Sei sulla pagina 1di 27

Archaeology at the Crossroads: What's New?

Author(s): Bruce G. Trigger


Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 13 (1984), pp. 275-300
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155670
Accessed: 01/12/2010 13:04

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

Is archaeologyin serious trouble, or does it standon the thresholdof brilliant


new accomplishments?Many prehistoricarchaeologistsview with consider-
able trepidationthe varied and seemingly disparatedirections in which their
discipline appearsto be developing. There is also growing uncertaintyabout
the theoreticalpropositionsrelating to human behavior that have guided the
interpretationof archaeologicaldatafor the past 25 years. Yet at the same time
acrimoniousdebatesare yielding to profitabledialogues, while archaeologyas
a whole is coming to appear less sectarian within the broader context of
anthropology(59-62, 120, 137). All of the majorchanges thataretakingplace
with respect to the interpretationof archaeological data influence to some
degree the relationshipbetween archaeologyand socioculturalanthropology.
To understandwhere current developments may lead it is therefore worth
consideringhow these trendshave alreadyalteredthe relationshipthatBinford
and Clarkedefined between these disciplines in the early 1960s (10, 11, 43).
Paying more explicit attentionto this relationshipmay also help archaeologists
to cope more effectively with the problems being posed by the unparalleled
accumulation of archaeological data (76), the accelerating destruction of
archaeological sites (186), and the proliferation of expensive and time-
consumingnew techniquesfor analyzingarchaeologicaldata. It may also assist
in finding "compatiblegoals and field methods"that will bring cultural re-
source managementand academic archaeologycloser together (61, p. 431).
In the 1950s and 1960s prehistoricarchaeologistsemphasizedthe similarities
between their field and the rest of anthropology(10, 188, pp. 1-7). Today,
whether archaeology and ethnology or social anthropologyare thought of as
separatedisciplines or as two branchesof anthropology,it is once again being
acknowledgedthatthey exploit differentcategoriesof data, which differentiate
275
0084-6570/84/ 1015-0275$02.00
276 TRIGGER

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

Between 1910 and the 1950s, Americanarchaeologypassed throughits "cul-


ture-historical"phase (189, pp. 83-180). Three importantfeatures disting-
uishedthe archaeologyof thatperiod. Most importantly,archaeologistssought
to define individualarchaeologicalculturesand to use these units to construct
local chronologies or culturalsequences. Second, many archaeologistsaimed
to learnas much as possible aboutthe way of life thatwas associatedwith each
of these cultures. This interest had persisted from a still earlier phase of
Americanarchaeology,despite a growingfeeling amongthe stricteradvocates
of formalclassification that it was no longer scientific to speculateaboutwhat
artifactshad been used for (162, pp. 73-80). This featurehas generally been
overlookedor de-emphasizedin the stereotypesof culture-historicalarchaeolo-
gy that were formulatedby the "New Archaeology"(189, pp. 133-36). The
third characteristicof culture-historicalarchaeology was its much criticized
tendency to account for change by invoking external factors operating by
means of diffusion and migration.
In the 1950s, therewere two importantdevelopmentsin Americanarchaeol-
ogy. The first was a growing interestin culturalecology, exemplified in works
such as Caldwell's Trendand Traditionin the Prehistoryof the Eastern United
States (24). The second was the emergence of settlementarchaeology, which
was heraldedby Willey's monographon changing settlementpatternsin the
ViruValley, Peru(187). These developmentssignaledthe startof majorefforts
to study the adaptivepatternsand social organizationof prehistoricsocieties.
Settlementarchaeologydrew attentionto the importanceof a class of datathat
had sufferedrelativelylittle distortionin the course of abandonmentandhence
providedvaluable informationaboutthe contexts in which humanbeings had
lived in prehistorictimes. Both approachesencouragedthe study of change as
processes that were internalto prehistoricsocieties and enhanced an under-
standingof theirinternalstructure.Therewere precedentsfor these approaches
in Europeanarchaeology, especially in the work of Clark(41, 42) on ecology
and of Clark(40), Childe (32, 36, 38), Tallgren(161), and Soviet archaeolog-
ists (106, 117) on social organization.
The New or Processual Archaeology that was formulated in the 1960s
maintainedthat the highest goal of archaeologywas not to understandhistory
but to emulate social anthropologistsby trying to formulateand test general
laws of humanbehavior. This view had alreadybeen enunciatedby Kidderin
the 1930s (98, p. 138), TaylorinA Studyof Archeologyin the 1940s (162, pp.
154-57), andWilley andPhillipsin Methodand Theoryin AmericanArchaeol-
ogy in the 1950s, althoughwhen the latterpublishedthey felt thatlittle hadbeen
achieved along these lines (188, p. 5). By the 1950s, a growing number of
archaeologistswere smartingfrom the chargethattheirdiscipline was descrip-
tive rather than theoretical in orientation and that they were the not very
278 TRIGGER

intelligent playboys of anthropology.Many ethnologists were claiming that


theirown work was more nomotheticin orientationthanit appearsto be today
(99). This made many archaeologists anxious to prove that they could do
whatever ethnologists could. Among this group, the New Archaeologists
dedicatedthemselves to using archaeologicaldatato contributeto the develop-
ment of a generalbody of social science theory(112, pp. 364-68; 180). At the
same time, they borrowedfrom general anthropology,and in particularfrom
the work of Stewardand White, a set of concepts that were not sharedat that
time by a majority of ethnologists and which remain controversial(87, pp.
117-341). These were chosen, not becausethey were demonstratedto be better
founded than others, but because they appearedto enhance the theoretical
importanceof archaeologicaldata.
The first of these concepts was the doctrine of neoevolutionism (86, pp.
634-53). Neoevolutionismsharedwith the culturalevolutionarybeliefs of the
nineteenthcenturythe convictionthatall significantdifferencesamongcultures
can be regardedas differing states of developmentfrom simple to complex.
Therefore,in accountingfor culturalvariation,developmentis the main factor
to be explained. Sahlins and Service, in distinguishingbetween general and
specific evolution, allowed a significantrole for adaptationalas well as evolu-
tionaryfactorsin creatingculturalvariation(145). Yet despite their interestin
ecology, archaeologistshave been more fascinated by the neoevolutionists'
unilinear scheme of development from band throughtribe and chiefdom to
civilization (144, 153, 154). While paying lipservice as an ecologist to the
concept of multilinearevolution, Stewardplayed a majorrole in promotingthis
unilinearperspective with his argumentthat only parallels (not differences)
among culturesare an appropriateobject of scientific study (159, p. 209). He
also set a bad example by claiming that only one set of circumstancescould
account for the earliest development of civilizations in different parts of the
world. He furtherimplied that all othercivilizations were secondaryones that
would not have occurredhad the primaryones not already existed (159, pp.
178-209). Despite his disclaimers(158), his treatmentof the origins of civi-
lization must be seen as strongly unilinear.
The New Archaeologists also emphasized a systemic view of culture, as
settlementand ecologically orientedarchaeologistshad done previously. Bin-
ford stressed that culture was something that individualsparticipatedin dif-
ferentially, and he adopted from White the concept of individual cultures as
functionally integratedthermodynamicsystems (184, pp. 364-69). He also
rejectedthe Durkheimianview of society thatsimplisticallydefinedfunctionas
the positive contributionthat a part makes to the operation of the whole.
Durkheim and the British social anthropologistswho adopted his ideas had
assumedthatthe variousinstitutionsof a society were harmoniouslyintegrated
in the same manneras were the variousorgansthatcomposed a living creature,
AT THECROSSROADS 279
ARCHAEOLOGY

