Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 1984. 13:275-300
Copyright K 1984 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
ARCHAEOLOGYAT THE
CROSSROADS:WHAT'S NEW?
Bruce G. Trigger
Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2T7,
Canada
what each can do and how it does it (16; 18, pp. 19-26; 43; 62, p. 528; 150).
Ethnologistscan study directly the complete range of humanbehavior. They
can documentthe total extent of materialcultureat every stage of its manufac-
ture, use, and disposal. They can also observe how humanbeings behave and
throughthe mediumof language learn somethingaboutotherpeople's beliefs
and aspirations. Archaeologists can study only the materialculture that has
survivedvariedandoften poorlyunderstoodprocessesof culturalrecycling and
naturaldestructionto become partof the archaeologicalrecord. It is now also
widely acknowledgedthatbecauseof the reuse anddisposalof artifactspriorto
their becoming part of the archaeologicalrecord, archaeologicaldata reveal
even less about how artifactswere used than was formerly believed. Yet if
archaeologymustbe based to a considerabledegree on the studyof refuse, it is
generally agreedthat if it is to have any broadsignificance it must strive to be
more than a science of garbage.
The principal challenge that has always faced archaeologistshas been to
infer human behavior and ideas from materialculture. It is now effectively
argued that realizing that goal requires a detailed understanding of the
archaeologicalcontexts from which dataare recoveredand also of the system-
atic relationshipsbetween materialcultureand behavior. Binfordhas labelled
generalizationsof the lattersort middle-rangetheory (13, 17). His distinction
between middle-rangetheory, which supplies archaeologistswith behavioral
information,and general theories, that seek to explain culturalchange, while
challengedon theoreticalgrounds(165, p. 36), is of greatpracticalimportance
because it distinguishestheoreticalproblemsthatare of particularinterestonly
to archaeologistsfromthose which areof generalinterestto the social sciences.
Social anthropologistshave generally not botheredto search for regularities
between materialcultureand humanbehaviorsince they can observe the latter
directly. In recentyears this has led an increasingnumberof archaeologiststo
do ethnographicresearch, underthe rubricof ethnoarchaeology(14, 80, 81,
105, 197). This involves searchingfor regularitiesthatwill permitthemto infer
humanbehavior from archaeologicaldata. Such an allocation of resources is
particularly difficult at a time when the archaeological record is being
threatenedwith destructionas never before.
Yet what archaeologylacks in the limited varietyof its data is compensated
for by its abilityto studychangeover long periodsof time. Ethnologyis limited
by the natureof its data to the present or the near present, althoughby using
external sources of information, such as historicalrecords or oral traditions,
some time depthmay be obtained.Wherespecific groupshave been restudied,
ethnographicfield notes and monographsalso become historicalsources. Yet
even underthe best conditions, ethnologists can study change only over very
short periods of time. Only by using historical and archaeologicaldata, is it
possible to studyactualprocessesof changethatoccurover long periods(18, p.
194; 33).
ARCHAEOLOGYAT THE CROSSROADS 277
NEW ARCHAEOLOGY
BOUNDARIES
Thereis also a tendencyto abandonthe once fashionableview that societies or
cultures are closed or tightly bounded units of analysis that can be studied
independentlyof one another(104; 179, p. 348; 194); the tendency now is to
pay more attention to the importanceof external stimuli in bringing about
ARCHAEOLOGY
AT THECROSSROADS 285
evolutionary theory will also tend to be more eclectic and inductive in its
origins than the traditionaltenets of the New Archaeology would approve. It
will, however, providea more substantialand realisticbasis for understanding
cultural evolution than has neoevolutionary anthropology, with its almost
exclusive preoccupationwith endogenous explanationsof change. It will also
move archaeology closer to the general practices of the social sciences both
methodologically and theoretically.
