more recently by Robert Dunncll (1971, Conclusions
1982b) S C C ~ Sto scparatc archaeology from its ties with social anthro-
pology and ethnology, and pcrl~apswith thc social scicnces gcn- The growing realization that archaeology is methodologically
crally. It is allcgcd that this rclationsl~iphas cncouragcd a flawcd diffcrcntiatcd from thc othcr social scicnccs because of its inability
approach to archaeological interpretation, based on ethnographic to obscrve human behaviour o r speech first hand, particularly as
analogy. Instead the archacological rccord IIILIS~be ~inde~-stood on rcprcscntcd by Binford's middlc-rangc theory, closely parallcls thc
its own tcrnls. Whilc Dunnell allows that aspects of the archaco- arguments advanced by Klcjn and his associatcs in thc Soviet Union
logical record that represent style rather than function cannot be that archaeological data first must be understood in their own right
c~~compasscd by this approach, he bclicvcs that it facilitates the bcforc thcy can be used to study historical problems. I n both cases
study of thc evolutionarily significant portions of archacological thc qucstion arises whether a body of strictly archaeological theory
data, which arc sccn as cxplainablc in terms of biophysical variables that is concerned with inferring' human bchaviour from archaeo-
(cf. Wylic 198sb; Watson 1986: 444-6). Other archaeologists have logical data can be more objective than high-level theories that are
proposed to explain archaeological data by enlploying principles concerned with explaining human behaviour and are demonstrably
derived from sociobiology (Nash and Whitlam 1985), a position that influenced by archaeologists' responses to contemporary social
Dunncll (1980a: 60-6) specifically has repudiatcd. Both approaches issues. That archaeologists around the world, regardless of their
require an arbitrary delineation of what is important and not impor- political orientation, appear to be able to adopt each other's inter-
tant about human bchaviour and also the ignoring of unique pretive innovations while maintaining differcnt high-level views of
featurcs of such bchaviour that have developed in the course of human behaviour, suggests that to some degree middle-range
biological evolution. More importantly, however, it has not been thcory and the opcrations uscd to infcr human bchaviour from
dcmonstratcd that the empirical data of arcl~acologycan bc inter- archacological data may bc rclativcly uninflucnccd by social biascs.
prctcd bchaviourally without recourse to some sort of analogies (P. Yct thc formulation of middlc-rangc thcory involves the use of
Watson 1986: 446). Howcvcr nluch cxpcrin~c~ltal work is done, for conccpts that acquire thcir significance in social settings. This indi-
example in thc form of use-wear studies, inferences about human cates that the differentiation between middle-range and general
bchaviour permeate all levcls of such rcsearch and its application to theory may not be as great in that respect as many archaeologists
interpreting archacological data. The danger is that uncritical believe.
common-sense analogies may unwarrantedly replace more disci- Although a fcw archaeologists maintain that deterministic forms
plined ones based on ethnographic and historical studies. Valid of evolutionism are 'returning t o center stage' (Dunnell in Rindos
concerns about the dangers of using ethnographic analogies have 1984: ix), most American and Western European ones seem to be
not succeeded in producing a crcdible alternative. increasingly convinccd that human behaviour is complex and that
There is currently very little interest in the relevance of the formal accounting for its development requires nothing less than
classifications of artifacts for thc study of problems othcr than cxplaining t11c course of human history in all of its bewildering
chronology and cultural classification. Thc significance of formal diversity and spccificity. In thcir morc extrcmc manifcstations, thcse
variation for understanding ecological, social, political, ethnic, sym- developments are moving in the direction of historical particular-
bolic, and ideational aspects of prehistoric cultures remains to be ism, a doctrine that is in accord with the intellectual obfuscation and
established (Gardin 1980; C. Carr 1985). Until thcse dimensions can despair about effecting constructive change that are currently
be distinguished formally in thc archacological record, a major rampant in Amcrican popular culture. Yct most American archac-

367 ,
 A history of archaeological thought The explanation of diversity

ologists seem unlikely to reject the accornplishmcnts of the last 3 0 topic. It is also uncertain whether concepts, such as planning, inten-
years to embrace a form of neo-Boasianism, even if they judge the tionality, and foresight, will play a significant role in understanding
neo-evolutionism of the 1960s to be no longer tenable. They appear cultural change within either a materialist or a non-materialist
to be abandoning the idea that only aspects of culture that recur framework, since they are theoretically compatible with both. For
cross-culturally 'are worth understanding, to be trying to understand them to do so, archaeologists will have to adopt a much more critical
specific sequences of development in their historical complexity, and role with rcspcct to their social milicu than is currently thc case.
to be abandoning the proposition that prediction is the only form of Whatever happens, the growing sense of the unity and com-
explanation. At the samc time archaeologists are likely to remain plementarity of historicism and evolutionism in Western archae-
concerned with dclincating and explaining cross-cultural regulari- ology should allow archaeological explanation to move beyond the
tics in human behaviour and to use thesc explanations, whcre they vulgar materialism of processual archaeology, the stcrile idealism of
are appropriate, to understand specific sequences of development historical particularism, and the ersatz Marxism of the critical and
(P. Watson 1986: 442-3). In the future, evolutionary theory prob- structuralist approaches. This moderate shift, following a short
ably will bc conccrncd not only with thc rcgularitics that socictics pcriod whcn nco-evolutionism was in thc ascendant, would contrast
exhibit as they develop from one level to another but equally with with the radical swing from unilinear evolutionism t o historical
how adjacent interacting societies at different stages of development particularism at the end of the nineteenth century and the long
influence one another. For the first time we will have an evolutionary periods during which each of these two extreme positions was
theory that is able to take account of colonial relations past and dominant. If a similar radical swing does not occur today, it is at
prescnt and hcncc of somc of thc basic processes that have led to thc least partly because archacologists have learned from expcricnce the
development of anthropology and prehistoric archaeology. Finally unproductivcncss of thcsc dichotomous and extreme views of
Western archacologists are likely to bccomc increasingly aware of human behaviour. This saggests that a body of procedures for
thc relations bctwccn individuals and groups who study thc past and inferring human behaviour has dcvclopcd within Wcstcrn archac-
how they view it, an awareness that should also rcvcal morc clcarly ology t11.1t is now sufficiently mature to influence how it intcrprcts
to archaeologists the nature of the contcmporary Wcstcrn socictics its d,lt,l, sometimes in opposition to cxtcrnal beliefs and values.
in which they live.
The future perception of causality is harder to predict. There is
good reason to believe that, if a respectable emphasis on understand-
ing cross-cultural rcgularitics persists, archaeologists will continue
to regard material factors as significant constraints on human
behaviour and therefore as major influences shaping cultural devel-
opment. In all probability there will be less emphasis on specific
technological and ecological factors and morc on broadcr economic
relations, as well as on constraints on social and political organi-
zations provided by general systcms theory. Ideologies, beliefs, and
cultural traditions generally will be seen as part of the context in
which economic change comes about. What is unclcar is the import-
ance that will be accorded to these factors and whether they will be
interpreted as operating within the constraints set by economic and
social conditions or as promoting major cultural changes in a more
independent fashion. It is unlikely there will be unanimity on this
 Archaeology and its social context

(Deagan 1982: 167) and Binford (1981: 28) objects that it cannot be
the central focus for archaeology 'since the archaeological record
contains no direct information on this subject whatsoever!' Daniel
(1975: 370-6) has argued that to restrict the discipline to the study of
CHAPTER I 0 material remains would be to cultivate a new artifact-centred anti-
quarianism. Most archaeologists continue to regard archaeology as a
Archaeology and its social context means to study human bchaviour and cultural change in the past,
although they are far from agreed about what is involved in doing
SO.
Thcrc simply ic not, at thcprescnt time, any explicit, objcctil7eset of Thcsc various definitions of the ultimate goals of archaeology
rules or procedures by which the influence of concealed interests
upon thought and belief can be established. However, it remains have significailt implications for establishing the scope of what are
possible in many instances to identzJj the operation of concealed considered to be archaeological activities. Traditionally archaeology
interests by a sulljectivc, cxpcrirncntal approach. hw bccil e ~ ~ i ~with~ ~ tthe
e drccovcry, analysis, and intcrprctatio~lof
BA R K Y H A R N E S, Iizte~estsand the G ~ o ~ voft bKnoluledge (1977), p. 35 the material remains of the human past. Yet archaeology has always
extended beyond these limits. N o one has ever considered rep-
We have now reached the point where we can discuss the sig- licative experiments as other than archaeological. Although strictly
nificailcc of the history of archaeology for understanding the nature speaking they d o not study material from the past, their relevance for
of archaeological interpretation and assess the discipline's relative archaeological interpretation, and for it alone, is unquestioned. O n
degree of objectivity or subjectivity. These questions are relevant for the other hand, while arcl~aeologistshave long relied on ethno-
dctcrrni~lingthe role that archacology can aspire to play in human graphic analogies to interpret archaeological data, only recently has
history. Is it restricted to rcflcctiilg society and passively partici- the carrying out of major project; of ethnoarchaeological research in
pating in the political movements that transform our lives or can it, an effort to learn more about relations between material culture and
as Childc (1946b, 1947b) hoped, play an important part alo~lgsidc human bchaviour been regarded as integral to arcl~aeology(Binford
the study of history in creating a more objective 'science of progress' 1978; R. Gould 1978, 1980; P. Watson 1979; Hodder 198zb). It can
that will help to elucidate major social issues and guide humanity equally be considered as an ethnographic activity carried out by
towards a better future? archaeologists. Schiffer (1976: 8-9) has added to these activities the
study of matcrial objects in ongoing cultural systems in an effort t o
describe and explain present human behaviour (see also Reid et al.
1974). This includes research ~ u c has William Rathje's (1974)
In recent years thcrc has been much debate conccrni~lgthe ultimate Garbage Project, which employed tecl~niquesof archaeological
goal of archacological research. Strongly positivistic archaeologists, analysis to study changing pattqrns in the use and disposal of
such as Dunnell (1971: 120-I), stress that it must be to explain the resources within the modern city of Tucson, Arizona. While they
archaeological recora. Clarke (1968) viewed archaeology more admit that archaeological methods and expertise are employed in
broadly as the poteilt~alnuclcus of a general science of material such analyses, far fewer archaeologists are prepared to view research
culture, past and present, that would complcmcnt social and cogni- of this sort as an integral part of their discipline. Most archaeologists
tive anthropology. I11 a similar vein Schiffcr (1976:4) has argued that continue to regard studying the past as an essential attribute of
'the subjcct lnattcr ofarcheology is the rclatio~~shipsbetween human archacology.
bchavior and niatcrial culture in all times and places'. Other archae- Yet, while each of the above goals has implications concerning
ologists, howcvcr, would restrict this role to historical archaeology priorities in archaeological research, they are not mutually exclusive.
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social context

There is 110way in which either the archacological record or modern from human geography, ecollomics, political science, sociology, and
material culture can be understood without rclating them to human psychology, as well as from ethnology. It has been argued that most
behaviour. Conversely, if archaeologists are to learn more about of the disciplinary boundaries that Characterize the Western social
human bchaviour and cultural change in the past, they must seck sciences are arbitrary, to the extent, that the)) often preclude the
ncw and convincing ways to infer such bchaviour from archaeo- asking and answering of fundamental questions about the nature
logical data. It is also only through the study of human behaviour and dcvclopment of modern industrial socictics (Wolf 1982: 7-19).
that archaeology can be related to the other social sciences. By contrast Marxists havc maintained a holistic approach to the
social scicnccs as they havc dcvclopcd thcir critique of capitalist
Archaeolog-y: history and science societies.
Thc discussion about whether archaeology is related more closely
Throughout the course of its dcvelopnlcl~tarchaeology has had to history or to anthropology is closcly tied to an cqually inconclu-
especially closc relations with one or the other of two social scicnccs: sive debate about whether thc archaeological understanding of
history and anthropology. Traditionally the relationship has been human behaviour should take the form of historical explanations or
closer with history when archacologists study what they bclicvc to ~lonlothcticgcncralizations. Sincc most archacologists arc commit-
bc the rcmains of thcir o w n ancestors or of civilizations for which ted to understanding what has happened in the past, this disputc has
much written documentation is available and closer to anthropology centred on the qucstion of whcther thcir primary goal should bc to
when they study Palaeolithic times or more recent, technologically explain individual events in all of their idiographic particularity or to
less-advanced cultures to which they do not believe their own produce evolutionary generalizations about the nature of cultural
society is closely related. This distinction has become somewhat change. The first option has been supported by culture-historical
blurred in rcccnt years as a growing number of Western European archaeologists, whose main concern is with the detailed study of
archaeologists havc turned to anthropology in an effort to under- specific peoples, cultures, or regions, while the second has been
stand local Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age societies better. vociferously advocated by processual archaeologists. In practice,
The disciplinary distinction between history and anthropology, as archaeologists of both persuasions have sought to formulate not
wc havc sccn, had its origins in ideological considcrations. Ninc- only evolutionary gcncralizations but also functional oncs as a basis
tccnth-century Europeans regarded thcn~sclvcsas naturally pro- for inferring human bchaviour from arcl~acologicaldata. I

gressive and the nativc peoples whom they were subjcctillg to This debate stems from a falsc dichotomy between history and
colonial domination as inhcrcntly static and hence beyond thc pale science that was introduced into American archaeology by Kluck-
of historical research. It has taken a long time for these two disci- hohn and Steward, and reinforced by the adoption of neo-
plines cven to begin to come to grips with the implications of this evolutionism. The latter encouraged prehistoric archaeologists to
bias, which rcmains surprisingly alive (Trevor-Roper 1966: 9). believe that human behaviour and cultural change exhibited strong
There is no inherent reason why archaeologists should derive their regularities that could be accounted for in terms of evolutionary
understanding of human behaviour almost exclusively from anthro- generalizations, and that doing ,this constituted scientific expla-
pology. A special relationship generally is justified on the ground nation. That left history, as a humanistic residual, to account for the
that ethnologists study the same kind of societies as do prehistoric 'unique, exotic, and non-recurrent particulars' of cultural change, all
archacologists and that! therefore ethnology is a more fertile source matters that neo-evolutionists judged to be of little, if any, scientific
of intcrprctativc analogies than is any other social scicncc. Yct, if importance. As a gcncral rulc, this mcant that science dealt with
archaeologists are to use universal gcncralizations about human ecological adaptation, while history studied thc stylistic aspects of
behaviour to explain their data, as processual archaeologists advo- 1 culture.
cate, there is no reason why these generalizations should not come These dichotomies between ecology and style and bctween
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social context

science and history are at best unconvincing. Many anthropologists discover in 1492, or had it contained n o gold and silver and popu-
regard entire cultures as adaptive systems, which leaves no grounds lations to mine these metals, there is n o doubt that the subsequent
for opposing ecolopy and stylc. More importantly, as a rcsult of thc cconon~icand political development of Europe would have been
declining influence of neo-evolutionism, it has become clcar that very different (Marx 1906: 823-4). It has also become increasingly
cultural change is far more divcrsificd than any neo-evolutionary obvious that, because of this, ethnologists must understand the
view of parallel or even multilinear evolution has countenanced. historical significance of the data that they use to generalize about
While it is informative to know tlic fcaturcs that cvcnts assigned to a human bchaviour before the significance of thesc generalizations can
particular class (such as revolutions a, b, and c) have in common, and be understood. Finally, it is being recognized that to refuse to
why this is so, thesc fcaturcs rarcly cxhaust what is of theorctical consider regularities significant if they are not universal ones is t o
intcrest or nccds to be cxplaincd about such cvents. Hence, while it ignore and bclittle large and important areas of human experience. If
may be possible to isolatc certain fcaturcs common to all rcvo- structuralist claims concerning the role played by cultural patterns in
lutions, it is not possiblc to prcdict all the fcaturcs of any one moulding human bchaviour are cvci~partially correct, such refusal
revolution from revolutions in general. No matter how much rclc- may severely limit the ability of archaeologists to explain why
vant theory is available, thc armchair prchistorian cannot produce a change has taken place. Attempts to understand numerous cultural
detailed rcconstruition of the course of history from such under- sequences in all of their idiosyncratic complexity will also lead t o the
standing alonc. It is also clear that at least part of the diversity recognition of unsuspected regularities in cultural behaviour that
observed in the archaeological record rcsults from cultures at differ- can contribute to a more detailed understanding of evolutionary
ent icvels of development or pursuing different strategies at the same processes. The elaboration of world-systems theory appears to be a
lcvcl influencing and constraining cach othcr. The conccpt of cul- significant niovc in that direction. All of this indicates the bank-
tures interacting as part of a world spstcni takes us far from the ruptcy of the traditional dichotomy between history and evolution.
simplistic view that, at lcast in adaptivc tcrms, cultural borrowing is Nomotlictic gc~icralizatio~ls and historical cxpla~iationsare indissol-
no diffcrcnt from internal innovation, which was the stock-in-trade ubly linkcd proccsscs, ncithcr one of which can make progress
of nco-evolutionists. without thc othcr or bc rcduccd to thc othcr.
That in turn suggests that thcrc is no quick and easy way by which These arguments also suggest some major limitations on the role
archaeologists can crcatc a body of evolutionary thcory tliat will of covering laws in archaeological explanation. Many evolutionary
allow them simultaneously to prcdict or rctrodict (predict back- generalizations may be formulated inductively as a result of detailed
wards) the course of human history. Even if it is possible to develop efforts to interpret individual cultural sequences and then raised to a
a body of theory that cxplains how cultural change in general takes higher level of significance after their cross-cultural applicability is
place, in the samc sense that the synthetic theory of biological noted. Because of the overlapping nature of many competing high-
cvolutio~lcxplains changcs in living spccics, this will not allow lcvcl theories of human behaviour, it often remains unclear which of
archaeologists to rctrodict how spccific ways of life cliangcd in thcm best accounts for such empirical generalizations. It may further
prehistoric timcs. That can only be accomplished by studying thc be argucd that the ultimate task of evolutionary theory, and the
archaeological data r6levant to spccific sequences of development standard by which it must be judged, is its ability to explain what has
and trying to explain those scquenccs in all of their particularistic happened in the past, as revealed through idiographic studies, rather
complexity. Thcsc sequences cannot be accounted for without refer- than to construct hypothetical schemes of development that are
ence to generalizations about human behaviour and cultural pro- invariably too general to predict what actually happened in the past
ccsscs; but likewise they cannot be explained without taking account (Murdock 19jgb).
of idiosyncratic .and hence unpredictable concatenations of influ- For explaining specific historical events or sequences of change,
ences. Had thcrc bccn no westcrn hemisphcrc for Europeans to the approaches that Wesley Salmon (1967, 1984; Salmon et al. 1971)
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social context

and Merrilee Salmon (1982) have called 'statistical-relevance' expla- 1983; Uclto 1983).By ignoring its social responsibilities, archaeology
nation and William Dray (1957) has discusscd as 'how possibly' may bc dooming itsclf to irrclcvancc in thc opinion of many pcoplc
cxplanations arc csscntial. Thcsc should not be vicwcd as an alter- who othcnvisc might be interested in its findings, as wcll as cncour-
native to dcductivc explanation sincc both cxtensivcly employ argu- aging nccdlcss hostility (Wiseman 1983).
ments of this sort. An important charactcristic of 'how possibly' This humanistic outlook also rcinforccs thc vicw that it is reason-
cxplanations is thc reconstruction of a chain of cvcnts, accompanicd ablc to employ a direct historical approach and to use non-
by an effort to account for thcsc cvcnts ~ n the d scqucncc in which nrchacological sources of d a t ~ such
, as oral traditions, historical
thcy occurrcd. Explanations ideally should be bascd on wcll- I~nguistics,and comparative ethnography, in ordcr to producc a
cst~blishcdlaws of hum.ln b c h a v ~ o ~althoug11
~r, common sc~lscmust morc I-oundcd picture of prehistoric c~~lturcs and to rulc out alter-
often bc L I S C ~as .I 'filler' bcca~~sc
of the lack of such thcory. Many native explanations that archaeological data alonc might not bc ablc
answers to questions that arise as part of 'how possibly' explanations to cxclude. The employment of all possiblc sourccs of data and thc
take thc form of additional data that climinatc one or morc alter- scarch for congrucncc among thcsc data sets may be rcgardcd as an
native possibilitics (Dray 1957: 156-69). The concept of archaeo- cxtcnsion of Hodder's contextual approach and an important means
logical explanations taking the form of alternative possibilities, some of gaining insights into the significance of archacological findings.
of which eventually may be eliminated by new data, is a corollary of This is a point that historical archaeologists makc rcpcatcdly with
this approach (Chambcrlin 1944; G. Isaac 1984). I11 due coursc new rcspcct to thcir own work (South 1977a). All of thcsc observations
archacological findings or research in othcr fields also may help to strengthen the conclusion that, when dealing with archaeological
providc generalizations that can replacc common-sense or empirical (just as with historical) data, prcdiction and cxplanation arc not
solutions to problems. identical, as thc Ncw Archaeologists maintained thcy wcrc. Thc
As the result of a declining preoccupation with neo-evolutionary reason for this lies in the complexity of human bchaviour, which
thcory, therc has also bccn In rcccnt years a widening appreciation produces far morc complicated situations than arc cncountcrcd in
that a holistic knowledge of what has happcncd to specific groups of bioloey.
pcoplc in thc past is a matter of great humanistic as wcll as scientific It is being rccognizcd that, howcvcr usctul correlations bctwccn
interest. Arcl~acologicalstudics havc rcfuted the idea, sustained if matcrial culturc and human behaviour may be for inferring such
not crcated by nineteenth-century anthropologists, that non-literate behaviour from the archaeological rccord, these correlations only
indicate what pencd in thc past; thcy d o not providc cxpla-
pcoples wcrc primitive and unchanging. Scholars in emerging
nations in Africa and elsewhere look to archaeology to provide
knowledge of their pre-colonial dcvelopmcnt and treat archaeology
&
nations of wl evcnts happened, Explanations rcquirc an
operational account of the regularity which links a proposed causc
as a vital instrument of historical research. In North America, and cffect (M. Salmon 1982: 132). In the case ofnatural constraints on
Australia, and othcr parts of thc world whcrc nativc pcoplcs havc human bchaviour, such as may arisc from ecological factors, this
bccn ovcrwhclmcd by Europcan scttlcmcnt, thc image of thc may involve dctcrmining thc cffcct of a spccific natural causc and
'unchanging savage' has bccn dcmonstratcd, with thc help of showing how in tcrms of human physiology or psychology a par-
archacological data, tb have bccn a myth that dcvcloped as part of ticular response is required. Yet, bccause thc behaviour of human
thc proccss ofEuropean colonization. In this contcxt thc notion that beings is largely, if not wholly, mcdiatcd by cultural factors, thought
archaco~o~ical data-should bc uscd only to formulate and test as an and intention arc a ncccssary part of understanding it. Archaco-
cnd in thcn~sclvcsa potpourri of general thcorics about human logical cxplanations of human rcsponscs to cnvironmcntal chal-
bchaviour and cultural changc is increasingly being viewed as not lenges, to pressure from ncighbouring societics, and to tensions that
only conceptually inadequate but also neo-colonialist and insulting arisc within societies must therefore make sensc in tcrms of what thc
to the Third World and to nativc pcoplcs (D. Miller 1980; Langford archaeologist knows about human logic and dccision making. M.
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social context

Salmo~l(1982: 132) cites as a rudimentary example of a causal account assessing the extent to which cultural conditioning rather than
of tllc regularity connecting small population size and egalitarian universal logic i~lfluenceshuman behaviour as it is reflected in the
social structure Anthony Forge's (1972) claim that human beings can arcl~aeologicalrecord, as well as the extent to which alternative
l~n~idle only a li~nitcdnumber of detailed intcrpcrsonal rclatio~~ships. models can profitably be constructed that treat culturally con-
As societies bccomc larger, some form of segmentary organization ; ditioned bchaviour as a black box.
and more clearly defined putterns of Icndcrship arc rccluircd.
Thc prohlem is that the .~rchacologist11.1s n o direct access to the
Relativist critiques
thoughts of thc past, while social scientists disagree quite pro-
fouridly about the nature of tl~o~igllt as cxllibitcd in the ~nodcrn Because ~rchaeologydeals with co~nplcxphenomena and is not an
world. S O I ~anthropologists
C stress the i ~ ~ ~ p o r t a nofc creason in expcr~mcntaldiscipline, it is particularly vulnerable to what is
d c t c r n ~ i ~ ~human
ing bchaviour, cspccially in practical spheres, such acccptcd as truc at any one time being whatever appears to be most
as those that relate to ccological and economic concerns. They malcc rcasonablc to cach successive generation of archaeologists. They
cxtcnsive usc of rationalist concepts, such as G. K. Zipfs (1949) may establish sound correlations, weed out logical inconsistencies,
'principle of least effort', and cmphasizc the mctapl~oricalstatus of and dcmonstratc that acccptcd interpretations d o not accord with
rcligious bclicfs, which arc notoriously divcrsc (Gellncr 1985; new data. Yet a historical survey reveals that interpretations are
Spcrbcr 1985).O n the other hand, relativists strcss the variations in often subtly influenced by social and personal preconceptions of
pattcrns of thought from onc culturc to anotllcr and the difficulty of reality that preclude an awareness of the full range of alternative
prcdicting how people bcl~avein one culture from how thcy are explanations that would allow more cdmprehensive formal testing
know11 to behave in anothcr. Childc (1949: 6-7) long ago pointed and dcternlining the actual limits within which a generalization
out that hu~ilanbcings adapt to cnvironmcnts not as they occur in holds true. In many instances neither adequate data nor strong
nature b i ~as t thc)~perceive them to be. Yet, if pcrccption and rcality enough correlations arc available to counteract such biases. Under
M~C'I-C'too discordant, n n t ~ ~ rselection
al w o ~ ~ cluicklp
ld climinntc such thcsc circumstances the diffcrcncc bctwce~la nomothetic gcncrali-
societies. Thc same may bc truc of somc forms of political zation and an informal argument by analogy is by no mcans clcar-
hell;~\~ioi~r. This S L I ~ ~ C tint,
S ~ S at least with rcspcct to certain practi- cut.
cal ;~spcctsof 11u1nan bcha\~iour,some form of universal logic may As archacologists bccomc more aware of the complexity of what
sufficc to cxplain thc gcncral outlines of what happened in the past. thcy have to explain, they also become more interested in learning
Ncverthelcss, thc problems cncountcrcd by economists in trying how and to what extent their experience of the present influences
to u~ldcrstandthe nature of economic bchaviour in non-Western their interpretations of the past. Many see the milieu in which they
societies warns against complacency about the ability of archae- work affecting both the questions they ask and the answers that they

\
ologists to infer thc nature of decision malcing in prehistoric ones. are predis osed to regard as reasonable. It is perhaps deceptively
Also, because of the human capacity to cnvision and choose amo easy to sho that throughout the world the interpretation of
alternative solutions to problems, it may not be possible to spec archaeological vidence is influenced by specific social, economic,
causality in arcl~acologicallyobservable terms, cxcept when dcali and political co ditions, as well as by the tendency for individuals
statistically with large numbers of cases. This is what Childc (192 and groups to promote their own interests by representing selfish
46) had in mind hen he argucd that somc huntcr-gatherer group goals as altruistic ones. It can also be documented that in a very
thrcatcncd by desiccation might alter their way of life, whilc other general fashion analogous social situations independently have
might move to less affected cnvironmcnts or even die out. Rather encouraged similar treatments of archaeological data. In particular
than deny that ps)~cl~ological states arc relevant to intcrprcting in the Western and Third Worlds these interpretations reflect the
~~rchacological data, archacologists should pny more attention to political and economic concerns of the middle classes, as expressed
 A history of archacological thought Archacology and its social contcxt

in various cxpansivc and dcfcnsivc postures. In addition, archaco- pcoplc did in thc past rcally happened and that thcir having hap-
logical intcrprctations arc influcnccd dircctly by gcndcr prcjudiccs, pened has playcd a significant rolc in shaping thc archacological
cthnic concerns, the political control of rcscarch and publishing, thc rccord that wc study. The past thcrcforc had, and in that scnse
financing of archacological activities, gcncrational conflicts among retains, a rcality of its own that is indcpcndcnt ofthc rcconstructions
rescarchcrs, and the idiosyncratic influcnccs of charismatic archac- and explanations that archacologists may givc of it. Morcovcr,
ologists. Thcy arc also influcnccd by socicty indirectly through because the archacological rccord, as a product of thc past, has bccn
analytical modcls that are offcrcd by the physical, biological, and to a shaped by forccs that arc indcpcndcllt of our own bclicfs, thc
still greater degree the social sciences, as well as by the continucd cvidcncc that it providcs at lcast potentially can act as a constraint
acceptance of cstablishcd archacological explanations, the out- upon archacologists' imaginations. T o that cxtcnt thc study of thc
moded character of which has not yet become apparent. past differs from writing a work of fiction. Thc aim of archaeology
Yct simplc correlations bctwccn archacological i~lterprctations can thus bc to rccovcr knowlcdgc of what has bccn forgottcn. Yct
and social conditions arc cncountcrcd only rarcly. Most intcrprcta- the crucial questions remain how far wc can g o in acquiring an
tions arc not straightforward rcflcctions of such conditions but objcctivc undcrstanding of thc past and how ccrtain wc can bc of thc
vcrsions of the past crcatcd by archacologists trying under spccific accuracy of what wc bclicvc we know about it, givcn thc propensity
historical circu~nstanccsto promotc or dcfcnd prcfcrrcd social intcr- of value judgcmcnrs to colour our intcrprctations.
csts. Thcsc interests arc varied and each of thcm can be supported in In rcccnt years prchistorit archacology has shifted from a naivc
many diffcrcnt ways. Racial doctrines can be used to promotc positivism t o a morc far-rcaching acccptalicc of rclativism than at
national unity or to justify colonial aggression. Strongly hcld rclig-. any time in t l ~ cpast. After scvcral decades of positivist optimism, a
ious bclicfs can be hcld rcsponsiblc for retarding t~chnological growing number of archncologists arc prcpi~rcdto bclicvc that thcy
progress or hailed as a major factor promoting cultural dcvclop- can never achieve an objcctivc historical understanding of thc past.
mcnt. The options that arc sclcctcd rctlcct the spccific balance of Some of the niorc radical relativists havc concluded that bccausc of
s the relationship of particular
interests in individual c u l t ~ ~ r cand this thcy havc the right to use archacological data for any purposc
archacologists to thcsc intcrcsts. Such considerations not only play a that thcy wish. Thcy scc them as a source of aesthetic plcasurc o r as
major rolc in shaping variations in archacological pr.~cticcbut also providing material for f;i~itasics.aboutthe past that offcr pcrsonal or
respond to changing social conditions. The tendency for archaco- public satisfaction. This vicw rcduccs archacology to thc status of
logical intcrprctation to bc influcnccd by socicty docs not appear to antiquarianism, which trcats archacological data as ends in them-
bc diminishing as archaeology bccomcs morc thcorctically sophisti- selves. Thcrc a y a l s o thosc who proposc to usc archacological data
catcd, as somc archacologists have suggested it would (Clarkc 1979: as propaga da to promotc political or social causcs, which arc
154).Instcad it appears to remain one of archaeology's permanent
fcaturcs.
At worst this could mean that thcrc is no past to study, not only in
*$
usually i cntificd as bcing of a Icft-wing or populist varicty. Yct thc
histor of archaeology indicates that thc political causcs that archac-
ologists have willingly promotcd and supportcd, including Nazism,
tlic undcniablc positivist sense that what wc interpret is mcrcly 'thc havc as oftcn bccn harmful to humanity as thcy havc been construc-
marks of thc past in the prcscnt' but also in accord with Colling- tive. Archacology is currently bcing uscd to support somc curiously
wood's morc profound definition of history as a discipline in which reactionary positions, as cvidcnt in thc work of Graliamc Clark and a
onc can only rclivc thc past in one's own mind. This implies that few American archacologists. While somc scholars find thc intcl-
tlicrc is no way in which thc archaeologist o r historian can vcrifiably lcctual cgalitaria~lismof cxtrcmc rclativism appcalitig, it cncouragcs
reconstruct thc past as it actually was. Yet Gellncr (1985: 134) points a philosophical nihilism in which not only 'anything goes' but also
out that niost archacologists bclicvc that 'thc past was oncc prcscnt, archacology can bc uscd to support 'any causc.
as t l ~ pvcscnt,
c and it W;IS rc;~I'.Thcy arc convinced that thc things The qucstion that archacologists face is thcrcforc not whcthcr
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social context

and studying the style of arcliaeological material. Even efforts to

valuc judgcmcnts influence thcir intcrprctations of tllc past, sincc
classify 'objectively' by searching for 'natural' clustcrings of attri-
thcy clearly do, but whcthcr thcy must accept thc position of thc
cxtrcmc rciativists or whcthcr somc containment of this process is butes within largc data matriccs arc subjcctivc to the cxtcnt that thc
listing of attributes is based on the archaeologists' knowledge and
possible. Historians of thc Rankc school traditionally havc drawn a
scnsc of the significancc of the matcrial they are analysing. Yet
distinctio~lbctwccn a rclativcly stable corc of factual data about the
past, which is objective and can be cxpcctcd to cspand incrementally almost all classificatioi~sarc seen as rcvcalirlg non-random pattcrns
as new docunlcllts arc studicd, and the intcrprctation of thcsc data, of attributcs, which in turn providc a tcst of the uscfulncss and
significancc of individual ones.
wliicli is highly subjcctivc and diffcrs radically from onc historian to
Ncw classifications arc dcviscd JS frcsli problems arisc and old
another. Rankc pro~notccithc view that dctcrmining wh;~thaci really
happencd in thc past was the cssencc of history and thc intcrprcta- ones are refined and modified ovcr time. Archaeologists in a par-
tion of why it had happelled little morc than an cxprcssio~lof ticular area may vacillate between classifications based on types and
pcrsonal opinion. Mauricc Mandclbaum (1977), who continucs to on attributcs. Scrious problcms arc cncountcrcd in thc i~itcgration
dcfcnd this position, calls t11is factual corc 'history proper'. Yet he of classifications that have bccn dcvclopcd by groups of archac-
has failed to convincc philosophcrs of scicncc that thc facts ofhistory ologists working indcpcndcntly of cach other in thc same region.
arc objectively asccrtainablc. Wylic (1985b: 73') points out that cvcn Thc classification of artifacts has bccomc morc self-conscious as
archacologists have grown more familiar with the evidence of pat-
'thc most straightforward observational cxpcricnce is activcly struc-
turcd by the obscrvcr and acquires significancc as cvidcncc . . . oilly terning in material culturc. A much wider range of artifacts is also
undcr theory- and "paradigmn-specific intcrprctation'. In the casc of being examined than in the past, whcn pottery and lithics oftcn were
archaeology thc situation is even more fraught with difhcultics, the only finds to bc studicd in detail. Onc of thc clearly positivc
sincc, bcforc past human bchaviour is cxplaincd, it must be infcrred effects of the structuralist approach is that it calls the attention of
from matcrial rcmains that in turn acquire status as data as a rcsult of archaeologists to many new categories of data about which empiri-
thcory-influenced and hcnce at least partly subjcctivc proccsscs of cal gcncralizatians can bc madc. Ncverthelcss, many classifications
classification. Hcncc both whcn classifying material remains and havc cndured ovcr long pcriods and dcspitc major changds in
cvcn morc whcn interpreting human bchaviour, archacologists arc interpretative fashion. This suggcsts that thcy are based to a sub-
stantial degree on rcasonably objective empirical observations.
dcaling with something quitc diffcrcnt from thc objcctivc facts
postulated by the Rankc school (Patrik 1985). Many of the same observations can bc made about the delineation