and they interpretedthe lack of such harmonyas evidence of social pathology


anddecay (86, pp. 515-67). The New Archaeologyquicklyreplacedthis static
view of integration, as well as White's rathersimplistic concept of systems
change, with a model derivedfrom cyberneticsthathad subsystemsintegrated
by means of positive and negative feedback (180, pp. 61-87). This seemed
particularlyadvantageous because it allowed a systemic understandingof
culturalchange. In general, social anthropologistsare still experimentingvery
cautiouslywith a systems theory approach(141). Like social anthropologists,
the New Archaeologistscontinuedto view socioculturalentitiesas systems that
are both integratedand clearly bounded.
The thirdcommitmentof the New Archaeologywas to a materialistperspec-
tive thathad been introducedinto Americanarchaeologynot long before as the
resultof a growing interestin ecology. Yet the formulationof this perspective
remainedunclear. Archaeologists invoked the technological determinismof
White and the ecological determinismof Stewardwithout noting the logical
incompatibilityof the two (10). These views were soonjoined by a demograph-
ic determinisminspiredby the workof the economist Boserup(45, 156), while
the economic determinismof Harnissoughtto reconcileall threeof the above in
an eclectic synthesis (87). All of these formulations are very narrow by
comparisonwith the classical Marxistdeterminismof the mode of production,
and from a Marxistperspectivethey constituteexamples of vulgarmaterialism
(102).
The fourthcommitmentof the New Archaeologywas to a deductivemode of
explanationand a related insistence upon the equivalence of explanationand
prediction(157; 180, pp. 3-57). Whatevermay be the intrinsicmerit of this
approach,which is derived from logical positivism, it is clear that in practice
the identificationof explanationand predictionworks best in situationswhere
causality is narrowand direct.

CAUSALITY AND INTEGRATION


Underlyingthese principleswere assumptionsthatwere less clearly spelled out
by the New Archaeologists. It was generally agreed that cultures were open
systems interactingbothpositively andnegativelywith the naturalenvironment
andthereforepartsof a largerecosystem (189, pp. 191-92). Some archaeolog-
ists also paid lip service to the idea that neighboring cultures or societies
influenced one anotherand might thereforebe considered as parts of larger
socioculturalnetworks (11). Generally, however, these influences were ana-
lyzed rathermechanicallyin terms of processes of diffusion and adaptationas
they had been during the culture-historicalperiod (12, pp. 91-93; 43, pp.
321-55). For the most part, archaeologists studied sociocultural entities in
isolation from one another, as if they were closed systems that constituted
280 TRIGGER

independentunits of analysis. This trend reflected the general rejection of


diffusionandmigrationas acceptablemechanismsfor explainingchange (5). It
was reinforcedwhen settlement archaeologistssuch as Willey (187), Chang
(28), Adams (2), and myself (166) began to treatthe archaeologicalrecordas
evidence of how the populationof a region had modified its economic, social,
and political institutionsover long periods of time. In such an exercise, the
traditionalsuccession of archaeologicalcultures,defined mainlyon the basis of
stylistic criteria, served primarilyto provide chronologicalindices. Although
the growing interestof archaeologistsin explainingchanges within sociocultu-
ral units or regions was a majorstep forward,it also representedthe temporary
abandonmentof an earlierarchaeologicalinterestin relationsamong cultures.
The tendencyto analyze culturesas isolatedunits was reinforcedby Steward's
dictumthatevery borrowingis an independentrecurrenceof cause and effect.
By this he meantthata culturewould only copy a traitfromits neighborsif there
was a need for it and that the effect was the same as if it had been invented
within the recipient culture (159, p. 182; for an applicationsee 27).
New Archaeologistsalso tendedto assumethatarchaeologicalcultureswere
the remainsof tightly integratedculturalsystems. They subscribedto the belief
of social anthropologiststhat changes occurringin any partof the system will
cause varyingdegrees of readjustment,andhence change, to occur throughout
the entire system. Indeed, the systemic perspectiveof the New Archaeology
stresseda higherdegree of integrationthandid traditionalsocial anthropology.
Most of them also espousedthe deterministicview thatchanges in limitedparts
of a culturalsystem play a disproportionaterole in bringingabout changes in
other sectors (173). A particularlynarrowdeterminismwas promotedin the
1960s by Meggers (114) and Struever (160, pp. 134-35), who combined
various ideas of White and Stewardto arguethattotal culturalsystems can be
explained as a productof technology interactingwith the environment.They
maintained that similarities in these two sectors would produce basically
similar total cultural systems. Strong determinismof this sort would be re-
quiredto limit culturalvariabilityto the point where unilinear(or even limited
multilinear) evolutionism could adequately account for reality. Something
approximatingthis view continues to be maintainedas an ideal by Sanders,
Parsons, and Santley, who argue that four or five major (but unnamed)
variablesshould be able to account for 80 percentof culturalsimilarities and
differences visible in the archaeological record (148, p. 360). Yet these
archaeologists honestly admit that they cannot identify these variables or
demonstratesuch a high degree of causality.
Superficially,a rigiddeterminism,especially one thatis rootedin a material-
ist causality, would seem to augerwell for archaeology.To judge frommaterial
appearingin annualsurveys such as Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory, archaeologists continue to be most successful with reconstructing
ARCHAEOLOGYAT THE CROSSROADS 281

palaeo-environmentsand studyingtechnology, subsistence, and long-distance


tradingnetworks. They have also made considerableprogress in delineating
prehistoricdemographictrendsand social organization,althoughthere is still
much circularityin discussions of relations between demographicand other
forms of cultural change (88). Hodder (20, 91, 92) and Wobst (192) have
proposedthatstylistic and ritualisticelaborationcan be interpretedas evidence
of competition and tension within and between cultures. This may make it
possible for archaeologiststo investigatewhat many social theoristsregardas
the primary cause of social change (113, p. 93) and, in particular,to test
Marxistexplanationsof it (181, p. 97). If controllingfor some or all of these
factors allowed prediction of less tangible aspects of cultural systems and
explanationsof how whole systems change over time, archaeologistswould be
very little disadvantagedby their data by comparisonwith ethnologists.
Yet such a situationwould also be extremelylimitingfor archaeologysince,
except for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithiccultures, for which no modem
parallelsmay exist, archaeologistswould have nothingnovel to explain. All the
variations in human societies would be representedby cultures at different
levels of development found in the modem world, and these cultures can
inevitably be studied more effectively and in greaterdetail ethnographically
than archaeologically.If the only significantdifferenceamong societies is the
stage of developmentthey are in, archaeologyhas nothing new or valuable to
offer anthropology. It can merely illustrate concretely the past history of
specific regions and determinewhen they passed throughdifferent stages of
development. At best, archaeologycould help to shed light on a few stages of
development, such as early civilizations, that are poorly representedin the
ethnographic record. The realization of a similar limitation late in the
nineteenthcenturyplayed a significantrole in the rejectionof unilinearevolu-
tion by Europeanarchaeologistswho were seeking a new and more important
role for their discipline. Their realizationthat evolutionarystages alone could
not account for the variationsin the archaeologicalrecordled to the develop-
ment of culture-historicalarchaeology(169, pp. 54-74; for modem parallels
see 102, p. 112). New Archaeologistshave counteredthatarchaeologicaldata,
because of their continuity and great time depth, are uniquely useful for
studying change over long periods and for resolving major issues such as
whether culturalchange normally occurs graduallyand continuously or sud-
denly in the formof punctuatedequilibria(125, 126, 134, 138). I agreethatthis
question is important,but it is not the only sort of importantquestion that
archaeologistscan hope to address.
Most ethnologistshave not foundneoevolutionaryformulationsconvincing.
They have rejectedBoasian historicalparticularismwhich viewed cultures as
collections of traits broughttogetherby historical accidents, the result being
constrainedat most by the psychologicalcompatibilityof these traits,as argued
282 TRIGGER