At the same time that archaeologistsperceive the need to broadenthe range
of their theoretical generalizations, they are also, as we have already seen,
acknowledging that individual societies are so complex, their structuresso
loose and the exogenous forces influencing them so eclectic that the precise
course of their developmentcan at best be predictedonly partiallyand for the
shortterm. For many archaeologiststhe complexityof early civilizations, or of
any humansociety, rendersthe conceptof causalitymeaninglessfor discussing
theirorigins (70, 142). Yet if historians,aftergenerationsof intensiveresearch,
continueto debatethe reasonsfor the disintegrationof the RomanEmpire,it is
surely unrealisticfor archaeologiststo imagine either that the processes they
studycan be definitively explainedby simplisticformulationsor thatcomplex-
ity necessarilyprecludesunderstanding(68). Above all, the prolongedand (by
archaeologicalstandards)sophisticateddebate concerningthe collapse of the
Classic Mayacivilizationdemonstratesthatmoredataareneededto narrowthe
range of possible explanations and permit the formulationof more refined
researchproblems(51). While increasingtheoreticalsophisticationnarrowsthe
rangeof the unpredictable,it is no morepossible for social scientiststo retrodict
the past than it is for them to predictthe futurewith certainty.The explanation
of the past is thus by its very natureidiographic,even thoughgeneralprinciples
mustbe invokedto supportargumentsin every possible instance.The complex-
ity of social science data seems to rule out the claim thatpredictionis the only
legitimate form of explanation.
Historical knowledge, in the sense of an understandingof how and why
specific societies developed as they did in the past, is essential for explaining
theircurrentsocial structure.As Childe pointedout long ago, the precise form
of the British constitutionor of Protestantismin the nineteenthcenturycould
not be deduced from the capitalist system alone (31, p. 110). In this he was
echoing Marx's moregeneralobservationthathumanbeings maketheirhistory
under circumstances inherited from the past (102, p. 112). Because only
archaeologyand documentaryhistory provide the evidence requiredto delin-
eate culturaldevelopmentin the past, they are essential for understandingthe
historicalbackgroundof the data on which all of the other social sciences are
based. The realizationthatthis is so is slowly providingthe basis for a new and
complementaryrelationshipbetween archaeologyand ethnology. It is a rela-
tionship in which archaeology does not try to emulate ethnology, but by
290 TRIGGER
may apply only to a limited rangeof societies. They maintainthat the body of
theorydeveloped by classical economists to explain marketbehavioris applic-
able only for explainingthe frameworkof capitalistsocieties. A quite different
corpus of theory is needed to explain the economic structureof noncapitalist
societies (52). While economic formalists deny this distinction, the fact re-
mains that many useful generalizations may apply only to societies at a
particularlevel of developmentor occupying a specific type of environmental
niche.
The thirdtype of generalizationis one specific to an individualcultureor to a
single groupof historicallyrelatedones. An examplewould be the definitionof
the canons of beauty that governed ancient Egyptian or Greek art (34, pp.
43-59; 119, pp. 132-36). Generalizationsabout aesthetic standardscan be
derived from formal studies of the evidence; however, when written records
from early times are not available, more esoteric meanings can be recovered
only by means of a direct historical approach. Many of the best pioneering
studies of this sort in the field of cognitive studieshave been done by historical
archaeologists(56, 78).
The importanceof this sortof approachfor prehistoricarchaeologyhas been
demonstratedby Hall and Hamell. Hall has drawn upon ethnographicand
ethnohistoricalmaterialconcerningnative religious beliefs and symbolism in
easternNorthAmericato explain the structureof Adena burialmoundsas well
as why certainclasses of artifactswere includedwith MiddleWoodlandburials
(84). Hamellhas used regularitiesin Iroquoian,Algonquian,andSiouanmyths
to explain the significance of the inclusion of crystals, objects made from
marine shell and native copper, and various other materialsin eastern North
Americanburialcontexts from late Archaictimes into the historicperiod (85).
Both of these anthropologistsoffer explanationsof regularitiesin burialcus-
toms for which no cross-culturalgeneralizationcould account.
The main problem that is posed by this work, as by most interpretations
offered by structuralor symbolic archaeology, is that of verifiability. In the
case of Hall and Hamell, proof rests upon the validity of analogies drawn
between ethnographicallyand archaeologicallyknown cultures that there is
soundreasonto believe arehistoricallyrelated.Hamell's evidence is particular-
ly convincing because there is strong proof in the archaeologicalrecord of
continuityin the use of these materialsfrom their earliest occurrenceinto the
historicalperiod. The best verificationis undoubtedlythe establishmentof a
universalcorrelationbetweenwhatis observedin the archaeologicalrecordand
what is inferredfrom it; in other words, an absolute middle-level generaliza-
tion. Yet it is increasinglyrecognizedthat, becauseof the complexityof human
phenomena,most correlationswill be statisticalratherthanabsolute, and most
statisticalcorrelationswill be of a lower ratherthan a higherdegree of magni-
tude. This is something that anthropologistsengaged in cross-culturalstudies
292 TRIGGER
have long recognized and had to contend with (163). Under these circum-
stances, the problem of equifinality, or different causes producingthe same
effect, becomes increasingly troublesome, as archaeologists engaged in
simulationstudies have become aware (90, 143).