Data collection and empiricalgeneralizations

produced2
of archacolog~ca culturcs. Attempts at cultural classification 11avc
1 1 empirical
~ generalizations about intcrsitc distri-
butionssof artifact types that rcmain valid, cvcn though thc undcr-
standing of thc archaeological culture has altercd radically ovcr thc
Archacologists havc nevcrthclcss succccdcd in creating a large-and
ycars. Tlicrc havc also bccn, howcvcr, what appcar to bc advanccs in
growing corpus of data and low-lcvcl gcncralizatio~lsabout thc past
that over the ycars has withstood careful scrutiny. Basic to thcsc the undcrstanding of thcsc distributions. So long as archacologists '
gcncralizations arc typoldgics that havc bccn dcviscd for thc classifi- identified culturcs ~xclusivclywith ethnic groups therc was a tcn-
cation of archacological finds. It is gcncrally acccptcd that thcsc dcncy to rcgard the boundaries of both as cquivalcnt and normally ,
typologics arc crcations of archacologists rathcr than rcconstruc- clearly demarcated. While thcsc assbmptions worked reasonably
tions of categories that wcrc ncccssarily significant to thc makcrs or well with 'tribal' socictics, they did not account for thc 'opcnncss' of
uscrs of thc n~atcrialbcing studicd, although claims for such cquiv- less sedentary hunter-gathcrcr bands and t l ~ ccultural differentiation
alcncc arc sonictimcs madc. Thcsc classifications rcflcct thc intcrcsts along class lincs that charactcrizcd hierarchical socictics (Triggcr
of individual archacologists in dating, dctcr~niningthe fi~nction, 1968~:16-18). The 1,lttcr were somctimcs conccptualizcd in terms of
 A history of arcl~aeologicalthought Arcl~acologyand its 'social context

separate peasant and elite cultures (Rousc 1965: 9-10). In recent gellcrallp progrcssivc trend in the interpretation of archaeological
ycars new notions of material culture as a rcflcction of various kinds data.
of group intcrcsts rather than simply of ethnic identity have encour- There is 110 internal logic that would allow us t o predict when new
aged morc dctailcd polythctic analyses of cultural remains (Hodder tecllniques will bc introduced. The dcvelopmcnt of many of them
1982b), although thc tcchniqucs for thc latter sort of analysis wcrc depends upon innovations in thc physical and biological scicnccs
cvolvcd prior to thcsc new conccpts of culturc (Clarke 1968). and hcncc upon factors which bcar no rclationship to archacology.
Ovcr thc years great progrcss has bccn made in the recovery, Yet, once adoptcd by archaeologists, most technical innovations
identification, and quantificatio~lof plant and animal remains, a have spread quickly around the world. The same is true with respect
process much cnhanccd by thc dcvclopnlent of flotation as a tcch- to analytical tccl~niqucsdeveloped within archacology, although
niquc for retrieving data. Trace-clcmcnt analysis has providcd pcrhaps to a lcsscr dcgrec bccausc these arc often morc culturally
important new information which allows the sources of many matcr- specific. This is not to dcny that local political and social concerns
ials to be pinpointed and goods that have bccn exchanged to bc i11fluencc thc acceptancc and application of new techniqucs. Long-
distinguished from local copies (for the limitations and complcxitics standing preoccupation with epigraphic, art-historical, and rclig-
of such intcrprctations, scc Gill [1987]). The distributions of v a r i o ~ ~ s ious subjects has rcsultcd in littlc intcrcst bcing shown in the usc of
kinds of artifacts arc also being plotted in rclatio~lto intrasitc sc~cntifictcchniques to study subsistcncc patterns in Ncar Eastern
features with greater regularity. With the help of computers a much archaeology, which traditionally has been conccrncd with the his-
broader range of empirical generalizations about many hitherto torical period and especially with problems relating to biblical
unstudied or understudied classes of archaeological evidence is now ' history. Yet thcsc techniques are gradually being applied in this area,
bcing produced. beginning with thc less popular study of prehistoric material (Bar-
Important advances in the dating of archacological finds also havc Yosef and Mazar 1982).
bccn made since World War 11, largcly as a result of the dcvclop~ncnt It is also clcar that, at lcast in the short run, progrcss is not
of physical dating tcchniclucs, in pa1-tic~11ar thosc employing raclio- always continuous or irrcvcrsible. After 1929 thosc who shapcd the
carbon, t I ~ c ~ - m o l ~ ~ r n i n c s cnnd
c ~ ~ potassium-argon
cc, ratios. These dc\rclopmcnt of Sovict .~rchacologydiscouraged 'In intcrcst in arti-
tcchniqucs have rcvolutionizcd our understanding of prchistory. fact typology and cultural classificatio11011 thc grounds that 'bour-
Yct this has happened not bccausc thcse tccl~niqueshavc ovcrturncd geois formalisn~'inhibited a Marxist interpretation of archacological
local relative chronologies based on scriation and stratigraphy but data. Yet, in recent ycars, a growing number of Soviet archaeologists
bccausc they havc providcd new, morc reliable, and universally havc rccogniz d that such studies are essential for developing
applicable tcchniques for correlating these sequcnccs with a calen- dctailcpdlogics and answering cultural-I~istoricalproblems as
drical chronology, a procedure that in most parts of the world an cs ltial preliminary to any bchavioural interpretation of pre-
hitherto had been based almost entirely on gucssworli. These corrc- 2
history (Bulkin et al. 1982). There is currently much interest in the
lations not only havc providcd extremely i~nportantinformation Sovict Union in Clarlte's analytical approach to the study of archaeo-
about the rates of cultural change in prchistoric times, which archae- logical data (Davis 1983: 418). In Western Europe and North
ologists previously had taldcd to ovcrcstimatc, but also havc called Arncrica a growing prcoccupatio~lwith scttlcment archaeology and
into question solnc interregional synchronisms based 011 typological the proccssual interpretation of archaeological data during the 1950s
critcria. While thesc findings have greatly altered prehistoric chron- and 1960s lilzcwise frcqucntly inhibitcd an intcrcst in formal analyscs
ologies and their accompa~lyingculturc-historical interpretations, of arcl~acologicaldata, even thougl~it is clcar that formal com-
cspccially for Europe and North Amcrica, thc ovcrall effect was less parisons of tool types still havc an important rolc to play in helping
to negate previous rclativc chronologies for small areas than to add to answer questioils such as whether there was any historical
new dimensions to our understanding of thcm. This too suggests a rclationship bctwcc~lthe carly stagcs of metallurgy in the Ncar East
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social context

and Central Europe (Trigger 1980~;Bradlcy 1984: 38-40). Yet, while biological analysis, depends to a considerable degree upon types of
particular techniqucs and analytical concepts may be ignored tempo- research now generally classified as experimental archaeology and
rarily for ideological reasons or because theoretical commitments ethnoarcliacology. Such research seeks to corrclatc particular sets of
direct the attention of archacologists clscwhcrc, it appcars that in thc archaeological cvidencc with specific forms of human behaviour.
long run methods that arc capablc of cxpandi~igknowledge of the Whilc both approaches were pionccrcd by Scandinavian archae-
past are adopted by archacologists whercvcr thcy arc sccn as useful ologists in tlic ninctccnth century, thcy havc bcen greatly elaborated
and sufficient resources arc available to support them. On thcsc in rcccnt decades. Among tlic most important conscqucnccs of
grounds it can be co~iclildedthat ~~rcliacological mctllods have long ctlinoarchacological rcscarch is a growing undcrstanding of thc
bcen international in application and cumulative over time. The circumstances under which ~iiatcrialrcmains bccomc incorporatcd
same can be said of enipirical gc11eraliz3tionsabout patterning in the into the archacological rccord. If knowing how goods wcrc disposcd
archacological rccord, particularly as thcy are exhibited in typology of does not always permit archaeologists to infcr under what circum-
and cultural classification. stances thcy wcrc madc and uscd, as Schiffcr (1976) hopcd it would,
this knowledge provides archaeologists with a better understanding
Internal dialo~ue of the limitations of the archaeological record (von Gernct 1985).In a
similar fashion, the study of lithic reduction processes permits
Archaeologists havc also made dramatic advanccs in inferring archaeologists to infer in what state lithic material was moved from
human bchaviour from archacological data, cspccially with respect one locale to another and for what purpose it was used in each place
to tcclinology, subsistence, csclian~c,rcsidcncc patterns, nnd some (Binford 19833:269-86). Likcwisc, studying whcrc 1110dcrn hunter-
aspects of political organization. This contributes to a more com- gatlicrcrs cat, slccp, proccss food, and manufacture tools within
prchcnsivc and disciplined undcrstanding of what has happened in their camps is seen as helping archaeologists to understand how
thc past. Many of these advanccs utilize analytical methods that in Upper Palaeolithic and more recent times hunter-gatherers
originate in the physical sciences, such as trace-elc~i~cnt analysis to organizcd tlicir living space (Binford 1983b: 144-94). Attcntioii is
identify the spatial movement of raw materials. Yet Hoddcr (1984-b) being p ~ i dto how cxpcri~llcntaland cthnoarcliacologica1 findings
has dcrnonstratcd that such data arc insufficient to rcvcal the social can be combined to construct increasingly persuasivc algorithms for
contexts within ~ ~ h i cthese
l i goods wcrc transported. In cooperation inferring human behaviour from archaeological data (Tringharn
with zoologists, archaeologists have tried tlirough the analysis of the 1978).
age, size, and sex variations of different animal species to determine Archaeolog' ts arc also paying increasing attention to under-

/
how prehistoric hcrds were nlanagcd or what sort of hunting prac- standing t natural processes that play a role in site formation and
tices wcrc followcd. These studies have become of major importance result in ost-depositional alteration of the archaeological rccord. In
as part of efforts to determine whether early hominids were East rica it is important, if archaeologists are to infer early
big-gamc hunters or mcrcly scavengers (Binford 1984). Likewise the hom'nid behaviour, to determine what sort of animal bones are
identification of population movements and even patterns of com- prcscnt in sites as a rcsult of hominid activity and what sorts wcre
munity exogamy rclic~~increasingly on advanccs in the physical part of the natural background in which Lower Palaeolithic homi-
anthropological analysis of human slzclctal remains (ICenncdy 1981; nids lived. Although archaeologists in the richest and technologi-
Molto 1983), while the cco~lomicand political i~~terprctation of site cally most advanced nations are best equipped to play a leading role
distributions e ~ ~ ~ p l techniques
ops of spatial analysis that were pio- in carrying out the detailed research necessary to correlate material
nccrcd in economics and geography (Hoddcr and Orton 1976). remains and human behaviour, advances have been made in many
The bchavioural interpretation of archacological data, whether
produced directly by archaeologists or as a rcsult of physical and 1 parts of the world and useful findings have spread quickly from one
region to another. Hence this aspect of archaeology, like the pro-

387
 A history of archaeological thought Arcliaeology and its social context

duction of empirical generalizations, is truly international and dis- inferring liuman behaviour in the past that constitutes tlie ideal, if
plays a pattern of growing elaboration. not tlie rcality, of archaeological research cvcrywliere.
This internationalism is particularly evident in tlic convergent There is also a growing tendency t o distinguish the methods and
trends exhibited by Western and Sovict archacology since the 195os, thcorics tliat arc nccded to infer human bcliaviour from archaeo-
despite their commitment to diffcring high-level paradigms. From logical data from tlic gcncral thcorics tliat arc invoked to explain
this convergence 3 number of important lessons can bc Icurncd. In such bclinviour. 12irifor-d 11.1s I,~bcllcdthcorctical propositions of t l ~ c
the early stagcs o f its cicvclopmcnt, Soviet archaeologj~rcjcctcd first sort middle-range theory and argues tliat it can only be derived
traditional culture-historical approaches and emphasized the inter- by study~ngtlic rclationsliip bctwccn material culturc and human
pretation of archacological data in tcr~iisof economic and social b c h a v ~ o at
~ ~the
r present tinle. In a similar vein Klejn and some othcr
bcliaviour as well as tlic analysis of social change. Sovict archac- Sov~ct~~rcliaeologists argue that wliilc providing a com-
ologists pioneered the systematic investigation of settlement archae- prehensive and tliorouglily satisfactory explanation of liuman
ology and of modern use-wear analysis. Only recently have they bchaviour and thc course of liuman historv, docs not suvvlv -+r
a
recognized the importance of systematic typology and of processes ical data into information
such as diffusion and migration for explaining the archaeological ist tcrms constitutes his-
record. In contrast, since the rg~os,Western archaeologists, who for tbrlca~data. Thcy maintain that tho archacological rccord bears no
a long time were concerned almost exclusively with typology, diffu- historical information in a pure form and tliat the information that it
sion, and migration as the key elcmcnts of tlic culture-historical docs contain has to be transfornicd illto liistorical data by following
approach, have paid growing attention to the societal factors pro- a multi-stage proccdurc tliat they call 'tlicorctical archacology'. This
moting cultural change. Both Sovict and Western archaeologists i~ivolvcssystematically classifiing archaeological - data and building-
have displayed a growing interest in ecological interpretations. Each detailed cultural chronologies, before considering thc ethnic, tcch-
of these elenients is of demonstrable importance for achieving a nological, ecological, and social significancc of these data, and finally
more rounded understanding of the behavioural significance of addressing tlic historical and cvolutio~~ary proccsscs that have
archacological data. shaped the archacological rccord. Only the latter stage of this
It appears that archacology everywhere has a package of topics process can be equatcd with historical materialism in the strict sense.
that must be investigated if the full range of information about The other stagcs arc concerned with overcoming the limitations of
human bchaviour is to be extracted from its data. In earlier times, archacological data and using them to create ncw sources or records
and still today to a lesser extent, different kinds of data are studied written texts, a major part of which co~lsistsof
selectively by different scliools of archacology. The order in which interpreted in behavioural tcrms (Bulkin e t al.
different modes of analysis are adopted in particular research tradi- I ~ S Z : ~ , & ~Klejn
- I ) . and his collcagucs also imply that, because the
tions also seems to be highly variable and to reflect the diffcring opyations needed to transform arcliaeological data into sources of
values and political orientations of the various societies to which the historical and behavioural information arc i d c o l b- g i c .a ~ more
~~
arcliacologists belong. Yet, as archacological research develops, it neutral than is liistorical intcrprctation, it is in this arca that Sovict
becomes increasingly mident that such selectivity about low- and and Wcstern arcliaeologists can and d o cooperate without Sovict
middle-range theory is unproductive, even if archaeologists disagree ones coinpromising thcir ideological intcgrity. Binford makes
about the ultimate use that is to be madc of thcir data. It appears that similar clainis about thc ideological neutrality of his middle-range
in the absence ofdogmatic idcological controls archaeologists in any theory, although as a hyper-positivist lie would extend these claims
particular country eventually will adopt the complete range of to cover general theory also.
analytical concerns, at least so far as these are economically support- It is, howcvcr, by no means clear that middlc-range efforts to infcr
able. This suggests the recognition of a corpus of methods for human bcliaviour from archacological data arc wholly or even
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social context

largcly frcc from the presuppositions that affect gcncral theory and terns. Yet it quite properly urges the need for caution in assuming
complicatc its cfforts to explain bchaviour. Specific behavioural the universality of particular forms of human behaviour. In applying
intcrprctations frcqucntlp turn out to be crrolicous or qucstionablc. uniformitarian concepts it is cssc~~tial for archacologists to try to
Thcsc problcnls bcco~nccspccially serious in situations whcrc, dctcrminc thc rangc of socictics to which a particular generalization
bccausc of the co~nplcxityof w l i ~ tis bcing studied, carcful argu- is applicable. At prcscnt, howcvcr, doing this remains more art than
ments linklng archacological data and human bchaviour arc difficult scicncc.
to dcvclop or apply. Examples are the opposed intcrprctations of thc Yet ~t IS clear that carefully invcstigatcd middle-rangc propo-
increasing frequency of high-quality pottery in the Valley of Mexico sitions applied in appropriate cases can help to reduce the subjective
In latc Aztcc timcs as cvidcncc citlicr of state manipulation of thc elcmcnts involvcd in inferring human behaviour from archaco-
cconom~ror of thc success of a frcc market economy. Binford logical data. Thesc propositions d o not guarantee intcrpretations of
maintains that this sort of subjectivity can be rcduccd whcrc well- archaeological cvidencc against distortions resulting from the inter-
cstablishcd middlc-range gcncralizations structure the bchavioural ests, valucs, or fantasies of archacologists but they d o provide a
intcrprctation of archacological data. Yct this approach docs not scttlng in which intcrprct,~tions arc sr~bjcctcd to thc maximum
clirninatc all possibility of subjcctivc bias. dcgrcc possiblc to thc co~lstraintsiiqposcd by archaeological cvi-
Somc important.problcms centre on thc applicability of uniformi- dcncc. Where universal generalizations d o not apply, strong
tarian principles. Binford (1981: 27-9) has drawn attention to these argumcnts arc required to demonstrate that correlatio~tsbetween
problcms and urgcd the nccd to justify the application of middlc- material culture and some culturally specific behavioural pattern o r
rangc thcory to spccific arcliaeological data with warranting argu- belief arc valid. Such dcmonstrations frequcntly take the form of the
ments, although tlic naturc of thcsc arguments is not specified. direct historical approach, whcrc cvidcncc of continuity in material
Wliilc Binford is highly
- .
critical of assumptions that thc bchavioural culturc is sccn as justifying thc extrapolation of associated aspccts of
patterns of early hominids resembled thosc of modern huntcr- bfhaviour and bclicfs from cthnographic cultures back into prc-
gathcrcrs, in work dealing- with more rcccnt times his nco- 11' toric timcs. Yet to what cxtent would it be justified to cmploy
9 . -
evolutionary faith in strong regularities governing human bchaviour
lcads him to minimize the difficulties involved in intcrprcting
e
wh t IS known about Chincsc scapulimancy in the Shang Dynasty to
intc rct protohistoric cvidcnce of scapulimancy among thc
archacological data. This is cvident in Iiis studics of liuntcr-gathcrcr
use of camp space and hunting territories. Human behaviour is not
\
Nask i of caster11 Canada? In part that would depend on what is
known about thc liistorical relations between eastern Siberia and
,- ,
so rcgular that convincing gcncralizations about spatial bchaviour North America in terms of scapulimancy and perhaps shamanism in
can be bascd upon two or thrcc ethnographic case studies, even if general (Furst 1977; Chang 1983). The use of culturally specific
thcsc arc vci-y dctailcd oncs. He also 'docs not takc account of analogies is a ficld awaiting systematic d c v e l o p ~ ~ ~and
c n t one that is
possiblc cffccts of thc modcrn world-systcm on cthnographic analo- vital if arcl~acologistsarc to understand the past in terms of cul-
gics. This has suggcstcd to ot4cr archacologists that thc dcgrce of turally specific as well as gencral aspects of human behaviour.
similarity bctwccn -modern huntcr-gatherer socictics and Palaco-
lithic oncs is a qucstion for archacologists to investigate, not somc-
Limitations of behavioural inference
thing that can bc assumed. Finally the Marxist claim that changing1
modes of production altcr human naturc, if justified, calls into We must now consider the limitations of what can be inferred from
qucstion thc applicability of many gcncralizations about human archacological cvidcncc conccrni~~g prehistoric human behaviour.
bchaviour, cspccially thosc of a psychological varicty. Marxism docs Archaeologists havc long used archacological data to study tech-
not rulc out the possibility of human naturc, in the sense of some nology, subsistcncc pattcrns, warfare, and exchange, and since the
very general, c~ilturallyu~~altcrablc, species-specific bchavioural pat- 1960s they havc made significant advanccs in inferring residence
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social context
pattcrns, hicrarchical social organization, and some aspects of poli- tures at the same stage of development have many characteristics in
tical organization. T o appreciate the progress of archaeology sincc common, especially structural features that have adaptive sig-
the 195os, one has only to compare current inferences about human nificance. Only insignificant features, that are mainly stylistic in
bchaviour in prchistoric timcs with Childc's gloomy prognosti- naturc, call profitably be rcgarded as the random products of his-
cations about what was possiblc in The Prehistoly ofEuropean Society torical accidents (Steward 1955). Because of this high level of reg-
(1958a), a book written when he fcrvcntly wishcd to Icarn morc ularity, it should bc rclativcly easy for archacologists to formulate a
about social and political bchaviour. Yct survcys of rcccnt advances large number of middlc-rangc generalizations that permit them to
in archaeology suggest that morc progrcss continues to be made in infer a wide range of human behaviour from archaeological data.
understanding prehistoric economics than soc~al o r g a n i ~ ~ ~ t i o n , Nco-evolutionists also bclicvc, as ninctccnth-ccntury unili~~ear
while relatively few adv'unccs have bccn made in the study of prc- cvolutiollists did, that, if thcy can dctcrmillc what onc part of a
historic ideology. Among the papers dealing with the interpretation prehistoric culture, especially its subsistence pattern, was like, they
of archacological cvidcncc in the first cight volumcs of Schiffcr's will bc able to predict the rcst of the system, at lcast in general terms.
Advnnces in Archaeological Method and Theory (1978-86) 39 per ccnt Thcsc two approaches arc seen as constituting an interlocking and
dcal with data rccovery and chronology, 47 per cent with ecology, mutually verifying methodology for the reconstruction of human
demography, and cco~~omic bchaviour, 8 per cent with social bchaviour at spccific times and places in the past. Yet why havc these
bchaviour, and only 6 pcr ccnt with ideology, religion, and scientific approaches so far not been more successful in inferring the higher
lu~owlcdgc.Thcrc is also a marked econornic bias in recent syntheses levels of Hawkes' hierarchy?
of European prehistory (Jarman et al. 1982; Denncll1983; Champion Childc (1956a: 45-6) argucd that it was casicr for archacologists to
e t a/. 1984; Wells 1984; Barker 1985). This limitation has bccn iafcr prchistoric technological and ccononlic bchaviour on thc basis
rcpcatcdly commcntcd on in rcccnt ycars and calls havc bccn madc of gencral principles than it was for them to infcr social organization
to dcfinc new and broadcr goals for archaeology in ordcr to ovcr-,
comc what is see11 as the domination of current rcscarch by
k
a d beliefs because the formcr are subject to a highcr degree of
co ~straintby factors that can bc undcrstood in tcrms of univcrsally
methodological concerns (Moore and Kccnc 1983).
As early as 1954 Hawkcs had postulated that thcrc was an
ascending scale of difficulty in interpreting archaeological data in
tcrms of human activities: technology was the easiest category,
while economy, social and politicai organization, and ideology
cxhibitcd escalating difficulties. Sincc thcn archacologists have
' 4
a p licablc natural laws (scc also Gallay 1986: 126-57, 182). Archac-
olo .sts learn about how artifacts wcrc madc through rcplicativc
exper~ ents and detcrmine the spread of raw materials by means of
trace-element analyses. Likewise, they use principles derived from
biology to infer many aspects of subsistence behaviour. O n the other
hand, thc details of kinship organization, political systcms, and
dcbatcd whcthcr this hicrarchy is inhcrcnt in the naturc of archaco- social valucs arc far morc varied and thc spccific causes oT this
log~caldata or results from thc failurc of archacologists to addrcss variability arc more difficult to establish. Cultural traditions, which
rclcvant intcrprctativc problems. Binford (1972: 93-4) inspircd a arc not insignificant in tcrms of ecological adaptation, play an
whole generation of American archacologists by asserting that it was cspccially important rolc in dctcrmining the contcnt of thcsc aspccts
the rcsult of the mctl~odologicalshortcomings of archacologists. H c of culturc and thcy can bc altered 4s a rcsult of cultural contact as
argucd that all aspccts of sociocultural systcms were rcflected in the I well as in response to changing internal factors. Both of these
archacological rccord. Yet, during the last 25 years, processual impacts make the content of cultural systems impossible to predict
archacologists, including Binford (1978, rg81), have continued to in detail on the basis of general laws alone. Childc (1936: 98) argued
study mainly thc lower echclons of Hawkes' hierarchy. that no one could infer the details of British parliamentary govern-
Binford's view of what archaeology can d o is linked to his com- ment in the nineteenth century from a general understanding of the
mitment to nco-evolutionism. Nco-evolutionists bclicvc that cul- capitalist modc of production. Although thcrc was a clear conncc-
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social context

tion between the rise of capitalism and the form of power that was higher levels display an ever larger number of specific features that
exercised in Britain at that time, the dcvelopmcnt of the British cannot be accounted for e~ologic;ally. Thus, while cultures are
parliament has to be understood in relation to an cvolving set of influenced by a hierarchy of negative constraints that determine the
political institutions extending back as far as the medieval period. limits of functional compatibility between levels and hence of their
l'roblenis of equifinality also complicate interpretations as the corn- possiblc variation, each lcvcl is scmi-autonomous to thc extent that
plcxity of bclia\~iouralphenomena incrcascs. More recently, dctdilcd all of its properties cannot be dcrivcd from tliosc of a lowcr onc
cthnoarchacological studies havc becn rcvcaling thc subtlety and (Friedman and Rowlands 1978b: zo3). This lcavcs much scopc,
con~plesityof the correlations bctwecn material cult~ireand human especially at the lcvcl of social organization and religious beliefs, for
bchaviour, cspccially at the social and synibolic levels (l3onnichscn other kctors, such as cultural traditions and cultural influcnccs of
1973; Hodder 1982b; Haydcn and Cannon 1984). It has bccomc external origin, to play a major role in shaping cultural patterns. It
evident that in many cascs matcrial culturc docs not reflect human also providcs a thcorctical basis for Hawkcs' hierarchy.
bchaviour. Instead the relationship bctwecn thc two is mediated by Contextual archacologists have attempted to counter this modcl
conceptual framcworks that oftcn may not bc inferable from by identifying constraints that apply specifically to the higher levels
archaeological data alone. Does this mean, as Hawkes believed, that of Hawkes' hierarchy. These include possible cross-cultural regulari-
archacologists havc a far better chance to infer what is generically ties in attitudes towards dirt and correlations between pottery
animal than what is specifically human about prehistoric human designs and the social status of women (Hodder 1982a: 62-5).
bchaviour? Similar efforts have been made in the past t o correlate art styles with
Many archaeologists, mysclf included, believe that thc scarch for social organization (J, Fischer 1961) or the psychological character-
sociocultural rcgularitics, of which Binford's middlc-range thcory is istics of prehistoric populations (Wallace 1950). It is assumed that
a part, has rcsultcd mainly in the discovery of cxtcrnal constraints on
human bchaviour. Not surprisingly, many of thcsc arc biological,
ecological, and technological restrictions acting directly on the '\
the basis for such correlations would be uniformities in human
ognitive or psychological processes rather than ecological consider-
a ions. Yet so far t l ~ search
c for universal rcgularitics of this sort has
cconomy and social organization. Ncvcrthelcss other sorts of con-
straints have becn discovered. General systems theory suggests
limitations on the range of variation in social and political structures
that d o not appear to be of ecological origin, including relations
between thc multiplication of social units and the elaboration of
"1 produced substantial results that would be useful for archac-
olo ists. The most important regularities are ones that relate to
spec1 c historical traditions and archaeological data pertaining to
these traditions appear to be interpreted most effectively by means
of some variant of the direct his'torical approach. This may leave
control hierarchies (G. Johnson 1978,1981). In general, however, the some aspects of the archaeological record eternally beyond the pale
nature of constraints suggests a modcl of culture in which lower of anything more than clever speculation. How can it ever be proved
levels rcstrict the rangc of variation possible at still higher oncs but that Leroi-Gourhan was correct, or even moving in the right direct-
do not by thcmsclvcs dcterminc thc forms that higher lcvcls take. ion, in associating bison with fcmale principles and horses with male
This means that, while ecological relations may strongly limit the ones in European Palaeolithic cave art? Laming-Emperaire's (1962:
degree of variation thai is possible in cconomic bchaviour, they do 293-4) work did not support the association, while more recent
not determine all aspccts of cconomic institutions. Likcwisc the studies of meaning in cave art have offered different, but seemingly
economy may constrain the rangc of variation in social and political equally unprovable, interpretations (Conkey 1982). All of this sug-
bchaviour, and social and political relations may limit the range of gests that, insofar as it refers to the use of universal generalizations,
variation in religious practices and aesthetics, but ncithcr of thcsc Hawkcs' hierarchy of difficulty in archaeological interpretation is
lcvcls is determined wl~ollyby more basic oncs. On the contrary, essentially corrcct (Gallay 1986: 154, 182). It also suggests that,
because material constraints are applied less directly, progrcssivcly because of thc lack of dctcrministic structuring with rcspcct to many
 A history of archacological thought Archaeology and its social context