by Ruth Benedict in Patterns of Culture. Yet most anthropologistsdo not see


evidence of the tight integrationof cultures posited by the neoevolutionists.
Too many neoevolutionistpropositionswhen examined closely turnout to be
special instances being treated as if they were universals. For example, the
stage labeled tribal society is often delineated on the basis of New Guinea
big-mansocieties which have very differentsocial andpolitical structuresfrom
native societies in eastern North America that shared the same mode of
productionand aregenerallyviewed as being at the same stage of development
(182, p. 156). These objectionsare raisednot only by idealists and eclecticists
but also by many materialists.White argued that technology determines the
general nature of social organizationand these two together determine the
generalnatureof ideology. He cautioned, however, thatit was not possible to
predict the specific content of social organization or belief systems from
technology (183, p. 346). For many materialistscausality means that factors
such as technology, demography,and the relationsof productionmay restrict
the rangeof possible variationin social organizationand patternsof belief; not
that they determine the specific content of these aspects of culture (75, pp.
202-4). The observationthatthereis more free variationin social organization
and beliefs than in economic patternsprovides a powerfultheoreticalbasis for
Hawkes's argumentthat prehistorictechnology, economic behavior, social
organization, and religious beliefs constitute a hierarchy of levels that
archaeologistsfind increasinglydifficult to infer (89). Despite the ridiculethat
the New Archaeology has heaped upon this hierarchy(12, pp. 93-94), Haw-
kes's scale of difficulty shows signs of surviving and even winning over its
detractors(18, pp. 16, 32; 83, pp. 7-8).
During the 1970s, many archaeologistsbecame disillusioned as a result of
theirefforts to apply neoevolutionaryformulationsto the interpretationof their
data. Fried's (74) argument that many of the more complex phenomena
associated with tribal societies were productsof acculturationresulting from
contact with Westernculturesratherthan spontaneousinternaldevelopments
has caused some archaeologiststo regardthis stage with greatsuspicion (136).
Earle's (63) demonstrationthat the economy of Hawaii, and by implication
those of other chiefdoms, were not based on the centralizedredistributionof
staples is now widely accepted and has begun to modify the views that
archaeologistshold of this stage (50, pp. 25-38; 124). Less attentionhas been
paid to his demonstrationthat in Hawaii physical coercion was used to extract
economic surplusesfor the benefit of the upperclasses (64, pp. 18-19). This
observationchallenges the idea that institutionalizedinequalitypreceded the
developmentof coercion and the state. The latterposition has been popularin
Americananthropologysince it was madecentralto Steward'strialformulation
of the developmentof civilization (159, pp. 178-209). It is also closely related
to popularviews of Americansociety. We are now beginningto see a growing
ARCHAEOLOGY
AT THECROSSROADS 283

emphasis on alternativeevolutionarypatternswith respect to the development


of complex societies (19, 71, 190) that in some respects representsa returnto
the multilinearviews that were eclipsed among Americananthropologistsby
Steward'swork (30, 73). Thereis also a growing emphasison conceptualizing
evolutionarychanges in terms of processes ratherthan patterns(70, 96, 97,
113, 178, 196).
Growing skepticism about neoevolutionism also encourages doubts about
the assumptionsof strong and focused causality on which it is based. This
oppositionfirst became evident in archaeologyin the form of growing support
for a systems theoryapproachthatavoidedpreconceivedideas aboutthe nature
of causalityandwas conceptualizedin a more inductivefashionas a methodfor
searchingfor regularities.This approachhas flourisheddespite the claim thatit
is neo-Boasian in its general orientation(110). In particular,it has manifested
itself in growing claims thatpolitical and social, as well as economic, factors
play a dynamic role in bringing about social change (23, 48, 123 ).
Opposition to neoevolutionismhas also been manifested in the increasing
supportfor an explicitly societal approachto the study of the past. The early
formulationsof the New Archaeology by Binford and Clarkewere framed in
terms of culturalsystems (10, 43). More recently therehas been a tendency to
emphasize social systems (130, 168), a position alreadyfavoredby settlement
archaeologistsin North America and by Renfrew (131, 132) in England, but
with still earliermanifestationsgoing back throughthe work of Childe (32, 36,
38) and Soviet archaeologists(106) to Durkheimand Marx. Gould has argued
ratherweakly that culture is a misleading concept for analyzing human be-
havior because it "posits an artificialseparationbetween man and the natural
world"(61, p. 434; 81, p. 44). Otherarchaeologistshave more appropriately
expressed doubts about whether individual cultures are universal or even
appropriateunits of study (92, pp. 2-8; 133; 155; 167, pp. 14-15). In particu-
lar, it is queriedwhether,having been designed for the analysisof small-scale,
sedentarysocieties, the concept of the archaeologicalculturehas much value
for studyingmoreopen hunter-gatherer ones or the complex political structures
of the early civilizations (167, pp. 17-18).
Those who are influenced by Durkheimiansociology see the structured
aspect of humanbehavioras being a networkof social relations, with cultural
traits,whetherthey have to do with technology, social organization,beliefs, or
values acquiring their functional significance from their relationshipto the
social system (86, pp. 518-19). This view does not deny the importanceof
culture,or the humancapacityfor symbolic manipulationandcommunication,
as a crucial emergentpropertyof humanbehavior, the origins of which can be
explained within the scope of a materialistperspective(195). Yet it avoids the
temptationto treatcultureas an autonomoussystem by firmly insisting thatits
functioningmust be understoodin relationshipto the patternsof social interac-
284 TRIGGER

tion by which humanlife is sustainedas humanbeings interactwith each other


and theirenvironment.Withinthe longer perspectiveof primatedevelopment,
social systems antedatethe emergence of culture. The concept of society thus
allows a much more specific view of integration,as well as a more human-
centeredone thandoes the idea of a culturalsystem. The growinginfluenceof a
societal perspective therefore correlates with the abandonmentof a narrow
technological or ecological causality and of neoevolutionism.
The assumptions of Hodder's structuralor. symbolic approach reinforce
ratherthan contradictthis view. If culture is structured,as the structuralists
claim, it is on a psychological level andhence the orderingis of a differenttype
from the articulationsposited by those who view societies or cultures as
functionally integrated systems. Structuralanthropologistscannot agree to
what extent symbolic structuringis shapedby and thereforereflects the mate-
rial basis of human life (93, pp. 10-14). Even most of those who claim that
thereis a causalconnection(56, 69, 109) tendto see it as a loose one thatleaves
much room for other factors to influence the resulting cognitive patterns.
Extreme idealists would deny a direct connection between society and the
patternsunderlying human thought which they would attributeto universal
properties of human psychology (87, pp. 165-215). Hodder argues that,
whichever of these views more nearly describes reality, insofar as human
thoughtand perceptionplay a role in shapingthe materialbasis of humanlife,
the result is to increase random variation in human behavior and to make
culturalpatternsless predictable(93, pp. 1-14).
While a viable society can be analyzed as a structurednetwork of human
interaction,it is uncertainto what degree either a cultureor a society can be
accuratelydescribed as a system. For a society to survive, certain functional
prerequisitesmust be maintainedat an adequatelevel (1). Beyond that, social
scientists disagree whetherits partsare interrelatedto a considerabledegree or
thereis much room for free variation.We have alreadynoted thattheremay be
morevariationin some areasof culturethanin others, and it is possible thatthe
degree of constraintvaries from one cultureto another.The degree to which
social or cultural units constitute formal systems is for archaeologists and
anthropologiststo determine. It is not something that can be assumed in
advance, as has been done all too often in the past (147, 173).

