Modern Material Culture. The Archaeology of Us PDF
Preview Modern Material Culture. The Archaeology of Us
MODERN MATERIAL CULTURE The Archaeology of Us Edited by Richard A. Gould Department of Anthropology University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, Hawaii Michael B. Schiffer Department of Anthropology University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona ACADEMIC PRESS A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers New York London Toronto Sydney San Francisco COPYRIGHT © 1981, BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR ANY INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER. ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. 1Π Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003 United Kingdom Edition published by ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD. 24/28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Modern material culture: The Archaeoloov of Us. Studies in archaeology Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. United States—Antiquities—Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Archaeology—Philosophy—Addresses, essays, lectures. 3. Archaeology—Methodology— Addresses, essays, lectures. I. Gould, Richard A. II. Schiffer, Michael Β. III. Series, E159.5.Ä72 930.1'028 80-2332 ISBN 0-12-293580-2 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 81 82 83 84 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 List of Contributors Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors' contributions begin. Jane Allen-Wheeler (101), Department of Anthropology, University at Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Charles M. Baker (247),1 Department of Sociology and An thropology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723 Joyce E. Bath (183), Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 C. Fred Blake (87), Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Cheryl P. Claassen (239), Department of Anthropology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 J. Desmond Clark (303), Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720 Paul L. Cleghorn (197), Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Edwin S. Dethlefsen (137), Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 Theodore £· Downing (67), Department of Anthropology, Univer sity of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 1 Present address: Archaeological Research Consultants, P. O. Box 3296, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514. xiii xiv List of Contributors Jeffrey L. Eighmy (31, 225),2 Department of Anthropology, Col orado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Richard A. Gould (269), Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Robert F. Heizer (283),* Department of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720 Thomas R. Hester (283), Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas 78285 Daniel W. tngersoll, Jr. (255), Department of Anthropology, St. Mary's College of Maryland, St. Mary's City, Maryland 20686 Hiro Kurashina (303), Department of Anthropology/Geography, University of Guam, UOG Station Mangilao, Guam 96313 Mark P. Leone (5), Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742 Michael McCarthy (67), Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 David J. Meitzer (113), Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195 Alice W. Portnoy (213), Department of Anthropology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409 Patricia Price-Beggerly (127), Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 William L. Rathje (51), Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 Nan A. Rothschild (161), Department of Anthropology, Hunter Col lege, City University of New York, New York, New York 10021 Michael B. Schiffer (15, 67), Department of Anthropology, Univer sity of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 Richard Wilk (15), Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 2 Present address: Institute of Meteorology and Arid Land Studies, King Abdulaziz Univer sity, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. * Deceased. Preface "Never underestimate the importance of serendipity in science." This book is proof of that truism. In 1978 Pierre Morenon and Michael Schiffer organized a symposium entitled "The Archaeology of Us" for the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Los Angeles. That symposium represented the culmination of a series of research and pedagogical efforts—centered mainly at the University of Arizona at Tuc son—directed toward exploring the relationships between human behavior and materials to contemporary societies. Meanwhile, and since 1971, at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, Richard Gould had been giving a seminar on ethnoarchaeology that was heavily involved with similar themes. Like the Arizona efforts, the Hawaii seminar involved students in organized "field expeditions" on and around the campus and in the local community to observe human behavior from a modern material culture perspective. In 1978 Gould attended the AAA symposium. The discussions there led us all to recognize the mutuality of our interests in this field. From there, it was a short step to our joint approach to Academic Press, the publisher of this volume. In some instances the approaches we had been pursuing independently were so similar as to encourage one to believe in that hoary old an thropological idea of independent invention. The visits to on-campus parking lots and off-campus auto wrecking yards in Honolulu were closely paralleled by on-campus