aspects of sociocultural phenomena, the capacity of middle-range cates that human beings evolved from higher primate stock, most
thcorj~to infer numerous aspects of human behaviour from the likely in Africa. Thcrc is considcrablc disagrecnlc~~t about thc sig-
archaeological record alone will remain limited. nificance of morphological variations among early hominids and
which of them were the direct ancestors of modern human beings.
Yet it is clear that throughout most of their history human beings
The achievements of archaeolo~y and their horninid ancestors subsisted by eating wild plants and
In spite of these limitations, archaeologists have been able to infer an animals. By late Lower Palaeolithic times hominids had spread from
increasing range of human behaviour from archaeological data, troplcal regions at least into colder temperate climates and by the
using either middle-range theory or somc variant of the direct Middle and Upper Palaeolithic pcriods somc human beings had
historical approach. Thcrc is 110 guarantee that such inferences arc adapted to living in periglacial conditions. Prior to 40,ooo ycars ago
not contaminated by subjective factors. Yet the dcvclopmc~ltof new humans had made their way across a narrow stretch of occan into
and more rigorous algorithms for inferring bchavio~~r fro111archaco- Australia-New Guinea and by 11,000 ycars ago thcy had spread
logical data and specdying the appropriatc~lcssof ethnographic throughout the New World fro111Bering Strait to Ticrra dcl Fucgo.
analogies provides the means for maximizing the constraints of By the end of the last Ice Age, if not earlier, denser and more
archaeological evidence on such subjective factors. So does the sedentary collecting populations had developed in richer natural
indcpendetlt utilization of different tech~liquesfor inferring the environments in many parts of the world. Food collecting was
same or closely related behaviour and comparing the results to see supplcrne~~ted by food production, which gradually became the
whether or not they correspond, as advocated by contextual archae- principal source of nourishment in many parts of the Old and New
ologists and by a~~thropologists such as Murdocli (1959a). Finally Worlds. There is no suggestion of a historical connection between
archacological finds can be corroborated and suppleme~ltedby other major zones where plant and animal domestication occurred and

f
forms of historical data. If we cannot as archaeologists learn every- s cadily growing cvidc~lccof conti~luitieswithin various rcgions
-
thing about the past, we can at least learn much that is important. T o s gcsts that this was a process that happcncd indcpcndcntly in
that cxtc~ltwe have proved the accuracy of Daniel Wilson's prc- ma ~yplaces. The sa~necan be said about the first civilizations, which
diction, wllc~lhe wrote of his early worli on Scottish prehistory: 'We evo ed as some tribal agricultural societies were transformed into
need not despair of learning somewhat of the early Caledonian, of hiera~cl~~cal, class-based ones, dominated by a small elite who used
his habits, his thoughts, and eve~lof his faith, when we are able to part of the surplus wealth thcy co~ltrolledto produce monumental
refer to so many specime~lsof his handiwork and inventive design' architecture and works of art that served as status symbols.
(1863, I: 486). It is also clear that many societies did not advance through this
There is also good reason to believe that arcl~acologicalfindings sequence. Some remained at the hunter-gatherer stage into modern
about what human beings have done in the past have irreversibly times, while occasionally agricultural o r pastoral societies adopted
altered our understanding of human origins and development, at hunter-gatherer economics. As some cultures grew more complex,
least for those who are prepared to abide by scientific canons of relations between neighbouring societies of differing sizes and often
reasoning. Prior to the nlnetecnth century, evolutionary schemes of with dissimilar economies became more common. Under certain
human development were seriously entertained alongside creation- ecological conditions more complex societies were able to dominate
ist views and various cyclical speculations. Each of these was a and exploit their less evolved neighbours, but in other situations
possible description of human history but there was no scientific pastoral or swidden agricultural societies maintained their auton-
evidence that would allow scholars to determine which of these omy into modern times.
tl~coricsoffcrcd the bcst cxplanatio~lof human origins. Since that Historians and social scientists from Arnold Toynbee to Julian
time archaeological data have presented solid evidence which indi- Steward have also considered thc role played in human history by
 A history of archacological thought Archaeology and its social context
cyclical processes, such as the rise and fall of civilizations. These lithic sitcs. H c also qucstions thc cvidencc for cannibalism and
qucstions.arc notoriously difficult to deal with bccausc of ambigui- possibly thc usc of firc in thc Lowcr Palacolithic lcvels at Zhoukou-
tics in dcfining tlic units involved. Thcrc is no basis for bclicving that dian and has drawn attention to othcr studics that havc concludcd
dcvclopmcntal proccsscs, analogous to thc childhood, maturity, and that the allcgcd traces of Moustcrian bear cults in Ccntral Europcan
scnility of individuals, rcpcat thcmsclvcs, cspccially with rcspcct to cavcs can bc accountcd for as products of natural proccsscs. What-
socictics at different stages of development. On thc othcr hand, the ever thc outcomc of thcsc dcbatcs, Binford has demonstrated that
rcpcatcd consolidation and disintegration of dynastic power is a arcl~acologists frequently niakc inadcquatcly supportcd claims
widcsprcacl phcnonicnon that is clcarly markcd in thc archacological about tlic bchavioural significancc of thc archacological rccord and
rccorcl (Steward 1955: 196-206). The d~tr.~t~oli of these cycles v~rics thus prornotc unsubstantiated vicws of prchistoric human
greatly from one culture and onc pcriod to another even in socictics bchaviour (Binford 1981: 293). Nor, in thcsc instances, arc thc issucs
that are judged to be at thc samc level of sociocultural development, only of local or minor significancc, sincc hc is suggesting that human
which suggests a coniplcx causality. Such cyclical patterning is bcings niay have bccn scuvcngcrs rathcr than big-game huntcrs
worthy of careful study. through most of thc Palacolithic pcriod.
While much remains to bc learned about thc timing and prccisc Yet, whilc Binford complains about thc lack of sclf-corrccting
nature of cultural stability and change in various parts of the world mechanisms in intcrprqting archaeological data, his qucstions about
in prchistoric timcs, the gcncral picturc outlincd above is sustained thc bchavioural significancc of Palacolitliic sitcs will gcncratc morc
by an im~iicnsccorpus of cvidcncc collcctcd and analyscd by archac- middle-rangc investigations and, thc search for ncw and more con-
ologists. This docs not mean that in the future archaeologists may clusivc cvidcncc, as contending partics scck to rcsolvc thc problems
not discovcr carlicr intcnsivc collccting or agricultural socictics than he has raised. 111 J rcccnt survey of late ninctccnth- and carly
thosc prcscntly known, new civilizations, or cvcn ul~suspcctcdcon- twcnticth-ccntury controvcrsics about thc status of coliths, Grayson
nections between different parts of the world. Yct for over a ccntury (i986) concludcs that such dcbatcs and thc tcchniqucs for rcsolving
thc general picturc of what happcncd in prchistoric timcs that results tdFm arc a long-established aspect of archaeology. Thc conscious
fro111archacological discovcrics has bccn refilled rathcr than ovcrtur- us of cxpcrimcnts and scientific obscrvations to rcsolvc problems of
ncd. The samc cannot be said of explanations of why these things
happcncd. Morcovcr, whilc thc broad outlinc of prchistory prc-
scnted in modcrn tcxtboolcs may not diffcr enormously from some
'h,
arc acological intcrprctation can bc traccd back to thc Scandinavian
arch ologists of thc carly ninctccnth ccntury and to British archac-
ologists who wcrc influcnccd by thc cxpcrimcntal approach of thc
( of thc speculative evolutionary rcconstructions of the ninctcenth o r ,
Royal Socicty of London roo ycars carlicr.
cvcn the eighteenth ccnturics, it docs diffcr in bcing based on Our undcrstanding of othcr aspccts of prchistory has bccn altcrcd
archacological cvidcncc that is replete with circumstantial detail, significantly as a result of changing cthnographic knowlcdgc. Tradi-
both about thc nature of individual cultures and about specific tionally evolutionary cthnologists havc distinguishcd bctwccn
scqucnccs of changc. Thcsc data claboratc what is known about both hunter-gathcrcr bands and agricultural tribcs. 111rcccnt ycars it has
t l ~ cparticular courses and thc gcncral pattcrn of prchistory. bccomc cvidcnt that tlic morc sedentary collccting socictics, such as
This docs not mean that cvcry specific interpretation of arcliaco- thosc that wcrc cllcountcrcd 0.11 the wcst coast of Canada in thc
logical data is correct. In rcccnt ycars Binford (1981, 1984; Binford ninctccnth ccntury, havc morc in common, demographically and in
and Stonc 1986) has used a combination of taphonomic evidence and tcrms of social and political organization, with scdcntary tribal
knowlcdgc of sitc-formation processes to call into question a whole agricultural socictics than they d o with big-gamc huntcrs (Tcstart
scrics of long-acccptcd claims about carly horninid bchaviour. H c 1982; Pricc and Brow11 1985). This observation has providcd a ncw
shows thc insubstantial nature of thc cvidcncc that big-game animals basis for intcrprcting thc cvidcncc concerning 'Mcsolithic' socictics
wcrc huntcd at Torralba in Spain and at many othcr Lowcr Palaco- in thc Old World and 'Archaic' oncs in thc Amcricas, which in thc
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social context

past seemed anomalous and difficult to ,understand. O n other occa- find both subtly and radically different cxplanations competing with
sions ncw insights camc about as a rcsult of archacological discover- onc anothcr with rcspcct to almost every aspect of human
ics. Michael Coc's demonstration that the Oln~cccivilization, which bchaviour, with no cvidcnce that onc gcncral thcory is about to
flourishcd along thc Gulf coast of Mcxico, datcd to thc first millcn- prcvail ovcr anothcr. Thcre arc many reasons for this. The complex-
nium B.C. callcd into qucstion the long-held belief that early civili- ity of factors at work in concrete situations may be consistent with
zations dcvclopcd only in arid rcgions whcrc irrigation was ncccs- rnorc than onc causal thcory, allowing individual intcrprctations of
sary for a g ~ - i c ~ ~ l (COC
t ~ l r eand Dichl 1980). Sincc thcn it has bccon~c spccific situations to divcrgc significantly (Wylic 1985b: 77). Thc
increasingly obvious that, bccausc of poor prcscrvation and difficul- factors shaping such situations may bc sufficiently numerous that it
tics of rcscarch, tropical-forest rcgions arc poorly rcprcscntcd in mc,ms little to conceive of singlc ones as cxcrting a dctcrmining
studics of thc dcvcloprnent of civilization. Coc's discovcry also influcncc. Thc rolc that individual factors play also may vary accord-
callcd into qucstion ccrtain high-lcvcl evolutionary thcorics that had ing to thc varicty or strcngth of thosc that arc involvcd in a particular
attcmptcd to explain the origin of co~~lplcx societies (Sandcrs and situ~tion.Flanncry (1972) clcarly had this in mind whcn hc argucd
Price 1968). the futility of trying to explain the origin of complex societies by
This indicates that erroneous interpretations ofwhat happened in searching for regularities in the factors that had led to their develop-
the past can be dctcctcd as a result of the discovery of new archaeo- ment. It is also clear that in complex situations of this sort the values
logical evidence, which contradicts previous conclusio~~s;an and preconceptions of the analyst are relatively free to influence the
awareness of ncw theories of human bchaviour, which provide fresh interpretations of archaeological cvidence. These subjective influ-
insights into the meaning of archaeological data; and the develop- ences may vary from archaeologists trying to project their own ideals
ment of middle-range thcory. The delibcratc construction and of society into the past, as Arthur Evans may have done with his
testing of two or morc mutually exclusive interpretations of data can reconstructions of Minoan Crete (Bintliff 1984; Wood 1985), to the
enhance this process, a point noted long ago by archaeologists but vast ideological gap that separates the elitist view of human history
largely lost sight of as a rcsult of proccssual archaeology's insistence 'ycently expounded by Grahame Clark (1981, 1986) from Childe's

\
on the importance of deductive cxplanations. In combination these in rprctation of the baleful effects of class exploitation on the
procedures incrcasc the capacity for thc constraints that are inhercnt tech ological dcvclopmc~~t and quality of life in the early civili-
in thc evidence to countcract thc rolc playcd by subjectivc clcmc~~ts zation . Yet if archaeologists often cannot provide conclusive expla-
in interpreting archaeological data. All but the most fanatical rela- nations for evcnts that are clearly documented in the archaeological
tivists will see the results of such a proccss of critical comparison and record, their shortcomings in this respect are n o greater than those
rcintcrpretation tending in the direction of a morc objective under- of othcr social scientists, who are equally unable to agree about why
standing of the behavioural significance of archaeological data. things happcn.
Two sets of factors alter general views of human bchaviour. The
first is changing social and political circumstances, such as led t o the
tcmporary abandonment of racist, and cvcn biological, intcrpreta-
Explaining why things Have happened takes archaeologists beyond tions of human bchaviour tl~roughoutthe Western countries as a
their own discipline and compels them to invokc a broad spectrum consequence of the defeat of Nazism. At onc level this can be
of social-scicncc thcory in an effort to account for the behavioural intcrprcted as a more or lcss wholly subjectivc process. Yet, in-
pattcrns thcy havc infcrrcd from arcl~acologicaldata. Yet cvcn thosc asmuch as bclicfs inspirc action, thcy havc somc sclcctivc valuc in
social scientists who can obscrvc human bchaviour directly are terms of thcir ability to promote o r thrcatcn the survival of the
unablc to agrcc about why pcoplc bchavc as thcy do, why cultural ,societies that hold them. They must therefore evolve in the direction
changc occurs, or what is thc overall rncaning of history. Instead wc of a ~llorcobjcctive understanding of human bchaviour if tcchnolo-
 A history of archaeological thought Arcl~acologyand its social context

gically advanced socictics are to survivc and flourish (McNeill1986: ally ruled out that they can be traced back to a common origin or
20-1). Even if what is known about thc great capacity of scientific have come to be shared as a resdlt of diffusion. Yct parallels in thc
and religious intcrprctations of human bcliaviour to disguise self- devclopn~c~it of complex societies in distant parts of the world,
intcrest as altruism docs not inspire ally grcat faith in the automatic during periods when cultural connections between these regions
ability of an evolving undcrstanding of human behaviour to save appear to have been extremely limited or non-existent, as well as in
humanity, the basic point - that ideas havc sclcctivc value - remains rclationships bctwccn nciglibouring socictics at diffcrclit lcvcls of
valid. Because of that, in the long run general views about human dcvclop~ncntin lilally parts of the world, suggcst cross-cultural
bchaviour may be subjcctcd to sclcctive modification, rather than regularities that no cxpla~latioliof human history or behaviour call
changing in a purely random fashion or for entirely idiosyncratic afford to ignore. On thc othcr hand, it has also bccomc clcar,
reasons. through tlic study of arcl~acologicalas wcll as ctl~nographicdata,
The second set of factors that all but hyper-relativists agrcc can that thcrc arc important variations in social organiz~tionand cul-
alter interpretations of huma~ibchaviour is new factual cvidcncc. By tural patterns among socictics at thc same level of dcvclopmc~ltin
their very nature, general theories of human behaviour are unlikely different parts of the world that cannot bc accountcd for in terms of
to bc refuted by any one scientific observation. Yet, even at this level, neo-evolutionary theory. Both historical traditions and diffusion
the constrai~ltsof cu~nulativeevidence, includi~lgthat provided by clearly play a rolc in shaping not olily stylistic factors but also
archaeology, havc allowed some progress to be made in the general significant aspects of economic, social, and political behaviour.
undcrstanding of human behaviour. As a result of over a century of These observatio~issuggest that cultures are not as tightly intcgra-
rescarch and interprctatio~lsthat have vacillated from one extrcmc to ted as evolutiollists have bclicvcd, in the scnsc that particular
another, it now seems to be accepted that the radical claims of both changes in one aspect of a culturc arc likcly to bring about prc-
historical particularism and unilinear evolutionism arc no longer dictable changcs in othcr aspccts. Nor docs it appear that ally one
credible. More order is observable in cross-cultural pcrspcctivc than part of the cultural system plays an'ovcrwhclniingly prcdominant
would be the casc if each c~llti~rc wcrc tlic product of purely fortui- y o l c in shaping the whole, contrary to what ecological and tccl~nolo-
tous circunistanccs. Yet thcrc is sufficient diversity to rule out any g~caldctcr~ni~lists have claimed. 1f cit'hcr of tlicsc propositions wcrc
simple, stro~iglydeterministic ca~~sality (Trigger 1982a). T o be sure, trb~c,tlicrc would be significantly less cultural variation than can be
individual arcliacologists c o n t i n ~ ~toc differ about where they stand obshved at a single point in time in thc cth~lographicrecord or over
between these two extremes. Binford upholds a nco-evolutionary long periods of time archaeologically.
faith in the regularity of human bchaviour and Dunncll (in Kindos This docs not rulc out a materialist approach to thc undcrstanding
1984: ix) looks forward to scie~ltificevolution and its uniformities of human history. It appears in lccepi~igwith what wc know about
'rcturning to center stage'. O n the othcr hand, Hoddcr's thinking biological evolutio~land human origilis to assumc that social cxist-
sometimes, but not always, tends in the direction of Boasian par- ence has always played a primary rolc in shaping human conscious-
ticularism. Yet even these positions are considerably more moderate, ness and that the mode of productio~istrongly i~lfluenccsthc general
than wcrc the extremes of the 1950s. character of the social, political, and intcllcctual proccsses of life,
Archaeologists remain unable to distinguish, except 011 the basis provided that it is understood that this signifies that the economic
of historical and archaeological cvidcncc, between cultural similari- basc (broadly defined) limits thc possibility of variation in othcr
ties that arise as a result of independent dcvelopmcnt (analogies) and aspects of human behaviour ratlicr than dictates what the nature of
those that occur as a rcsult of historical co~incctions(liomologies) that bchaviour will be. There is also no rcason to deny thc reciprocal
(Binford 1968b: 8-12). Individual features shared by circumpolar influence of thc supcrstructurc on thc basc, although the prccisc
hunter-gatherer culturcs cannot be assumed to rcsult from indcpcn- nature and extent of this influence remains to be dcfi~icdand it may
dent adaptation to a common cnvironnicnt unlcss it can be empiric- vary widely from one society to a ~ ~ o t h cChildc,
r. in particular, has
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social coi~text

and Mu, while in the early twentieth century hyper-diffusionists

viewed political power and religious bclicfs as forccs capablc of
successfully opposing but not initiating major cultural trans-
C derived agriculture and civilization from Egypt a r Mesopotamia,
formations. Finally, a truly materialist approach crnbraccs rather ,
\vIicre they wcrc allcgcd to havc evolved as thc rcsult of a historical
than dcnics the vicw that human beings react not to the world as it is accident. In recent ycars, faced with a growing thrcat of nuclear
but as they pcrccivc it to bc, since this incorporates mental phcnom- annihilation, increasing numbcrs of insccurc and sccularly oriented
cna into a materialist framework. This has encouraged Marxism to mcmbcrs of thc cducatcd middlc CI~SSCShavc takc11 comfort in thc
account for cultural change as the r c s ~ ~of l t a dialectical process: belief that i~ltclligcntbcings from another planet havc bccn bcnc-
involving individual and group interests ratlicr than trying to volcntlp guiding human dcvclopmcnt and will save humanity, or
explain it solely in terms of external constraints of the sort proposed sonic choscn rcrnnant of it, from an apocalyptic catastrophc (J. Cole
by cultural ecology or systems theory. Yet tlicrc clearly is no consen- 1980; E'cdcr 1984; Eve and Harrold 1986). Thcsc cxtratcrrcstrial
sus about these issues nor arc thcrc sufficiently strong arguments to salvationists look to archaeology to providc evidence of interplane-
narrow thc broad spectrum of passionately held opinions that indi- tary contacts that will support their argumcnts, in much the same
vidual social scientists arc prepared to defend concerning the forccs manner as cvolutionists looked to it for support a ccntury ago.
that shape human history. Many archacologists, including somc In the cightcenth century, when k~owlcdgcof the archaeological
who claim to be Marxists, adhcrc to an idealist position that assigns record was almost non-existent, degenerationist and evolutionary
primary importance to rcligious bclicfs and other ideological factors views stood on an cqual footing, both bcing bascd 011 nothing more
as the basic forccs shaping cultural change. than spcculation about how human socictics might have come into
There is ncvcrtl~elcssreason to bclievc that in the long run thc bcing. Under thcsc circumstances, it' is not extraordinary that a
continuing collection and analysis of archaeological data will rcsult schol~rSLICII as William Stukclcy, who was capablc of carrying out
in a bcttcr understanding of human bchaviour and of the forccs that sound antiquarian research, should have been attracted to what we
have shaped human history. Evidence is provided by the growing now regard as the extravagant fantasies of thc dcgenerationist
confidcncc with which arcl~aeologists arc able to distinguish school. Evcn in thc latc ninctccnth ccntury, a carcful sciciltist such as
\
bctwccn thcir own varicd explanations of what has l~appcnedin \John William Dawson could cogently objcct that the archacological
prehistoric times and alternative popular beliefs for which thcrc is :.cord had been studied in too few parts of tllc world and that evcn
not a scici~tificallyacceptablc factual basis (J. White 1974). Thcsc &tern European finds wcrc too little known to bc sure that more
popular bclicfs attcst to thc ideological importance of what arcl~ac- advanced culturcs had not existed alongside Palaeolithic ones
ologists arc studying and even morc significantly to the growing throughout human history. In North America, allcgcd Palaeolithic
inability of archaeologists who adhcrc to cvcn a modicum of scienti- finds indeed turned out to be the quarry refuse of latcr, more
fic method to satisfy certain popular nccds. One cxamplc is thc advanced culturcs. Ignoring Dawson's claims was an expression of
pcrsistcnt and widespread resistance to the idea that morc advanccd faith in cultural-evolutionary theories o r in the value of limited
culturcs have dcvclopcd as a rcsult of intcrnal processes that can be positive cvidcncc ovcr undiscovcrcd altcrnativcs; it was not a
understood in scientific tcrms. In tlic cightcenth and ninctccntl~ triumph of science. By the 1920s t l ~ chyper-diffusionist vicw of
centuries somc writers sdught to support what they saw as the literal human history, although promoted by reputable ethnologists and
truth of biblical accounts by arguing that human bcings had origi- physical anthropologists, was overwhelmingly rcjectcd by archae-
natcd in thc Near East and that primitive culturcs had come into ologists because it did not correspond with the archaeological
cxistcncc as a rcsult of dcgcncration as humanity spread from its record as it was by then understood for various parts of the world.
place of origin and divine instruction. Some less biblically influ- Hyper-diffusionist influences were limited to cxplaining restricted
cnccd spcculatio~~s sought to tracc the origin of ltnown civilizations arcl~acologicalphcnomcna, such as thc megalithic monurncnts of
back to mysterious beginnings on lost contincnts, such as Atlantis Wcstcrrl Europe.
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology ,and its social context

Extraterrestrial salvationism was born and remains an amateur fad navian, Black African, and Asian 'visitors and thus denigrates, we
with semi-religious connotations. Its always tcntativc explanations trust unwittingly, native peoples by attributing major elements of
of isolated arcl~acologicalfinds do not providc a satisfactory altcr- thcir cultural hcritagc to others (Fell 1976,1982; for an anthropologi-
native interprctatio~lof .the arcliacological rccord (von Daniken cal explanation of the material referred to in the second book, see
1969, 1971).Extrcnlc relativists, such as Barnes and Fcycrabend, may Vastokas and Vastokas 1973). In doing so these amateurs rely exclus-
argue that the views of the past held by profcssional archacologists ively on diffusionist canons of archacological intcrprctation that
and cxtratcrrcstrial salvatio~~ists arc cultural alternatives and that long ago were discovcrcd to bc inadcquatc by profcssional archae-
philosophers and historians of science have no basis for distin- ologists. Archaeologists d o not deny the importance of diffusion.
guishing between them in terms of thcir correctness or scientific Nor do they deny that some pastoralists and agriculturalists havc
status. Archaeologists cannot rule out the possibility that extrater- become hunter-gatherers in the course of human history. Yet these
restrial visitors have influenced the course of human development to happenings are now viewed in a broader context, in which other
some degree, any morc than they can cxcludc thc biological exist- processes, such as ecological adaptation and intcrnal cultural
ence of purple unicorns. Yet, clumsy, inadequate, and uncertain as change, are occurring. Simultaneously, an increasingly detailed
our present scientific understandings of cultural change may be, they archaeological record offers growing resistance to faddish and
account for what is observed in the archaeological rccord in both its unbalanced explanations of what happened in the past.
totality and individual features, while extraterrestrial salvationism
keeps alive only by making speculative and always inconclusive
Future prospects
claims about isolated phenomena. It is surely folly, given the avail-
able evidence, to claim 'symmetrical' status for these two Subjective factors clearly influence the interpretation of archaeo-
approaches. logical data at every level. They are not merely a visible contaminant
Archaeology has also demonstrated the capacity to entertain that can be removed by a commitment to some allegedly morally
multiple working hypothcscs and to altcr its intcrprctations in order neutral code of science and morc specifically by proper procedurcs
to account better t o r growing bodies of archacological data (Gallay \for testing hypotl~cscs,as the morc'ardcnt positivists suggcst. Thcy
1986: 288-95). In the early part of the twcnticth century, diffusion 1 mctimes function as a creative clcment in archaeology insofar as
was invoked to explain cvidcncc of changes in the archaeological 'r
th y serve as a major spur to research. Kossinna's commitment t o a
record that did not accord with earlier racist views that North romantic and highly misleading belief in German ethnic and racial
American Indians were incapable of cultural change. Yet diffusion superiority led him to devise new ways of studying significant spatial
by itself continued to imply a certain lack of crcativity. The New patterning in archaeological data that archaeologists with very
Archaeology not only accounted for internal changes in archaeo- different personal commitments haveicontinued to find useful. O n
logical cultures that were bccoming increasingly evident as more the other hand less creative cycles can be observed in which, at least
detailed archacological research was carried out, but, in order to partially in response to changing social, political, and economic
explain these changes, was led to involcc intcrnal responses that conditions, archacologists havc swung bctwcen cxtreme cvolu-
unselfconsciously e1imin"aed the last vestiges of the view that native tionary and culture-historical perspectives and between positions
North Americans were inlicrently less creative than were Europeans. that havc cithcr emphasized the biological basis of human bchaviour
The influence of less hostile public stereotypes of native people in or totally ignorcd it (Cartmill et al. 1986).
bringing about thesc changes should not be underestimated, but Yet, if subjective factors intervene at every level in the interpreta-
neither should the constraint of the archaeological rccord. Once tion of the past, so too docs arc11acological cvidencc, which, at lcast
again, it is the amatcur fringe that contin~icsto explain thc pre- within the bounds of a co111111itmcnt to scientific methodology,
history of North America in terms of Libyan, Carthaginian, Scandi- partially constrains and limits what it' is possible to believe about the
 A history of archaeological thought Archaeology and its social colltcxt

past. Contrary to what some innovators allcgc, in thcir desire to archacological rccord as a rcfutation of static stcrcotypcs about the
portray all previous phases in thc dcvelopmcnt of archaeology as North Arncrican Indians. Yct thc rcccnt trend to cxaminc altcrnativc
primitive and unstructured, archaeologists havc not bccn unawarc explanations of thc samc data and to dcvclop formal argumcnts in
of the continuing need to question accepted intcrpretations of support of thcsc intcrprctations rcprcscnts an claboration, rathcr
archacological'data. Nor have they failcd to utilizc new evidence in than a transcending, of thc high~st~idcals of carlicr rcscarch. Whilc it
an attcmPt to gain a morc objcctivc undcrstanding of thc past. Sincc is unlikely that scientific proccdurcs can cvcr wholly climinatc sub-
at least the eighteenth cclltury they have sought to dcvisc tests that jcctivc factors from thc illtcrprctation of archacological data, thcy
rclatc to the bchavioural significance of archacological data. These can significantly cnhancc thc constr,aints that archacological cvi-
include rcplicativc c x p ~ r i m c nuse-wear
~~, analysis, and experiments dcncc cxcrts upon thcsc intcrprctations.
to set: whether supposed 'artifacts' are the products of human action, Archaeology is bcst ablc to contribute to a gcncral undcrstanding
animal activity, or natural forces. Attcmpts havc also been rnadc to of human bchaviour in tcrms of thc information that it providcs
assas the validity of ethnographic analogies, although this proccss about changes that occur ovcr longcr pcriods of t i n ~ cand which
has been made especially difficult by the problems involved in thcrcforc cannot bc studicd using colltcmporary social-scicncc data.
distinguishing between cultural analogics and homologies. For as This tcrnporal pcrspcctivc cornpcnsatcs to a considcrablc dcgrcc for
long as this sort of verification has been attempted, archacologists lack of dircct information about pcrccptions and intentions, which,
havc cngagcd in scicntific studies. in thc abscncc of othcr sourccs of information about culturally
Accompanying such activities, however, there is always a tcmpta- specific aspccts of the past, largcly rcduccs archacology to consider-
tion to leap to collclusions in the abscncc cithcr of sufficicnt data or ing constraints on human bchaviour. High-level thcorics of human
of adequate analysis and proper methods of interpretation. This bchaviour arc said to bc incapable of dircct rcfutation. Yct, by
occurs at cvcry 1cvel o f archacological rcscarch, although it is comparing diffcrcnt archacological scqucnccs and trying to undcr-
perhaps at the highest Icvcl, thc cxplanation of bchaviour, that thc ,stand thcm as cvidcncc of socictics changing ovcr time, archacology
most daring leaps .Ire rn.1~1~. Many .lrchacologista .I!-c cngcr to draw discovers di.lclironir rcgularitics that arc significant for evaluating
far-reaching conclus~onsabout past fro~nrhcir findings cvcn if hi~li-levelthcorics. The succcssfi~lpursuit of such ~indcrstanding
this rcquircs thcm to read specific forms of bchaviour into thcir data rc4uircs not only that carc be paid to inferring bchaviour from
without adequate linking arguments and to make usc of poorly arc&ological data but also the claboration of cvcr more dctailcd
tcstcd ~xplanationsof human bchaviour. Particularly if interpreta- chronologics. This takcs archacoiogists back to thc first problcm
tions correspond with common sense and the values held by the that was addrcsscd by thcir disciplinc and which it can ncvcr
investigator, archaeologists may be quite unawarc of the inadcqua- outgrow. Only insofar as archacologists understand thc order in
cics of thcir work. In the past toleration for this type of laxness which cultural factors changc, do they havc a basis for beginning to
rcsultcd to a largc degrcc from a smaller number of rescarchers undcrstand thc causal relations linking thcm (Wylic 198sb: 77-8).
trying to cope with large and intractable probkms. In pioneer T o sonlc dcgrcc gcncral, or high-lcvcl, thcorics arc like languages.
efforts to collect data and reconstruct a broad picture of the past It is thcorctically possiblc to cxprcss any idca in any language,
many of the niceties o f afchacological research were ignored. This although thc difficulty with which a particular conccpt may bc
uncolltrollcd situation allowed intcrpretations of archacological conveyed will vary greatly from onc languagc to anothcr, dcpcnding
data to survive cvcn though thcir thcorctical or factual basis had on the contcxt of its Icxicon. Morcovcr, a mcssagc can depart only a
bccn discrcditcd. Examples of this arc the diffusionist efforts of short distance from conventional understandings and cstablishcd
Europcan archacologists t o locate thc origins of culture in the Near norms bcforc it loses intelligibility and rclcvancc to thc rcccivcr,
East long after the medieval world vicw was abandoned and the however capablc a languagc may bc of transmitting thc idcas
ilowncss of American archaeologists to see cvidcncc of changc in the through pcriphrascs and dctailed cxplanations. In the san~cmanncr,
 A history of archaeological thought Arcliaeology and its social context

the difficulty of conceiving of a satisfactory explanation for a par- archaeologically dcrived knowledge may even be important for
ticular form o f human bchaviour will vary according to the gcncral human survival. I f archaeology is to scrvc tliat purpose, archac-
theory tliat is C S ~ O L I S111Cdue
~ . C O L I ~ S Cgrowing proble~nsin using a ologists niust strive against heavy odds to scc thc past as it was, not
particular gcncral theory to explain human bchaviour may lead JS they wish it to have been.
social scientists, including archaeologists, t o abandon that theory o n
the grounds that it is inefficient by comp.lrison with s o ~ i l alternative
c
o ~ i c .In this way the constraints o f cvidcncc can exert a sclcctivc
influcncc over gcncral thcorics. 011the other hand, subjcctivc
f k t o r s may lend social scientists to continue ~lsing3 particulnr
high-lcvcl theory long after its incfficicnc)l has bccn clcmonstratcd.
Such theories arc often modified and upgraded t o try to adapt them
to ncw circumstances. Only rarely arc high-level tlicorics dcfinitivclp
abandoned.
Yet it is a matter o f record that the views of modern socictics
about how they canic into being and change arc radically different,
not only from the divinely ordered world of tlic ancient Sunicrian
scribes but also from the creationist views that prcdomi~iatcdin
Wcstcr~i society zoo years ago. The findings of arcliacology,
I ~ o ~ v c v csubjccti\~cly
r interprctcd, ha\.c altered humanity's per-
ception of its history, its rclationsliip t o naturc, and its o w n naturc in
wa!ls that arc irreversible without the total aba~ldo~lrncnt of the
scientific nicthod. Arcliacology is itself a product of social 2nd
economic change, but what it lias led us t o bclicvc about tlic past is
rnorc than a fanciful projection of contctnporarp social coliccrns into
the past. I t is ncithcr separate from society nor a mere rcflcctio~lof it,
but lias a role t o play in a rational dialoguc about the nature of
humanity, which a better understanding of the rclatio~ishipbctwce~l
archaeological practice and its social context will facilitate. By
hclpi~lgto expand our temporal and spatial frames of rcferencc,
archacology has irreversibly altered 'thc rangc and qua1it)r o f human
thought' (Bcckcr 1938: 2 5 ) .
'1-he fact that nrchacology car1 provide a growing number of
insights into tvhat llas liappc~lcdin the past suggests that it may
constitute an increasingly effective basis for understanding social
change. That in turn indicates that in due course it may also scrvc as a
guide for future dcvclopmcnt, not in the scnsc of prol~idingtechno-
cratic knowledge t o social pla~lncrsbut by helping people t o n u k c
rnorc infor~ncdchoices with respect t o public policy. In a world that
has bcconlc too dangerous for humanity t o rely on trial and error,
 Bibliographical essay

(1984), Trigger (1984e), a n d Gallay (1986). Trends i n interpretative

methodology are discussed by M. S a l m o ~ (1982) l a n d Kelley and H a n e n
(1988). T h e m o s t comprehensive illustrations o f current trends in
archaeology are t h e fifteen volumes o f prc-circulated papers that ~ O L - I I I C ~
t h e basis for discussio~lsa t t h e World Archaeology Congress: South-
a m p t o n 1986. Ucko's (1987) account o f that co~lferenceis a g o o d
reference for t h e current p o l ~ t i c i z a t l oo~f ~Western archaeologists.
REFERENCES
I

Abbott, C. C. 1881.P r t w ~ t t t ~Ivrdustry.