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

culturalchange. This was manifestedin the developmentof the concept of an


"interactionsphere"to explain how Hopewellian ritual patternscame to be
sharedby many differentsocieties in the AmericanMidwest (12, p. 204; 25).
Lamberg-Karlovskyand others also indicatedthe need to view Mesopotamian
civilization as part of a much larger zone in which from early times many
culturesshaped each other's developmentthroughvarious forms of interrela-
tions (6, 100, 107). Therehas also been discussion of "peerpolity"interaction
in prehistoricEurope (135) and "clusterinteraction"in Mesoamerica(128).
The intensive archaeological surveys of Sanders and his coworkers in the
Valley of Mexico have revealedmarkeddiversitiesin local patternsof develop-
ment within thatregion and also the need to studythe whole valley in orderto
understandwhat was happeningin its variousparts.For example, the massive
increase in populationand the growth of urbanismin the TeotihuacanValley
can only be understoodwhen it is realizedthat similarpopulationgrowth was
not occurring elsewhere in the Valley of Mexico, but on the contrary the
populationwas declining at thattime (148). Adams has shown the same to be
true in his studies of Mesopotamiansettlementpatterns(3, 4). This work has
severely challenged the belief that events in one area can be taken to be
representativeof a whole region. The latter was the view that had guided
ethnographic community studies in the 1940s and 1950s and which also
pervadedthe Viru Valley archaeologicalproject (149, p. 360).
More recently, Blantonet al have pointedout thatbecause of the high levels
of interactionand economic interdependencethroughoutMesoamericain pre-
historic times, the developmentof one region, such as the Valley of Mexico,
cannotbe understoodindependentlyof the rest. They proposeto treatthe whole
of Mesoamerica as a single "macroregionalunit" (19). Such a view places
prodigiousdemandsuponthe informfnation gatheringcapacityof archaeology.It
also raises importantquestions about how the boundariesof macroregional
units are to be establishedor if such boundariescan be defined. The core of
what is recognized as Mesoamericaclearly was united by intensive and recip-
rocal economic, political, andreligiousinteractiondespite its diverse andoften
forbiddingterrain.Yet it is also known that economic and ritualinfluences of
Mesoamericanorigin influencedthe culturaldevelopmentof the southwestern
United States and easternNorth America, althoughit is not often possible to
determinethe social context in which these contactsoccurred(9, 66). Examin-
ing interactionsof this sort brings archaeologistsback to the sort of problems
that once were studied under the rubricof diffusion.
Recently some archaeologistshave attemptedto introducemore theoretical
rigorinto the studyof interactionbetweensocieties by employingWallerstein's
concept of world systems (19, 67, 100, 101, 103; 140, p. 58). World-systems
theory involves the examinationof large-scale spatial systems, assuming an
286 TRIGGER

interregionaldivision of labor in which peripheralareassupply core ones with


raw materials, the core areas are politically and economically dominant, and
the social and economic development of all regions is constrained by the
changingroles thatthey play in the system (179). Kohl has pointedout thatthe
world systems of antiquity probably only superficially resembled those of
modem times (103). In particular,he has suggested that the rankingsof cores
and peripherieswere probablyless stable than they are now and that political
force may have played a moreovertrole in regulatingthem. While this remains
to be substantiated,what is importantis the growing realizationthat societies
are not closed systems with respect to their neighbors any more than with
respect to their environmentand that the developmentof a cultureor society
may be constrainedor influencedby the broadersocial networkof which it is a
part.Thereis also increasingrecognitionthatthe rules governingthese proces-
ses arethemselves worthyof scientific investigation.The challengeis to extend
a systemic analysis to incorporatewhat used to be called diffusion.
It is also being acknowledgedthatnot only goods, persons, andideas but also
whole institutionsmay be transferredfrom one society to another.The intro-
duction of the Christianchurch as a hierarchicalorganizationwith its own
trainedpersonnelinto Anglo-SaxonEnglandandof Buddhisminto Japanin the
sixth centuryA.D. left a markedandlastingimpacton the economic, social, and
political organizationof these countries that was different from what would
have happenedhad a purely indigenousstate cult developed in eitherof them.
In bothcases the clericalbureaucracysignificantlystrengthenedthe administra-
tion of nascentstates (169, pp. 216-28). The fact thatsocieties areopen to their
neighborsintroducescomplicationsthatmaketheirtrajectoriesof development
harderto predict than archaeologistshad previously assumed.
These observationsraise additionalquestionsaboutthe scientific validity of
the concept of socioculturalsystems. No one will deny that there are various
boundariesmarkedby differingdegrees of social interaction.Yet can a hierar-
chy of levels be distinguishedin which individualscan be seen as membersof
families, families as parts of communities, communities as components of
societies, and societies forming larger interactionspheres?Or do individuals
participatedifferentiallyin patternedinteractionat manydifferentlevels and as
membersof many differentkinds of groups (1 13)? One must not minimize the
importanceof brokersand decisionmakerswho, as chiefs, rulers, and govern-
ment officials, mediate between differentlevels of society and effect varying
degrees of closure. Yet a sober analysis of networksof social, political, and
economic interaction calls into serious question the idea that societies or
culturesare more significantunits of analysis than are a whole series of other
units. The entity to be studied is determinedby the problem that is being
investigated.
AT THECROSSROADS 287
ARCHAEOLOGY

ARCHAEOLOGY,HISTORY, AND SCIENCE

Ethnologistshave long assumedthatthe earliestrecordeddescriptionsof native


cultures reveal what they were like prior to Europeancontact and that such
informationcan be used without serious question for cross-culturalstudies of
culturalvariation.In NorthAmerica, archaeologyis now revealingthat native
cultureswere vastly alteredas a result of Europeancontact before the earliest
descriptionsof these cultures were recordedby Europeans(49, 129, 185). It
also seems possible thatevery hunter-gatherer or tribalsociety in the world was
influenced to some degree by contact with technologically more advanced
societies prior to ethnographicstudy (21; 74; 118, p. 228; 170; 193). The
Bushmen of southern Africa have been treated as a paradigmatichunter-
gatherersociety. Yet there is now growing interestin the ways in which their
life has been influenced in recent centuriesby contacts with Europeansettlers
and with their agriculturaland pastoralBantu and Hottentotneighbors(151).
The impact that these groups have had on the southernAfrican environment
may also have alteredBushmenlife in manyways. Underthese circumstances,
it is dangerousfor anthropologiststo assumethatBushmenor any othermodern
hunter-gatherersocieties are necessarily equivalent to Palaeolithic ones.
The variouseconomic ties thatlink modernhunter-gatherers to theirnonhun-
ter-gathererneighbors also call into question whether modem and ancient
hunter-gathereror tribalsocieties sharethe same mode of productionand can
therefore be treated as societies at the same stage of development. Binford
recently used northernnative groups that have engaged for generations in
trappingand exchanging furs with the world economic system as a basis for
suggestingcertainuniversalgeneralizationsaboutthe natureof hunter-gatherer
adaptationsin high latitudes(15). Some anthropologistsbelieve thatbecauseof
their inherentflexibility, the economies of at least some of these groups have
not been radically alteredby the fur trade;others disagree (72, pp. 14-15).
Only detailed archaeologicalstudies can objectively determineto what extent
ethnographicdescriptions of hunter-gathereror tribal agriculturalsocieties
provide a representativepictureof what these societies were like in prehistoric
times (164).
Until more such studies have been made, the significance of major cross-
culturalinvestigationsbased on ethnographicdata must remain in doubt. For
example, Driver and Massey's information about North American Indian
cultures was drawn from descriptions of societies that had been altered in
variousways as a result of Europeancontact(58). Otherstudies have revealed
that such data can give a false impression of the diversity in native cultural
patterns (65, pp. 15-44). It is therefore necessary to ascertain what native
NorthAmericansocieties were like priorto Europeandiscovery before we can
288 TRIGGER

