Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process

Author(s): Lewis R. Binford

Source: American Antiquity , Oct., 1965, Vol. 31, No. 2, Part 1 (Oct., 1965), pp. 203-210
Published by: Cambridge University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2693985

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to American Antiquity

This content downloaded from

213.191.171.80 on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYSTEMATICS AND THE STUDY
OF CULTURE PROCESS1

LEWIS R. BINFORD

ABSTRACT general agreement that culture with a capital

It is argued that the normative theory of culture, widely C is the subject. In this the normative theorists
held among archaeologists, is inadequate for the genera- are in agreement with others. It is in the defini-
tion of fruitful explanatory hypotheses of cultural process. tion of partitive concepts and the assumptions
One obvious shortcoming of this theoretical positlion has
concerning the processes of between-unit dy-
been the development of archaeological systematics that
have obviated any possibility of measuring multivariate
namics that normative theorists differ markedly
phenomena and permit only the measurement of unspe- from the position taken here. A typical norma-
cified "cultural differences and similarities," as if these tive statement is given by Taylor (1948: 110):
were univariate phenomena. As an alternative to this
By culture as a partitive concep,t, I mean a historically
approach, it is proposed that culture be viewed as a sys-
derived system of culture traits which is a more or less
tem composed of subsystems, and it is suggested that
separable and cohesive segment of the whole-that-is-
differences and similarities between different classes of
culture and whose separate traits tend to be shared by
archaeological remains reflect different subsystems and
all or by specially designated individuals of a group or
hence may be expected to vary independently of each
society.
other in the normal operation of the system or during
change in the system. A general discussion of ceramic
classification and the classification of differences and
A similar view is expressed by Willey and Phil-
similarities between assemblages is presented as an lips (1958: 18) when speaking of spatial divi-
example of the multivariate approach to the study of sions of cultural phenomena:
cultural variability. It is suggested that a multivariate
In strictly archaeological terms, the locality is a geographi-
approach in systematics will encourage the study of cul-
cal space small enough to permit the working assumption
tural variability and its causes and thereby enhance the
of complete cultural homogeneity at any given time.
study of culture process.

The emphasis in these two quoltations and in the

ILLEY and Phillips (1958: 50) have ex,
W pressed doubts that current archaeological
concepts such as "phase" have consistent mean-
ing in terms of human social units. It is the pur-
pose of this paper to explore some of the reasons
for this lack olf congruence and to offer a theo-
retical framework more consistent with social
reality.
In any general theoretical framework there
are at least two major components: (1) one that
deals with criteria for isolating the phenomenon
under study and with the underlying assump-
tions about the nature of the units or partitive
occurrences within the recognized generic class
of phenomenon, and (2) assumptions concern-
ing the way in which these partitive units are
articulated in the operation of a system or duringsees as his field of study the ideational basis for
change.
Most of the analytical means and conceptual
tools of archaeological systematics have arisen
in the context of a body of culture theory which
is referred to here as the "normative school."
Under this normative view the phenomenon
being studied is variously defined, but there is
1 This paper was presented at the 29th Annual Meeting
of the Society for American Archaeology, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina, 1964.
writings of oither archaeologists (Ford 1954: 47;
Rouse 1939: 15-18; Gifford 1960: 346) is on the
shared characteristics of human behavior. With-
in this frame of thought, culture is defined as an
abstraction from human behavior.
According to the concept of culture being developed here,
culture is a mental construct consisting of ideas (Taylor
1948: 101).
Or as Ford (1954: 47) has argued:
First, it must be recalled that these buildings are cultural
products - no,t the culture. These arrangements of wood,
bamboo, and grass are of interest to the ethnologists solely
because they illustrate the aborigine's ideas as to the
proper ways to construct dwellings.
In summary, a normative theorist is one who
varying ways of human life - culture. Infor-
mation is obtained by studying cultural products
or the objectifications of normative ideas about
the proper ways of life executed by now extinct
peoples. The archaeologist's task then lies in
abstracting from cultural products the norma-
tive concepts extant in the minds of men now
dead. (For criticism of this general view see
White 1954: 461-8.)
In examining the problem of how we may
observe and study cultural phenomena, a crucial
203