~c Saleni, G. A. Bates.
Abercrombp, J. 1902. The oldest Bronze-Age ceramic type in Britain. Journal of
the Royal Anthropologrcal Institute 32: 373-97.
Aberle, D. F. 1968. Comments. In S. R. and L. R. Binford, pp. 353-9.
Aberle, D. F., A. K. Cohen, A. K. Dav~s,M-J. Levy Jr, and F. X. Sutton. 1950.
The funct~onalprerequisites of soclety. Etiyiw 60: loo-I.
Abramowicz, A. 1981. Sponte nascitur ollae . . . In G. Daniel, 1981b, pp. 146-9.
Adams, E. C. 1984. Archaeology and the native Anlerican: a case at Hopi. In
E. L. Green, pp. 236-42.
Adams, R. McC. 1965. Land Behznd Baghdad. qhicago, University of Chicago
Press.
1974.Anthropological perspectives on ancient trade. CuwentAnthropology 15:
239-58
1981.Heartland of Cttzes. Ch~cago,Univers~tyof Chicago Press.
Ad,~mb,R McC. and H. J. N~sscn.1972. The Uruk Co~rvrtysrdc.Cli~cago,Uni-
v c ~ s ~ of
t y Ch~c.lgol'rcss.
Adams, W Y., D. P. Van Gerven, and li. S. Levy. 1978. The retreat from
migrat~onism.Annual Revleu?ofAnthropology 7: 483-532.
Alden, J. R. 1982. Trade and politics in proto-Elamite Iran. CuwentAnthropology
23: 613-40.
Alexander, J. and A. Mohammed. 1982. Frontier theory and the Neol~thicperiod
In Nubia. In Nubtan Studzes, ed. by J .M. Plumley pp. 34-40. Warminster,
Aris and Ph~liips.

\Ilen, J. 1967. Aspects of Vere Gordon Childe. Labour Hzstory 12: 52-9.
981. Perspectives of a sent~mentaljoumej~:V. Gordon Childe in Australia
1917-1921. Aust~alianArchaeology 12: 1-11.
Alpert, H. 1939. Enzzle L)urkheim and hts Soczology. New York, Columbia Univer-
slty Press.
Andah, B. W. 1985. No past! no present! no future! A~lthropologicaleducation
and African revolution. Inaugural lecture, Department of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of Ibadan.
Andersson, J. G. 1934. Children of the Ycllow Earth. London, Kegan Paul.
Andresen, J. M., B. F. Bprd, M. D. Elson, R. H. McGuire, R. M. Mendoza, E.
Staski, and J. P. White. 1981. The deer hunters: Star Carr reconsidered.
World Archaeology 13: 31-46.
Andr~olo,K. R. 1979. Kulturkreislehre and the Austr~anmind. Man 14: 133-44.
 References

Artsikho\rskp, A. V. 1973. Archaeology. Great Soviet Encyclopedia 2: 245-50. New Bennett, W. C. 1945 Interpretations of Andean archaeology. Transactions ofthe
York, Macmillan. New York Academy ofSciences, series 2, vol. 7, pp. 95-9.
Ascher, R. 1961. Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Southu)estemJournal Bent, J. T. 1892. The Ruined Cities ofMmhonaland. London, Longmans, Green.
ofAntJ~ropol<qy16: 3 I 7-25. Berkhofer, R. F. Jr. 1978. The WhiteMan'sZndian: Zmagw oJtheAmmmcanIndian
Atkinson, R. F. 1978. I<aon~lcd8eand Explanation in History: An Introduction t o flom Columbus to the Present. New York, Knopf.
tl~cPhilosopl~yof History. Ithaca, Cornell University Prcss. Berlinski, D. 1976.On SystemsAnalysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts, M.I.T. Press.
Atwater, C. 1820. Description of the antiquities disco\~eredin the State of Ohio Bernal, 1.1980. A History ofMexican Archaeology. London, Thames and Hudson.
and other western states. Archaeolo8ia Americana: Tvansactions and Collec- Bernal, M. 1987. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Clmical Civilization,
tions r?f'tl~cAi~crirnlrAritiq~rnl-innSocicp I : 105-267. vol. I, The Fahication ofAncient Greece,1v8s-r98s.London, Free Association
Rachofcn. I. J. 1861.~ ) ~ ~ M I I ~ ~Stuttg.lrt, C I ~ T LKrais
- / J ~~111ci
. I Iotfiil.l~l. Books.
Bacon, E. 1976. Tlle G'rcntArcl~acol~qists. I.oncion, Scckcr aud Warburg. Rcrstcin, R. J. 1983. Beyond Objectil~ismand Relativzsm. Philadelphia, U~liversity
Balin, P. G. 1978. The 'unacceptable face' of the Western European Upper of Pennsylvania Press.
Palaeolithic. A~tiquit?,52: 183-92. Bertalanftjr, L. von. 1969. General System Theoy. New York, Braziller.
Ikiilcy, A. M. and J. I<. 1-lobera. 1981. The Asiatic Mode of Production. London, Best, E. 1916. Maori and Maruiwi. Transactions ofthe New Zealand Institute 48:
Routledge & Kegan I'aul. 435-47.
Barker, G. 1985. Prcl~istoricFarmincq. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bibby, G. 1956. The Testzmony of the Spade. New York, Knopf.
Barley, M. W. 1977. ed. Ezrropcarr Towns: Tljeir Avchaeology and Eartr History. Bieder, R. E. 1975. Albert Gallatin and the survival of Enlightenment thought in
New York, Academic Press. nineteenth-century American anthropology. In Toward a Science ofMan:
Barnes, A. S. 1939. The differences benveen natural and human flaking on Essays rn the History of Anthropology, ed. by T. H. H . Thoresen, pp. 91-8.
prehistoric flint implements. At~~crican Andvopol~qist41: 99-112. The Hague, Mouton.
Barnes, R. 1974.ScicrztiJicICriowle~qcand Sociolocqical Theory. London, Routledge 1986. Science Encounters the Indian, 18.h-1880:The Early Years of American
& Kcgan I'aul. Ethnology. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.
1977.I~tcrcstsnrrdti)t,Gvor~~tl,ofICt~o~~~le~~c. I.onJon, lioutledge & I<cgan Paul. Bietak, M. 1979.The present state of Egyptian archaeology. Journal ofEBptian
Ihrncs, 1-1. E. 1937. A Hirtol I$' Historical Writiiyr. Norm.111, Univcrsi ty of A~~haeology 65: 156-60.
0klnhonl;l I'rcss. Binford, I,. R. 1962. Archacology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28:
I%.~rnctt,S. A. 1958. cci. A < : i . r r l r ~ r ~ r I!/' 1)rrr.ll~iii.(:.uml>ri~igc,M.~~s.~cllusct~s, 217-25.
. .
Han~arciUni\.crsity I'rcss. 1965. AI-cllirologic~lsystcn~aticsand .the study oI'c~~lturc process. American
Barraclough, Ci. 1979.Main Trends in History. New York, Holmcs and Mcier. Antiquity 31: 203-10.
Bar-Yosef, 0. and A. Mazar. 1982. Israeli archaeology. World Archaeology 13: 1967a. Smudge pits and hide smoking: the use of analogy in archaeological
3 10--25. reasoning. American Antiquity 32: '1-12.
Bayard, D. T. 1969. Science, thcory, dnd reality in the 'New Archaeology'. 1967b. Comment. CurrentAnthropology 8: 234-5.
American Antiquity 34: 376-84. 1968a. Some comments on historical versus processual archaeology. South-
Beardsley, R. K., P. Holder, A. D. Kricgcr, B. J. Meggers, J. B. Rinaldo, and P. westernJournal ofAnthropology 24: 267-75.
Kutsche. 1956. Functional and e\~olutionaryimplicatio~lsof community 1968b. Archeological perspectives. In S. R. and L. R.Binford, pp. 5-32.
patterning. Memoir (Menasha, Wisconsin, Society for American Archae- 1972.A n Archaeological Perspective. New York, Seminar Press.
o l o a ) 11: 129-57. 1977. ed. For Theory Building in Archaeology. NewtYork, Academic Press.
Beauchamp, W. M. 1900.Aboriginal Occupation ofNew York. Albany, Bulletin of 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Ncw York, Acadc~i~ic Prcss.
the New York State Eluscum, 7 (32). 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modem Myths. New York, Academic Press.
Becker, C. L. 1938.What is historiography?American Historical Review++:20-8. 1983a. Working at Archaeology. New York, Academic Press.
Bell, A. S. 1981. ed. The Scottish Antiquarian Tradition. Edinburgh, John 1983b.In Pursuit ofthe Past. London, Thames and Hudson.
Donald. 1984. Faunal Remainsflorn IClasies RiverMouth. New York, Academic Press.
Benedict, R. 1934.Patterns ofculture. Boston, Houghton Mifflin. 1986. In pursuit of the future. In D. J. Meltzer,et al., pp. 459-79.
Bennett, J. W. 1943. Recent developments in the functional interpretation of 1987. Data, relativism and archaeological science. Man 22: 391-404.
archaeological data. American Antiquity 9: 208-19. Binford, L. R. and W. J. Chasko Jr. 1976. Nunanliut demographic history: a
1944. Middle American i~~fluenccs on culturcs of the southeastern United provocative case. In Demographic Anthropology, ed. by E. B. W. ~ u b r o w ,
States. Acta Americana 2: 25-50. pp. 63-143. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press.
 References

Sinford, L. R. and J. A. Sabloff. 1982. Paradigms, systematics, and archaeology. Brongers, J. A. 1973. 1833: Reuvens zn Drenthe. Bussum, Rljksdlenst voor het
Journal of Anthropological Research 38 : 137-53. Oudheidkund~gBodemonderzoek.
Binford, L. R. and N. M. Stone. 1986. Zhoukoudian: a closer look. Current 1976. Materlal for a Illstory of Dutch archaeology up to 1922. Berichten van de
Anthropology 27: 453-7s. Ryhdzenst voor het Oudhezdkundzg Bodemondemoek, Jahrgang 26: 7-62.
Binford, S. R. and L. R. Binford. 1968. eds. New Perspectives in Archeology. Bronowsk~,J 1971.Sympos~umo n technology and soc~alcrltlclsm: Introduct~on
Chicago, Aldine. - Technology and culture in evolution. Phzlosophy of the Sonal Sctences I:
Bintliff, J . L. 1984. Structur.ilism and myth in Minoan stuciics. Antiquity 58: 195-206.
33-8. Bronson, B. 1972 Farm labor and the evolut~ono f food product~on.In B.
Black, J. L. 1986. G.-F. Miiller and the Ivnperial Russian Academy. Montreal, Spooncr, pp 190-218
McCill-Q~tccn'sUnivcl-sity Press. I<iosc, 1) S 1973 l h c n o ~ t h c a b t c ~Unu ~ t c dStatcs I n J. E Fitt~ng,pp 84-115.
13lakcslcc, 1). J. 1987. John IiowzCe Pcyton acid the myth of thc Mound Builders. Blown, I W n d. Southca\tcrn Indians: cthnohl~tory,art, and archaeology. In
Americar~Antiquity 52: 784-92. Iizdians of the Southeast: A Serzes, ed. by P. H. Wood, G. A. Waselkov, and
Blanton, R. E. 1978. Monte Alhan: Settlement Patterns at the Ancient Zapotec T. Hatley Llncoln, Unlvers~tyo f Nebraska Press ( ~ press). n
Capital. New York, Academic Press. Brown, J A 1971.ed. Approaches to the Soczal Utmenstons ofMortuay Praetzces.
Blanton, R. E., S. A. Kowalcwski, G. Fcinman, and J. Appcl. 1981. Ancient Washington, Soc~etyfor Anierlcan Archaeology, Memoir no. 25.
Mesoamerica: A Compavison of Change in Three Regions. Cambridge, Cam- Brown, J. A and S Struever. 1973. The organization o f archeological research:
bridge University Press. an I l l ~ n o example.
~s In C. L. Redman, pp. 261-80.
Bloch, M. 1985.Mamism and Anthropology. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bruwer, A. J 1965. Ztmbabwe, Rhodeszd's Anczent Greatness. Johannesburg,
I
Boas, F. 1887. Museums of ethnology and their classification. Science 9: 587-9. Keartland.
Bohner, K. 1981.Ludwig Lindenschmit and the Three Age system. 111G. Daniel, Bryson, G 1945.Man and Soczety. The Scottzsh Znquzry ofthe Et&teenth Century.
1981b,pp. 12-6. Pr~nceton,Pr~ncetonUn~versltyPress.
Bonnichsen, R. 1973. Millie's Camp: an experi~nentin archaeology. World Bucklep, W F 1968 ed. Modern Systems Research for the Behavzoral Sczentzst: A
Arcl7aeola_qy4: 277-91. SourceDool: Chlcago, Ald~ne.
Bordes, F. H. 1953.E s s i dc classification dcs industries '~iioustiriennes'.Utrllctin Buhhar~n,N I 1931 Theory and practlce from the btandpolnt o f d~alect~cal
de la SociLtL PrLl~istonqucF~*ar~gaisc 50: 457-66. mater~al~smIn Sczence at the Cross-Roads, ed. by N. I. Bukhar~net a1
Boriskovsky, P. J. 1965. A propos des recents progrPs des etudes paliolithiques [art~clcspag~natedscparatelp] London, K n ~ g a .
en U.R.S.S. L'Antl~ropolugic69: 5-30. Bulk~n,V A , L. S. Klejn, and G S. Lebedev. 1982.Attainments and problems
Boserup, E. 1965. The Corzditiov~sof Agricultural Growth. London, Allen and of Sovlet archaeology. World A~*chaeology 13: 271-95.
Unwin. Bulle~d,A H . and H . St. G. Gray. 1911, 1917. The Glastonbury Lake Vzllage. 2
Boule, M. 1905. L'Origine des Colithes. L'Anthropologie 16: 257-67. vols. Taunton, Glastonbury Antiquarian Soclety.
Bradley, J. W. 1987. Evolution ofthe Onondaga Iroquois: Accommodating Change, Burk~tt,M. C. 1928. South AJjzca's Past zn Stone and Paznt. Cambr~dge,Cam-
rsoo-16~s.Syracuse, Syracuse University Press. b r ~ d g eUnlvers~tyPress.
Bradley, R. 1984. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain. London, Burllng, R. 1962. Max~mlzatlontheorles and the study o f economlc anthro-
Longman. pology Amerzcan Anthropologzst 64: 802-21.
Bra~dwood,R. J. 1974. The Iraq Jarmo I'rojcct. In G. R. Willcy, t7p. 59-83. Buttcrficld, H 1981. The Orgzns ofHzstoy. New York, Bas~cBooks.
Braltliwa~te,M. 1984. R ~ t u a and l prestige 111 the preh~storpof Wessex c. z,zoo- Butzer, K W 1976.Early Hydraulzc Czvzlzzatzon zn E m t Ch~cago,Un~versityof
1,400 BC: a new dimension to the archaeological evidence. In D. Miller and Cli~cagoPress.
C. Tillep, pp. 93-110. Caldwell, J. R. 1958 Trend and Tradztzon zn the Prehtstoy of the Eastern Uvzzted
Braithwaite, R. B. 1953. ~cieniificExplanatiorz. Cambridge, Cambridge Univer- States Menasha, Wlsconsln, American Anthropolog~cal Assoc~ation,
sity Press. M e m o ~ rn o 88
Brasser, T . J. C. 1971. Group identification along a moving frontier. Vcrl~and- 1959 The new Amcrlcan archeology. Scievzce 129. 303-7.
lu~~qcii des X X X V I I I I?zter?~ationalc~
A v n c ~ i k a ~ z s t c v ~ k o v ~ ~ ~(Munich)
csses 2: 1964 Interact~onspheres 111 preh~story.In Hopewelltan Studres, ed. by J . R
261-5. Caldwell and R. L Hall, pp. 133-43. Springfield, Illlnols State Museum
Braudel, F. 1980. On Histovy. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Sc~entlficPapers n o 12.
Breisach, E. 1983. Historiqqraphy:- . . Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. Chicago, Canc~ali,F 1966. Max~rnlzat~on as norm, strategy, and theory: a comment o n
University of Chicago Press. progranlmatlc statements In economlc anthropology. Amerzcan Anthropolo-
flZSt 68 465-70
 References References

Carr, C. 1985. ed. For Concordance in Archacolo~icalAna&sir: Bridging Data 1926. T/~cA?yans:A Study ofIndo-European Origins. London, Kegan Paul.
Stncctwr~,Qr6a;ztitatit~cTcchniqric, rind T l ~ c o ~
Kansas
. City, Westport 1928. T/JEMost Arzcicrrt East: Thc Oricr~talPrelude to European Prehistcwy.
Publishers. London, Kegan Paul.
Carr, E. H. 1967. What is Histoy? New York, Vintagc. 1939. T/JCDanube in Prehrrto~.Oxford, Oxford U~liversityPress.
Carrasco, D. 1982. Quetzalcoatl and the Iroq ufErrlpire. Chic.~go,Univcrsi ty of 1930, Tllc Bronze Age. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Chicago Press. 19;~.Sknra Brae: A Pictish Village in Orkney. London, Kegan Paul.
Carson, R. L. 1962. Silent Sprinfi. Boston, Houghton Mitflin. 1942. Chronology of prehistoric Europe: a review. Antiquity 6: 206-12.
Cartmill. M., D. Pilbeam, and G. Isaac. 1986. One hundred years of paleo- 1913.I. Is prehistorp practical? Antrqurv 7: 410-18.
anthropology. Anzcrican Scientist 74: 410-20. 1933h. Races, peoples and cultures in prehistoric Europe. History 18: 193-203.
<:assircr, E, 1951.77~rl'bitoso[l/?y rf tl~cEnt[q/)rnrtr~nrr.l'rinccton, l'rinccton 19;+. NCIIJI,cll~turr ~ I J CMost Artcicnt East: The Oricntal Prclude to European
University Press. P~.rl,istow.London, ICcgan Paul.
Casson, S. 1939. The Disco~~ey of'Man. London, Hanlish Hamilton. 1935.1.TIJC1'1,cbutory ofScotland. London, Kegan Paul.
Caton Thompson, G. 1931.The Zim6aba)c Culture. Oxford, Osford Uni\~ersity 191ib.Changing methods and aims in prehistory. Procccdi~~qs ofthe Prehistoric
I'rcss. . S O ~ ~ l l I~:I 1-15.
~

1y83.Mlxcd Mcmuin. Gatcshcad, Paradigm I'rcss. 1936.Man Maker Httnsclj: London, Watts (pages cited from 4th edn, 1965).
Ceram, C. W. 19~1.Gods, Graves, and Scholan: The Study ~ ~ ~ A r c h a e oNew lo~. 1939. The Dawn ofEuropean Civilization. 3rd edn. London, Kegan Paul.
York, Knopf. 194oa.P~ehistovicCommunities ofthe British Isles. London, Chambers.
Chakrabarti, D. K. 1981.Indian archaeolog)~:the first phase, 1784-1861. In G. 194ob. Archaeology in the U.S.S.R. Nature 145: 110-11.
Daniel, 1981b,pp. 169-85. 1942a. What Happened in History. Harmondsworth, Penguin (pages cited
1982. The devclopme~~t of archaeology in the Indian subcontinent. World from 1st American edn, 1946).
Arclgaeology 13: 326-44. 1942b. Prehistory in the U.S.S.R. I. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, A: Caucasus
Chamberlin, T. C. 1944.The method of multiple working hypotheses. Scientific and Crimea. Man 42: 98-100.
Monthly (9: 37-62. 1942~.Prehistory in the U.S.S.R. I. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, B: The
Chan~pion,T. C. 1986. Review of P. Wells. Farms, VillaLqcsand Citics. Man 21: Russian Pla~n.Man 42: 10-3.
554. 194zd I'rchistory in the U.S.S.1I. 11. The Copper Age in South Russia. Man
(:ha~npion, T. <:., <:. S. <;.~nlblc,S. J. Shcnn.~n,.~ndA. W. R. Whittlc. 1984. +2: 110-6.
Prehistoric Europe. New York, Academic Press. 19+2e.The signiticance of Sov~etarchaeology. Labour Monthly 24: 341-3.
Chang, K. C. 1962.China. In Courscs toward Urban Lifk, ed. by R. J. Braidwood 1942EThe chanlbered cairns of Rousay. Antiquarra Journal 22: 139-42.
and G. R. Willey, pp. 177-92. Ch~cago,Aldine. 1943. Archaeology in the U.S.S.R. The forest zone. Man 43: 4-9.
1963.TheArchaeola~q?r ofAncietrt China. New Haven, Yale University Press. r944a. Pmgress andArchaeo10~.London, Watts.
1981. Archaeology and Chinese historiography. WorldArchaeolo~13: 156-69. 1944b. The future of archaeology. Man M: 18-19.
1983. A n , Myth, and Ritual: The Path to Political Authority 2n Ancient China. 1945a. Directional changes in funerary practices during 50,000 years. Man 45:
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Hanrard University Press. 13-19.
Chapman, R. 1979.'Analytical Archaeology' and after - Introduction. 111D. L. 194~b.Archaeology and anthropology [in the USSR]. Nature 156: 224-5.
Clarke, pp. 109-43. W46a. Scotland befire the Scob. London, Methuen.
Chard, C. S. 1961.New developments in Siberian archaeology. Asian Pcrspccti~~es 1946b.Arcl~aeologyand anthropology, SouthwesternJournal ofAnthrupology z:
5: 118-26. 243-SL
1963. Soviet scholarship onethe prehistory of Asiatic Russia. Slntic Rc11ie11) 22: 1947a. Histoy. London, Cobbett.
538-46. 1947b. Archaeology as a soc~alscience. Universi~of London, Institute of
1969. Archaeology in the Soviet Union. Scicv~ce163: 774-9. Archacology, Thr~d Annual Report, pp. 49-60.
Chernetsov, V. N. and W. Moszyilska. 1974. Prehistovy of Western Siberia. 1949. Social Worlds of Knowledge. London, Oxford University Press.
Montreal, McGill-Queen's University Press. 1950. Cave men's buildings. Antiquity 24: 4-11.
Chiappelli, F. 1976.First Imapes ofAmerica: Tbe Impact of the Netv World on the 1951.Soczal Evolutron. New York, Schuman.'
Old. Berkeley and Los Angclcs, University of Californi,~Press. 1952. Archaeological organization in the USSR. An&-Soviet Journal 13(3):
Childe, V. G. 1925a. The L1ali)n of European Cil~ilization.London, Kegan Paul. 23-6.
1925b. National art in the Stone Age. Naturc 116: 195-7. 1953. The constitution of archaeology as a science. In Science, Medicine and
 References References

History, ed. by E. A. Underwood, pp. 3-15. Oxford, Oxford Univcrs~tp Clark, L. K. 1961.Pioneers ofPrehrctovy in England. London, Sheed and Ward.
Press. Clarke, D. L. 1968.Analytical Archaeology. London, Methuen.
1954. Prehistory. In The European Inheritance, ed. by E. Barker, G. Clark, and 197za. ed. Models in Archaeology. London, Methuen.
P. Vaucher, pp. 3-155. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 197zb. A provisional model of an Iron Age society and its settlement system. In
1955. The significance of lake dwellings in the history of prehistory. Szbrium D. L. Clarke, 1972~1,pp. 801-69.
4 2 ) : 87-91. 1977. Spatial information in archaeology. In SpatialArchaeology, ed. by. D. L.
1956a. Piecing To~etherthe Past: The Interpretation of Archaeological Data. Clarke, pp. 1-32. New York, Academic Press.
London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1979.Analytzcal Archaeologirt. New York, Academic Press.
1956b. Society and ICnodedge: The Growth of Human Traditions. New York, Cleere, H. 1984. ed. Approaches to the Arehaeologreal Heritage. Cambridge,
Ilarpcr. C.~mbr~dgc Un~vcrs~t)? Prcss.
r958a. The Prehistory cfEuropca~aSocictv. Harmondsworth, Penguin. Coc, M D 1981. l i c l ~ g ~ oand
n the rlsc of Mcsoamcrican states. In The Tmnsitton
1958b.Retrospect. Antiquity 32: 69-74. t o Statehood tn the New Wurld, cd. by G. D. Jones and R. R. Kautz,
Childe, V. G. and M. C. Burkitt. 1932. A chronological table of prehistory. p ~157-71.
. Cambr~dgc,Calilbr~dgcUniversity Press.
Antiquity 6: 185-205. Coc, M. 1). and li. A. l)~chl. ~ySo.I n tlle ldatrd cg't/~eOlnrec. 2 vols. Austi~i,
Chippindale, C. 1983. Stonehenge Complete. London, Thanies and Hudson. University of Texas Press. 1

Chorley, R. J., A. J. Dunn, and R. P. Beckinsale. 1964. The History of thestudy of Cohen, M. N. 1977. The Food Crisis in Prehistory. New Haven, Yale University
andf firms or The Development of Geomorphology, "01. r, Geomorphology b@re Press.
Davis. London, Methuen. Cohen, M. N. and G. J. Armelagos. 1984. eds. Paleupathology at the Origins of
Chorley, K. J. and P. Haggett. 1967. eds. Models in Geography. London, Apculture. New York, Academic Press.
Methuen. Cohen, S. F. 1973. Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography.
Christenson, A. L. 1985. The identification and study of Indian shell middens in New York, Knopf.
eastern North America: 1643-1861. N o ~ ArncricanArchacol~qist
/I 6: 227-44. Cole, F.-C. and T. DCLIC~. 1937. Redzscover~n~Illi~zois.Ch~cago,University of
Clark, J. G. 1). (Grahamc). 1932. TLJCMcsolitl~icAHCia Liritain. Cambridge, Ch~cagoPrcss.
C.11iiL7ridgc Univcrsit)~l'rcss. Cole, J R. 1980. Cult archaeo1og)r and ~~nscicntific method and theory. Advances
1936. Russian arch,~eolog)~: the othcr sick of the picture. Proccedirgs ofthe zn Archaeologzcal Method and T~!!cory4: 1-33.
Prebistor*icSociety 2: 248-9. Colcs, J. 1979.ExpenmcvrtalArchaeol~qy.London, Acadc~nlcPress.
1939.Archaeolo~y -.
and Society. London, Methuen. Collingwood, R. G. 1939.A n Autobrography. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
1940. Prehistoric England. London, Batsford. 1946. The Ideal ofHistory. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
1942. Bees in antiquity. Antiyuity 16: 208-IS. Colton, H. S. and L. L. Hargrave. 1937. Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottevy
1952. Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis. London, Methuen. Wares. Flagstaff, Museum of Northern Arizona, Bulletin no. 11.
1954.Excavations at Star Caw. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Conib~er,J. 1959. Recherclies sur I'lge de la Pierre en U.R.S.S. L'Anthropologie
1957.Archaeology and Society. 3rd edn. London, Methuen. 63: 160-74.
1972. Star Caw: A Case Study in Bioarchaeology. Reading, Massachusetts, Conkey, M. W. 1982. Boundedness in art and soclety. In Hodder, 1982c,
Addison-Wesley Modular Publications, McCaleb Module no. 10. pp. 115-28.
1974. Prehistoric Europe: the economic basis. In Willey, 1974a, pp. 31-57. Conkey, M. W. and J. D. Spector. 1984.'Archaeologp and the study of gender.
1975. The Earlier Stone A8e Settlement of Scandinavia. Cambridge, Cambridge Advances in Archaeological Method and Theovy 7: 1-38.
University Press. Conrad, G. W. 1981. Cultural materialism, split inheritance, and the expansion
1976. Prehistory since Childe. Bulletin of the Institute ofArchaeology, University of ancient Peruv~anemplres. American Antiquity 46: 3-26.
ofLondon 13: 1-21. Conrad, G. W. and A. A. Demarest. 1984. Relkion and Empwe: The Dynamiw of
1983. The Identity ofMan. London, Methuen. Aztec and Inca Expansionism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
1986.Symbols of Excellence. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cook, S. 1966.The obsolete 'anti-market' mentality: a critique of the substantive
1988a.Prehisto~yat Cambr,idge and Beyond. Cambridge, Cambridge University approach to economic anthropology. American Anthvopologzst 68: 323-45
Press. Cordell, L. S. and F. Plog. 1979. Escaping the confines of normative thought: a
198813. Economic Prehistory: Papers on Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge reevaluation of Puebloan prehistory. Amertean Antiquity 44: 405-29.
University Press. Courbin, P. 1982. Qu'est-ce gue l'archiologie? Essai sur la nature de la recherche
Clark, K. M. 1962. The Gothic Revival. 3rd edn. LOII~OII, John Murray. archiologigue. Paris, Papot.
 References

Cowgill, G. L. 1975. On causes and consequences of ancient and modern popu- Davidson, J. M. 1979. New Zealand. In The Prehistory ofPolynesia, ed. by J. D.
lation changcs. Amcricarz Arttl~ropol~qist 77: 505-25. Jcnnings, pp. 222-48. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University
1977. The trouble with significa~lcctests and what we can do about it. Press.
Amwican Antir]uity 42: 3-68. Davies, G. L. 1969. The Earth in Decay: A Histoy of British Geomo+phology,
Crawford, 0. G. S. 1912. The distribution of Early Bronze Age settlements in 1578-1878. New York, American Elsevier.
Britain. Geocqraphical Journal 40: 2 9 ~ 3 0 3 . Davis, R. S. 1983. Theoretical issues in contemporary Soviet Paleolithic archae-
1921.Mnri and l~isI'mt. I,ondo~l,Osford University Press. ology. Annual R C I ~ rfAr1tl3ropol<~~
CII~ 12: 403-28.