Because archaeology deals with complex phenomena and is not an ex-
perimentaldiscipline, much of what is accepted as true tends to be what each
generationof archaeologists finds reasonable. Archaeologists may establish
sound correlations, weed out logical inconsistencies, and demonstratethat
acceptedinterpretationsdo not accordwith new data. Yet their interpretations
are subtly influenced by social and personal preconceptions of reality that
preclude an awareness of alternative explanations which might encourage
formaltestingor of the actuallimits withinwhich a generalizationholds true. In
many instances, neither adequate data nor strong enough correlations are
availableto counteractsuch biases. Most historianshave long realizedthatthe
interpretationof humanaffairsis itself a socially conditionedphenomenon(26,
47). Under these circumstances,the difference between a nomothetic gener-
alization and an argumentby analogy is by no means clear-cut(29). Finally,
refusalto explain culturalregularitiesbecause they are not universalones is to
ignore and belittle large areas of human experience. If the structuralistsare
correct,it may also limit or precludethe abilityof archaeologiststo explainwhy
change has taken place. Structuralarchaeologistsseem preparedto accept the
conclusion that the inability of archaeologiststo account for many specific
regularities,because the direct historical approachcannot be applied, would
indicate that there is much about the past that archaeologymay be unable to
infer and explain.
The growingawarenessof the complexityof whatarchaeologyhas to explain
not only is calling into questionthe claim thatdeductivemodes of explanation
are the only appropriateones (39), but also is leading more archaeologiststo
acknowledgethattheirexperienceof the presentinfluencestheirinterpretation
of the past (94, 111). The milieu in which archaeologistslive and work is seen
as influencing both the questions they ask and the answers that they are
predisposedto regardas reasonable.This not only plays a majorrole in shaping
national variations in archaeologicalpractice but also changes over time as
social conditionschange. The situationdoes not appearto be a reflectionof the
immaturityof archaeology, as some archaeologistshave suggested (44, p.
154), butone of its permanentfeatures(175). The adoptionin recentdecadesof
the Boserup-based view that population increase is a major factor driving
humanbeings froman easy andcarefreelife as hunter-gatherers to an existence
characterizedby increasingexploitation, oppression, and hardwork has been
interpretedas an archaeologicalreflection of currentpolitical and economic
insecurityin the United States, particularlyas it is expressed in concerns with
uncontrolledpopulation growth, disastrouspollution, and the exhaustion of
AT THECROSSROADS 293
ARCHAEOLOGY
lia, and otherpartsof the world where native peoples have been overwhelmed
by European settlement, the image of the "unchangingsavage" has been
demonstratedto have been a myth of colonialism (121). In spite of this, the
historical synthesis of archaeological data, while reviving in American
archaeology,has failed to produceany work of outstandingquality(174). The
main weakness of such studies is their continuing domination by often ill-
considered ecological approaches and the lack of attention being paid to
nonuniversalgeneralizations. The notion that archaeologicaldata should be
used primarilyto formulate and test a potpourriof universal theories about
humanbehavioras an end in itself is increasinglybeing recognizedas neocolo-
nialistandinsultingto the thirdworldandto nativepeoples (108, 116, 176). By
ignoring its social responsibilities, archaeology may be dooming itself to
irrelevance, as well as encouragingneedless hostility (191). The patternsof
human development as revealed through idiographic studies that employ
archaeologicalor historicaldata, or a combinationof both, are themselves a
legitimate object of generalization. The duty of evolutionary theory is to
explain what has really happened in the past, not to construct hypothetical
schemes of development using ethnographicdata, which are clearly insuffi-
cient for the task.