This content downloaded from

213.191.171.80 on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
204 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 31, No. 2,1965

question arises: What types of units can be resolve into one general interpretative model.
isolated for the meaningful study of culture? This model is based on the assumption of a
For adherents of the normative school, the as- "culture center" where, for unspecified reasons,
sumptions about units or the natural "packages" rates of innovation exceed those in surrounding
in which culture occurs are dependent upon areas. The new culture spreads out froim the
assumptio,ns abo,ut the dynamics of ideational center and blends with surrounding cultures
transmission. Learning is the recognized b,asis olf until it is dissipated at the fringes, leaving mar-
cultural transmission between generations and ginal cultures. Cultural relationships are viewed
diffusion the basis of transmission between social as the degree of mutual or unilateral "influence"
units no,t linked by regular breeding behavior. exerted between culture centers or subcenters.
The corollary of this proposition is that culture This interpretative framework implies what I
is transmitted between generations and across choose to call the aquatic view of culture. Inter-
breeding populations in inverse proportion to, the pretative literature abolunds in phrases such as
degree of social distance main(tained between "cultural stream" and in references to the "flow-
the groups in question. Since culture is viewed ing" of new cultural elements into a region. Cul-
as a great "whole" transmitted through tim2 ture is viewed as a vast flowing stream with
and acro!ss space, any attempt to break up this minor variations in ideational norms concerning
cultural "whole" is considered arbitrary and appropriate ways of making pots, getting mar-
thought of as a methodological expedienit (Fordried, treating one's mother-in-law, building
1954: 51; Brew 1946: 49). The partitioning of ho-uses, temples (or not building them, as the
culture is often termed a heuristic device for case may be), and even dying. These ideational
measuring the degree of social distance between variations are periodically "crystallized" at dif-
the groups whose cultural products are being ferent points in time and space, resulting in
observed. (An excellent criticism of this view is distinctive and sometimes striking cultural cli-
found in Spaulding 1957: 85-7). Spatial dis- maxes which allow us toi break up the continuum
continuities in the distribution of similar formal of culture into cultural phases.
characteristics are perceived as either the resultOne of the most elegant and complete criti-
of (1) natural barriers to social intercourse, or cisms of the noirmative theorists to appear in
(2) the presence of a value system which pro- recen,t years is that of David Aberle (1960).
vides a conservative psychological matrix that He has pointed out that adherents of the norma-
inhibits the acceptance of foreign traits, or (3) tive position are forced -to explain cultural differ-
the migraltion or intrusion into the area of ncw ences and similarities in terms of twol factoirs,
peoples who disrupt the previous pattern of historical and psychic. He summarizes the nor-
social intercourse. Formal changes, in the tem- mative position as follows:
poral distribution of items are viewed as the No culture can be understood solely by reference to its
result of innovations or the operation of a built- current situation. As a result of the accidents of history,
in dynamics sometimes designated as "drift" it has had contacts with a variety of other cultures. These
(Ford 1954: 51; Herskovits 1948: 581-2). (Foir other cultures provide the pool of potential cultural ma-
criticism of this concept, see Binford 1963: 89- terial on which cultures can draw. Since there is no gen-
eral basis for predicting what cultures will have contact
93.) Both innovatioln and drift are considered with what others, the historical factor has an accidental
natural to culture and, as Caldwell (1958: 1) and fortuitous character. With respect to the psychic
h,as said: "other things being equal, changes in factor, there are qualities of men's minds -whether
general tendencies to imitate or specific attitudes held by
material culture through time and space will
a particular group - which determine whether or not any
tend to be regular." Discontinuities in rates of available cultural item will be borrowed. Although the
change or in formal cont,inuity through time contacts are unpredictable, the laws of psychology may
are viewed as the result of historical events account for acceptance and rejection. Hence the laws of
culture are psychological laws (Aberle 1960: 3).
which tend to change the configuration of so-
cial units through such mechanisms as exten- The normative view leaves the archaeologist in
sions of trade, migration, and the diffusions of the position of considering himself a culture his-
"core" ideas such as religious cults (Ritchie torian and/or a paleo-psychologist (for which
1955). most archaeologists are poorly trained). This
Cultural differences and similarities are ex- leaves him competent to; pursue the investigation
pressed by the normative school in terms of "cul-of culture history, a situation which may par-
tural relationships" which, if treated rigorously, tially account for failure to develop the explana-