fully evaluateDriverand Massey's conclusion thatdiffusion played at least as


importanta role as did functionalconstraintsin determiningtraitdistributions
among North American societies. Archaeology has an importantrole to play
not only in unravelingthe complex history of the past but also in evaluating
anthropologicalproblems of major theoreticalimportance.
It is becoming increasingly evident to archaeologiststhat ethnologists or
social anthropologists,whetherconcernedwith social structureor change, are
investigating the results of acculturation,because their data concern small-
scale societies that are in the process of being destroyedor incorporatedmore
completely into the modernworld system. History and archaeologyalone can
studythe evolution of culturesin the past (33). It is also becoming clear thatno
society can be properlyunderstoodor even classified from a structuralpoint of
view withoutdeterminingits relationshipto othersocieties (194). Every society
must be understoodas the structuraltransformationof its own previous state,
the elements of which were manipulatedas part of social and ecological
strategieswithina contextthatincludesneighboringsocieties (75; 102, p. 112).
The latternot only providedcompetitionbut also were sourcesof new elements
for manipulation.
Relations among contemporarysocieties, especially ones at differentlevels
of development, are as importanta sourceof change andthereforeas important
an evolutionary force and as legitimate an object of anthropologicalunder-
standing as are the internally generated changes that have been studied by
neoevolutionaryanthropologists.Evolutionarytheory should not only be con-
cerned with endogenouschange. It should also seek to understandhow neigh-
boring societies have influencedeach other's developmentthroughouthistory.
In particular,archaeologistsshould be concernedwith developing generaliza-
tions abouthow societies, especially those with differentkinds of economies,
influenceeach other. Social anthropologistsinterestedin problemsof develop-
ment are alreadydoing this for presentday small-scale societies that are being
drawn into the capitalist world system. Archaeologistsare challenged by the
more formidabletask of developing similar generalizationsfor a vast arrayof
precapitalistsocieties. Alexanderand Mohammedhave pioneeredthis sort of
approachby elaboratinga frontiermodel to explain the interactionof hunter-
gathererand early agriculturalsocieties in the Sudan (7). Golson has stressed
the need to consider competition among different types of hunter-gatherer
societies as a major source of change (79).
By its very nature, a body of evolutionarytheory that seeks to explain not
only internally generated change but also change resulting from interaction
between different societies must be exceedingly complex. It is probablyun-
realistic to think of such a theoreticalstructureever being completely elabo-
rated, It is something that will continue to be refined as long as the social
sciences make progress in understandinghuman behavior. Such a body of
ARCHAEOLOGY
AT THECROSSROADS 289

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

studying the evolution of concrete social systems provides an indispensable


basis for producingreliable generalizationsabout structureand change for the
social sciences. Farfrombeing peripheralto these disciplines, archaeologyand
history become central for understandingthem.

EXPLANATIONS:UNIVERSAL AND OTHER


The New Archaeologyhas paid very little attentionto studyingthe cosmology,
religiousbeliefs, values, or even (with the notableexceptionof lithic reduction
processes) the technologicalknowledge of prehistoriccultures(22). Studies of
archaeoastronomy(8) andprehistoriciconography(57, 77, 122) have generally
been carried out by archaeologists not closely associated with the New
Archaeology.The lack of interestin religiousbeliefs is extraordinary,since the
evidence for them is ubiquitous in the archaeological record from Middle
Palaeolithictimes onward. Such investigationsappearto have been precluded
by the strong emphasis on ecology and by the difficulties that seem to be
encountered in applying a deductive strategy to the investigation of such
problems. As Dunnell has observed, "the ecological and evolutionary
approaches, borrowed from the biological sciences, were not designed to
explainmotivationalandsymbolic systems"(62, p. 521). Therehas also been a
tendency for the New Archaeology, with its narrowcausality, to regardthese
aspects of cultureas epiphenomenathat are of little importancefor explaining
culturalchange. Yet such interestsare by no means excluded by a materialist
orientation.Childe arguedlong ago that the incorporationof these aspects of
culture into an overall explanationof human behavior was essential for the
development of a successful materialistresearch strategy (37). Among the
strong points of structuralor symbolic archaeologyis the fact that it is once
againdrawingattentionto the potentialimportanceof suchcognitive factorsfor
explaining culturalchange (92, 93).
The specific contentof knowledgeandbeliefs is highly variableeven among
cultures that have similar modes of production. Generalizationsseem to be
possible about the broad types of knowledge and beliefs that correlate with
societies that sharea similarlevel of complexity or thathave the same general
type of economy, but these generalizationsare at such a high level that they
explain only a small portion of the variation that can be observed in the
archaeologicalrecord (35, 69). As archaeologistsonce again take account of
the complexity of humanphenomena,they arebeginningto realize thatuniver-
sal generalizations do not exhaust the regularitiesthat characterizehuman
behavior. Universal generalizationsmay vary from major assumptionsabout
historical processes to regularitiesdealing with relatively trivial aspects of
humanbehavior(146, pp. 8-30). Yet in economics and economic anthropolo-
gy, the substantivistsargue that majorgeneralizationsabout humanbehavior
ARCHAEOLOGYAT THE CROSSROADS 291

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

nonrenewableresources(171). The widespread,largely implicit acceptanceof


a materialistperspectiveby Americanarchaeologists(102, p. 91) also appears
to reflect changing social conditions. Concernwith social factors influencing
the developmentof archaeologyhas led to a growing interestin the history of
the discipline (54, 82, 95, 115, 152, 189). The relativistview does not deny
that, as a result of archaeological research, it is possible to obtain a more
complete and objective understandingof the past. Indeed, it can be arguedthat
an understandingof the social factors that influence archaeologicalresearch
should enhance the self-awareness of archaeologistsand hence the value of
theirinterpretations.The resultsof such researchseem to be of interesteven to
those archaeologistswho reject it as "irrationalist"(18, pp. 233, 241).
In recentyears therehas been muchdiscussionof the goals of archaeological
research.It would appearthatthe propositionis graduallybeing abandonedthat
archaeologicaldatashouldbe used in muchthe same way as ethnographicdata
to generalizeabouthumanbehavior.The problemsof processingarchaeologic-
al data put them at a disadvantagefor this purpose. Some archaeologistshave
seen their discipline as the nucleus of a new science of materialculture (43),
althoughothers would restrictthis role to historicalarchaeology(55, p. 167).
Yet, while archaeology is based on materialculture, it can inform us about
many other aspects of humanbehavior. Hence most archaeologistsprobably
agree that to restrictthe discipline in this mannerwould be to cultivate a new
artifact-centeredantiquarianism(53, pp. 370-76). Thereis also agreementthat
one of the key strengthsof archaeologicaldata is their ability to document
change over long periods of time. At present the growing awareness of the
complexity of the forces thatareresponsiblefor bringingaboutculturalchange
is blunting the distinction between science and history that has dominated
prehistoricarchaeologysince the 1950s (18, pp. 26-30; 172; 191, p. 8). There
is no agreementin the social sciences abouthigh-level generalizationsconcern-
ing humanbehavior. Even if there were such a body of theory, comparableto
the synthetictheory of biological evolution, this would not provide automatic
answersto a host of more specific problemsof humanbehavior(87, p. 77). Nor
would it permit the predictionof specific developments in prehistorictimes.
The first responsibility of archaeologists therefore seems to be to recover
evidence about the past and to use every analyticaldevice and every scrap of
knowledge about human behavior at their disposal to interpretthis record as
evidence of prehistorichuman activity.
The understanding,within the limits thatarchaeologicaldatawill permit, of
what has happenedto specific groups of people in the past is a matterof great
humanisticas well as scientific interest. Througharchaeologicalstudies, the
idea that nonliteratepeoples were primitiveand unchangingsavages has been
refuted. Emergent nations in Africa and elsewhere look to archaeology for
knowledge of theirprecolonialdevelopment(127). In NorthAmerica, Austra-
294 TRIGGER