CONCLUSIONS
Duringthe past 25 years, archaeologyhas experiencedimpressiveinstitutional
growthand received escalatingfinancialsupport.Assisted by the development
of radiocarbonand otherphysical datingtechniques, it has also turnedfrom a
preoccupationwith chronologyto make considerableadvancesin interpreting
its data in behavioralterms. All of this has enhancedthe statusof archaeology
as a social science. Yet todaythereis growinguncertaintyaboutwhatthe goals
of archaeologyshould be as well as aboutthe validity of many of the assump-
tions that guided the development of archaeology in the 1960s. There is an
increasing desire to define a role for archaeology that takes account of its
specific data base and which as far as possible complements rather than
duplicates those played by the other social sciences. This necessitates the
developmentof a body of theoryappropriatefor the interpretationof archaeolo-
gical data: Binford's middle-rangetheory.
The gradual rejection of the neoevolutionaryviews that played such an
importantrole in the developmentof the New Archaeologyis leading, not to a
returnto Boasian historical particularism,but to a more complex and less
deterministicview of humanbehavior.Because of this, therearefewer aspects
of human behavior that archaeologists can dismiss as epiphenomenal for
understandingcultural change. The challenge is simultaneously to try by
whatevermeans to infer more aspects of humanbehaviorfrom archaeological
ARCHAEOLOGY
AT THECROSSROADS 295
LiteratureCited
1. Aberle, D. F., et al. 1950. The functional Plumley, pp. 34-40. Warminster:Aris &
prerequisitesof a society. Ethics 60: 100- Phillips
I11 8. Aveni, A. F. 1981. Archaeoastronomy.
2. Adams, R. McC. 1965. Land Behind Adv. Archaeol. Method Theory 4:1-77
Baghdad. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press 9. Bennett, J. W. 1944. Middle American
3. Adams, R. McC. 1981. Heartland of influenceson culturesof the southeastern
Cities. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press United States. Acta Americana 2:25-50
4. Adams, R. McC., Nissen, H. J. 1972. 10. Binford, L. R. 1962. Archaeology as
The Uruk Countryside. Chicago: Univ. anthropology.Am. Antiq. 28:217-25
Chicago Press 11. Binford, L. R. 1965. Archaeologicalsys-
5. Adams, W. Y., Van Gerven, D. P., tematicsandthe studyof cultureprocess.
Levy, R. S. 1978. The retreatfrom mig- Am. Antiq. 31:203-10
rationism. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 7:483- 12. Binford, L. R. 1972. An Archaeological
532 Perspective. New York: Seminar
6. Alden, J. R. 1982. Tradeand politics in 13. Binford, L. R., ed. 1977. For Theory
proto-Elamite Iran. Curr. Anthropol. Building in Archaeology. New York:
23:613-40 Academic
7. Alexander, J., Mohammed, A. 1982. 14. Binford, L. R. 1978. NunamiutEthnoar-
Frontiertheory and the Neolithic period chaeology. New York: Academic
in Nubia. In Nubian Studies, ed. J. M. 15. Binford, L. R. 1980. Willow smoke and
296 TRIGGER
126. Plog, F. 1974. The Study of Prehistoric 145. Sahlins, M. D., Service, E. 1960. Evolu-
Change. New York: Academic tion and Culture. Ann Arbor: Univ.