This content downloaded from

213.191.171.80 on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BINFORD ] SYSTEMATICS AND CULTURAL PROCESS 205

tory level of archaeological theory

temporally discrete manifestations. noted
Similarly,
Willey and Phillip,s (1958: 5). such units as the phase (Willey and Phillips
It is argued here that a new systematics, one1958: 50; Rouse 1955: 713-14) are groupings of
based on a different concept of culture, is neededarchaeological complexes on the basis of shared
to deal adequately with the explanation of cul-traits.
tural process. If we define culture as man's This emphasis on shared traits in our system
extrasomatic means of adaptatio,n (White 1959:of classification results in masking differences
8), in the partitive sense culture is an extraso-and in lumping togelther phenomena which
matic adaptive system that is employed in thewould be discrete under another taxonomic
integration of a society with its environment and method. Culture is noit a univariate phenome-
with other sociocultural systems. Culture in this non, nor is its functioning to, be understood or
sense is. no,t necessarily shared; it is participatedmeasured in terms of a single variable -the
in by men. In cultural systems, people, things,spatial-temporal transmission of ideas. On the
and places are components in a field that con-contrary, culture is multivariate, and its opera-
sists of environmental and sociocultural subsys- tion is to be understood in terms of many caus-
tems, and the locus of cultural process is in the ally relevant variables which may function inde-
dynamic articulations of these subsystems. This pendently or in varying combinations. It is our
complex set of interrelationships is not expli-task to isolate these causative factors and to seek
cable by reduction to, a single component regular, statable, and predictable relationships
ideas - any more than the functioning of a between them.
motor is explainable in terms of a single com- Our taxonomies should be framed with this
end in mind. We should partition our observa-
ponent, such as gasoline, a battery, or lubricat-
ing oil. tional fields so that we may emphasize the na-
It was stated above that in our definition cul- ture of variability in artifact populations and
ture is not necessarily shared; it is participated facilitate the isolation of causally relevant fac-
in. And it is participated in differentially. A toirs. Our categories should be justifiable in
basic characteristic of cultural systems is the in- terms of possessing common structural or func-
tegration of individuals and social units per- tional properties in the normal operation of cul-
forming different tasks, frequently at different tural systems. These categories should then be
locations; these individuals and social units are analyzed in terms of their behavior in various
articulated by means of various institutions into systems and in situations of systematic change.
broader units that have different levels of cor- By such a method we may achieve our aim of
porate inclusiiveness. Within any one cultural expressing the laws of cultural process. Archaeo-
system, the degree to which the participants logical systematics should be an aid in accom-
share the same ideational basis should vary with plishing analytical tasks. As an example of the
the degree of cultural complexity of the system suggested method of partitioning our observa-
as a whole. In fact, a measure of cultural com- tional framework, two general problems will be
plexity is generally considered to be the degree discussed: ceramic classification and the classi-
of internal structural differentiation and func- fication of archaeological assemblages.
tional specificity of the participating subsystems Formal variation in ceramics occurs because
(White 1959: 144-5). Wit'hin any given cultural of differences in either the techniques of manu-
system, the degree to which all the participants facture or in the general design of the finished
share common ideational preferences sholuld product; both kinds of variation may occur inde-
vary inversely with the complexity of the sys- pendently of each other. (This distinction is
tem as a whole. The sharing of cultural ele- analogous to Rouse's [1960: 314] distinction
ments by distinct systems will be a function of between procedural and conceptual modes).
the nature of the cultural means of articulating One example is the production of an abrupt
distinct groups with each other. shoulder as opposed to, a gently sloping shoulder
At present our explicitly stated systematics is while continuing to execute the same basic set
based on the degree toi which cultural traits are of manufacturing techniques. Such variation is
shared. The Midwestern taxonomic system (Mc- termed morphological variation. In addition to
Kern 1935: 70-82; and 1939: 301-13) is a morphological variation, there is decorative vari-
hierarchical arrangement of archaeologically de-ation or modifications that are made as discrete
fined culture traits as they appear in spatiallysteps
or in the terminal phases of the manufactur-