1923. Air survey ind archaeology. G'cc~qrapl~ical Jortrrial 61: 342-60. l)awkins, W. 13. 1874. Cal'c Hzltitit~q: R~searcheson tile E~~idenceof' Caves
1932. Tlic dialectical process in the his tor^ ofscicncc. Sociok!~icnlRCI 'ZCIIJ24:
'
Rcspcctiq tl3c Earlv Inhaltitants of Europc. London, Macmillan.
165-73. L)a\v.\on, J . W. 188x. Fossil Mcn arid tl~cirModemi Rcprcsctttatir~cs.3rd edn.
Crawford, 0 . C;. S. and A. Kcillcr. 1yz8. Wcssc.vJ?ovt~tl~cAir. Oxford, Oxford I,ondon, Hoddcr and Stoughton (1st cdn 1880, Montreal, Dawson
University Press. Brothers).
C~llbcrt,T. P. 1973.cd. Tbc Classic Maya Collapse. Albuq~~crquc, University of 1901. Ftpy Ycaw qf Work in Carindn, Scientific and Educntional. London,
New Mexico Press. Ballantyne, Hanson and Company.
Cunliffe, B. 1974.Iron Age Communities in Britain. London, Routledge & Kegan Deagan, K. 1982. Avenues of inquiry in historical archaeology. Advances in
Paul. Archaeological Method and Theoly 5: 151-77.
Cunnington, R. H , 1975. From Antiquary to Archaeolocqist. Princes Risborough, Debetz, G. F. 1961.The social life of early Paleolithic man as seen through the
Shire Publications. work of the Soviet anthropologists. In Social Life ofEarly Man, ed. by S. L.
Cushing, F. H. 1886. A study of Pueblo pottery as illustrative of Zuili culture Washburn, pp. 137-49. Chicago, Aldine.
growth. Washington, Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Report 4: Deetz, J. J. F. 1965. Thc Dynamzcs of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics.
467-52r Urbana, University of Illinois Press.
Dall, W. H. 1877. On succession in the shell-heaps of the Aleutian Islands. 1977.I n Small Thingr Forklotten. Garden City, Anchor.
Washington, United States Geological and GccqraphicSurvey, Contributions t o De Laet, S. J. 1957.Archaeology and its Problems. New York, Macmillan.
Norti3 American Ethnology I : 41-91. Delige, D. 1985. Lcpa-vs rcmcrsi: Amtrindicns ct cnropienr en Amirique dzr rrord-est
Dalton, G. 1961. Econonlic theory and primitive society. American Anthropologist 1600-1664. Montreal, BorCal Express.
63: 1-25. Dennell, R. 1983. European Economic Prehistory: A New Approach. New York,
Daniel, G. E. 1943. The Three Ages: A n Essay on Archaeological Method. Carn- Academic Press.
bridge, Cambridge University Press. DePratter, C. B. 1986. ed. The Late Prehistoric Southeast: A Source Book. New
1950.A Hundred Years ofArchaeology. London, Duckworth. York, Garland.
1958. Editorial. Antiquity 32: 65-8. Deuel, L. 1967. Conquistadors Without ~tvordr:Archaeolqgists in the Americm.
1963a. The Idea of Prehistory. Cleveland, World. New York, St. Martin's Press.
1963b.The personality of Wales. In Culture andEnvironmcnt: Essays in Honour 1973. Flights into Yesterday: The Story @Aerial Archaeolo~.Harmondsworth,
of Sir Cyril Fox, ed. by I. LI. Foster and L. Alcock, pp. 7-23. London, Penguin.
Routledge & Kcgan Paul. Devon, Earl of. 1873. Inaugural address to the annual meeting held at Exeter,
1967. The Origins and Growth ofArchaeology. Harmondsworth, Penguin. 1873.Archaeological Journal 30: 205-10.
1975.A Hundred and Fzfty Years @Archaeology. 2nd edn. London, Duckworth. Diehl, R. A. 1983. Tula: The Toltec Capital ofAncientMmico. London, Thames
1976. Stone, bronze and iron. In J. V. S. Megaw, pp. 35-42. and Hudson.
1981a.A Shovf History ofArchneology. London, Thames and Hudson. Dixon, R. B. 1913. Some aspects of North American archeology. American
1981b.ed. Towardr a History ofArcbaeology. London, Thames and Hudson. Anthropolqist 15:549-77.
1986. Some Small Hawest. London, Thames and Hudson. 1928. The Building of Cultures. New York, Scribner's.
Danilova, L. V. 1971. Controversial problems of the theory of precapitalist Dolitsky, A. B. 1985. Siberian Paleolithic archaeolog)?: approaches and analytic
societies. Soviet Anthropology and Archeolo~9: 269-328. methods. Current Anthropology 26: 361-78.
Danto, A. C. 1965. AnaLvtical Philosophy of History. Cambridge, Cambridge Dolukhanov, P. M. 1979. Ecolom and Economy in Neolithic Eastern Europe.
University Press. London, Duckworth.
Darnton, R. 1984. The Gi,cat CatMassacr.~and OtC~erEpisodes in French Cultuml Doran, J. E. and F. R. Hodson. 1975.Mathematics and Computers in Archaeol?qy.
History. New York, Basic Books. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
 Kefcrences

Dragadze, T. 1980. The place of 'ethnos' theory in Soviet anthropology. In E. Edwards, I. E. S. 1985. The Pyramid ofEgypt. Revised edn. Harmondsworth,
Gellner, pp. 161-70. Pengum.
Dray, W. 1957. La1171and Explanation in History. Oxford, Oxford University Eggan, F. R.1966. TheAmerican Ivdian. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Press. Ehret, C. and M. Posnansky. 1982. eds. The Archaeological and Linguistic Recon-
1964. Philosopby of History. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall. struction ofAPican Histovy. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Dronrer, M. S. 1985. Flindcrs Petric: A LifE in Archacoltqy. London, Gollancz. Ehrlicli, P. R. 1968. The Population Bomb. New York, Ballantine.
lhff, R. S. 1950. Tl~c Mon-Hutrtcr Pcriod ojMaori Cultcrre. Wellington, Govern- E~sclcy,L. C. I 958. Dartvin's Centuvy: ~ 1 ~ 0 1 u ~and
i o ntllc Man Who Dbcovered It.
ment Printer. Garden City, Doubleday.
Du~iio~id, D. E. 1977. Science in archaeology: the saints go marching in. Ekhoim, K. and J. Friedman. 1979. 'Capital' imperialism and exploitation in
A~rrcr,icnlrArrtiqnir?,42: 330-49. ancient world systcms. In Potwr atid Propngnnda: A Syrnposirrm on Ancient
l)unn, S. 1'. 1 ~ 8 2T/JC
. Fall arid Risc oftl~cAsiatic lZlodc ofProductiorr. London, Empircs, ed. by M . T. Larsen, pp. 41-58. Copcnhagcn, Akadcmisk Forlag.
Routledge & Kegan Paul. Eldredge, N. 1982. La macroCvolution. La Recherche 13 (133): 616-26.
Dunncll, R. C. 1970.Scriation method arid its evaluation. AmericanAntiquity 35: ElisseetT, D. 1986. China: Treasures and Splendors. Paris, Les Editions Arthaud.
305-19. Elleglrd. A. 1981. Stone Age science in Sritaili? CttrrcrrtA~rthropolgy22: 99-125.
1971.Systematics in Prcbistory. Ncw York, Frcc I'rcss. Elton, G.R. 1969. Thc Practice ofHistovy. London, Collins.
1979.Trends in current Amcricanist archaeology. American Journal ofArchae- Emery, F. E. 1969. ed. Systems Thinking. New York, Penguin.
olo~v83: 437-49. Evans, A. J. 1890. On a late-Celtic urn-field at Aylesford, Kent. Archaeologia 52:
1980a. Evolutionary theory and archaeology. Advances in Archaeological 315-88.
Method ar-rd Theory 3: 35-99. 1896. The 'Eastern Question' in anthropo1og)r. Proceedings oj'the British Associ-
r98ob. Americanist archaeology: the 1979 contribution. American Journal of attonfor the Advancement of Science, 1896,go6-22.
Archaeology 84: 463-78. Evans, Joan. 1956.A Hrrtovy ofthe Society @Antiquaries. London, The Society of
1981.A~iierica~iist archaeology: the 1980 literature. American Journal ofArchae- Antiquaries.
olo&Y85: 429-45. Evans, John. 1850. On the date of British coins. The Numismatic Chronicle and
1 9 8 ~Amcricanist
. arcliaeologic~lliterature: 1981.Avncrican Jourr~nlofArclmc- Journal of the Numismatic Society 12: 127-37.
ohyy 86: 509-29. Ev.i~is,J. I)., R. Cu~ilitfc,and C. Rcnfrew. 1981.cds. Antiquity andMan: Essaysin
1982b. Science, social scicncc, and common sense: thc agonizing dilemma of Honour 4'C;lynllat~rel.Lo~idori,Tlianies ancl Hudson.
modcrn archaeolog)?.Journal ofAnthropologica1Research 38: 1-25. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. The Nuer. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
1983. A review of the Aniericanist archaeological literature for 1982. American 1981.A Htstovy ofAnthropological Thought. London, Faber and Faber.
Jou~*nal of Arcl~aeol~~y 87: 521-44. Eve, R. A. and F. B. Harrold. 1986. Creationism, cult archaeology, and other
1984. The Americanist literature for 1983: a year of contrasts and challenges. pseudoscientific beliefs. Youth and Society 17: 396-421.
Awzericar~/or~mal ofArchaeology 88: 489-513. Fagan, B. M. 1975. The Rape ofthe Nile: Tomb Robbers, Tourists, andArchaeologists
1985. Americanist archaeology in 1984. Amcrican Journal of Archaeology 89: in E a t . New York, Charles Scribner's.'
585-61 I. 1977. Eluszve Tveaturc: The Stovy oj'Early Archaeologists in the Americas. New
1986.Five decades of American archaeology. In D. J. Meltzer etal., pp. 23-49. York, Charles Scribner's.
Durkheim, E. 1893.De la division du travail social. Paris, Alcan. 1981. Two hundred and four years ofAfrican archaeolofl. In J. D. Evans etal.,
1895. Les Riglcs de la rnitbode sociolofiigue. Paris, Alcan. pp. 42-51.
1897. Le Suicide. Paris, Alcan. Fairbanks, C. H. 1942. The taxonomic position of Stalling's Island, Georgia.
1912. Les Former ilimentair~sde la vie rel&ieuse. Paris, Alcan. American Antiquity 7: 223-31.
Duvigna~~d, J. 1965. Dzrrhhcirn: sa lie, son o c u ~ ~Paris,
c . Presses Universitaires de Fairchild, H. N. 1928. The Noble Savage: A Study in Romantic Naturalism. New
France. York, Columbia University Press.
Dy~nond,D. P. 1974.Archaeology and Histo?: A PleaJbrReconciliation.London, Fawcett, Clare. 1986. The politics of assimilation in Japanese archaeology.
Thames and Hudson. Archaeological Reviewfiom Cambridgt 5(1): 43-57.
Earl, G. W. 1863. 0 1 1 the shell-mounds of Province Wcllesle)r, in the Malay Feder, I<. L. 1984. Irrationality and popular archaeology. American Antiquity
Peninsula. Transactions of the Et~~nological Society of London 2: 119-29. 49: 525-41.
Earle, T. K. and R. W. Preucel. 1987. I'rocessual archaeology and the radical Fell, B. 1976. America 8.c:. :Ancient Settlers in the New World. New York,
criticluc. <,'zrmt~tAntl~ropology28: 501-38. Quadrangle.
 Rcfcrences References

1982. Bronze AgeAmerica. Boston, Little, Brown. (New Guinea). In Man, Settlement and Urbanrjm, ed. by P. J. Ucko, R.
Ferguson, T. J. 1984. Archaeological ethics and values in a tribal cultural Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 36316. London, Duckworth.
resource management program at the Pueblo of Zuiii. In E. L. Green, Fortes, M. 1980. Introduction. In E. Gellner, pp. xix-xxv.
Fowler, D. D. 1987. Uses of the past: archaeology in the service of the state.
p p 22q-35.
Fewkes, J. W. 1896. The prehistoric culture of Tusayan. American Anthropologist American Antiguity 52: 229-48.
9: 19-73. Fowles, J. 1980,1982. ed. John Aubrey'sMonumenta Britannica, annotated by R.
Feyerabend, 1'. K. 1975. Against MctJ~od:Otrtliiie of air Arrarchistic Tj~coryof Lcgg. Shcrbornc, Dorset Publishing Company.
I<no~vledge.London, NLB. Fox, C. 1923. The Archaeology oftbe Cambridge Region. Cambridge, Cambridge
Field, H. and K. Price. 1949. Recent archaeological discoveries in the Soviet University Press.
Union. Sout~~~l)csrcr?rJorrn~nloj'A ~irbrupol(ply5 : I 7-27. 1932.T11cI'crsormli~cflh-ita~ra.Cardify, National Muscum of Walcs.
Field, H. and E. Prostov. 1937. Archaeology in the Soviet Union. Americalr Fox, L. 1956. ed. Engluh Htstoncal ScI7olarshtp in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Anthropologist 39: 457-90. Cerrturies. London, Oxford University Press.
Fischer, D. H. 1970. Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic ofHistmmrcal Thought. Francis, D. and T. Morantz. 1983.Partners in Fun: A History of the Fur Tra& in
London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. EmtevnJames Bay, I~OG-I~?~. Montreal, McGill-Queen's University Press.
Fischer, G. 1967. ed. Science and Ideology in Soviet Society. New York, Atherton Frick, W. 1934.The teaching of history and prehistory in Germany. Nature 133:
Press. 298-9.
Fischer, J. L. 1961.Art styles as cultural cogniti\le maps. American Anthropologist Fried, M. H. 1967. The Evolution ofPoliticali~ociety. New York, Random House.
63: 79-93. 1975. The Notion ofTribe. Menlo Park, Cummings.
Fitting, J. E. 1973. ed. Tlgc Development of North American Archaeolo~y.Garden Friedman, J. and M. J. Rowlands. 1978a. eds. The Evolution ofSon'al System.
City, Anchor Books. London, Duckworth.
Fitzpatrick, S. 1974. Cultural revolution in Russia 1928-32. Journal of Contempo- Friedman, J. and M. J. Rowlands. 1978b. Notes towards an epigenetic model of
rary Histovy y: 33-51. the evolution of 'c~vilisat~on'.In J. Friedman and M. J. Rowlands,
Fitzsimons, M. A., A. G. Pundt, and C. E. Nowell. 1954. eds. The1)evelopment of pp. 201-76.
Historiograpl7y. Harrisburg, Stackpolc. Fritz, J. M. 1973. Rclevancc, archeology, and subsistcncc thcory. In C. L.
Flannery, K. V. 1968. Archeological systems theory and early Mesoamerica. In Redman, pp. 59-12.
Ant~~ropolqgical Arcl~cologyirr tlgc Amcncas, ed. by B. J. Meggcrs, pp. 67-87. Frumkin, G. 1962. Archaeology in Soviet Central Asia and its ideological
Washington, Anthropological Society of Washington. background. Central Asian R E I ~ 10: ~ I 334-42.
V
1972. The cultural evolution of civilizations. Annual Review of Ecolom and Fuller, P. 1980. Beyond the Crisis in Art. London, Writers and Readers.
Systematics 3: 399-426. Furst, P. T. 1977. The roots and continuities of sha~nanism.In Stone, Bones and
1976. ed. The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York, Academic Press. Skzn, ed. by A. T. Brodzky e t al., pp. 1-28. Toronto, Society for Art
1982. The golden Marshalltown: a parable for the archaeology of the 1980s. Publications.
American A;zthropologirt 84: 265-78. Gallay, A. 1986.L'Arcbiologie clempin. Paris, Belfond.
1983. Archaeology and ethnology in the context of divergent evolution. In The Gamio, M. 1916. Foijando Patria (Pro Nacionalumu). Mexico, Porr6a Hermanos.
Cloud People, ed. by K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, pp. 361-2. New York, Gandara, M. 1980. La vieja 'Nueva Arqueologia' (primera parte). Boletin de
Academic Press. Antropologia Americana 2: 7-45.
Flood, J. 1983.Archaeology of the Drcamtime. Sydney, Collins. 1981. La vieja 'Nueva Arqueologia' (segunda parte). Boletin de Antvopologia
Ford, J. A. 1936. Analysis of Indian Village Site Collections from Louisiana and Americana 3: 7-70,
Mississippi. New O r l c a l ~ Louisiana
, Starc Geological Survey, Department Gardin, J.-C. 1980. Arcl~neologicalCo~tstntcts:A n Aspect of Tbeuretical Arcljae-
of Conservation, Anthropological Study no. 2. ology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
1938.A chronological method applicable to the Southeast. American Antiquity Gardiner, P.L. 1952. Tlge Nature of Historical Explanation. Oxford, Oxford
3: 260-4. University Press.
Ford, J. A. and G. R. Willey. 1941. An interpretation of the prehistory of the 1974. ed. The Philosophy ofHktoty. London, Oxford University Press.
eastern United States. American Anthropologist 43: 325-63. Garlake, P. S. 1973. Great Zimbabwe. London, Thames and Hudson.
Ford, R. I. 1973. Archeology serving humanity. In C. L. Redman, pp. 83-93. 1983. Prehistory and ideology in Zimbabwe. I11 Past and Present in Zimbabwe,
1987. ed. ThePrehistoricAmerr'canSouthwest:A Sourcebook. New York, Garland. ed. by J.D. Y. Peet and T. Ranger, pp. 1-19. Manchester, Manchester
Forge, A. 1972. Normative factors in the settlement size of Neolithic cultivators University Press.
 References

1984. Ken Mufuka and Great Zimbabwe. Antiquity 58: 121-3. Gledhill, J. 1984. The transformation of Asiatic formations: the case o f late
Gasparini, G. and L. Margolies. 1980. Inca Architecture. Bloomington, Indiana prehispanic Mesoamerica. In M. Spriggs, pp. 135-48.
University Press. Gobineau, J.-A., comte de. 1853-5. Ercai sur 1'inigaitL des races humaines. 4 vols.
Gathcrcole, P. 1971.'Patterns in prehistory': an examination of the later thinking Paris, Didot.
of V. Gordon Childc. WorldArc/~arol(~qv 3: 225-jt. Godclier, M. 1978. Econoniy and religion: an evolutionary optical illusion. In
1 ~ 7 6Chilcic
. the 'outsirlcr'. I U I N 17: 5-0. J. Fricdmnn 2nd M. J. Rowlands, pp. 3-11.
19x1.Nctv Zcallnd prehistory hcforc 19io. In GIyn l).inicl, 1981h,pp. rsc~h8. G o d w i ~ H.
~ , 1933. British Maglcmosc harpoon sites. Antiquity 7: 36-48.
19x2.Gordon Chililc: man or myth? Airtiqrri? 5 0 : 1u(-8. Gotf, 11. I.. I~ 6 Syinbols
3 Mcsopotaw~in.New Haven. Yale University
c~'1'rcl~istoric
19x4.A considcratio~iof icicology. In M. Spriggs. pp. 149-54. Press.
Gayre, 11. 1972. T/JC0r{qi11 (4' ~itilbflblvcnilC~ii~ilisfltioii.
Salisbury, Gllnsic Golson, J. 1977.The Ladder of Social E~olution:Arcl~acologyand the Bottom Rungs.
Press. Canberra; Australian Academy of the Humanities.
Geikie, A. 1905. Tlgc Four~dersofGeology. 2nd edn. London, Macmillan. Gooch, G. P. 1959. History and Historians i?z the Nineteenth Century. Boston,
Gellner, E. 1980. ed. Soviet and WesternAnthropology. London, Duckworth. Beacon Press.
1983. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, Cornell Uni\,ersity Press. Goodenough, E. R. 1953-68. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 vols.
1985. Relativism and tbe Social Sciences. Cambridge, Cambridge University New York, Pantheon Books.
Press. Goodwin, A. J. H. and C. van Riet Lowe. '1929. The Stone Age Cultures ofSouth
Gening, V. F. 1982. Ocl2erhi po Istorii Sovetskoy Arkheologii. Kiev, Naukova Afica. Cape Town, Annals of the South African Museum no. 27.
Dumka. Gopal, L. 1985. Foreword. In Trigger 1985b, pp. i-vi.
Geras, N. 1983. Mam and Human Nature: Refutation of a Legend. London, Gosden, C. 1985. Gifts and kin in early Iron Age Europe. Man 20: 475-93.
Verso. Goudie, A, 1976. Geography and prehistory. Journal ofHistorica1 Geography 2:
Gero, J. M. 1983. Gender bias in archaeology: a cross-cultural perspective. In The 197-205.
Socio-Politics of Arc/~aeolqv,ed. by J .M. Gcro, 1).M. Lacy and M. L. Gould, R. A. 1978. ed. Exploratrons in Ethnoarcbaeology. Albuquerque, Univer-
Blakey, pp. 51-7. Amhcrst, University of Mlssachusetts, llepartmcnt of sity of New Mexico Press.
Anthropology, Research Report no. 23. 1980. Living Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Gibbon, G. 1984. Anthropological Archaeolony. New York, Columbia University Gould, S. J. 1980. The Panda's Thumb: MoreRe$ectiom in Natural Histoty. New
Press. York, Norton.
Gill, D. W. J. 1987. Metru.Menecc: an Etruscan painted inscription on a mid- 1981. The Mismeasure ofMan. New York, Norton.
5th-century BC red-figure cup froni Populonia. Axtiquity 61: 82-7. Gradmann, R. 1906. Beziehung zwischen Pflanzengeographie und Siedlungs-
Gillispie, C. C. 1951. Genesis and Gcoltq-y:A Study in the Relations of Scientific geschichte. GeographiscbeZeiachij21z; 305-25.
Tlgou&t, NatuvaL Theology, and Social Opinion in Great Britain, 1790-18~0. Graham, L. R. 1967. The Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Communist Party,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Hanrard University Press. 1927-1932. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Gilrnan, A. 1984. Explaining the Upper Palaeolithic revolution. 111M. Spriggs, Graham-Campbell, J. and D. Kidd. 1980. The Vikinas. London, British Museum
pp. 115-26. Publications.
Gjessing, G. 1968. The social responsibility of the social scientist. Cuwent Grant, G. 1965. Lament for a Nation: The Defcat of Canadian Nationalism.
Anthropolom 9: 397-402. Toronto, McClelland and Stewart.
Glacken, C. J. 1967. Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Grant, M. 1916. The Parring of the Great Race; or, the Racial Basis of European
TlgoughtJi.omAncient Times to the End of the Eghteenth Century. Berkeley Histoy. New York, Scribner's.
and Los Angeles, University of California Press. Graslund, B. 1974. Relati]' Dat-: Om Kronologisk Metod i Nordisk Arkeologi.
Gladwin, W. and H. S. Gladsvin. 1930.A Methodfor tl~eDes&;zation ofbouthwes- Uppsala, Tor no. 16.
tern Pottery Types. Globe, Medallion Papers no. 7. I976 Relative chronology: dating methods in Scandinavian archaeology.
1934.A Mcthodfar Ucsip?zatiorzof Cultures and their Vnriations. Globe, Medal- NonveDian Archaeological Review 9:, 69-126.
lion Papers no. 15. 1981. The background t o C. J. Thomsen's Three-Age system. In G. Daniel,
Glass, H. B., 0.Ternkin, and W. L. Straus Jr. 1959. eds. Formunnerz ofDanvin, 198lb, pp. 45-50.
174s-1819. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. 1987. The Birth ofPrehistoric Chronology.Cambridge, Cambridge University
Glassie, H. H. 1975. Folk Housi;~in Middle Viginia: A Strztctural Analysis of Press.
Historic Artifacts. Knos\.ille, University of Tennessee Press.
 Grayson, D. I<. 1983. T/ye Estaltlishwlent of Human Antiquity. New York, York, AnthropologicCll Papers o f the American Museum o f Natural
Academic Press. H~story,no. 22, pt. 5 .
1986. Eoliths, archaeological ambiguity, and the generation of 'middle- Harris, M. 1968. TheRtse ofAnthropological Theory. New York, Crowell.
range' rcscarch. In D. J. Mcltzcr ct al., pp. 77-133. 1974. CUV~S, Plgs, Wars and Witches. New York, Random House.
Green, E. L. 1984. cd. Ethics auld Values in ArcJ~aeolog~~. New York, Free 1977. Cannzbals and Iczngs: The Orgins of Cultures. New York, Random
Press. House.
Green, S. 1981.Prehistorian: A Biography of V . Goldon Childe. Bradford-on-Avon, 1979. Cultural Materzaltsm: The Strujgle for a Sctence of Culture. New York,
Moonraker Prcss. Randoin House.
Green, S. W. and S . M. Perl~n'ln, 1985. eds. T/3c A1~~hae0logy of' Frontiers nnd 1981.Amcrtca N ~ J ITheAnthropology
J: ofa Changzng Culture. New York, Simon
Boundaries. New York, Academic Press. and Schuster.
Greene, J. C. 1959. TheUcath ofAdam. Ames, Iowa State University Press. Harrison;R. J. 1980. The Beaker Folk: CopperAge Archaeology zn Western Europe.
Griffin, J. B. 1980. The Mcsoamcrica~l-so~~tI~e,~stcrn U.S. connection. Early Lol~don,Thames and Hudson.
Man ~ ( 3 )12-18.
: I-I.ISSI~,R 1985. Tradc, Trl[nttc, and Trnnsportntton: T l ~ cSrxtccnt/~-Centuv
Grubcr, J . W. 1965. Brisham Cave and the .~nricluityof m.ln. In Context and l'olzttcal Econonzy oj't/,c Vallcy oj'Mcxico. Norman, Univcrslty of O k l , ~ I i o m ~ ~
Meaning in Cultural Anthropolog?l, ed. by M. E. Spiro, pp. 373-402. New Press
York, Frcc Prcss. Haven, S. 1856. Arcl~aeoloJyof the United States. Washington, Smithsonian
Guest, E. 1883. Origines Celticae (a Fragment). London, Macmillan. Contr~butioilsto Knowledge, no. 8(2);
Guidi, A. 1988. Storia della Paletnologia. Rome, Editori Laterza. 1864. Report of the librarian. Proceedzngs of the Amerzcan Antiquarian Society,
Haber, F. C. 1959. The Age of the World: Moses to Dnnvin. Baltimore, Johns April 1864: 3-52,
Hopkins University Press. Haverfield, F. J. 1912. The Romanizatzon of Roman Brztain. 2nd edn. Oxford,
IH.~bcrmas,J. 1971.I\In011~1c~qc and Hziurinlr Illtrrc~-t.<.
lioston, Beacon l'rcss. Ovford Univers~t)rPress.
1975. Lc_~itinintio71
C,'ri~.isi\.Boston, 13cacon l'rcss. H ~ w k e s C.
, 1954 Archeological theor)r and mcthod: some s u g g c s t ~ o ~from
ls
Hall, M. 1984. The burclcn of tribalism: the social context of southern African the Old World. Amerzcan Anthropologist $6: 155-68.
Iron Age studies. Anzcvica~rA~rtiqziig49: 455-67. Hawkes, J. 1963 ed. The World of the Part. 2 vols. New York, Kl~opf.
HnII, li. I,. 1979. I n sc.irch of the ideology of the Adc11.1-Hopc\\~ll climax. In 1968. The proper study of ~nankind.Antiquzty 42: 255-62.
Hopc~~~cll Arrl~arol(~~11: T/IC(,'/~zl~rcor/~c
C:ot!fh'~i~cc, . I). S. lirosc 'lnd N.
e ~ iby 1982..Mortzrncr Wheeler:Adventurer m Are/yaeology. London, Wc~dcnfcldand
Grcbcr, pp. 258-65. Kent, Kent State University l'rcss. N~colson.
Hall, R . N. 1909. Prchzstosic Rhodesia. London, Unwin. Hayden, B. 1979. ed. Lzthzc Use-WearAnalysls. New York, Academic Press.
Hall, R. N. and W. G. Neal. 1902. The Ancient Ruins of Rhodesia. London, Hayden, B. and A. Cannon. 1984. The Structure of Material Systems: Ethno-
Methuen. archaeology zn the Maya Highlands. Washington, Society for American
Hallo\vell, A. I. 1960. The beginnings of anthropology in America. In Selected Archaeology, Paper no. 3.
Papc7,s from the Antcricalz Antlwopologist 1880-1920. ed. by F. de Laguna, , F. 1959.ed. The Archaeologist at Work:A Source Book zn Archaeolo@cal
H e ~ z e r R.
pp. 1-90. Evanston, Row, Peterson and Company. Method and Interpretation. New York, Harper and Row.
Hamell, G. 1983. Trading in metaphors: the magic of beads. In Procecdirgs of 196za. ed. Man's Discovery of his Past: Lzterary Landmarks in Archaeology.
the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Coizfe+encc, ed. by C. F. Hayes, 111, pp. 5-28, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.
Rochester, Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research Records no. 1962b. The background of Thon~sen's Three-Age system. Technology and
16. Culture 3: 259-66. I

Hammond, N. 1977. ed. ~ocial~~rocess in Maya Prehistory. New York, Academic Hellmich, M. 1923. Dze Besczdlung Schlesiens in vor- undfi.uhgesehichtlicherZezt.
Press. Breslau, Preuss und Junger.
1y83 Lords of the jungle: a prosopogr.1phy of Maya .~rchacology. In Cillili- Hempel, C. G. 1962. Deductive-non~olog~cal vs. statistical explanation. In
znti07i in the Ancient Americas, ed. by R. M. Levcnthal nild A. L. Kolata, Sczentzfic Explanatzon, Space, and Tzme, ed. by H . F e ~ g land G. Maxwell,
pp. 3-32. Albuquerque, University o f New Mexico Press. pp. 98-169. Minneapolis, Un~versityo f M~nnesotaPress.
I-lampson, N. 1982. T j ~ Etzligbtenment.
e Harmondsworth, Penguin. 1965.Aspects of SctentzficExplanatzon. New York, Free Press.
Hanbury-Tenison, J. 1986. Hegel in prehistory. Antiquity 60: 108-14. 1966. PhzloJophy of Natural Sczence. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.
I Iankc, I,. 1959.A~.i.rtutlcnird t/lc Anrcrirnn Iildialrs. C h i c ~ g o licgncry.
, Hesse, M. B 1974 The Structure ofSnentiJic Inference. New York, Macmillan.
Harrington. M. I<. 192.4. A n A~rcicntVi1laLqcSite r f t l ~ eSbinnccoclz Indians. New
 References