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

data and to determinewhatkinds of problemsarchaeologistsmay and may not


hope to address satisfactorily. It is also being recognized that societies and
cultures are open with respect not only to the environmentbut also to each
other. Any generalexplanationof culturalchange must thereforetake account
of how neighboringsocieties influence one anotheras well as of changes that
areof endogenousorigin. This poses a formidablechallenge for archaeologists
to join in a long-termeffort to understandhumanbehaviorbetter. All of these
developments negate the sharp distinctions that archaeologists have drawn
between inductive and deductive approachesand between the explanationof
specific historicalsequences andthe elaborationof theoriesof humanbehavior
and socioculturalprocess. The resultshouldbe thatin the long runarchaeology
becomes increasinglyhistoricalin orientationwhile historyis acknowledgedto
be scientific, in the sense that generalizationsare both a means and an end of
historicalresearch. In the long run, archaeologistsalso may learn more fully
that in historicalinvestigationsprogressis measuredas much by the questions
thatresearcherslearnto ask as by the answersthatthey offer at any given time
(46, pp. 24-30).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The core of this paper was presented in March 1983 to the Departmentof
Anthropology, Wellesley College, and the following May to the Centre for
Prehistory,Universityof WesternAustralia.For theirconstructivecomments,
I wish to thankthe participantsin these seminars.The paperwas writtenwhile I
was the recipient of sabbatical leave from McGill University and a Leave
Fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada.

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

dogs' tails: Hunter-gatherersettlement Knowledge (HobhouseMem. TrustLec-


systems and archaeological site forma- ture 19). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
tion. Am. Antiq. 45:4-20 36. Childe, V. G. 1951. Social Evolution.
16. Binford, L. R. 1981. Behavioralarchae- New York: Schuman
ology and the 'Pompeii premise'. J. 37. Childe, V. G. 1956. Society and Know-
Anthropol. Res. 37:195-208 ledge. New York: Harper
17. Binford, L. R. 1981. Bones:AncientMen 38. Childe, V. G. 1958. The Prehistory of
and Modern Myths. New York: EuropeanSociety. Harmondsworth:Pen-
Academic guin
18. Binford, L. R. 1983. In Pursuit of the 39. Clark,G. A. 1982. Quantifyingarchaeo-
Past. London: Thames & Hudson logical research.Adv. Archaeol. Method
19. Blanton, R. E., Kowalewski, S. A., Theory 5:217-73
Feinman, G., Appel, J. 1981. Ancient 40. Clark, J. G. D. 1939. Archaeology and
Mesoamerica:A Comparisonof Change Society. London: Methuen
in Three Regions. Cambridge: Cam- 41. Clark, J. G. D. 1952. Prehistoric
bridge Univ. Press Europe: The Economic Basis. London:
20. Bradley, R., Hodder, I. 1979. British Methuen
prehistory: an integrated view. Man 42. Clark,J. G. D. 1954. Excavationsat Star
14:93-104 Carr. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
21. Brasser, T. J. C. 1971. Groupidentifica- Press
tion along a moving frontier. Munich: 43. Clarke,D. L. 1968. AnalyticalArchaeol-
Verh. 38th Int. Am. Kongr. 2:261-65 ogy. London: Methuen
22. Bray, W. 1982. Review of Handbookof 44. Clarke,D. L. 1979. AnalyticalArchaeol-
Middle American Indians, Suppl. 1, ogist. London: Academic
Archaeology, by J. A. Sabloff. Man 45. Cohen, M. 1977. TheFood Crisis in Pre-
17:781 history. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
23. Brumfiel, E. M. 1983. Aztec state mak- 46. Collingwood, R. G. 1939. An Auto-
ing: Ecology, structure,and the origin of biography. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
the state. Am. Anthropol. 85:261-84 47. Collingwood, R. G. 1946. The Idea of
24. Caldwell, J. R. 1958. Trendand Tradi- History. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
tion in the Prehistory of the Eastern Un- 48. Conrad, G. W. 1981. Culturalmaterial-
ited States. Menasha: Mem. Ser. Am. ism, split inheritance,and the expansion
Anthropol. Assoc. 88 of ancientPeruvianempires. Am. Antiq.
25. Caldwell, J. R. 1964. Interactionspheres 46:3-26
in prehistory. In Hopewellian Studies, 49. Cordell, L. S., Plog, F. 1979. Escaping
ed. J. R. Caldwell, R. L. Hall, pp. 133- the confines of normative thought: A
43. Springfield, Ill: State Mus. Sci. Pap. reevaluationof Puebloanprehistory.Am.
12 Antiq. 44:405-29
26. Carr,E. H. 1962. Whatis History? Lon- 50. Cordy, R. H. 1981. A Studyof Prehistor-
don: Vintage ic Social Change. New York: Academic
27. Chang, K. C. 1962. China. In Courses 51. Culbert, T. P., ed. 1973. The Classic
Toward Urban Life, ed. R. J. Braid- Maya Collapse. Albuquerque:Univ. N.
wood, G. R. Willey, pp. 177-92. Chica- Mex. Press
go: Aldine 52. Dalton, G. 1981. Anthropologicalmod-
28. Chang, K. C. 1963. TheArchaeology of els in archaeologicalperspective. In Pat-
Ancient China. New Haven: Yale Univ. tern of the Past: Studies in Honour of
Press David Clarke, ed. I. Hodder, G. Isaac,
29. Charlton, T. H. 1981. Archaeology, N. Hammond, pp. 17-48. Cambridge:
ethnohistory,and ethnology: interpretive CambridgeUniv. Press
interfaces. Adv. Archaeol. Method 53. Daniel, G. 1975. A Hundred and Fifty
Theory 4:129-76 Years of Archaeology. London: Duck-
30. Childe, V. G. 1934. New Light on the worth
Most AncientEast. London:Kegan Paul 54. Daniel, G., ed. 1981. Towardsa History
31. Childe, V. G. 1936. ManMakesHimself. of Archaeology. London: Thames &
London: Watts Hudson
32. Childe, V. G. 1946. ScotlandBefore the 55. Deagan, K. 1982. Avenues of inquiryin
Scots. London: Methuen historical archaeology. Adv. Archaeol.
33. Childe, V. G. 1946. Archaeology and Method Theory 5:151-77
anthropology. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 56. Deetz, J. 1977. In Small ThingsForgot-
2:243-51 ten. GardenCity: Anchor
34. Childe, V. G. 1947. History. London: 57. Donnan, C. B. 1976. Moche Art and Ico-
Cobbett nography. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin
35. Childe, V. G. 1949. Social Worlds of Am. Center
ARCHAEOLOGYAT THE CROSSROADS 297