This content downloaded from

213.191.171.80 on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
206 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 31, No. 2,1965

ing process. Painted and incised designs are variables can tell us much about the nature of
examples of decorative variation. We can there- the changes within the systems in question. An
fore speak of two major classes of variation or example of this can be seen by comparing the
analytic dimensions, in terms of which ceramic Havana tradition of Illinois with the Scioto
forms can be studied - technical and design tradition of Ohio.
dimensions. Morphological and decorative vari- Containers of the Havana tradition are pre-
ation may be observed along either dimension. dominantly large, open-mouthed cauldrons, but
With regard to the sociocultural context oif there are occasional flat-bottomed "flowerpot"
formal variability, two brolad classes of variation forms. This suggests that food was prepared in
can be recognized which crosscut the categories these societies for relatively large groups of peo-
mentioned above. Primary functional variation ple - larger than nuclear families - and that
is that which is directly related to, the specific food was stored corporately. This pattern of
use made of the vessel in question; for example, cooking and storing was common to essentially
the difference between a plate and a storage jar. all the so!cieties participating in the Havana tra-
Secondary functional variation is a by-product dition. Secondary functioinal variatioin, on the
of the social context oif !the manufacturers of the other hand, with respect to both decoration and
vessel or of the social context of the intended design exhibits differences through space and
use of the item, or both. This variation may aris2 time, suggesting that among the participants
from a traditional way of doing things within in the Havana tradition social contacts and
a family or a larger social unit, or it may serve as generational continuity were changing.
a conscious expression of between-group soli- Container forms of the Scioto. tradition in
darity. Certain design characteristics may be- Ohio, which is believed to be contemporaneous
come standardized as symbols appropriate to with the Havana tradition, were smaller vessels
vessels used in specific social cointexts. At this with rounded bottoms; the large cauldron is an
level of analysis we may recall Linton's (1936:infrequent form. Nevertheles!s, there are com-
403-21) statement that any given cultural item mon design and technical attributes in the ce-
may vary with regard to, form, meaning, use, ramics of both traditions. This suggests that, in
and function in variable cultural contexts. Such the Ohio groups, the social units for which food
distinctions are particularly important if the was prepared were smaller and that modes of
social context of manufacture and use are not food storage were correspondingly different.
isomorphic, as in the case of items circulated In the traditional view, the elements in com-
widely through exchange systems, or are usedmon between the Havana and Scioto traditions
primarily in the context of institutions func- would be interpreted as indicating "cultural rela-
tioning for intersocietal articulation. tionoships," and at present the two are grouped
Formal variation in artifacts need not and, in into the "Hopewell phase," with each group
most cases, probably does not have a single sharing different traits of the "Hopewell cul-
meaning in the context of the functioning cul- ture." It is suggested here that the sociocultural
tural system. The study of primary functional systems represented in the two traditions may
variation is essential to the understanding of the be and probably are totally different, and that
sociocultural systems represented by the arti- the common ceramic elements reflect patterns of
facts, in this case ceramics. The nature and common regional interaction facilitated through
number of occurrences of functioinally differ-different institutions. This view differs markedly
entiated container types can yield valuable infor- from one which pictures the flowing of "Hope-
mation about the size olf social segments per- well culture" out of a "culture center."
forming different tasks. Even in cases where The comparative study of secondary func-
specific functions cannot be determined for the tional variation within one class of containers
recognized types, the spatial configuration of makes it possible to determine the degree of
their occurrence tells something about the spatialwork specialization in discrete social segments as
structure of differentiated activi!ties within or well as the degree of craft specialization in the
between sites. manufacture of specific container classes. Em-
Variables of primary function may remain pirical demonstration of the validity of the
stable, change abruptly, or change at rates differ-assumptions underlying sociological interpreta-
ent from variables of secondary function. The tion of variability in craft products is accumu-
relative rates of change in these two classes of lating, and a number of recent studies show that

This content downloaded from

213.191.171.80 on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BINFORD ] SYSTEMATICS AND CULTURAL PROCESS 207

TABLE 1. CONTINGENCY OF FORMAL VARIATION classes based on unspecified kinds of likeness or