Hewett, E. L. 1906. Antiquities oj-theJemcz Plateau, New Mexico. Washington, Hodder, I. and C. Orton. 1976. Spatial Analysis i n Archaeology. Cambridge,
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin no. 32. Cambridge University Press.
Hexter, J. H . 1979. O n Historiavu. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard Univer- Hodgen, M. T . 1964. Early Anthropology i n the Sixteenth and Scvcntccnth Cun-
sity Press. turies. Philadelphia, University o f Pennsylvania Press.
Hcyden, D. 1981. Caves, gods, and myths: world-view and pl.unning in Teotihua- Hodson, F. R., D. G. Kendall, and P. Tautu. 1971. eds. Mathcmatiu in the
can. 111Me-oa~~rericatr Sitcs and Wo?'ld-ViCll~~, cd. by E. 1'. k n s o n , pp. 1-39. Archaeological and Historzcal Sciences. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University
Washington, ll~lnlbartonO'iks. Press.
I-liggs, E. S. 1972. cd. l'apct~ in Erutlovrric l'rcl~i.~tov~~. C:,imbricigc, C:.lmbridgc Hocbcl, E. A. 1949.M a n tn the I'nmitive world. Ncw York, McGraw-Hill.
University Prcss. Hoffman, M. A. 1974. The rise of antiquarianism in Japan and Western Europe.
1975.cd. Pnlacoccorrovry. Cambridge, C.inibridgc Uni\.ersity Prcss. Arcttc Anthropology XI,supplement: 182-8.
Hill. J. N. 1970. B~pobc~r I< Ptteblo: 1'1~~11isto;~i~
Social O~qanicationin t11e American Hogarth, A. C. 1972. Common sense In archaeology. Antiquity 46: 301-4.
South~i~est.Tucson, University of Arizona Prcss. Hogarth, D. G. 1899. ed. Authortty and Archaeology, Sacred and Profane.
Hindess, B. and P. Q. Hirst. 1975. Pre-Capitalist Modcs ofProduction. London, London, John Murray.
Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hole, F. and R. F. Heizer. 1969. A n Introduction to PrehirtoricArchneology. 2nd
Hinslcy, C. M. Jr. 1981. Salla~esand Scientists: T/3cS~nithsonia~z Institution and the edn. New York, Holt, R~nehartand Winston.
Ue17elopmcntof Amcsicavt Anthropolo~q?~ 1846-1910, Washington, Snlithsonian Holmes, W. H . 1903. Aboriginal pottery of the eastern United States. Wash-
Institution Press. lngton, Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, Annual Report 20: 1-237.
1985. From shcll-heaps to stelae: early anthropology at the Pcabody Museum. 1914. Areas ofAmerican culture characterization tentatively outlined as an aid
In Objects and Otl?cl*s:Essays on Muscums and Matevial Culture (History of In the study of the antiquities. American Anthropologist 16: 413-46.
Anthropology, 3), ed. by G. W. S t o c k i ~ ~Jr, g pp. 49-74. Madison, Univer- Honigmann, J. J. 1976. The Development @Anthropological Ideas. Homewood,
sity of Wisconsin I'rcss. Dorscy.
Ilobsbawm, E. IS)()+.c ~ i .lini,l hlar~s, I'i.r-(;n/~itnlist Erotroturir Fonwntioirs. Hood, D. 1964. l)al,idso;t Black: A UioLqraphy.Toronto, Univcrsity of Torollto
I,ondon, I..~\vrcncc,uici WisI1.u-t. Prcas.
Hodder, I. 1978. ed. Simulation Studies in Arc/laeolciy. Ca~l~bridgc, Cambridge Hooton, E. A. 1938.Apes, Men, andMorons. London, Allen and Unwin.
University Press. Horsnian, R. 1975. Sc~ent~fic racism and the American Indian in the mid-
1981. Society, economy and culture: ,in c t l ~ n o g r ~ ~ pcase
l ~ i cstudy amongst the nineteenth century. Amerzcan Quarterly 27: 152-68.
1,ozi. In Pclttcrlr c f t / ~ cPast: Strtdics i~rHorlolrl of'l)alid Chri9c,cd. by I. 1981 Race and ManzjZst Destzny. The Origins of American Rncial Andlo-
Hocicicr, G. Isa*ic, and N. H.i~nmonci, pp. 67-95. C.umbridgc, Cambridge Saxonzsm. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
University Prcss. Howe, J. E. 1976. Pre-agricultural society in Soviet theory and method. Arctic
1982a. T/]e Present Past: Aw I?rtroductio~rto A?rt/lropo/c~~ foirrA?~c/laeolrgirts. Anthropology 13: 84-115.
London, Batsford. 1980.The S o v ~ eTheories
t of Primitive History: Forty Years of Speculation on
1982b.Symbols in Action: Ethtzoavc/~ncolo~ical Studics oJiZlateria1 Cultu1,c. Ca1.11- the Orlgins and Evolution of People and Society. Seattle, PhD thesia,
bridge, Cambridge University Prcss. University of Wash~ngton.
1982~.ed. Sy~nbolicand Stvuctuvnl Ai~cl~ncolo~qy. Cambricigc, Cnn~bridgcUni- Hudson, I<. 1981.A Soctal Histoty oftlrchaeology: The British Experience. London,
versity Press. Macm~llan.
1982d. Sequellces of structural change in the Dutch Neolithic. In I. Hodcter Hunt, E. 1972. Irrigation and the soc~o-politicalorganization o f Cuicatcc caci-
1982c, pp. 162-77. cazgos. In The Prehzstory of the Tehuacan Valley, vol. 4, Chronology and
1g84a. Burials, houses, women 'ind mcli in the European Ncolitllic. I n 1). Irngatton, cd. by F . Johnson, pp. 162-259. Aust~n,University of Tcxas
Miller and C. Tillcy, pp. 51-68. \ Press.
1984b. Archaeology in 1984. Antiquity 58: 25-32. \ H u n t e r , M. 1975.John Aubrey and the Realm ofleavntng. London, Duckworth.
1985. Postprocess~~al archaeology. Advatices in Archneolcqical Method and Huntington, R. and P. Metcalf. 1979. Celebrattons ofDeath. Cambridge, Cam-
Tlgeoy 8: 1-26, b r ~ d g eUniversltp Press.
1986. Readin8 the Past: C u m n t Approaches to Irrtc~.preratiourin Arcl~neolu~~y. Hutch~nson,H. G. 1914.LEfe ofStr John Lubbock, LordAvebuty. z vols. London,
Cambridge, C~mbridgeUniversity Press. Macm~llan.
1987.ed. A1,chaeoloJ~las Lon-q-term his to^. Cambricige, C.lmbridge University Huxlep, T . H . 1896.Man's Place in Nature and OtherAnthropological Essays. New
Press. York, Appleton and Company.
 References References

Ihering, H. van. 1895.A civilisacio prehistorica do Brasil meridional. SBo Paulo, Kellejr, J. H. and M. P.Hanen, 1988. ~rchaeolohand the Methodology ofscience.
Revista do Museu Paulista I: 34-159. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press.
Ikawa-Smith, F. 1982. Co-traditions in Japanese archaeology. WwldArchaeology Kcndall, D. G. 1969. Some problems and methods in statistical archaeology.
13: 296-309. Wovld Archaeology I: 68-76.
Ingersoll, I)., J. Yellcn, and W. Macdonald. 1977. cds. ExpcrimentalArcl~acol~~~. 1971.Seriation frorii abundance matrices. In F. R. Hodson, D. G. Kendall,
New York, Columbia University Press. and P. Tiutu, pp. 215-52.
Irvine, W. 1955. Apes, Ait~cls,arrd Victortarrs. New York, McCraw-Hill. I<cndr~ck,T.D. 1950. UritisLAntiqui[~.London, Mcthucn.
Isaac, G. L, 1 ~ 8 4The
. archaeology of human origins: studies of the Lower Kennedy, B. 1981.Mamage l'qttem in an Archaic l'opulation: A Study of Skeletal
Pleistocene in East Africa 1971-1981. In Advances in World Archaeology, ed. Remainsporn Port au Chorjc, Newfoundland. Ottawa, Archaeological Survey
by F . We~idorfand A. Close, pp. 1-87. Ncvv York. Academic I'rcss. of C.ul.lcia, Mercury Scr~csno. 104.
Isaac, R. 1982. TIgc Trn~rSfO~w~atio~z
of Vir~iviia,1740--179o.Chapel Hill, University Kent, S 1984.Aaalyzzi<qActivity Arem: A n Ethnoarchaeol~qicalStudy of the Use of
of North Carolina Press. Spncc. Albuquerque: University of New Mesico Press.
Isaacs, J. 1980. ed. Australian Dreaming: ;co,ooo Years of Aboriginal History. Kenyon, J. 1'. 1983. The History Men. I,ondon, Wcidenfcld and Nicolson.
Sydney, Lansdownc I'rcss. Kcur, 11. L. I ~ + IBQJ
. Ucnd Mesa. Memoir (Mcnasha, Wisconsin, Society for
Jacobson, J. 1979. Recent developments in South Asian prehistory and protohis- American Archaeology) I.
tory. Annual Revie~voJ.Antbropolog?l 8: 467-502. Kidder, A. V. I 924. A n Zntroductioiz to the Study ufSouth~~~estevn
Arcl3aeolom. New
Jaenen, C. 1976. Friend and Foe: Aspects ofFrench-AmerindianCultural Contact in Haven, Papers of the Southwestern Expedition, Phillips Academy, no. I.
the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Toronto, McClelland and Stewart. 1935. Year Book, no. 34. Washington, Carnegie Foundation.
Jairazbhoy, R. A. 1974, 1976. The Old World Origins ofAmerican Civilization. 2 1962. A n Introduction to the Study of Southu~esternArcl~aeology,with an Intro-
vols. Totaxva, Rowman and Littlefield. duction, 'SouthulesternArchaeology Today,' by Inping Rouse. New Haven, Yale
Jarman, M. R., G. N. Bailey, and H. N. Jarman. 1982. cds. Early European University Press.
AgYiculture: Its Foundations and Development. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni- Killan, G. 1983. David Byle: From Artisan to Archaeologist. Toronto, University
versity Press. of Toronto Press.
Jennings, J. D. 1979. ed. The Prehistory of Polynesia. Cambridge, Massachusetts, ~itclien,I<. A. 1982. Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times ofRamesses II.
Harvard University Press. Mississauga: Benben Publications.
Jochim, M. A. 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predictive Ki-Zcrbo, J. 1981.e d General Histoy of Ahca, vol. I , Methodology and Ahcan
Model. New York, Academic Press. Prehistory. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press.
Johnson, G. A. 1978. Infomiation sources and the development of decision- Iile~n.R. G. 1966. Clicllean and Achculean on the territonr of the Soviet Union:
making organizations. In Social Archeolo~y,ed. by C. L. Redman et al., a critical review of the evidence as presented in the literature. American
pp. 87-112. New York, Academic Press. A?zthropologi~t 68(2), pt. 2: 1-45.
1981. Monitoring complex system integration and boundaqr phenomena with Kle~nd~enst, M. R. and P. J. Watson. 1956. 'Action archaeology': the archaeo-
settlement size data. In Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Complexity, logical inventory of a living community. Anthropolom Tomorrow 5: 75-8.
ed. by S. E. van drr Leeuw, pp. 143-88. Amsterdam, Van Giffen Institute. Klcjn, L. S. 1969. Characteristic methods in the current critique of Marxism in
Johnson, S. 1970.Johnson'sJourny to the WesternIslandr ofscotland, ed. bp R. W. archeology. Soviet Anthropoloh andArcheology 7(4): 41-53.
Chapnian. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 1970. Archaeology in Britain: a Marxist view. Antiquity 44: 296-303.
Jones, H. M. 1964. 0 Strange New World: American Culture, The Formative 1 9 7 3 Marxism,
~ the systemic approach, and archaeology. In Renfrew 1973b,
Years. New York, Viking Press. pp. 691-710.
Jones, R. 1979. The fifth sontinent: problems concerning the human coloni- 1973b. On major aspects of the interrelationship of archaeology and ethno-
zation of Australia. Annual Review ofAnthropolqgy 8: 445-66. logy. CuwentAntl~ropology14: 311-20.
Kaiser, W. 1957. Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur. Archaeologia 1974. Kossinna im Abstand von vierzig Jahren. Jahresschrrfrfur mitteldeutsche
Geogvaphica 6: 69-77. Vorgeschichte 58: 7-55.
Kamenetsky, I. S., B. I. Marshak, and Ya. A. Sher. 1975. Analiz Arkheologi- 1977. A panorama of theoretical archaeology. CurrentAnthropology18: 1-42.
cheskikh Zstochnikov. Leningrad, Nauka. 1982. Archaeological Typology. Oxford, BAR, International Series, no. 153.
Kaplan, A. 1964.. Tbe Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco, Chandler. Klemm, G. F. 1843-52. Albemeine Cultur-Geschichte der Memchheit. 10 vols.
Keen, B. 1971.TheAztec Ima-qe in Westcrn Tbottql3t. New Brunswiclz, New Jerse~r, I,e~pzig,Teubner.
Ii~~tga-sU~iinivcrsityFrcss. 1854-55. Al[qcmcine Kultunvissenscl~ajt.Leipzig, J. A. Roniberg.
 References , References

Klindt-Jensen, 0. 1975.A History ofscandinavianArchaeolagy. London, Thames 1952.The Nature ofCulture. Chicago, University of rhicago Press.
and Hudson. Kroeber, A. L. and C. Kluckhohn. 1952. qrlture -A Critical Rmiew of Concepts
1976. The influence of ethnography on early Scandinavian archaeolog~r.In andDeJinitions. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University, Papers of
J. V. S. Mcgaw, pp. 43-8. the I'cabodp Muscum of America11Archacdlogy and Ethnology no. 47.
Kluckhohn, C. 1940. The conccptiial structure in Micldle American studies. In Kroker, A. 1984. Technolo~qyand the Canadian Mind: 1n;~islMcLuhanltirant.
The Maya and their Neighbors, ed. by C. I,. Hay et al., pp. 41-51, .New York, Montreal, New World Perspectives.
Appleton-Century. Kruglo\,, A. P. and G. V. Podgayetsky. 1935.Rodovoe O~sbchest~~o Stepei Vostochnoi
Kohl, P. L. 1978. The balance of trade in southwestern Asia in the mid-third Ewopy. Leningrad, Izvestiia GAIMK no. 119.
millennium B. C. CurventAnthropology 19: 463-92. Kubler, G . 1962. The Shape ofrime: Remarkr on the Hirtory ofThings. New Haven.
1979.The 'world economy' of West Asia in the third n~illennium8.c. In South Yale Univcrsit)r l'ress.
Asian Archaeology I ~ T ,ed. by M. Taddei, vol. I, pp. 55-85. Naples, Istituto Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure ofScientiJicRevolutions. Chicago, Uni\rersity of
Universitario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici. Chicago Press.
rg81a. The Bronze Age Civilization of Central Asia: Recent Soviet Discoveries. 1970. The Structure ofScient$c Rcl~olutions.~ 2nd cdn. Chic.lgo, University of
Armonk, New York, Sharpc. Chicago Press.
ry81b.Materialist approaches in prehistory. Arrrcual Revietv ($At~thropoL~q~ 10: Kuppcrnman, K.0. 1980. Settliny ~r>itl~ Z ~ J C Indiatrs: Thc Mettin-q ofErtqlisb and
89-118. Indian Cultures in America, I$%-1640. Totowa, New Jersey, Rowrnan and
1984. Force, history and the evolutionist paradigm. In M. Spriggs, pp. 127-34. Littlefield.
1987. The ancient economy, transferable technologies, and the Bronze Age Kus, S . 1984. The spirit and its burden: archaeology and symbolic activity. In M.
world system: a view from the northwestern frontier of the ancient Near Spriggs, pp. 101-7.
East. In Centre and Periphety in the Ancient World, ed. by M. J. Rowlands Lal, M. 1984. Settlement History and Rise of Civilizationin Ganga-Tamuna Doab.
and M. T. Larsen, pp. 13-24. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Delhi, B.R. Publishing.
Kohn, H. 1960. TheMind of Germany. New York, Scribner's. Lamberg-Karlovskp, C. C. 1975. Third ~illenniummodes of exchange and
Kolakowski, L. 1976. La Philosophiepositiviste. Paris, Denoel. modes of production. 111Ancient Cirilization and Trade, ed. by J .A. Sabloff
1978a. Main Currents of Marxism, vol. I, The Founders. Oxford, Oxford and C. C. Lamberg-Karlo~~sky, pp. 341-68. Albuquerque, University of
University Press. New Mexico Press.
1978b. Main Currents rfMarnisw~,r d . 2, T/JCGoldet~AJC. Oxforci, Oxford 1981.Aftcrworci. In I<ohl, 1981.1, pp. 386-97.
University Press. 1985~.The longuc durCc of the ancient Ncar East. In llc lJIndusam- 8alhans,
1978C. Main Currents of Marxism, 1.01. 3, The Breakdown. Oxford, Oxford Recueif Jean Desbayes, ed. by J.-L. Huot, M. Yon, and Y. Calvet, pp. 55-72.
University Press. Paris, Editions Recherche sur les civilisations.
Kossinna, G. 1911.Die Herkunft der Germanen. Leipzig, Kabitzsch. lgsjb. The Near Eastern 'breakout' and the Mesopotamian social contract.
Krarner, C. 1979. e d Ethnoa~chaeolog~~: Iunplicatiovis ~JEtI~aographyfir Archae- Synzbok, spring issue, 8-1 I, 23-4.
ology. New York, Columbia University Press. Laming-Emperaire, A. 1962. La Sipnification de l'art vrrpest~epaliolithique.Paris,
1982. Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in Archaeolo~icalPerspective. New Picard.
York, Academic Press. 1964. Orhines de E'archiologiepr~historiqueen France des supentitiom midiivales
"
Kristiansen, K. 1981. A social history of Danish archaeology (1805-1975). In G . d la dicouverte de l'homme fossile. Paris, Picard.
Daniel, 1981b, pp. 20-44.
- - Langford, R. F. 1983. Our heritage - your playground. A~stralianArchaeology
1984. Ideology and material culture: an archaeological perspective. In M. 16: 1-6.
Spriggs, pp. 72-roo. Larsen, C. S . 1985. ed. TheAntiqzriv and Origin ofNati~aNortbAmericans. New
1985. A short history of Dinish archaeology: an analytical perspective. In York, Garland.
Archaeological Formation Processes, ed. by K. Kristiansen, pp. 12-34. Copen- Larson, P. A. Jr. 1979. Archaeology and sciencc: sunriving the preparadigmatic
hagen, Nationalmusset. crisis. Curent Anthropology 20: 23-1.
~ r o e b e i ,A. L. 1909. The archaeology of California In Putnam Anniversary Laszlo, E. rg7za. Introduction to Systems Philosophy. New York, Gordon and
Volume:Anthropological Essays Presented to Frederic W. Putnam in Honor of Breach.
his7oth Birthday, ed. by F. Boas et al., pp. 1-42. New York, G. E. Stechert. 1072b.
*. ed. The Rcki~anceof General Systems Theory. New York, Braziller.
1916. ZuAi potsherds. New York, Anthropol~qicalPapers of the American 1972C. The System View of the World. New York, Braziller.
Mzlsculn ofNatrrra1 his to^ IS([): 7-37. Lalifer, K. 1913. Remarks. Airzcrican Avrthropolo~ist15: 573-7.
 Leach, E. R. 1973. Concluding address'. In C. Renfrew, 1973b, p p 761-71. Lowenthal, D. 1981;. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge, Cambridge
Leakey, L. S. B. 1931. The Stone A8e Cultures of ICenya Colony. Cambridge, Un~versityPress.
Cambridge University Press. Lowther, G. R. 1962. Ep~stemologpand archaeological theory. CunentAnthro-
Lc.~key,M. 1984. llisclosiriy t/3c Past. New York, lloubleday. polojy 3: 495-509.
Ixc, R. 13. and I. l>cVorc. 1968. ciis. Mnu tl~cHuiltn.. Chic.lgo, Aldinc. Lubbock, John [Lord Avcbury]. 1865. Pre-historic Tzmes, as Illustrated by Ancient
Lconc, M . 1'. 1972. cii. C.oi~tci~~/~om~y Arcl~aculo~~v.
C.lrboniialc, Southern Illinois Rcmazns, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. London,
University Press. W ~ l l ~ a and
~ n sNorgate.
1975. Vic\vs of tr.iditio11.11 .~rchacology.Rc~~icllaill Ai1t/~i,oipol~q11
2: 191-9. 1869 Prc-bzstorzc Tzmes. 2nd cdn. London, Willialns and Norgate.
1982. Sonic opinions ahout rcco\rcring mind. A~u~crican Ailtiquicv 47: 742-60. 1870. Tile Ot-tl~z12of Ct~~zlisatzonand the l-'rrmztz~~e
Condztzon oJ'Man. I,ondon,
IC)S+.1ntc1-prcti11gideology i l l 1iisto1-ic.11.~rcl~.~cology: us111gthe r ~ ~ l c01.h I,ongm.ui~,G ~ c c n .
pel-spccti\.c in the Willi.um l'.lc.l G.u-iicn in hnn.lpolis, Maryl.lnci. In 1). Lycll, C. I 863 T/ICGcolo~zcalE~~tknccs of'tl~c
Aiztzquity of Man, 1~8th
Remark on
Miller and C. Tilley, pp. 25-35, Theones of the Ortgzn of Speczes by Vartatzon. London, John Murray.
1986. Symbolic, structural, and critical archaeology. In D. J. Meltzer et al., Lvnch, B D. and T . F. Lynch. 1968. The beginn~ngsof n scientific approach t o
pp. 415-38. p ~ c h ~ s t o r.~rchacology
~c 111 17th and' 18th century Br~tain.Southwestern
Leone, M. P., P. B. Potter Jr, and P. A. Shackel. 1987. Toward a critical Journal ofAnthropolog?r24: 33-65.
archaeology. Cui.rent Anthropolo_qyy28: 283-302. McBryde, I. 1986. Australia's once and future archaeology. Archaeolo~y in
I,epp~i~ann, W. 1968. Pov~zpeiiin Fact and Fiction. London, Elek. Oceanza 21: 13-28.
1970. Wincbelman~z.New York, l<nopf. McCall, D. F. 1964.Afica an Tame-Perspective. Boston, Boston University Press.
Lepsiius, C. 11. 1880. Ntrb6cbe Grnlnnlntik, n ~ i cii~er
t Eiillcittr~~qiiber die Vulker McCall, G. 1982. ed. Anthropolo8y m Australia: Essays to Honour 50 Years of
udSpracbcn Afiika's. Berlin, Hertz. 'Manktnd'. Sydney, The A~lthropologicalSociety of New South Wales.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1968. T/IC Avt cfPrel~istoric
Mail iiz WcstcrpnEttropc. London, McCarthy, F. D. 1959. Methods and scope of Australian archaeology. Mankind
Thames and Hudson. 5 297-316.
Levi, P. 1979.l'azlsar~ias:Guide to Greecc. z vols. Harmondsworth, Penguin. McClelland, P. D 1975. Causal Explanatton and Model Buzlding in History,
Levine, P. 1986. Tljc Ainatczrr and the Professional: Avrtiyunrians, Historians and Economics, and the New Economic History. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
Arc/~neolojistsin Victovin~cErz&ind, 198-1886. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni- MacGaffey, W 1966. Concepts of race in the historiography of northeast Africa.
versity Prcss. Joztnlal ofAfizcan Hzstuiy 7: 1-17.
Levitt, J. 1979.A review of cspcrimcntal t r ~ i c e o l o g ~rcscarch
c~l in the USSII. In McGu~re,J. D. 1899. P ~ p e sand s m o k ~ n gcustoms of the American aborigines,
B. Hayden, ~ 7 p 27-38.
. based o n mater~alin the U.S. National Museum. Washington, United States
Le\vis, T . M. N. and M. ICncbcrg. 1941.The Pvehistufy of'tlle Chickamau~aBasin Nattonal Museum, Annual Report, 1897, pt. I: 351-641;.
iiz Tc~zncsscc.I<nosville, Tennessee Anthropology Papers, no. I. McGuire, R. H. 1983. Break~ngdown, cultural complexity: inequality and
Li, Chi. 1977.A n y a ~ ~ Seattle,
q. University of Washington Press. heterogene~tp.Advances in Archaeologrcal Method and Theory 6: 91-142.
Libby, W. F. 1955.Radiocai,bon Datinj. z ~ i dedn. Chicago, Universit)! of Chicago McKay, A. G. 1976. Archaeology and the creative imagination. In Symposium on
Press. New Perspecttves tn Canadtan Archaeology, ed. by A. G. McKay, pp. 227-39.
Linton, R. 1944. North American cooliing pots.~America~zAutiquity 9: 369-80. Ottawa, Royal Soclety of Canada, Symposium 15.
I,loyd, S. H. 1947. Fozdndations in the Dztst: A Stoy ofMesopotamian Exploration. MacKendrick, P. 1960. The Mute Stones Speak: The Story ofArchaeology in Italy.
Oxford, Oxford University Press (2nd edn, I,ondon, Thames and Hudson, New York, St. Martin's Press.
1981). McKern, W. C. 1937. An lippothes~sfor the Asiat~corigin of the Woodland
Long, E. 1774. The History ofJa~~aica. 3 vols. London, T. Lowndes. culture pattern. Amerzean Antiguzty 3: 138-43.
Longcicrc, W. A. 1970. Avchacolo~~_y as A$lt~~ropo~o,qy:A Case Study. Tucson, 1939.The M~dwesternTaxonomic Method as an aid to archaeological culture
University of Arizona Press. study. Amencan Antzqutty 4: 301-13.
Lord, B. 1974.The Histoly cfPaivttinj in Canada: To~vardaPeople'sAr*t.Toronto, McKus~ck,M. 1970. The Davenport Conspiracy. Iowa City, University of Iowa.
NC Press. McLennan, J. F. 1865.PramitzveMantage. Edinburgh, Adam and Charles Black.
Lorenzo, J. L. 1981.Archaeology south of the Rio Grandc. WorldArchaeolo~13: McNairn, B. 1980. Method and Theoq of V . Gordon Chzlde. Edinburgh, Edin-
190-208. burgh Unlvers~tpPress.
1984. Mexico. I n H . Clcere, 1 7 ~89-100.
. McNeill, W. H. 1986. Mythzstory and Other Essays. Chicago, University of
Ch~cagoPress.

45s
 References References

MacNeish, R. S. 1952.Iroquois Pottery Types:A Techniquefor the Study ofIroquois I<nondedge, ed. by I . Lakatos and A. Musgrave, pp. 59-89. Cambridge.
1'1cIjist01y.Ottawa, Natio~lalMUSCLIIII of G11a~i.1,B~~llctin 110. 124. Cambr~dgcUn~vcrs~ty I'rcss.
1974.licflcctions on my sc.lrch for the bcginnings of . ~ g r i c ~ ~ l tin
u rMexico.
c In M.ltos Moctc~um.~, E 19x4.Tiic templo mayor of'l'cnocht~tlan:economics and
G. R. Willcy, 1974a, pp. 205-34. ~deology.In Rztual Human Sacr$ce m Mesoamerrca, cd. by E. H. Boone,
1978. T ~ Scicncc
c qf'A~*cheology? North S c i t ~ ~ a t Massach~~setts,
c, 1)uxbui-y pp. 133-64. Wash~ngton,Dumbarton Oaks.
Press. Meacham, W. 1977. Cont~nuityand local evolution In the Neolithic of South
MacWhitc, E. 1956. 011 the interpretation ofarch.lcologic:ll c\~icicncein historical C111n.l. a non-n~~clcar ,lpp~o~icll.
C u ~ c i i t A ~ i t I l r o /18.
~ ~419-40.
~l~~~y
and sociological terms. Awzc~,icanA~itl~~,opolo_qist 58: 3-25. Meehan, E. J. 1968. Explanahova ztz Social Sczcnce; A System Paradtgm.
Malino\vski, R. 1922. Ayqonauts of the Western Pacific. New York, E. P. Dutton. Homewood, Dorsey Press.
Mallo\vs, W. 1 ~ 8 5T/~cM~yste~y
. ($'tJ~cG1,catZirnlrabwc. London, Robert Halc. Megaw, J. V. S. 1966. Australian archaeology: how far have we progressed?
Mandelbaum, M. 13. 1977. T ~ JAnato$ny
C uf Historical ICnolvledge. Baltimore, Manhznd 6: 306-12.
Johns Hopkins University Press. 1976.ed. To Illustrate the Monuments: Essays on Archaeology Presented to Stuart
Marcus, J. 19833.A synthesis of the cultural evolution ofthe Zapotec and Mistec. Piaott. London, Thames and Hudson.
In The Cloud People, ed. by K . V. Flannery and J. Marcus, pp. 355-60. New Meggers, B. J. 1955.The comlng of age o f Amer~canarcheology. 111New Interpre-
York, Academic Press. tatzons of Abortgtnal Amencan Culture Histury, ed. by M. T . Newman,
1983b. Lowland Maya archaeology at the crossroads. American Antiquity 48: pp. 116-29. Washington, Anthropological Soc~etyof Washington.
454-88. 1960. The law of cultural evolution as a practical research tool. In Essays in the
Marcuse, H. 1964. One DiwiensionalMan. London, Routledge 8: ICegan Paul. Scicnce of Culture, ed. by G. E. Dole and R. L. Carneiro, pp. 302-16. New
Marsden, B. M. 1974. The Early Barvow-Dzmers. Park Ridge, Noyes Press. York, Crowell.
1984. Pioneers of Prehistory: Leaders and Landmarks in English Archaeolo~ Meighan, C. W. 1984. Archaeology: scie~lceo r sacrilege? In E. L. Green,
(1x00-1900). Ormskirk, Hesketh. pp. 208-23.
Marshack, A. 1972. The Roots of Civilization. New York, McGraw-Hill. Me~llassoux,C. 1981.Mazdens, Meal and honey: Capttaltsm and the Donzestzc
Martin, P. S. 1971.The revolution in archaeolog)r. American Antiquity 36: 1-8. Economy. Cambr~dge,Cambridge Univers~tyPress.
Martin, P. S., C. Lloyd, and A. Spoehr. 1938. Archaeological work in the Melnander, C F. 1981. The concept of culture In European archaeological
Ackmcn-Lowry area, southwcstcrn Colorado, 1937.Chicago, FicldMus~z~rn ~ C G. llan~cl,198rb, p p loo-11.
I I ~ C I ~ I ~ L I In
of Natural History, Antl~ropologicalSeries 23: 217-301. Meltzer, D. J. 1979 Parad~grnsand the nature of change 111 Anler~canarchae-
Martin, P. S. and F. Plog. 1973. Tl~eAvchaeologyofArizona. Garden Citp, N a t u r ~ l ology. Amencan Antzquzty 44: 644-57.
History Press. 1983. The antiquity of inan and the development of Arnerlcan archaeology.
Martin, P., S., G. I. Quimby, and D. Collier. 1947. Indians Before Columbus. Advances zn Archaeologzcal Method and Theory 6 : 1-51.
Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Meltzer, D. J., D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff. 1986. eds. Amerzcnn Archaeology
Martin, P. S. and J. Rinaldo. 1y3y. Modified Basket Malcer sites, Aclzmen- Past and Future: A Celebratton of the Soczety for Amencan Archaeology
Lowrp area, southwestern Colorado, 1938. Chicago, Field Museum of I Y ~ J - I Wash~ngton,
~~J. Smlthsonian I n s t ~ t u t ~ oPress.
n
Natural History, Anthropological S e r b 23: 305-499. Meyer, E 1884-1902. Geschzchte desdlterthums. 5 vols. Stuttgart, J. G. Cotta.
Martin, R. 1977. Historical Explanation: Re-enactment and Practical Inference. M~chael,H N 1962 ed. Studzes zn SzbenanEthnogetteszs. Toronto, U~liversityof
Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Toronro Press.
Marx, K. 1906. Capital: A Cn'tique of Political Economy. New York, The Modern 1964 The A~.chaeolo~y and Gconzo~pbologyof Nortl~cr?rAsia: Sclccted Worla.
Library, Random House. Toronto, Un~vers~ty of Toronto Press.
Marx, K. and F. Engels. 1957. Qn Relgion. Moscow, Progress Publishers. Miller, D. 1980. Archaeology and development. Cuwent Anthropology 21:
1962. Selected Works in Two Volumes. Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing 709-26.
House. 1984. Modern~smand suburbla as material ideology. In D. Miller and C.
Mason, 0. T. 1895. The Orzgins oflnvention. New York, Scribner. Tllley, pp. 37-49.
1896. Influence of environment upon human industries or arts. Washington, M~ller,D. and C. T~lley.1984. eds. Ideology, Power and Prehzstory. Cambridge,
Annual Report of the Slrrithsonian Institution for 1895: 639-65. Cainbr~dgeU n ~ v e r s ~Press. ty
Masry, A. H . 1981.Traditions of archneological rcsearch i l l the Near East. World M~ller,M 0. 1956 Archaeology zn the U.S.S.R. London, Atlantic Prcss.
A~,cl~aeol(~qv13: 212-39. M~llon,l i , R. B l)tcw~tt,and G L. Cowgill. 1971. Urbanzzatzora at Teotzhua-
Mastel-man, M. 1970.Thc n.1tu1.c of .I p.lr.ldigm. I n 0'1-iticisnrrrlid thc G'rol~~tl~ of' d n , Mcxzco, vol. I, The TcotzhuacanMap.Aust~n,Un~vcrs~ty of Texas Press.
 Kcfcrcnccs