127. Posnansky, M. 1982. Africanarchaeolo- Mich. Press
gy comes of age. World Archaeol. 146. Salmon, M. H. 1982. Philosophy and
13:345-58 Archaeology. New York: Academic
128. Price, B. 1977. Shifts in productionand 147. Salmon, W. C. 1982. Causality in ar-
organization:A cluster-interactionmod- chaeological explanation. See Ref. 139,
el. Curr. Anthropol. 18:209-33 pp. 45-55
129. Ramsden, P. G. 1977. A Refinementof 148. Sanders,W. T., Parsons, J. R., Santley,
Some Aspects of Huron CeramicAnaly- R. S. 1979. TheBasin of Mexico: Ecolo-
sis. Ottawa: Archaeol. Survey Canada, gical Processes in the Evolutionof a Civi-
MercurySer. 63 lization. New York: Academic
130. Redman, C. L., et al, eds. 1978. Social 149. Schaedel, R. P., Shimada,I. 1982. Peru-
Archeology. New York: Academic vian archaeology, 1946-80: an analytic
131. Renfrew, A. C. 1972. TheEmergenceof overview. WorldArchaeol. 13:359-71
Civilisation. London: Methuen 150. Schiffer, M. B. 1976. Behavioral
132. Renfrew, A. C. 1973. SocialArchaeolo- Archeology. New York: Academic
gy. Southampton:The Univ. 151. Schrire, C. 1980. An inquiry into the
133. Renfrew, A. C. 1978. Space, time and evolutionarystatus and apparentidentity
polity. In The Evolution of Social Sys- of San huntergatherers.Hum. Ecol. 8:9-
tems, ed. J. Friedman,M. J. Rowlands, 32
pp. 89-112. Pittsburgh:Univ. Pittsburgh 152. Schwartz, D. W. 1967. Conceptions of
Press KentuckyPrehistory:A Case Studyin the
134. Renfrew, A. C. 1978. Trajectorydiscon- History of Archeology. Lexington:Univ.
tinuity and morphogenesis. Am. Antiq. Kentucky Press
43:203-22 153. Service, E. 1971. PrimitiveSocial Orga-
135. Renfrew, A. C. 1982. Polity and power: nization: An Evolutionary Perspective.
Interaction, intensification and exploi- New York: Random House
tation. In An Island Polity: The Archae- 154. Service, E. 1975. Originsof the Statea,nd
ology of Exploitation in Melos, pp. Civilization. New York: Norton
264-90. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. 155. Shennan, S. J. 1978. Archaeological
Press 'cultures':An empiricalinvestigation. In
136. Renfrew, A. C. 1982. Socio-economic The Spatial Organisationof Culture, ed.
change in rankedsocieties. See Ref. 140, I. Hodder, pp. 113-39. London: Duck-
pp. 1-8 worth
137. Renfrew, A. C. 1983. Divided we stand: 156. Smith, P. E. L. 1976. Food Production
Aspects of archaeologyand information. and its Consequences.Menlo Park:Cum-
Am. Antiq. 48:3-16 mings
138. Renfrew, A. C., Cooke, K. L., eds. 157. Spaulding, A. C. 1968. Explanationin
1979. Transformations: Mathematical archeology. In New Perspectives in
Approaches to Culture Change. New Archeology, ed. S. R. Binford, L. R.
York: Academic Binford, pp. 33-39. Chicago: Aldine
139. Renfrew, A. C., Rowlands, M. J., Seg- 158. Steward, J. H. 1953. Evolution and pro-
raves, B. A., eds. 1982. Theoryand Ex- cess. In AnthropologyToday:An Encyc-
planation in Arcnaeology: The South- lopedic Inventory, ed. A. L. Kroeber,
ampton Conference. New York: Aca- pp. 313-26. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
demic Press
140. Renfrew, A. C., Shennan,S., eds. 1982. 159. Steward, J. H. 1955. Theory of Culture
Ranking, Resource and Exchange: Change. Urbana:Univ. Ill. Press
Aspects of the Archaeology of Early 160. Struever, S. 1968. Problems, methods
European Society. Cambridge: Cam- and organization: A disparity in the
bridge Univ. Press growth of archaeology. In Anthropolo-
141. Rodin, M., Michaelson, K., Britan, G. gical Archaeology in the Americas, ed.
M. 1978. Systems theory in anthropolo- B. J. Meggers, pp. 131-51. Washington:
gy. Curr. Anthropol. 19:747-62 Anthropol. Soc. Wash.
142. Rowlands, M. J. 1982. Processual 161. Tallgren, A. M. 1937. The method of
archaeology as historical social science. prehistoric archaeology. Antiquity
See Ref. 139, pp. 155-74 11:152-61
143. Sabloff, J. A., ed. 1981. Simulationsin 162. Taylor, W. W. 1948. A StudyofArcheol-
Archaeology. Albuquerque: Univ. N. ogy. Menasha:Mem. Ser. Am. Anthro-
Mex. Press pol. Assoc. 69
144. Sahlins, M. D. 1968. Tribesmen.Engle- 163. Textor, R. B. 1967. A Cross-Cultural
wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Summary. New Haven: HRAF Press
300 TRIGGER