difference, or are hierarchically arranged traits
Morphological variation Decorative variation
presumed to reflect generic relationships (Willey
Technical and Phillips 1958: 31; Rouse 1960). We suggest
dimension that classification should proceed independently
Design with regard to technical and design attributes
dimension and that crosscutting categories should be used
to express morphological and decorative varia-
tion (Table 1).
this kind of "meaning" is recoverable from The result of such an analysis would be the
ceramic data. For example, Cronin (1962: 109) recognition of numbers of classes of variables,
has demonstrated greater similarity in the con- referable to one oir more of the column-and-row
ventional use of decorative design elements be- contingency boxes in Table 1. Analysis would
tween pottery types a:t a single site than between then proceed to the question of the cultural con-
types of the same pottery from different sites. text of the observed classes or variables distin-
Comparable results are suggested by recent dis- guished in the four categories above. This step
cussions of taxonomic problems encountered by is schematically diagrammed in Table 2. Each
others (Sears 1960: 327-8; Smith 1962). I have column and row contingency box would contain
recently proposed a processual model for this the folrmal classes of demonstrable variables
type of phenomenon (Binford 1963). Several derived from the initial classification.
recent studies have utilized the measurement The next step would be the definition of pop-
and spatial distributions of stylistic minutiae in ulations of artifacts in terms of recognizable and
the construction of sociological models for pre- demonstrably different cultural factors. Discus-
historic communities (Deetz 1960; Longacre sions of differences and similarities would be
1963; Freeman and Brown 1964).
based on independent and dependent variables
If we expand our analytical perspective to
and no,t oln an undifferentiated conglomeration
include the problem of foirmal variability in con-
of multivariate phenomena.
temporaneous sociocultural systems and socio-
The current systematics of archaeological as-
cultural systems through time, then our analysis
semblages also stresses the quantity of shared
must be even more critical. What is ideosyn-
traits. Assemblages are referred to a phase or
cratic secosndary functional variation in one
a focus without due allowances for either sea-
group may symbolize political ties in anoither.
sonal or functional variiability. Although it is
Primary functional variation in one social system
may be partially incorporated as secondary func- premature to attempt a final presentation of
tional variation in another. assemblage systematics since such a presenta-
The complexities facing the archaeologist who tion should be based on more complete knowl-
attempts this kind of analysis necessitate the useedge of the range of classes of variability, we
of multiple taxonomies framed to express multi-feel that at least three major types of broad
variate attributes. Such taxonomies should re- cultural alignments can be distinguished which
place the conventional ones, which are either may vary independently of one another.

TABLE 2. CONTINGENCY OF CULTURAL VARIATION

Primary functional variation Secondary functional variation

Context of Context of
use Production

Techno-
morphological

Morphological
design

Decorative
techniques

Decorative
designs

This content downloaded from

213.191.171.80 on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
208 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 31, No. 2, 1965

The first such category archaeologists, but is the

I have not beentradition,
able to find
meaning we choose itto, in the literature.
make Caldwell (1962) has pointed
somewhat na
than is conventional in archaeological literature. to the essential characteristics of the interaction
(For a discussion of the concept as generally sphere:
used, see Willey and P'hillips 1958: 34-40.) We An interaction sphere is a kind of phenomenon which
define tradition as a demonstrable continuity can be regarded as having properties different from a
through time in the formal properties of locally culture . . . the various regional traditions were present
before there was a Hopewellian situation. The term
manufactured craft items, this continuity being
culture would be better applied to each of these separately
seen in secondary functional variability only. than to the overall situation with which they are inter-
There may or may no!t be such continuity with acting.
respect to primary functional variability. To put
it another way, the tradition is seen in continu- What is essential to the concept of an inter-
ity in thoise formal attributes which vary with action sphere is that it denotes a situation in
the social context of manufacture exclusive of which there is a regular cultural means of insti-
the variability related to the use of the item. tutionalizing and maintaining intersocietal inter-
This is termed stylistic variability (Binford 1962:action. The particular forms of the institutions
220), and on a single time ho'rizon such a tradi- and the se;condary functions which may accrue
tion would be spatially defined as a style zone. to them will be found to vary widely in the
Through time we may study the areal extent spectrum of history. Interaction spheres may
and stability of style zones and the comparative crosscut both traditions and culture areas. The
history of local traditions within the framework sharing of symbols and the appearance of simi-
of the macrotradition. Historical continuity and lar institutions are less a function of the tradi-
social phylogeny are particularly amenable to tional enculturative milieu of individual soci-
analysis through the study of stylistic attributes. than of complex articulation of societies of
ties
It should be noted that the concept olf traditiondifferent ethnic backgrounds, levels of cultural
as it is used here may refer to either a single complexity, and social types.
class of artifactual materials, such as ceramics, The comparative structural and functional
or to several classes of artifacts of a single socio- analysis of interaction spheres is suggested as an
cultural system which exhibit continuity throlughapproach which allows us to, define, quantify,
time. It is assumed that formal variability in and explain the observation of Redfield (1941:
secondary function is directly related to the 344) that rates of cultural change may be
soicial matrix of production and use. In the case directly related to rates of social interactioln.
of stability through time in the social matrix of The distinction between the "shared" culture
production, we would expect to observe tem- of a sitylistic nature and the "shared" culture
po,ral continuity and a regular rate of change. of a sociopolitical nature is the basis for dis-
In the case of a changing social matrix of pro- tinguishing the tradition from the interaction
duction, we would expect to; find discontinuities sphere.
in rates of change and in the spatial and tem- Examples of the interaction sphere come
poral distribution of formal properties. readily to mind. The presence of Mississippian
A second broad class of sociocultural relation- "traits" in local traditions on the Piedmont of
ships is reflected in items that are widely ex- the southeastern United States is one. Another
changed and which occur in a context of social is the common "Hopewellian" items in tombs
distinctiveness, that is, sociotechnic items (Bin- of Illinois (the Havana tradition) and in the
ford 1962). Such items would be analyzed in charnel houses of Ohio, (the Scioto, tradition).
terms of their primary functional variability as The nature of the cultural processes responsible
inferred through correlation with other archae- for the widespread occurrences of similar cul-
ological remains which define the context of tural items in these two cases cannot be ex-
social relations. Through the study of the spatialplained by the simplistic reference to slharing of
distributions of such items on a single time hori- similar ideas concerning the proper ways to
zon we may define interaction spheres - the manufacture items.
areal matrices of regular and institutionally The third category we wish to discuss is that
maintained intersocietal articulation. This term of the adaptive area. An adaptive area is one
is adopted from Caldwell (1962). It is my im- which exhibits the common occurrence of arti-
pression that I have seen the term used by o;ther facts used primarily in coping directly with the