Mills, W. C. 1902. Escavations of the Adena mound. Ohio Archaeolopical and M~~fuka, I<. 1983. Dzimbahwe Life and Polities in the Golden Age, 1100-rsoo AD.
Historical Quarterby 10: 45279. Harare, Harare Publishing House.
Moberg, C.-A. 1981. From artefacts to timetables to maps (to mankind?): Mulvaney, D. J. 1969. The Prehistoly ofAustralia. London, Thames and Hudson.
regional traditions in archaeological research in Scandinavia. WorldArchae- 1981. Gum leaves on the Golden Bough: Australia's Palaeolithic survivals
0logy 13: 209-21. discovered. In J. Evans et al. pp. 52-64.
Molto. J. E. 1983. Biolopical Relationships of Souther-n Ontario Woodland Peoples: Mulvaney, D. J. and J. P. White. 1987. eds. Australians to 1788. Broadway, New
The E~lidenceof Discontinuous Cranial Motpholq~~~. Ottawa, Archaeological South Wales, Fairfax, Syme and Weldon.
Survey of Canada, Mercury Series no. 117. Murdock, G. P. 1949. Social Stvuctum. New York, Macniillan.
Mongait, A. L. 1959.A r c ~ ~ a c o irr
l ~ the
~ v U.S.S.R. Mosco\v, Foreign Languages 1959~1.
Afiica, Its Peoples and tlgcir Culture History. Ncw York, McGraw-Hill.
Publishing House. 1959b. Evolution in social organization. In Evolution and Anthropology: A
1961. Archaeolon]r in the USSR. trans. by M. W. Thompson. Harmondsworth, CentennialAppraisal,ed. by B. Meggers, pp. 126-43. Washington, Anthro-
Penguin. pological Society of Washington.
Monks. G. G. 1981. Seasonali~studies. Ad17anccsin Arcl~aeol~qical Metbod and Murdock, G. P., C. S. Ford, A. E. Hudson, R. Kennedy, L. W. Sininions, and
Theoly 4: 177-240. J. H. Whiting. 1938. Outline of CulturalMaterials. New Haven, Institute of
Montane, J. C. 1980. Marxismo y Argueolopia. Mexico, Ediciones de Cultura Human Relations.
Popular. Murray, P. 1980. Discard location: the ethnographic data. American Antiquity
Montelius, 0. 1899. Dcr Orient und Europa. Stockholm, Konigl. Akademie der 45: 490-502.
schonen Wissenschaften, Geschichte und Alterthumskunde. Murray, T. and J. P. White. 1981. Cambridge in the bush? Archaeology in
1903. Die typolopbche Metbode: Dic dlteren Z(u1turperioden im Orient und iu Australia and New Guinea. WarldArchaeology 13: 253-63.
Europa, vol. I. Stockholm, Selbstverlag. Myres, J. L. 1911. The Dawn ofHistoy. London, Williams and Norgate.
Moore, C. R. 1892. Ccrtain shell heaps of thc St. John's River, Florida, Iiithcrto 1923a. I'riinitivc man, in geological timc. In CambridaeAncientHistovy. vol. I,
unexplored. American Naturalist 26: 912-22. ed. by J. B. Bury, S. A. Cook, and F. E. Adcock, pp. 1-56. Cambridge,
Moore, J. A. and A. S. Keene. 1983. Arcl~aeul~qicnl Hammers and Theories. New Cambridge University Press.
York. Academic l'rcss. 1923b. Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures. Ibid., pp. 57-111.
Moorehead, W. K. 1909. A study of primitive c u l t ~ ~ rine Ohio. In Putrram Nagel, E. 1961. The Stmcturc of Science: Problems in the Lcqic ofscientific Expla-
A~ruivctmtyVolrr~~rc: t%.$flw1'i.rsrntcd to Fl.cdcrir bv. l'r~tirn~rr
Alrt/~ro/~ol(~licfll natroir. Ncw Yorli, I-I.~rcourt,Brace .ind World.
in Honor ofhis 70th Birtl~day,e ~ i by. F. Boas ct nl., pp. 137-50. New York, Nash, R. J . and R. G . Whitlam. 1985. Future-oriented arc1iaeolog)r. Canadian
Stechert. Journal ofArcl~aeology9: 95-108.
1910. The Stone Ape in North Amcrica. 2 vols. Boston, Houghton Mifflin. Nelson, N.C. 1916. Chronology of the Tano ruins, New Mexico. American
Moret, A. and G. Davy. 1926. Fvonz Trilic t o Ewrpirc: Social O;:qanizatiovr amovkq Arttl~ropologist18: 159--80.
Primitives and in the Ancient East. Lo~idon,Kegan Paul. Nilsso~i,S. 1868. The Primitive Inhabitants @Scandinavia. 3rd. edn, trans. by J.
Morgan, C. G. 1973 Archaeology and explanation. World Archaeolo~~ 4: Lubbock. London, Longmans, Green.
259-76. Nott, J. C. and G. K. Gliddon. 1854. Types ofMankind. Philadelphia, Lippincott,
1978. Comment on D. W. Read and S. A. LeRlanc, 'Descriptive statements, Grambo.
covering laws, and theories in archaeology'. CuwentAnthropology19: 325-6. Nzewunwa, N. 1984. Nigeria. 111H.Cleere, pp. 101-8.
Morgan, L. H. 1876. Montezuma's dinner. North American Review 122: 256-308. Oberniaier, H. 1916. El Hombre Fdsil. Madrid, Museo Nacional de Ciencias
1877. Avzcicnt Society. New York, Holt. Naturales.
Morlot, A. 1861. Gencral views 051 archaeology. Washingto~i,Annual Rcport of O'Con~ior, T. E. 1983. The Polities ofSoviet Culture, Anatolii Lunacharskii. Ann
the Smithsonian Irutitution for 1860: 284-343. Arbor, University Microfilms International Research Press.
Morris, C. and D. E. Thompson. 1985. Hulinarco Panzpn: A n Incn C i q and its Odum, E. P. 1953. Fundamentals $Ecology. Philadelphia, Saunders.
Hinterland. London, Thames and Hudson. Okladnikov, A. P. 1965. The Soviet Far East in Antiquity. Toronto, University of
Mortillet. G. de. 1897.Fornation de la nationfianfaise. Paris, Alcan. Toronto Press.
Morton, S. G. 1839. Crania Amevicana. Philadelphia, Dobson. 1970. Yakutia Befire Its Incorporation into the Russian State. Montreal, McGill-
1844. Crania Aegyptiaca. Philadelphia, Pellington. Queen's University Press.
Much, M. 1907.Die Trupspic~elurzp ooricntnlischerI<ultur irr deri ~~o~~eschichtlichen O'Laverty, J. 1857. Relative antiquity of stone and bronze weapons. Ufste~
Zeitaltern nmd- und mittel-Europas. Jena, Costenoble. Journal ofArchaeology 5 : 122-7.
 References References

Oldfield, E. 1852. Introductory address. Archaeological Journal 9: 1-6. Pearce, R. H. 1965. Savagism and Civilization: A Study of the Indian and the
Olsen, J. W. 1987. The practice of archaeolog)~in China today. Antiquity 61: American Mind. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
282--90. Pearson, M. P. 1982. Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeo-
Orme, B. 1973.Archaeolog and ethnology. In Renfrew, 1973b, pp. 481-92. logical study. In I. Hodder, 1982c, pp. 99-113.
Orton, C. 1980. Mat/~ewmticsin Arc/~aeol~qy. London, Collins. 1984. Social change, ideology and the archaeological record. In M. Spriggs,
O'Shea, J. M. 1984.Mortrca;y Vnr~lability: A HAi~c/~neok~qicnl
In~lcstiqation.New pp. 59-71.
York, Academic Press. l'earson, R. J. 1977. The social aims of Chinese archaeolog~r.Antiquity 51:
Osgood, C. B. 1951.Culture: its empirical and non-empirical character. South- 8-10.
tvestern Journal ofAnti~ropol~qv 7: toz-r+. Perry, W. J. 1923. The Children of the Sun. London, Methuen.
Owen, A. L. 1962. The Famous L)vuih: A Suvltey of Tj~recCcnturics ofEnglish 1924.The C;rulvthof Civilization. London,'Mcthuc~i.
Litcraturc on t j ~ Dnriak.
e Osford, Oxford Uni\rcrsit)r Press. Petrie, W. M. F. 1901.Diospolis Parva. London, Egypt Exploration Fund.
Owen, 0. F. 1858.The archaeology of the county of Surrey. Survey Archaeological 1904. Methods and Aims in Archaeology. London, Macmillan.
Collections I : 1-13. 1939. The Making of Egypt. London, Sheldon.
Paddayya, K. 1983. Myths about the New Archaeology. Sncculum 34: 70-104. Petrova-Averkieva, Yu. 1980. Historicism in Soviet ethnographic science. In
Pagden, A. 1982. The Fall of Natural Man. Cambridge, Cambridge University E. Gellner, pp. 19-27.
Press. Piggott, S. 1950. William Stukeley: A n Eighteenth-Centuvy Antiquavy. Oxford,
Paine, R. 1983. Israel and totemic time? Royal Anthropological Institute News 59: Oxford University Press.
19-22. 1958. Vere Gordon Childe, 1892-1957. Proceedings of the British Academy 44:
Pande, G. C. 1985. A n APproach to Indian Culture and Civilization. Varanasi, 305-12.
Monograph of the Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and 1959.Approach todrchaeology. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University
Archaeology no. 15. Press.
Parker, A. C. 1907. Exca~lationsin an Erie Indian Villacqeand Burial Site at Ripley, 1968. The Dntids. London, Thames and Hudson.
Chautauqua County,New York. Albany, New York State Museuni, Bulletin 1976. Ruins in a Landscape: Essays in Antiquarianism. Edinburgh, Edinburgh
no. 117. University Press.
1916.The origin of the Iroquois as suggested by their archaeology. American 1978.Antiquity Depicted:Aspects ofArchaeologica1Illustration. London, Thames
Anti~~~opol~qist 18: +79-507. and Hudson.
1920. The Arci~aeol~qical Histoy of New York. Albany, Ncw York State 1985. William Stukeley: A n Eiphteenth-Century Antiquavy, rev. edn. London,
Museum, Bulletins nos. 235-8. Thames and Hudson.
Parsons, J. R., E. Rrumfiel, M. H. Parsons, and 13. J. Wilson. 1982. Prehispanic Pinsky, V. 1987. Ethnography and the New Archaeology: A Critical Study of
Stttlernent Patterns in the Southern Valley of Mexico: The Chalco-Xochimilco Disciplinary Change in American Archaeology. PhD dissertation, Depart-
Region. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Memoirs of the Museum of ment of Archaeology, Cambridge University.
~ n t h r o ~ o l o gno.
y 14. Pitt-Rivers, A. H. L.-F. 1906. The Evolution ofCulture and OtherEssays. Oxford,
Parsons, T. 1968. Durkheini, Emile. Znternatiolzal Encyclopedia of the Social Oxford Universinr Press.
Sciences, ed. by D. L. Sills, vol. 4, pp. 311-20. New York, Macmillan and Plog, F. 1982. Can the centuries-long experience of the Hohokam . . . be
Free Press. ignored? Early Man 44): tl;-5.
Patrik, L. E. 1985. Is there an archaeological record? Advances in Archaeological Plog, S. 1980. Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramiu: Desbn Analysis in the
Method and Theory 8: 27-62. American Southwest. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, T. C. 19862.Thc las~sistypears: toward a social history of American- Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transfornation. New York, Farrar and Rinchart.
ist archaeology in the United States. American Anthropologist 88: 7-26. 1966. Dahomey and the Slave Trade:A n Analysis ofan Archaic Economy. Seattle,
1986b. Some postwar theoretical trends in U.S. archaeology. Culture 6: University of Washington Press.
43-54. Polanyi, K., C. M. Arensberg, and H. W. Pearson. 1957. Trade andMarket in the
Peake, H. J. E, 1922. The Bronze A_qe and the Celtic World. London, Benn. Early Empires. Glencoe, Free Press. ,
1940. The study of prehistoric times. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Poliakov, L. 1974. The Aryan Myth: A Histoty of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in
Institute 70: 103-46. Europe. New York, Basic Boolts.
Peake, H . J. E. and H. J. Fleure. 1927.The Conidors of Time, vol. 3, Peasants and Popper, K. R. 1959. The Logic of ScientificUiscovery. New York, Basic Books.
Potters. Osford, Osford University Press. 1963. Conjectures and Refirtations. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
 References
' I

Porter, R. 1977. The Making of Geolagy: Earth Science in Sritain r66c-1815. Cam- 1986. Qsar 6s-Seghir: A n Archaeological View oJMedieval Life. New York,
bridge, Cambridge University Press. Academic Press.
Posnansky, M. 1976. Archaeology as a university discipline - Ghana, 1967-71. Reid, D. 1985. Indigenous Eg)rptolog)r: the decolonization of a profession.
Proc~cdin~qs of the PanaJkicavz Cov~qressofPrchistory, pp. 329-31. Journal $the American Oriental Society 105: 233-46.
1982. African arch~cologycomcs of age. World Archncology 13:345-58 licid, J. J., W. L. Rathje, arid M. B. SchitTer. 1974. Expanding archaeology.
Prescott, W. H. 1843.History ofthc Conquest ofMcxico. New York, Harper. American Antiquity 39: 123-6.
1847.History of the Cozgzcest of Peru. New York, Harper and Brothers. Reinach, S. 1893. LeMirage oriental. Paris,'G. Masson.
Price, B. J. 1977. Shifts in production and organization: a cluster-interaction 1903. L'Art et la magic: i propos des peintures et des gravures de I ' i g du
model. Cuwent Anthropoltp 18: 209-33. renne. L'Anthropoloyie 14: 257-66.
Price, T. D. and J. A. Brown. 1985. eds. Prcbistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Renfrew, A. C. 1970. Reply. Current Anthropolcm 11: 173-4.
Eme<gence of Cultural Complexip. New York, Academic Press. 1 9 7 ~Befire
. Cil2ilizataon: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe.
Prichard, J. C. 1813.Researches into the lJhysicnlHistory ofMan. London, John and London, Cape.
Arthur Arch. 1973b. ed. The Explanation of Culture Chanp: Models in Prehistoly. London,
Priest, J. 1833.AmericanAntiquities, andUiscoverics in the West. Albany, Hoffman Duckworth.
and White. 1978. Trajectory discontinuity and morphogenesis. American Antiquity 43:
Pumpelly, R. 1908. ed. Explorations in Turkestan. 2 vols. Washington, Carnegie 203-22.
Institution. 1979. Problem in European Prehistory. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Raab, L. M. and A. C. Goodpear. 1984. Middle-range theory in archaeology: Press.
a critical review of origins and applications. American Antiquity 49: 1980. The great tradition versus the great divide: archaeology as anthropo-
255-68. logy?American Journal ofArchaeology 84: 287-98.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1922. The Andaman Islanders. Cambridge, Cambridge 1982a. Socio-economic change in ranked societies. In A. C. Kenfrew and S.
University Press. Shennan, pp. 1-8.
Raglan, F. R. R. S. 1939.How Came Civilization?London, Methuen. 1982b. Explanation revisited. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, ed. by
Ramsden, P. G. 1977. A Refinement of Some Aspects ofHuron Ceramic Analysis. A. C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, and B. A. Segraves, pp. 5-23. New York,
Ottawa, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mcrcury Series no. 63. Academic Press.
Randall-MacIver, 1).1906. Mcdiae~>al lil~oa'esin.I,onJon, Macmillln. 1982~.Tow.~rds .III Archacology of Mind (inaugural lecture). Cambridge,
Ranov, V. A. and K. S. Davis. 1979.Toward a ncw outline of the Soviet Central Carnbr~dgeUn~versityPress.
Asian Paleolithic. Cuwent Anthropooy 20: 249-70. 1984. Apprombes to Social Archaeolugy. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University
Rathje, W. L. 1974.The Garbage Project: a new way of looking at the probletns Press.
of archaeology. Archaeolog?l27: 236-41. Renfrew, A. C. and J. F. Cherry. 1986. eds. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-
1975. The last tango in Mayapin: a tentative trajectory of production- Political Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
distribution systems. In Ancient Civilization and Trade, ed. by J.A. Sabloff Renfrew, A. C. and K. L. Cooke. 1979. eds. Tran$omations: Mathematical
and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. $09-48. Albuquerque, University of Approaches to Culture Change. New York, Academic Press.
New Mexico Press. Renfrew, A. C. and S. Shennan. 1982. edS. Ranking, Resource and Exchange:
Ratzel, F. 1882-91. Anthropogeofiraphie. Stuttgart, Engelhorn. Aspects ofthe Archaeology ofEarly European Society. Cambridge, Cambridge
1896-8. The History of Mankind. trans. by A. J. Butler. 3 vols. London, University Press.
Macmillan. Ribes, R. 1966. Piices de la piriode archa'ique trouvCes vers 1700 dans la region
Ravetz, A. 1959. Notes on the work of V. Gordon Cliilde. The New Reasoner 10: de BCcancour. Cahiers d'archiolo8ie quibecoise z(1) : 22-34.
55-66. Ridgway, D. 1985 V. Gordon Childe a venticinque anni dalla morte. In Studi di
Read, D. W. and S. A. LeBlanc. 1978. Descriptive statenients, covering laws, Paletnologia in OnoredSalvatoreM. Puglisi, ed. by M. Liverani, A. Palmieri,
alld theories in archaeology. CztrrcntArzthropolo_qy19: 307-35. and R. Peroni, pp. 3-11. Rome, Universiti di Roma.
Redford, D. B. 1986. PImraonic ICin8-Lists,Awnnls arzdUa.y Bookr: A Conm'butio~ R~ndos,D. 1984. The Origins ofA@culture: A n Evolutionary Perspective. New
to the S t u 4 ?f t13c E,qvptiafi SCIISCof Histo~y.Mississauga, Beliben Publi- York, Academic Press.
cations. Ritch~c,W. A. 1944.The Pre-Iroquomir Occupatiovrsof New York State. Rochester,
Redman, C. L. 1973. e d Research and Theory in CurrentArcheol~qy.New York, Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, Memoir no. I.
Wiley. 1965. The Archaeology of Nelw York State. Garden City, Natural History Press.
 References Refere~~ccs

Ritchie, W. A. and R. E. F L I I I ~1973. . Abor@inal Settlement Patterns in the Sahl~ns,M. D. 1968. Tribesmen. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.
Nol,theast. Albany, New York State Museum and Science Service, Memoir 1976.Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
110. 20. Sahlins, M. D. and E. R. Service. 1960. eds. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor,
Rivers, W. H. R. 1914. The History ofMelanesian Society. Cambridge, Ca~iibridge Unt\~crsityof Michigall Press.
University Press. Sa~tta,11. J. 1983. The poverty of philosophy in archaeology. In J. A. Moore and
Robertshaw, P. T . 1988. Histor?,ofAfi.ican Archaeology. L o ~ i d o ~Currey.
i, A S. Keene, pp. 299-304.
Rodden, J. 1981. The dei~elopmentof the Three Age Systeni: archaeology's first Salmon, M. H. 1982. Philosophy andArchaeology. New York, Academic Press.
paradigm. In G. Daniel, 1981b, pp. 51-68. SCllmon,W. C. 1967. The Foundattonsof ScientiJicInference. Pittsburgh, Univer-
Rosen, L. 1980.The excavation of Anierican Indian burial sites: a problem of law s ~ t yof Pittsburgh Press.
and professional responsibility. American Anthropologist 82: 5-27. 1984. Sczentajic Explanation and the Causal Smucture of the Wwld. Princeton,
Rossi, P. 1985. The Dark Altyss of Time: The Histogr of the Earth and the History of Pr~ncetonUn~versityPress.
Nationsfi.om Hoolze t o Vico. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Salmo~i,W. C., R. C. Jeffrey, and J.' Greeno. 1971. Statistical w a n a t i o n and
Rouse, I. B. 1939. Prehistou3, in Haiti: A Study in Method. New Haven, Yale Statzstzcal Rdc17anCe. Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh University Press.
University l'ublications in Anthropology no. 21. Sanders, W. T., J. R. Parsons, and R. S. Santlep. 1979. The Basin of Mexico:
1953. The strategy of culture history. In Anthropology Today, ed. by A. L. Ecolo~tcall'rocesses in the Evolution of a Civilization. New York, Academic
Kroeber, pp. 57-76. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Press.
1958. The inference of migrations from anthropological evidence. In M i p a - Sanders, W. T. and B. J. Price. 1968.Mesoamerica: The Evolution ofa Civilization.
tioizs in Nclv World Cultul~History, ed. by R. H . Thompson, pp. 63-8. New York, Ra~ldomHouse.
Tucson, University of Arizona, Social Scielice Bulletin no. 27. Sanford, E. M. 1944. The study of ancient history in the middle ages. Journal of
1965. The place of 'peoples' in prehistoric research. Journal of the Royal the Hzstory ofldeas 5 : 21-43.
Ant~~l*opological Irzstitute 95: 1-15. Sansom, G. 1958. A Htstory ofJapan to 1334. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
1972.Introduction t o Prchirtoy. New York, McGraw-Hill. Saunders, P. T . 1980.A n Intvoduction to Catastrophe Theory. Cambridge, Cam-
1986. Mzgations in Prchistor?,:Zv(ewing Population Mollement jivm Culttrval bridge U n ~ v e r s ~Press.
tp
Renzniils. New Haven, Yale University Press. Saxe, A A. 1970. Soc~alD~mensionsof Mortuary Practices. P h D dissertation,
Rowe, J. H. 1965. The rcnaissancc fo~~ndations of anthropology. American Un~vcra~ty of Mich~gan.
A l l ~ / ~ ~ ~67:~ 1-20.
l O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ t Sch~lfcr,M. 11. 1976. Rcbal~toralArcheoli~~y. Ncw York, Academic Prcss.
Ro\z,lands, M. J . 1982. 1'roccssu.ll .i~-ch.lcolog!. as Iiistorical social science. In 197~-X6 cd. Advances tvr Arcbaeol?qical Method and Theory, vols. 1-9. New
T / J ~ Ufind
I~VE.vplni~ntionin Arc/~acoki~tv, cd. by A. C . licnfrew, M. J. Row- York, Acadcmic Prcss.
lands, and B. A. Scgravcs, pp. 155-74. New York, Academic Press. S c l i l ~ A.
~ , 1906. Der schnurkcramischc Kulturkreis und seine Stellung zu der
1984. Objectivity and subjectivity in archaeology. In M. Spriggs, pp. 108-13. mdcren neolith~schenKulturformen in Sudwestdeutschland. Zeitschripfur
Rudenko, S. I. 1961. TheAncient Cctlture of the Berirg Sea and the Eskimo Problem. Ethnologte 38: 312-45.
Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Schnecr, C. J 1969.ed. Toward a History of Geology. Cambridge, Massachusetts,

\
1970. Frozen Tombs of Sibena: T / J Pazjlyk ~ Burials of I?ponAae Hurscmzen. M.1 T. Press.
Berkeley, Uni\rersity of California Press. Schnc cr, L. 1967. c d The Scottish Moralists on Human Nature and Society.
Rudolph, R. C. 1963. Preli~ninarpnotes on Sung archaeology. Journal ofAsian C h ~ c , o, University of Chlcago Press.
Studies 22: 169-77. Schoficld, J. F. 1948. Prtmttz~7ePottevy:AnIntroduction toSouthAfncan Ceramia,
Sdbloff, J . A. 1981. cd. Simulations in Al,c/~neul~qj~. Albuqucrquc, U~~ivcrsity of I'rcl~tstorrc and Protobistonc. Cape Town, South African Archaeological
New Mexico I'rcss. Soc~ety,Handbook Scrics no. 3.
Sabloff, J. A,, T. W. Beare, and A. M. I<~lrlandJr. 1973. Recent devclopnie~ltsin Schr~re,C 1980. An inqu~rpinto the evolutionaqr status and apparcnt identity o f
archaeology. Annals of the Atnerican Acadcnzy of Political and Social Science San hunter-gatherers. Human Ecology 8: 9-32.
408: 103-18. 1984. ed. Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies. New York, Academic
Sabloff, J. A. and G. R. Willcy. 1967. The collapse of Maya civilization in the Press
southern lowlands: a consideration of history and process. So~thulestcrn Sclir~rc,C., J. Deacon, M. Hall, and D. Lewis-W~lliams.1986. Burkitt's mile-
Jottuznl ofA7rtl~1~0pol0,~v 23: 311-36. stone. Anttqutty 60: 123-41.
Sackett, J. R. 1981. From de Mortillet t o Bordes: a century of French Palaeolithic Schuyler, R. L. 1971.The histoqr of American archaeology: an examination o f
rescarcli. In G. lI'~niel,1g8rb, pp. 85-99. procedure. American Anttyuity 36: 383-409.
 Kcferenccs References

Schwartz, D. W. 1967. Conccptioirs ~J~I<cntrrcl<~ Pvcl~istoly:A C n s ~Study in thc Sm~th,G. E. 1923. TlleArrcicrzt Egyptians and the Oribiiz of Civilization. London,
Hisroly ofArcbcoloi. Lexington, U11i\lersi~of Kentucky Press. Harper.
1981. The foundations of northern liio Grandc archicology. Arcl~ncc~l~~qicnl r y 34. Tljc 1)~flirsio~r~!/'C~:llltitt*c.
I ~ ~ n d oWdtts.
~i,
Socic[r ~!/'Nor? Mc.viiro A~rtl~rr~/~~~l(~flicnl
1'1~/1n:r 6 : 151-7:. Sni~th,I I. 1. 1910. 'l%c l'rel~atoric Et/lljuh~q:~ of a Ke~rtttcLySite. Ncw York,
Sch\vcrin \,on I<rosigk, 14. iy82. (;ni.<tfl~l I\'os.ri~inn: 1)l.i. Nnc/~iflss-Vrl:cr~~~/~
rillci. Anthropolog1cd1 l'al>crs of the Amcriwn Museturn of Natur.11 H~storyno. 6,
Analyc. Ncumiinstcr, Karl Wacliholtz. pt. 2.
Sclig~nan,C . G. 1930.Rnccs rfAfi.irn. I,ondon, R~~ttcl.\vorth. Sm~th, 1'. E. I,. 19:h. Food I'lad~rc~iorrnild Its (,'o~ucr]~lcr~ccs. Mcnlo Park,
Semcnov, S. A. 1964. l'rcl~istoricT c r / ~ ~ r o k I,onJon,
~ ~ q : ~ . Cory, Adams and Mack.ly. Cu~iirning.\.
Scmenov, Yu. I. 1980. The theory of s o c i o - c c o i form.~tions and \vorld Smith, 1'. E. L. and T. C . Youi~gJr., 1972. The evolution of early agriculture
histor).. I n E. Gcllncr, pp. 2cjt8. .ind c ~ ~ l t u rinc Greater Mesopotamia: a trial model. In R. Sp)oncr,
Service, E. 11. 1962. I'ri~nitilv-Sozinl 07:i7nnizntioii. New York, Randon1 l i o ~ ~ s c . pp. I-$<).
1975.Oriqiirs oJ'tl~c Stntc nlrd C,'i~'ili~ntion.NCWYork, Norton. Sm~rh,S. P. 1913, 191s. 7 % Lore ~ uf tllc Wllarc Warmlrda. Wellington, The
Shanks, M. and C. Tilley. 1987. Re-Corrstrzrctii~qArcI~neol~~v: Theoly avrdPrncticc. Polynesian Society.
Cambridge, Canlbridge Uni\rersity Prcss. Sm~tli,W. S. 1958.TileA r t n ~ r d A ~ ~ c I ~ t tofA7zcieiat
c c t ~ ~ ~ eEfiypt. B~lti~llore,
Penguin.
Sliapiro, J, 1982. A Histoy u f t l ~ cCommzrnist Acndcr~ry,1918-1936. Ann Arbor, Sno\v, D. R. 1980. The A r c J ~ a c o l oofNe1.17
~ Enflland. New York, Academic Press.
University Microfil~lls,International. Sofkr, 0. 1983. Politics of the Paleol~thicin tlie USSR: a case of paradignis lost.
Sheehan, B. W. 1980. Sava,ism nnd Civiliq: Irrdinirs and Ev~q1is/lmcnin Colozrial In Thc Soeio-Politics ofArchaeology, ed. by J.M. Gero, D. M. Lacy, and M.
Vilgirzia. New York, Canlbridge Uni\rersity Press. Blakey, pp. 91-105. Amherst, Department of Anthropology, Uni\wsi+jr of
Sheehy, J. 1980. Tlgc Redisco~leyof Irelaird's Pnst: T l ~ eCeltic Rc~~iiwl, 1830-1930. Massachusetts, Research Report no. 23.
London, Thames and Hudson. 1985. T/3c Upper Palcolitlg~cof the Ccntral Russian Plain. New York, Academic
Sherrm, A. G. 1979. Problems in European prehistory. In 13. L. Clarke, Press.
pp. 193-206. Soll.is, W. J. r911, 1924. Ancicnt Hunters and thciv Modern Represetztati17es.
Shetrone, H. C. 1920. The culturc problem in Ohio archacolog?.. Arncrican London, Macniillan. 21111ed11 1924.
Arrtl~ropol~~i.rt 22: 144-72 Sorrcnson, M. P. K. 1977. The whence of the Maori: some nineteenth century
Shorr, P. 193. The genesis of prehistorical rcscarch. Isis 23: 425-45. cxcrciscs in scientific method. Jourvmnl oJ't/gcPo[yaesian Society 86: +qc)--78.
Sliotwcll, J. 'r. 1 9 9 . T/lc Histow c!fHir.tniy. Nc\\, York, (:olumbin U~li\~crsity South. S. A. 1o77.1.Mctl~odand 'I'ilcoy in Hisnrirnl Arc/~ncol(~qy. New York,
l'rcss. Acadcni~cI'rcss.
Sie\.cking, (;. 1976. Progress in economic and socill arcliacology. In l'i*oblcrns in 1977h. cd. Rcscarch Strnt~flitsiir Hzsruricnl A rcbncul~qy.New York, Academic
Economica~rdSocialArcl~acolo~v, cd. by G. Sieveking, I. H. Long\\~orth,anti Press.
K. E. Wilson, pp. sv-sx\ii. London, Di~ck\vortll. H. K. 1968. E~i\.ironnientalism.In Irttcnratronnl E?zyclopcdia of tile
Silberman, N. A. 1982. L)i&qi~gjbrGod n?~dC o n ~ r tNew ~ ~ . York, Knopf. Socrnl Scterrces, ed. by 13. L. Sills, vol. 5, pp. 93-7. New York, Maemillan and
1988. Benveerz tlgc Past and the Prescnt: Arc/~ncolopy,I d c o l g ~atrd
, Nationnlism in
thc Muderiz Ncar Emt. New York, Holt, liinehart and Winston. A. C. 1946. Northeastern archaeology and general trends in the
Silverberg. R. 1968.Mound Bztildcrs ufArzcicwt Amcricn. Greenwich, New York forest zone. In M a n rn Northeastern North America, ed. by F.
Graphic Society. pp. 143-67. Andover, Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Arch.~e-
Skinner, H. 11. 1921.C i ~ l t ~ areas
~ r c in NC\VZealand. Jortriinl u f t h Po[:Yircsia?r
Soci't~l ;o: 71-8. I()(;. Statistical tccli~iiqucslbr' the 'cliscovcry ol'.lrtiLict t y p . A I / ~ ~ I . ~A/l[i-
CIIII
Sklenii-, K. 1983. Arcl~acul~iv in C;c~rtralEurupc: T/ICFirst .coo Ycnrs. Lciccstcr, ~ N Z < Y18: 305-13.
Leicester University Pess. 1960. The dimensions of archaeology. In Essays in thc Scic~zceof Cultztrc ivr
Slobodin, R. 1978. W. H. R . Riven. New York, Columbia Uni\.ersity Press. Honor of Leslie A. White, ed. by G. E. Dole and R. L. Cameiro, pp. 437-56.
Slotkin, J. S. 1965. e d Readifus iir Enr[~Antl~ropol~gy. New York, Viking Fund New York, Crowcll.
Publications in Anthropology no. 40. 1968.Esplan.~tionin archeology. 111S. R. Rinford arid L. R. Binford, pp. 33-9.
Smart, J. J . C. 1963. Philosopl~yn7rd Sciczttijic Rcnlisi~r. London, Routledge & Speiicer, W. B. 1901. Gziide to t l ~ eAusrraliavr Ethnoflraphicnl
- - Collectio?r in the
Kegan Paul. Natioizal Muscum of Vrctona. Melbourne, Go\~ernmentPrinter.
Snlith, B. D. 1978 ed. Mississippinn Scttlemcizt Pnttcrns. New York, Academic Spencer, W. B. and F. J. Gillen. 1899. The Native Tribes of Central Anstralia.
Prcss. I'ondon, Maemillan.
 Keferences