58. Driver, H. E., Massey, W. C. 1957. evolution of "civilisation".In TheEvolu-


Comparativestudies of North American tion of Social Systems, ed. J. Friedman,
Indians. Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. M. J. Rowlands, pp. 201-76. Pittsburgh:
47:165-456 Univ. PittsburghPress
59. Dunnell, R. C. 1979. Trends in current 76. Gardin,J.-C. 1980. Archaeological Con-
Americanist archaeology. Am. J. Ar- structs. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
chaeol. 83:437-49 Press
60. Dunnell, R. C. 1980. Americanist 77. Gimbutas,M. 1982. The Goddesses and
archaeology:The 1979 contribution.Am. Gods of Old Europe:Mythsand CultIm-
J. Archaeol. 84:463-78 ages. London: Thames & Hudson
61. Dunnell, R. C. 1981. Americanist 78. Glassie, H. 1975. Folk Housing in Mid-
archaeology:The 1980 literature.Am. J. dle Virginia: A Structural Analysis of
Archaeol. 85:429-45 Historical Artifacts. Knoxville: Univ.
62. Dunnell, R. C. 1982. Americanist Tenn. Press
archaeological literature: 1981. Am. J. 79. Golson, J. 1977. The Ladder of Social
Archaeol. 86:509-29 Evolution: Archaeology and the Bottom
63. Earle, T. K. 1977. A reappraisalof redis- Rungs. Canberra: Australian Acad.
tribution:Complex Hawaiianchiefdoms. Humanities
In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, ed. 80. Gould, R. A., ed. 1978. Explorationsin
T. K. Earle, J. E. Ericson, pp. 213-29. Ethnoarchaeology. Albuquerque:Univ.
New York: Academic N. Mex. Press
64. Earle, T. K. 1978. Economic and Social 81. Gould, R. A. 1980. LivingArchaeology.
Organization of a Complex Chiefdom. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press
Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Mus. Anthro- 82. Grayson,D. K. 1983. TheEstablishment
pol. Pap. 63 of Human Antiquity. New York:
65. Eggan, F. 1966. The American Indian. Academic
London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson 83. Haas, J. 1982. The Evolutionof the Pre-
66. Ekholm, G. F., Willey, G. R., eds. historic State. New York: Columbia
1966. Archaeological Frontiers and Ex- Univ. Press
ternal Connections,Handbookof Middle 84. Hall, R. L. 1979. In searchof the ideolo-
AmericanIndians, Vol. 4. Austin:Univ. gy of the Adena-Hopewell climax. In
Texas Press Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe
67. Ekholm, K., Friedman,J. 1979. "Capit- Conference,ed. D. S. Brose, N. Greber,
al", imperialism and exploitation in pp. 258-65. Kent: Kent State Univ.
ancient world systems. In Power and Press
Propaganda: A Symposiumon Ancient 85. Hamell, G. 1980. Sun serpents, Tawis-
Empires, ed. M. T. Larsen, pp. 41-58. karon and quartz crystals. Rochester:
Copenhagen:Akademisk Forlag Rochester Mus. Sci. Ctr. (Mimeo.)
68. Fischer, D. H. 1971. Historians' Falla- 86. Harris,M. 1968. TheRise ofAnthropolo-
cies: Toward a Logic of Historical gical Theory. New York: Crowell
Thought. London: Routledge & Kegan 87. Harris, M. 1979. CulturalMaterialism:
Paul The Struggle for a Science of Culture.
69. Fischer, J. L. 1961. Art styles as cultural New York: RandomHouse
cognitive maps. Am. Anthropol. 63:79- 88. Hassan, F. A. 1981. Demographic
93 Archaeology. New York: Academic
70. Flannery,K. V. 1972. The culturalevo- 89. Hawkes, C. F. C. 1954. Archeological
lution of civilizations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. theory and method: Some suggestions
Syst. 3:399-426 from the Old World. Am. Anthropol.
71. Flannery,K. V., Marcus, J., eds. 1983. 56:155-68
The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution 90. Hodder, I., ed. 1978. SimulationStudies
of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. in Archaeology. Cambridge:Cambridge
New York: Academic Univ. Press
72. Francis, D., Morantz,T. 1983. Partners 91. Hodder, I. 1979. Economic and social
in Furs: A History of the Fur Trade in stress and material culture patterning.
Eastern James Bay 1600-1870. Mon- Am. Antiq. 44:446-54
treal: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press 92. Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action:
73. Frankfort,H. 1956. TheBirthof Civiliza- EthnoarchaeologicalStudies of Material
tion in the Near East. New York: Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Doubleday Press
74. Fried, M. 1975. The Notion of Tribe. 93. Hodder, I., ed. 1982. Symbolic and
Menlo Park:Cummings Structural Archaeology. Cambridge:
75. Friedman, J., Rowlands, M. J. 1978. CambridgeUniv. Press
Notes towardsan epigenetic model of the 94. Hodder, I. 1983. Archaeology, ideology
298 TRIGGER

and contemporarysociety. R. Anthropol. your playground. Australian Archaeol.