This content downloaded from

213.191.171.80 on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BINFORD ] SYSTEMATICS AND CULTURAL PROCESS 209

physical environment. Such spatial distribu- played by my wife, Sally Binford. She has been a severe
tions would be expected to coincide broadly critic of my logic as well as of my syntax, and I grate-
fully acknowledge her editorship of thi.s manuscript.
with culture areas as they are conventionally
defined; however, this concept differs from theABERLE, DAVID R.
culture-area concept in that stylistic attributes 1960 The Influence of Linguistics on Early Culture
are excluded from the definition. The adaptive and Personality Theory. In Essays in the Science
of Culture: In Honor of Leslie A. White, edited
means of coping with changes in physical en- by Gertrude Dole and Robert Carneiro, pp. 1-49.
vironment need not coincide with those which Thormas Y. Crowell, New York.
are designed to! cope with changes in the social BINFORD, LEWIs R.
environment. Therefore, we need to study tra- 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American An-
ditions (based on styles), interaction spheres tiquity, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 217-25. Salt Lake
City.
(based on intersocietal relations), and adaptive
spheres (based on common means of coping 1963 Red Ocher Caches from the Michigan Area: A
Possible Case of Cultural Drift. Southwestern
with the physical environment), and treat these Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 89-
three isolates as independent variables. 108. Albuquerque.