Sperber, 13. 1985O~Ant~~ropo1ogicnl~<nun,1c4~c. Cambridge, Cainbridge Uni\'er- Stoneman, R. 1987. Land @Lost Goh: The Search fir Classical Greece. Norman,
sity Press. University of Oklahoma Prcss.
Spier, L. 1917.An O~rtlirrcfbra C11ro1rolutq1~ qf.Zz11ii Rzrilrs. Net\, York. Antliro- Street, R. V. 1975. The Savage in Literature: Reprezentations ofPrimitive' Society in
pological Piipcrs of the America11 Muscum of Natural Ilistory no. 18. Etglrsh Fzctiun, 18~8-1920. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
pt. 3. Strong, W. D. 1935.An Introduction to Nebraska Archeology. Washington, Smith-
Spinden, H . J. 1928. Arlcicnt Cil7ilizntions ofMc.vico rind Cnrti*nlA~ncricn.Nc\v sonian Miscellaneous Collections no. 93 (lo).
York, American Muscum of N a t ~ ~ rHistory, al Nilndhook Scrirs 110. 1. 1936.Anthropological theory and archaeological fact. In Essays inAnthropology
Spooner, 13. 1972. cd. Poptrlntioir G'I.uII~~/J: A~rtbvopol(~flicn1 Oriplicntrons. C.lm- Presented to A. L. Kroeber, ed. by R. H. Lowie, pp. 3 5 ~ 7 0 .Berkeley,
bridge, Massachusetts, M.I.T. Press. University of California Prcss.
Slxiggs.
. - -
M. 1984.1. cci. Mn~:vi.ttl'r~s/)ccti~~t-.t 111 A I . L ~ / J ~ ~ /C.umhridgc,
I!I(s. <:.un- Struc\,cr, S. 1968. I'roblcms, methods and organization: a disparity in the
hridgc University l'rcss. growth of archeology. In Ant\~ropo~ogrcal Archeology irr the Americas, ed. by
1984b Another \bray of tclli~ig:Marsist pcrspccti\.cs in archacolog!~. In M. B. J. Meggers, pp. 131-51. Washington, Anthropological Society of Wash-
Stiriggs, 1984a, pp, 1-9. ington.
Squier, E. G. and E. H. Davis. 1848. Ancicizt Moirz~rnc?~ ts oj'tl~cMississippi Vnllcv. Sutton, 1). G. 1985. Thc whence of the Moriori. New Zealand Journal of History
Washington, Smithsoninn Colltributioils to I<nowlcdgc no. I.
19: 3-13,
Stanton, W. 1960. Thc LcoparrZ-'sSpots:Scic?ztiJicAttitz~dcs tto~~~at-d Rncc in Arncricn, Swayze, N. 1960. Thc Man Hunters. Toronto, Clarke, Irwin.
181s-$9. Chicago, University of Chicago l'ress.
Tallgren, A. M. 1936. Archaeological studies i'n Soviet Russia. EurasiaSeptentrio-
Steiger, W. L. 1971.Analytical arcl~aeology?Mankind 8: 67-70. nalisAntiqua lo: 129-70.
Stepan, N. 1982. Thc Idcn of Rncc in SC~EIZCC: Grcat Britnin ~bo-1900. Hamdcn, 1937. The method of prehistoric archaeolo&. Antiquity 11: 152-61.
Connecticut, Archon Books. Tanaka, M. 1984. Japan. In H. Cleere, pp. 82-8.
Sterud, E. L. 1973.A paradigmatic view of prehistory. In A. C. Renfrc\\., 197;b, Tansley, A. G. 1935.The use and abuse of vegetation concepts and terms. Ecology
pp. 3-17. 16: 284-307.
1978. Changing aims of Americanist archaeology: a citations analysis of Tardits, C. 1981. ed. Contribution dc la recherche ethnologique d lJhistoire des
Anzcrican A ntiqztic 1946-1975. A irrci-icnnA ntiqr~io 4 , :.. 29+-302.
ci~iilisntzotrsdu Cameroun. 2 VOIS.Paris, Editions du CNRS.
Steward, J. N.19371.A~rric~zt Cai~csu / ' ~ / J c (;rmt Snlt I,n/:r licpicnr. Waslii~lgto~~, T.is, T. G. 1975. E. Ccorgc Scluicr and thc mounds, 1845-1850. In Toward a
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin no. 116. Scic~rccof Man: Essays irr t / ~ cHistcwy of Anthropology, cd. by T. H. H.
1937h.Ecological aspects of so~~tIi\\~cstcrn society. AI~~~II.II/I(J.,~,,-
1 : 87-104.
Thorcscn, pp. 99-124. The Hague, Mouton.
1953. E\.olution and process. In Antl~ropol(<q1~ Todny. cd. by A. I,. KI-ochcr, Taylor, S. 1982. Zimbabwe ruin row splits department. The Times, August 21.
pp. 313-26. Chicago, University of Chicago Prcss. Taylor, W. W. 1948. A Study of Archeolpgy. Memoir (Menasha, Wisconsin,
1955. Tlgcory of Cu1tzrr.- Change. Urbana, Uni\.ersity of Illinois Press.
Steward, J. H. and F. M. Setzler. 1938 Functio~land contig~iri~tion in archac-
ology. Anzcricnn Antiquit?, 4: 4-10.
Stocking, G. W. Jr. 1968. Racc, Cultnrc, nnd El~ulzttion:Essays in tC~cHzsto~yq'
Antijt,opoloL~.New York, Free Press. new skins: a contemporary parable. In M. P. Leone,
1973. From chronolog to ethnology: James Co\\rles Prichard and British \
p p 28-33.
anthropology 1800-1850. In J. C , l'richard, Rcscavcl~c~ into tl~cPh~rsicnl
Testart, A. 1982,. Les cl~asseurs-cucillcursotc l'origiize des irr&alitks. Paris, SociCtC
H i m y ofMan, ed. by G. W. Stocking Jr, pp. is-cs. Chicago, Uni\,crsit!. of
d'Ethnographie, MCrnoire no. 26.
Chicago Press.
Teviotdale, D. 1932. The material culture of the rnoa-hunters in Murihiku.
1982. Race, Culturc, and Evoltftion: Essays in tl~cHistojy ufAirt11ropol~~. 2nd
Journal of the Polynesian Society 41: 81-120.
edn. Chicago, Uni\lersity of Chicago Press.
Textor, R. B. 1967.A Cross-CulturalSummary. New Haven, HRAF Press.
1983- ed. Histo!:, qfAntl~ropol~q~~. Madison, Uni\rcrsity of Wisconsiil Press.
Thapar, B. K. 1984. India. In H. Cleere, pp. 63-72.
1984 ed. Functiotzalisn2 Historicizcd: Essny on Briti~/JSocial Ar~tl~r(~olutq~
~ h o h R.
, 1975. Structural Stability and ~ o r p h o ~ e n e sReading,
i~. Massachusetts,
(Histo? ofAntl~vopolo~, vol. 2). Madison, University of Wisconsin Prcss.
Benjamin.
1987. Victorian A~~tl~r.opolo,q~.
Nc\v York, Free Prcss.
Thomas, C. 1894. Repovt on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology.
Stoiano\~ich,T . 1976.Fvclrcl~Hirttovird Mctl~od:T/JCAnl~nl~,~. l'nvnd[qm. Ithacn,
W.~sliington.Burcau of Anicricall Ethnology, Annual Report, 12: 3-742.
Corncll U~iivcrsityl'rcss.
 References Keferences

1898. Introduction t o the Study of N o h American Archaeology. Cincinnati, 1967b. Engels o n the part played by labour in the transition from ape to man:
Clarke. an anticipation o f contemporary anthropological
. -
theory. Canadian Review
Thomas, D. H . 1974. An archaeological perspective o n Shoshonean bands. ofSoctology and ~ n t h r o ~ o l4:& 165-76.
~
American Anthropolo~ist76: 11-23, 1968a. Beyond Hrstoy: The Methods ofPrehistoy. New York, Holt, Rinehart
1976. Fkuring Ant17ropolo~:First Principles of Probabilit;~and Statistics. New and Winston.
York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1968b. The deternunants o f settlement patterns. In SettlenzentArchaeology,ed.
1978.The awful truth about statistics in archaeology. American Antiquity 43: by I<. C. Chang, pp. 53-78. Palo Alto, National Press.
7-31-44, 1969. The personality o f the Sudan. In East Afican History, ed. by D. F.
Thomas, J. 1987. Relations of production and social change in the Neolithic of McCall, N. R. Bennett, and J. Butler, pp. 74-106. New York, Praeger.
I 978.1 Tzme and Tradrttons: Essays rn A rcbaeolqqical Iizterpretatzon. Ed in burgh,
north-west Europe. Man 22: 405-30.
Thompson, M. W. 1965. Marxism and c ~ ~ l t ~ Antiq~gity
lre. 39: 108-16. Ed~nburghU n ~ v e r s ~ Prcss.
ty
1967. No~zorodthe Great. London, EvelJrn, Adams and Mackay. 1978b. Tlie strategy o f Iroquoian prehistory. In Archaeological Essays rn Honor
1977. General Pitt-Rivers: Evolutiort andArchaeology in the Nineteenth Century. ofIrving B. Rouse, ed. by R. C. Dunnell and E. S. Hall Jr, pp. 275-310. The
Bradford-on-Avon, Moonrakcr Prcss. Hague, Mouton.
Thomson, D . F. 1939. The seasonal factor in h~lnianculturc. Proceedin~softhe 1 9 7 8 ~W~lliam
. J. Wmtcmbcrg: Iroquoian archacologist. In Essays in Northeas-
Prehistoric Society 10: 209-21. tern Anthropology m Memory ofMarian'E. Wbite, ed. by W. E. Engelbrecht
Thomson, G. 1949. Review of V. G. Childe, History. TheModernQuarterly N. S. and D. K. Grapson, pp. 5-21. Rindge, Occasional Publications in Northeas-
4: 266-9. tern Anthropology no. 5.
Thruston, G. P. 1890. The Antiquities ofTennessee. Cincinnati, Clarke. 1980a. Gordon Childe: Revolutions in Archaeology. London, Thames and
Thwaitcs, R. G. 1896-1901. The Jesuit Relatioris arid Allied 1)ocuments. 73 \~ols. Hudson.
Cleveland, Burrows Brothers. 198ob. Archaeology and the Image o f thc American I n d ~ a nAmerrcan . Anti-
Tillcy, C. 1984. Ideology and thc legitimation o f power in the Middle Neolithic quzty 45: 662-76.
ofsouthern Sweden. In D . Miller and C. Tillcy, pp. 111-46. 1 9 8 0 ~Revlew
. of A. C. Renfrew, Problems rn European Prehistory.Antiqutty 54:
Toffler, A. 1970. Futu1.e Shocb. New York, Ranciom House. 76-7.
Tolstoy, P. 1969. Rcvicw of W. S.uidcrs .111ci R . I'ricc, MCJ-onmerica. Avnerican 1981a.Anglo-Amcr~canarchaeology. WorldArcbaiol(~y13: 138-55.
A ntJ~~~opolofii.rt
71: 554-8. 1981b.Archacologp and the ethnographic prcscnt. Antlwopologica 23: 3-17.
Tookcr, E. 1982. cd. EtJ~vl~qmapl)y by A~,chacolufiists.W.lshi11gton, The American 19823 AICII.ICOIO~IC.II . ~ n ~ l y a11d C'ultztre ~ ( 2 )31-42.
s ~ s concepts o f ca~tsal~ty. :
Ethnological Society. 1982b. If Childe were alive today. Bulletzn of the Instrtute of Archaeology,
Toulmin, S. E. 1970. Does the distinction between normal and revolutionary Untverszty of London 19: 1-20.
19 4a Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man 19:
science hold water? In C1,iticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. by I . 9.
Lakatos and A. Musgrave, pp. 39-47 Cambridge, Cambridge Universit)l
Press. and Soviet archaeology. Australian Archaeology 18: 1-16
Toulmin, S. E. and J. Goodfield. 1966. The Discoaery of Time. New York, Harper archaeology. In On Marxian Perspectives in Anthropology,
and Row. and N. Daniels, pp. 59-97. Malibu, Undena.
Trevelyan, G. M. 1952. Illustrated E~glishSocial History, vol. 4, The Nineteenth 1984d. ~ i s t o and
j Settle~iientin Lower Nubia in the perspective of fifteen
Century. I,ondon, Longmans, Green. years. In Meroitistische Forschungen 1980, ed. by F. Hintze. Meroitica 7:
'Trevelyan'. 1857. Letters o n Irish antiquities by a Cornish man. UlsterJournal of 367-80
Archaeology 5: 150-2, 185-7, 336-42. 1984e. Archaeology at the crossroads: what's new?Annual R e ~ ~ t ofAnthropo-
ea~
Trevor-Roper, H . R . 1966. The Rise of Christian Europe. 2nd edn. London, l0Jy 13: 275-300.
Thanies and Huc1son. 1985a. Writing the history o f archaeology: a survey o f trends. In G. W.
Trigger, B. G . 1965. History and Settlement in Lower Nubia. New Haven, Yale Stock~ngJr, History of Anthropology 3: 218-35. Madison, Un~versiqr of
University Publicatio~lsin Anthropolog)r no. 69. WISCOIISIII Press.
1966. Sir John William Dawson: a faithful anthropologist. Anthropologicn 8: 1985b. Archaeology as Htstorzcal Scrence. Varanasi, Banaras Hindu University,
351-9. Department o f A n c ~ e n Indian
t History, Culture and Archaeology, Mono-
1967a. Settlement Archaeology - its goals and proniise.AmericanAntiquity 32: graph no. 14.
1985~.Tlie past as power: anthropology and the North American Indian. In
 Who Oa~nsthe Past? ed. by I. McBryde, pp. 11-40. Melbourne, Oxford Vaughan, A. T. 1979. New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, t&20-1675.
University Press. 2nd edn. New York, Norton.
1985d Marxism in archacology: real o r spurious? RelJi~llJ~
in Anthropoltqy 12: 1982. Fro111wlitte man t o red skin: changing Anglo-American p e r c c x p t ~ ~ &
114-23. the American Indian. Amerrcan Historical Review 87: 917-53. at I

1986a. ed. Native Shell Mounds ufNorth America: Eaidy Studies. New York, Veit, U. 1984. Gustaf Kossinna und V. Gordon Childe: Ansitze zu einer
Garland. theoret~schenGrundlegung der Vorgescliichte. Saeculum 35: 326-64.
1986b. Prehistoric archaeology and Anlerican society. In D. J. Meltzer e t al., V ~ t a - F I ~ C. , E. S. Higgs. 1970. Preh~storiceconomy in the Mount Carmel
Z I and
pp. 187-215. area o f Palesttnc: sttc catchment analysis. Procecdivlgs uf'thc l'vchrrtonc Socrcty
1986~.The role of technology in V. Gordon Childc's .~rchacolo_~y. Nun~~~grnn 16: 1-37.
Ai~cl~ncolcgicalR e ~ d r 19:
~ l ~1-14. Vogct, F. W. 1 ~ 7 5A. Ht~toiyuf'Et/~nolfiqy.New York, 1-Iolt, R~ncliartdnd
1988. History .und contemporary Amcriw~larchacology: a critical .unalysis. 111 W~nston.
Avchaeologrcal Thought in America, ed. by C . C. Lambcrg-Karlovsky and von Damken, E. 1969. Charrots of the ads? New York, Putnam.
P. L. Kohl, pp. 19-34. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 1971.Gohfiom Outer Space. New York, Putnam.
Trigger, B. G. and I. Glover. 1981-82. ecis. Regional Traditions of Arcl~aco- von Gernct, A. D. 1985. Analysis uflntvasitc A rtijact Spatial DistrzCutroits: The
logical Research, I. 11. World Archaeologli 13(2); 13(3). Draper Site Smokrng Pipes. London, Ontario, Museum o f Indian Archae-
Tringham, R. 1978. Experimentation, ethnoarchaeology, and the leapfrogs in ology, Research Report no. 16.
archaeological methodology. In R. A. Gould, pp. 169-99. von Gernet, A. and P. Timniins. 1987. Pipes and parakeets: constructing mean-
1983.V. G o r d o ~Childe
l 25 years after: his rele\rance for the archaeologp of the ing 111 an Early Iroquoian context. In Archaeology as Long-Tern History, ed.
eighties. Journal ofFieldArchaeology 10: 85-100. by I . Hodder, pp. 31-42.. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Tuck, J. A. 1971.Ononda~aIi.oquois Prehistory: A Stud~lin Settlement Archaeology. von Haast, J. 1871. Moas and moa Iiunters. Transactrons of the New Zcaland
Syracuse, Syracuse University Press. Znstttute 4: 66-107.
Tylor, E. B. 1865.Researches into the Early Histoy ofManhind and the Del~clopment 1874. Researches and excavations carried o u t in and near the Moa-bone Point
ufcil~ilization.Loncion, John Murray. Cave, Sumner Road in the year 1874. Transactrons of the New Zealand
1871.Primitilv Culture. LOIIC~OII, John Murr.1~. Iv~strtutc7: 54-85.
Ucko, P. J. 1983.Australian academic archacology: aboriginal transfor~i~ation of Wace, A. J. B. 1949. The Greeks and Romans as archaeologtsts. SocrPte' royalc
its aims and practices. Australian Arcl~aeologjl16: 11-26. d'archiologi dAlcjiarrdrre, Bullctrtz 38: tr-35.
1987. Academic Freedom and ApavtJ~eid:Tile Story of'tlqe World Archaeological Wahle, E. 1915.G a l d und offcnes Land in ihrer Bedeutung - fur die Kulturent-
Con~ress.London, Duckworth. wlckelung. ~\chivfar ~ n t h r o ~ o l ~ i e13:,'~ .~.
404-13
Ucko, P. J. and A. Rosenfeld. 1967. Palaeolit/qic Calle Art. London, Wcidenfeld
and Nicolson.
Uliie, M. 1907. The Emeryville sl~ellmound.Uni~ersityufCalzfornia Pu6lications
k
Walker, S. T. 1883. he aborigines of Florida. Washington, Annual Report of the
Smzthsuntan Inst utron for 1881: 677-80.
Wallace, A. F. C. 19501 A possible technique for recognizing ps~rchologicai
characterlst~csof the ancient Maya from an analysis of their art. The
in American Archaeology and Ethnolog?l7: 1-107.
Van Sertima, I. 1977.They Came B@re ColumYzltus: T/qeAfl.icanPresence in Ancient Amencan Imago 7: 239-58.
America. New York, Random House. Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World-System, vol. I . New York, Academic
Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search ofHistory: Historiography in the Ancient Woi*ldand Press.
the Orgias of Biblical History. New Haven, Yale University Press. Walsh, W. H . 1967. A n Introduction to Phtlosophy of History. 3rd edn. London,
Vansina, J. 1985. Oral Tradition as Histoql. Madison, Uni\.ersit)r of Wisco~lsin Hutchinson U n ~ \ ~ e r s ~Library.
t)r
Press. Walters, H . B. 1934. The Englrsh Antrquarres ofthe Sixteenth, Sei~enteenthand
Van Trong. 1979. New kno\~1edgeo n Dong-s'on culture from archaeological Elghtcenth Centuries. London, Walters.
discoveries these twenty years ago. 111Recent Discoveries and NETIJ Vie~vson Wang, Gungwu. 1985. Loving the anclent in C h ~ n aIn . Who On7ns the Past?ed. by
Some Archaeological Problems in Vietnam, pp. 1-8. Hanoi, Institute of I. McBryde, pp, 175-95. Melbourne, Oxford University Press.
Archaeology. , J. Jr. and P. Holder. 1945. A prehistoric ceremon~alcomplex 111 the
W a r ~ n g A.
Vastokas, J. M. 1987 Native art as art history: n~eaningand time from unwritten southeasteri~United States. Amerrcan Artthropologrst 47: 1-34.
sources. Jotirvral of Canadian Stztdies zt(4): 7-36. Warren, S. H . 1905. O n the orlgln of 'eolithic' flints by natural causes, espec~ally
Vastokas, J. M. and R. K. Vastokas. 1973.SncsedAvtaf't/~eA&o~~kians:A Study of by the foundering o f drifts. Journal ofthe RoyalAnthropologicalZnstrtute 35:
t/?cPC~PV~OI'OUJ/J Pctr+#q!?p/~s. I'ctcrborough, Ma~lsardl'rcss. 137-64. j , (1 *.
Washburn, S. L. 1960. Tools and human evolution. Scicntijc American 203(3): 1959. The Evolution ofculture. New York, McGraw-Hill.
62-75. 1975. The Concept ofCultuva1 System. New York, Columbia University Press.
Washburn. W. E. 1967. Joseph Henry's conceptio~lof the purpose of the Wiener, N. 1961. Cybernetics.2nd edn. Cambridge, Massachusetts, M.I.T. Press.
Smithsonia~l Institution. In A Cabirtct of Curiosities, cd. by W. M. Wilcox, D. R. and W. B. Masse. ,1981. eds. The Protohistoric Period in the North
Whitehill, pp. 10666. Charlottes\fille, Press of the Universit~rof Virginia. American Southwest, AU 141c-I~O. Tempe, Arizona State University,
Watson, P. J. 1979. Archaeol~gicalEthncqrapby ivr Western Iran. Viking Fund Anthropological Research Paper no. 24.
Publications in Anthropology no. 57. Tucson, Uni\rersity of Arizona Press. Wilk, R. R. 1985. The ancient Maya and the political present./ournal ofAnthvo-
1985. cd. Golden Anni\.crsary Issue. Amcricau Arrtiquiq jo(2). polcgical Rescarch 41: 307-26.
1986. Archncologic.ll i~~rcrprctarion. 1985. In 1. Mclrzcr ct nl., pi'. +39-57. Willep, G. R. 1948. A functional analysis of 'horizon styles' in Peruvian archae-
Watson. P. J., S . A. I,cBlanc, and C. I,. Redman. 1y71.fi.vpla~mtiorrin Arcl~r- ology. In A Rcnppvaisnl Ilf'l'c1~ti17ia1tArcl~acolqgy.cd. by W. C . Scnnett, pp.
olcrp: An Explicitly Scientific Approacl~.Ncw York, Colunlbia University 8-15. Memorr (Menasha, Wisconsin, Society for American Archaeology) 4.
Prcss. 1953. Prehistoric Settlement Pattern h thc Vini V&, Peru. Washington,
1984.A rcbcol~yicaltL~/~ln~mtiorr: 'I'l~c
Scict~lijicMctbodzir A rchcol~[tv. Ncw York, I3~1rcauof Amcr~canEthnolo)gy, Bulletin no. 15s.
Ci)lumbia Uni\lcrsity I'rcss. 1956. cd. Prcl~istoricScttkitreirt I'nttcnrs iir tljc Nctv World. Ncw York, Viking
Watson, R. A. 1972.The 'New Arcllaeolog~~' of the 1960s. Antiquity 46: 210-15. Fund Publications in Anthropology no. 23.
Watson, W. 1981.The progress of archaeology in China. 111J. D. Evans ct al., 1974a. ed. Archaeological Researches in Retrospect. Cambridge, Winthrop.
t>p. 65-70. 1974b. The Virii Valley settlement pattern study. In G. R. Wiliey, 1974a,
Webb, W. S. and W. D. Funkhouser. 1928.Ancient Life in ICentuclzy. Frankfurt, p p 14-7-76.
Kentucky Geological Survey. 1985. Ancient Chinese-New World and Near Eastern ideological traditions:
Wedel, W. R. 1938. Thc Direct-HistoricalApproach in l'aa~necArcheoloqy. Wash- some observations. Symbols, spring issue, 14-17, 22-3.
ington, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collcctio~lsno. 97(7). 1986. The Classic Maya sociopolitical order: a study in coherence and in
1941.En~irotrmc~rt and Native Subszstcrrcc Economics itr tljc Central Grcat Plains. stability. In Rescarch and Refections in Archaeology and Histo?: Essays in
Washii~gton,Smithsonian Misccllancous Callcctious no. lor(3). Honor ofDoris Stone, ed. by E. W. Andrews V, pp. 189-98. Tulane, Middle
1985. cd. A 1'hi;rs At*c/~aco/([~v Sollrcc book: Sclcctcd I'n/)cvs lIft/Jc Ncbrmkn State American Research Institute.
Histolira1 Snricty. New York, G.~rland.
Weiss, R. 1969. T l ~ cRc~iaissniiccl)isco~lcyoj'C,'lassical Airtiqui[~.Osforci, Basil
13lack\\~cll.
Wells, P. S. 1984. F a m , Villngcs, and Cities: Commerce and Urban Origins in in American Archaeology.
Late Prchistoric Europe. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
Wendt, H. 1955. Liz Search ofAdam. Boston, Houghton Mifflin. American Archaeology.
Wenke, R. J. 1981. Explaining the e\~olutionof cultural complexity: a review.
Ad~>ances in ~ r c l ~ n ~ o l ~~ ci tch$o dand T h e o 4:
~ 79-127. 1980. A Histo? ofAmerican Archaeology. 2nd edn. San Francisco, Freeman.
Whallon, R. Jr. 1968. Investigations of late prehistoric social organizatioll in Wilson, D. 1851. The Archaeology and Prehistoric Annals ofscotland. Edinburgh,
New York State. In S . R. and L. R. Binford, pp. 223-4.4. Siltherland and Knox.
1982. COI~IIIICIICS on 'explanation'. In A. C. Re~ifrcw and S. Shennan, 1862. Prehistoric Mart: Rejearches tnto the Origin ofcivilization in the Old and
pp. 15s-8. the New World. London, Macmillan.
Wheeler, R. E. M. 1954.Arcba~olo~~fiom the Earth. Oxford, Oxford University 1863. The Prchistoric Annals ofscotland. 2nd edn. London, Macmillan.
8

Press. 1876. PrehistoricMan. 3rd edn. London, Macmillan.

White, C. 1799 A n Accourrt ofthc Rcptrlar Gradntiort in Moil, atrd in Dtj,Grent Wilson, D. 1975.Atoms of Time Past. London, Allen Lane.
Animals and Vegetables. London, Diley. Wilson, D. M. 1976. ed. The Archaeology ofAn8lo-Saxon England. London,
White, J . 1'. 1974 T l ~ Pmt
c isHtimnn. Sydncp, Angus and liobcrrson. Methuen.
White, J. P. and J. F. O'Connell. 1982.A l'rcl~istoi~ oJ'A~rsttnlia,Netv Gtrit~cnnnd Wilson, J. A. 1964. S i p s and Wondew upon Pharaoh. Chicago, Unlvcnly or
Sabul. Sydney, Academic Press. Chicago Press.
White, L. A. 1945 'Diffusion vs, evolution': an anti-evolutionist hllacy. Wiseman, J. 198oa. Archaeology in the future: an evolving dincipllno, AmnJmn
Antericart Avrtljropolopist 47: 339-56. Journal ofArchaeology 84: 279-85.
1949.The Scicncc uf'Cnlturc. New York, Farrur, Straur. 198ob. Archaeology as archaeology. Joumd afFieldArthnrokm 71 I4Y (1,
 Kcfcrcnccs

1983. Conflicts in archaeology: education and practice. Journal ofFieldArchae-

0lo~y10: 1-9.
Wissler, C. 1914. Material cultures of the North American Indians. American
Anthropologist 16: 4+7-~0s.
Wohst, H. M. 1978. The nrchaeo-eth~iologof hunter-gatherers o r the tyrannJr
of the ctli~iogrlpliicrecord in archaeology. American Antiquit)' 43: 303-9.
I:,, I<. 1981. Guropc and tlge Pcople without History. Berkeley, University of INDEX
:iiliTor~rilI'rcss.
Wtroil, M. 1gnS. I11 S r n p c l ~oftltc Trojan War. I n n d o n , RRC Publications.
WooilbriJgc, I(, 1970. Lawclrcnpc and Awtiquiy: Aspccts u/'E~~qlisl~ <:nlturc nt Ahhott, C:. C . , I Z O cn)ss-cultur.il (holistic), 52-+. 59, 68. 83, 98.
Abcrcn>~iiby,John. 155 '
Sturrrl)cnA, 1718-1838. Oxford, Oxford U~iiversityPrcss. 115-16. 146-7, 155. 258. 294. 326. 3343. 364
Abcrlc, I)a\fid, 362 cross-cultural (specific), 80. 86, 110. 115. 147.
Woodbury, R. B. 1973.Alfvcd V . Icidder. New York, Columbia University Press. Aborigines (Australi.i~i),28. loo, 113. 141-5, , 266. 288, 364
Woolfso~i,C. 1982. The Labour Theory ofculture. London, lioutledgc 8c Kegan 146, 267 : culturally specific (homology). 124, 154-5,
Acadani.1 Sinica (Bcijing), 175-6 258, 263, 267. 271, 288. 353. 364. 391. 402
Paul. accidcllts, 3s forces sllapillg ci~lti~ral cha~igc, ' disti~igttislli~lg allal~gicsti0111lio1llo1ogie~,
Woollep, C. L. 1950 Ur of the Chaldees. Harmondsworth, Penguin (1st edn., 301-2. 319, 405 408
I!229). acculturation, 275,330, 334-6 nccd for, 366, 371, 396
Achculean epoch, 135, 237-8 problems in applying, 364, 390
Wors;lae, J . J. A. 1849. The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark. trans. by W . J. Achilles, spear of, 30 sources. 372
'I'hoiiis. London, Parker. Acosta, fos6 dc, 68 s u g g c ~ t i \ role
~ c for, 266. 301. 342, 379
Wylie ,M. A. 1982. Epistemological issues raised by a structuralist archaeology. acti\.ity areas (in archaeological sites). 276, . total rcjcctioll of. 366
284-5 v~lidityot; 408
In I. Hodder, 1982c, p p 39-46. actualistic stildics, scc ctli~~oarchacology analytical appr aches, 203, 386
1985a. The reaction against analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Adam (first man), 33-4, 68. 91. 112 analytical dl ,/". oly (Clarke),. 359, 385 -
Thco~y8: 63-111. Ad.ims, R . McC., 236, 28s. 312. 321 matomy. 246
A~icnaculture, lo+, 353 Anau (sitc). 163. 248
1985b. Facts of thc record ancl facts of the past: Mandelbaum o n the anatomy ncri.11 photography, 249, 424 Andcrsson. J. G . , 174-5
of history 'proper'. Intcrnntional Studies in Philosopl~y17: 71-85. acsrhcticizing approaches in arcl~acology.13, Aiiglcscy. 70
211, 353. 381 Antliropologic.il Socicty o f Tokyo. 178
1985~.Putting Shakertow11 back together: critical theory in archaeology. Africa, political dc\rclopmcnts, 129. 161, 184, antlirop~lo~p
Journal ofAnthropol~k7icnl Archacology 4: 133-47. 376, 419 dcrclopmcnt as a discipline, fro, 125. 356.
1989. Thc dilemma of interpretation. 111Cn'tical Traditions in Contemporary African archaeology, 129-38, 184-5, 356, 420, , 372. 419. 420
422 ~OJ~S , 289, 296
111,
A~c/~aeo~ogy, ed. by V . Pinsky and A. Wylie. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni- Afrika.incrs. 131 liisto~?of, 415, 416-17
versity Press. Agassiz, Louis, 112 rcjcctioll o f by Third World. 184
agclarca theory, 160, 191 sec also ethnology, social anthropology.
Wvnian.
; .,T. 1875.
.. Fresh- Water Shell Mounds o f the St. John's River, Florida. Salem, Agricola, Gcorgius, 53 physical anthropology
Memoirs of the Peabody Academy of Science no. 4. agriculture, see domcsticatioo, food 'antitms~tivis~i~, sec rclati\,ism
Yellen, J. E. 1977. Archaeological Approaches t o the Present: Models for Recon- production alltiquarianism
Ainu, 179 antiquarian tendencies in modern
stmctinp the Past. New York, Academic Prcss. Alaska, 121. 363 archaeology, 146, 371, 381
Yengoyan, A. A. 1985. Digging for symbols: the archaeology of everyday mater- Aldrovandi, Ulissc, 53 de\~clopmcnt,416-17
ial culture. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51: 329-34. Alexander, John, 336 eighteenth-century impasse, 70-2. 83
Algonkian languages, 124, 191-2 F~ilurct o develop in solllc ci~lturcs.44
You~ig,T . C. Jr. 1972. Population densities and early Mesopotamian urbanism. alphabet, origin of, 166 \'slue. 73,74
111Man, Settlenzent and Urbanism, ed. by P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and a l t ~ r n a t i \ ~hypotheses,
c 293, 300, 319, 362,, . see also Britain, China, Europe, Francc.
G. W. Diiiibleby, pp. 827-42. London, Duckworth. 376-9, 400,406,408 Germany, Japan. Scandina\~ia,Scotland,
altcr~~ati\,c proofs, 396 United States
Zipf, G. K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Ejfort. Cambridge, Althusscr, L., 339 Antiquaries Collcgc (S\\,cdcn), 4 9
Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley. amateur arcliacologists, 128, 141, 406-7, , ' antiquity o f human beings, 89-94, 98, 10-2,
420 ' 418
Zittel, K. A. \lo~i.1901. History of Geolog?)and Palaeontolopy to the End of the Anierican Antiquarian Society, 106, 108 , Angang (sitc), 42. 175
Nineteenth Century. London, Scott. Anicrican Museum of Natural his to^?, 271 archaeological content (Scliifir). 360
Zubrow, E. 1972. Environment, subsistence, and society: the changing archaeo- American Philosophical Society. 106 Archaeological Society (Japan), 178
Anicrican Ke\,olutiol~,119 Arcliacological Survey o f India. 181
logical perspective. Annual R C I J ~oflAntl~ropology
C~IJ I: IT?-206. analogy archaeologists
1980. International trends in theoretical archaeology. Nonv~gialzArchaeo- hiologic.~l,organic, 115, 157, 191. 219, 246, r c c r u i t ~ i ~ c17,
~ ~177-8.
t. 210

lopical Review 13: 14-25 322, 398 relations \\,it11 native pcop