Inst. News 56:6-7 16:1-10
95. Hudson, K. 1981. A Social History of 109. Lechtman, H. 1977. Style in technolo-
Archaeology: The British Experience. gy-some early thoughts. In Material
London: Macmillan Culture: Style, Organizationand Dyna-
96. Johnson, G. A. 1978. Information mics of Technology,ed. H. Lechtman,R.
sourcesand the developmentof decision- Merill, pp. 3-20. St. Paul: West
making organizations.See Ref. 130, pp. 110. Leone, M. P. 1975. Views of traditional
87-112 archaeology. Rev. Anthropol. 2:191-99
97. Johnson, G. A. 1981. Monitoringcom- 111. Leone, M. P. 1982. Some opinions about
plex system integration and boundary recoveringmind. Am. Antiq. 47:742--60
phenomenawith settlementsize data. See 112. Martin, P. S., Plog, F. 1973. The
Ref. 177, pp. 143-88 Archaeology of Arizona. Garden City:
98. Kidder,A. V. 1973. The developmentof NaturalHistory Press
Maya research. Reprinted in Alfred V. 113. McGuire, R. H. 1983. Breaking down
Kidder, by R. B. Woodbury, pp. 137- culturalcomplexity:Inequalityandheter-
41. New York: Columbia Univ. Press ogeneity. Adv. Archaeol. MethodTheory
99. Kluckhohn, C. 1940. The conceptual 6:91-142
structurein Middle Americanstudies. In 114. Meggers, B. J. 1960. The law of cultural
TheMaya and theirNeighbors, ed. C. L. evolution as a practicalresearchtool. In
Hay, et al, pp. 41-51. New York: Ap- Essays in the Science of Culture, ed. G.
pleton-Century E. Dole, R. L. Carneiro, pp. 302-16.
100. Kohl, P. L. 1978. The balanceof tradein New York: Crowell
southwestern-Asia in the mid-thirdmil- 115. Meltzer, D. J. 1983. The antiquity of
lennium B.C. Curr. Anthropol. 19:463- man and the development of American
92 archaeology. Adv. Archaeol. Method
101. Kohl, P. L. 1979. The 'world economy' Theory6:1-51
of West Asia in the third millennium 116. Miller, D. 1980. Archaeology and de-
B.C. In South Asian Archaeology 1977, velopment. Curr. Anthropol. 21:709-26
ed. M. Taddei,-pp. 55-85. Naples: 1st. 117. Miller, M. 1956. Archaeology in the
Univ. Orient USSR. London:Atlantic Press
102. Kohl, P. L. 1981. Materialistapproaches 118. Monks, G. G. 1981. Seasonalitystudies.
in prehistory. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. Adv. Archaeol. Method Theory 4:177-
10:89-118 240
103. Kohl, P. L. 1983. The ancienteconomy, 119. Montane, J. C. 1980. Marxismo y Ar-
transferrable technologies, and the queologia. Mexico: Edicionesde Cultura
Bronze Age world-system:A view from Popular
the northeasternfrontier of the ancient 120. Moore, J. A., Keene, A. S., eds. 1983.
Near East. In RelationsBetweentheNear Archaeological Hammers and Theories.
East, the Mediterranean World and New York: Academic
Europe, 3rd-Ist MillenniumB.C., ed. 121. Mulvaney, D. J. 1981. Gum leaves on
M. Rowlands, M. T. Larsen. In press the Golden Bow: Australia'sPalaeolithic
104. Kopytoff, I. 1981. Aghem ethnogenesis survivals discovered. In Antiquity and
andthe grasslandsecumene. In Contribu- Man, ed. J. D. Evans, B. Cunliffe, C.
tion de la rechercheethnologiquea 1'his- Renfrew, pp. 52-64. London:Thames &
toire des civilisations du Cameroun,ed. Hudson
C. Tardits, pp. 371-81. Paris: Editions 122. Nicholson, H. B., ed. 1976. Origins of
du CNRS Religious Art and Iconography in Pre-
105. Kramer,C., ed. 1979. Ethnoarchaeolo- classic Mesoamerica. Los Angeles:
gy: Implications of Ethnography for UCLA Latin Am. Center
Archaeology. New York: Columbia 123. Parsons, J. R., Brumfiel, E., Parsons,
Univ. Press M. H., Wilson, D. J. 1982. Prehispanic
106. Kruglov, A. P., Podgayetskiy, G. V. SettlementPatterns in the Southern Val-
1935. Rodovoe obshchestvo stepey Vos- ley of Mexico: The Chalco-Xochimilco
tochnoy Yevropy. Leningrad:'Isvestiya Region. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Mus.
GAIMK, 119 Anthropol. Mem. 14
107. Lamberg-Karlovsky,C. C. 1975. Third 124. Peebles, C., Kus, S. 1977. Some archae-
millennium modes of exchange and ological correlates of ranked societies.
modes of production.InAncientCiviliza- Am. Antiq. 42:421-48
tion and Trade, ed. J. A. Sabloff, C. C. 125. Plog, F. 1973. Diachronicanthropology.
Lamberg-Karlovsky,pp. 341-68. Albu- In Research and Theory in Current
querque:Univ. N. Mex. Press Archeology, ed. C. L. Redman,pp. 181-
108. Langford, R. F. 1983. Our heritage- 98. New York: Wiley
ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE CROSSROADS 299

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

164. Thomas, D. H. 1974. An archaeological view. Adv. Archaeol. Method Theory


perspective on Shoshonean bands. Am. 4:79-127
Anthropol. 76:11-23 182. Whallon, R. 1982. Comments on 'ex-
165. Tilley, C. 1982. Social formation,social planation'. See Ref. 140, pp. 155-58
structuresand social change. See Ref. 183. White, L. A. 1945. Diffusion vs. evolu-
93, pp. 26-38 tion: an anti-evolutionist fallacy. Am.
166. Trigger, B. G. 1965. History and Settle- Anthropol. 47:339-56
ment in Lower Nubia. New Haven: Yale 184. White, L. A. 1949. The Science of Cul-
Univ. Publ. Anthropol. 69 ture. New York: Farrar,Straus
167. Trigger, B. G. 1968. Beyond History: 185. Wilcox, D. R., Masse, W. B., eds. 1981.
The Methods of Prehistory. New York: The Protohistoric Period in the North
Holt, Rinehart& Winston American Southwest, AD 1450-1700.
168. Trigger, B. G. 1968. Major concepts of Tempe: Ariz. State Univ. Anthropol.
archaeology in historical perspective. Res. Pap. 24
Man 3:527-41 186. Wildesen, L. E. 1982. The study of im-
169. Trigger, B. G. 1978. Time and Tradi- pacts on archaeological sites. Adv.
tions: Essays in Archaeological Inter- Archaeol. Method Theory 5:51-96
pretation. Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv. 187. Willey, G. R. 1953. Prehistoric Settle-
Press ment Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru.
170. Trigger, B. G. 1981. Archaeology and Washington:Bur. Am. Ethnol. Bull. 155
the ethnographicpresent. Anthropologi- 188. Willey, G. R., Phillips, P. 1958. Method
ca 23:3-17 and Theory in American Archaeology.
171. Trigger, B. G. 1981. Anglo-American Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
archaeology. World Archaeol. 13:138- 189. Willey, G. R., Sabloff, J. A. 1980. A
55 History of American Archaeology. San
172. Trigger, B. G. 1981. La arqueologia Francisco:Freeman. 2nd ed.
como ciencia hist6rica. Bol. Antropol. 190. Wiseman, F. M. 1983. Subsistence and
Americana 4:55-89 complex societies: The case of the Maya.
173. Trigger, B. G. 1982. Archaeological Adv. Archaeol. MethodTheory6:143-89
analysis and concepts of causality. Cul- 191. Wiseman, J. 1983. Conflicts in archaeol-
ture 2(2):31-42 ogy: Education and practice. J. Field
174. Trigger,B. G. 1983. Americanarchaeol- Archaeol. 10:1-9
ogy as native history: A review essay. 192. Wobst, H. M. 1977. Stylistic behavior
William & Mary Q 40:413-52 and information exchange. In For the
175. Trigger, B. G., Glover, I. C. 1981. Director: Research Essays in Honor of
Editorial. WorldArchaeol. 13:133-37 James B. Griffin, ed. C. E. Cleland, pp.
176. Ucko, P. J. 1983. Australianacademic 317-42. Ann Arbor:Univ. Mich. Mus.
archaeology: Aboriginal transformation Anthropol. Pap. 61
of its aims andpractices.Aust. Archaeol. 193. Wobst, H. M. 1978. The archaeo-ethnol-
16:11-26 ogy of hunter-gatherersor the tyrannyof
177. Van der Leeuw, S. E., ed. 1981. the ethnographicrecord in archaeology.
Archaeological Approaches to the Study Am. Antiq. 43:303-9
of Complexity. Amsterdam:Univ. Am- 194. Wolf, E. 1982. Europe and the People
sterdamPress withoutHistory. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
178. Van der Leeuw, S. E. 1981. Information Press
flows, flow structuresand the explana- 195. Woolfson, C. 1982. The Labour Theory
tion of change in humaninstitutions.See of Culture. London:Routledge & Kegan
Ref. 177, pp. 229-329 Paul
179. Wallerstein,I. 1974. TheModernWorld- 196. Wright, H. T. 1969. TheAdministration
System, Vol. 1. New York: Academic of Rural Production in an Early Meso-
180. Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., Redman, potamianTown.Ann Arbor:Univ. Mich.
C. L. 1971. Explanation in Archeology: Mus. Anthropol. Pap. 38
An Explicitly Scientific Approach. New 197. Yellen, J. E. 1977. Archaeological
York: Columbia Univ. Press Approaches to the Present. New York:
181. Wenke, R. J. 1981. Explaining the Academic
evolution of cultural complexity: A re-

Potrebbero piacerti anche