BREW, JOHN OTIS

Summary. It has been argued that the nor-
mative theory of culture is inadequate for the 1946 Archaeology of Alkali Ridge: Southeastern
Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Amer-
generation of fruitful explanatory hypotheses of ican Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Uni-
cultural process. An approach is offered in versity, Vol. 21. Cambridge.
which culture is not reduced to normative ideas CALDWELL, JOSEPH R.
about the proper ways of doing things but is 1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the
viewed as the system of the total extrasomatic Eastern United States. Memoirs of the Amer-
ican Anthropological Association, No. 88.
means of adaptation. Such a sysitem involves a Menasha.
complex sets of relationships amoing people,
1962 Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. Unpublished
places, and things whose matrix may be under- paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
stood in multivariate terms. American Association for the Advancement of
Science, Philadelphia 1962.
The steps in such an analysis proceed by
CRONIN, CONSTANCE
means of the partitioning of demoinstrable vari-
ability into a multidimensional framework. Use 1962 An Analysis of Pottery Design Elemenits Indi-
cating Possible Relationships between Three
of such a framework will facilitate isolation of Decorated Types. In "Chapters, in the Prehistory
the causes of various kinds of changes and of Eastern Arizona I," by Paul S. Martin and
differences and provide the basis for studying others. Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 53, pp. 105-
41. Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago.
comparatively the rates and patterns of change
DEETZ, JAMES D. F.
in different classes of cultural phenomena. Such
1960 An Archaeological Approach to Kinship Change
an approach would, it is argued, facilitate and in Eighteenth Century Arikara Culture. Unptib-
increase our understanding of cultural processes. lished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University,
Cambridge.
Acknowledgments. I would like to acknowledge the FORD, JAMES A.
intellectual stimulation of many of my colleagues in the
1954 The Type Concept Revisited. American An-
formulation of the ideas presented in this paper. Stuart
thropologist, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 42-57. Menasha.
Struever, Joseph Caldwell, Howard Winters, James Brown,
Melvin Fowler, and the author have had frequent discus- FREEMAN, L. G., JR. AND JAMES A. BROWN
sions over the past three years in an attempt to increase 1964 Statistical Analysis of Carter Ranclh Pottery.
our understanding of the prehistory of the Midwest. In "Carter Ranch Site" by Paul S. Martin and
Although individually all of the participants in our ow.n others. Fieldianca: Anthropology (in press). Nat-
"interaction sphere" have contributed to the formulation ural History Mtiseum, Chicago.
of the arguments presented here, I accept full responsi- GIFFORD, JAMES C.
bility for the particular form in which the ideas are pre-
1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classifi-
sented. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude cation as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena."
to Carl-Axel Moberg of the G6teburg Museum, Sweden, American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 341-7.
who participated in the joint teaching of a class along Salt Lake City.
with Robert J. Braidwood and me. Moberg's arguments
HERSKOVITS, MELVILLE J.
and rebuttals have aided appreciably in definition of the
ideas presented. My students over the past three years 1948 Man and His Works. Alfred A. Knopf, New
York.
particularly William Longacre, James Hill, Leslie Free-
man, and Robert Whallon - have been a constant source LINTON, RALPH
of stimulation and have initiated agonizing reappraisals of
1936 The Study of Man. Appleton-Century-Crofts,
my own thinking. Of particular importance is the role New York.

This content downloaded from

213.191.171.80 on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 210 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
LONGACRE, WILLIAM A.
1963 Archaeology as Anthropology: A Case Study.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Chicago, Chicago.
McKERN, W. C.
1935 Certain Culture Classification Problems in Mid-
dle Western Archaeology. In "The Indianapolis
Archaeological Conference," pp. 70-82, issued
by the Committee on State Archaeological Sur-
veys. National Research Council, Circular No.
17. Washington.
1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid
to Archaeological Culture Study. American An-
tiquity, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 301-13. Menasha.
REDFIELD, ROBERT
1941 The Folk Culture of Yucatan. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
RITCHIE, WILLIAM A.
1955 Recent Discoveries Suggesting an Early Wood-
land Burial Cult in the Northeast. New York
State Museum and Science Service, Circular No.
40. Albany.
RouSE, IRVING
1939 Prehistory in Haiti: A Study in Method. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology, No. 21.
New Haven.
1955 On the Correlation of Phases of Culture. Amer-
ican Anthropologist, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 713-22.
Menasha.
1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology.
American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 313-23.
Salt Lake City.
This content downloaded from
213.191.171.80 on Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
[ VOL. 31, No. 2,1965
SEARS, WILLIAM H.
1960 Ceramic Systems and Eastern Archaeology.
American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 324-9.
Salt Lake City.
SMITH, WATSON
1962 Schools, Pots and Pottery. American- An-thro-
pologist, Vol. 64, No. 6, pp. 1165-78. Menasha.
SPAULDING, ALBERT C.
1957 Review of Method and Theory in Americant
Archaeology, by Gordon W. Willey and Philip
Phillips. American Antiquity, Vol. 23, No. 1,
pp. 85-7. Salt Lake City.
TAYLOR, WALTER W.
1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoirs of the Amer-
ican Anthropological Association, No. 69.
Menasha.
WHITE, LESLIE A.
1954 Review of "Culture: A Critical Review of Con-
cepts and Definition," by A. L. Kroeber and
Clyde Kluckhohn. American Anthropologist,
Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 461-8. Menasha.
1959 The Evolution of Culture. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
WILLEY, GORDON R. AND PHILIP PHILLIPS
1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Chicago, Illinois
October, 1964