observations of sidewalks and architectural details and off- campus studies of campgrounds in the Tucson area. In each case, our prin- xv xvi Preface cipal concern was with the discovery and extension of general principles of human behavior vis-ä-vis materials. By making observations of contem porary behavior, could we posit general relationships that could be tested cross-culturally and might eventually achieve the status of behavioral laws? In some cases these studies were primarily oriented toward material residues, with the emphasis on processes of discard and the final, physical context in which such discards come to rest. In other cases the emphasis was on the flow of materials through the contemporary cultural system, from procure ment to ultimate discard, and including stages in this flow, such as manufac ture, use, and reuse of these materials. Chapters representing both kinds of emphasis will be found in this volume. But one can still ask what kind of archaeology this is. For many, if not most, scholars, archaeology refers to the past rather than to the present. Anyone looking for direct applications of the research findings to past human behavior presented by the chapters in this book will be disappointed. The ar chaeological payoff of this book can only be realized indirectly, first by positing relationships of a general nature and then by deriving predictions or tests of each relationship with respect to particular prehistoric- or historic- archaeological cases. So, although this book is not about archaeology in the conventional sense, it is vitally concerned with the nature of archaeological reasoning. This is consistent with the way in which archaeologists have sought, over the last decade or so, to make their reasoning more explicit and susceptible to scien tific validation. So when we address the theme of "the archaeology of us," we are looking for as many ways as possible to observe contemporary human behavior as a theoretically self-conscious archaeologist might do, with the aim of testing and extending whatever generalizations we can derive from our data in a way that encompasses both past and present human activities. Thus this book will be of interest to anyone interested in human behavior in relation to materials. We view these efforts as a kind of intellectual elixir being pumped into the mainstream of archaeology in particular and social science in general. As the reader will note, many of the contributions in this book are by young scholars whose enthusiasm and willingness to innovate and generalize may at times exceed their evidence. But the whole point of this book and the teaching and research that led to it is to open doors and reveal new and exciting possibilities in the "archaeological" study of familiar or even commonplace aspects of material behavior in our own and other contem porary human societies. This book is not the last word on the subject; it is the first word. And it must be viewed in that way. Each chapter presents ideas that are capable of further expansion and testing, and they are meant to stimulate rather than to demonstrate. This is especially important to keep in mind when comparing the essays Preface xvii in this volume with earlier, descriptive studies of material culture by an thropologists. The ethnographic literature abounds with studies of pottery- making, weaving, carving, house construction, canoe-building, stone toolmaking, and other arts and crafts which are essentially atheoretical and particularistic. Often, these studies involve exotic or unfamiliar societies. Such studies are useful—for example, to museum curators in researching and planning exhibits—but that usefulness has little to do with the goals of social science. This is not a "how-to" book about different kinds of human technology, nor will it appeal to collectors or others interested in material ob jects for their own sake. Instead, it is a book that is intended for people who wish to begin to explore the general nature of human behavior vis-ä-vis materials. The first section of the book consists of chapters that explicitly address both the theory and teaching of the modern material culture approach. These basically discursive chapters are followed by the second section that represents the core of the book—a sampling of a wide range of behavior in volving materials in contemporary and historic American society. These are ethnographic case studies that posit different general statements about human behavior in relation to materials as varied as coins, herbs, graffiti, fences, and domestic architecture and topics ranging from mortuary practices and beliefs to the reuse and recycling of goods in America. More than in any other part of the book, we can recognize "Us"—that is, ourselves—while at the same time we can often see how different we are from what we thought we were. A special section is included on experimental approaches to modern material culture studies, since this has proven to be one of the most effective ways of doing this kind of research. And, finally, there is a section containing chapters that attempt to provide a bridge between traditional areas of interest in archaeology—such as stone toolmaking, Egyptology, and Paleolithic technology—and the modern material culture approach. These papers do not exhaust the possibilities for useful research of this kind. On the contrary: In the aggregate they demonstrate that any aspect of human behavior in relation to materials provides an opportunity for making useful discoveries and positing cross-cultural generalizations. Acknowledgments We wish to thank William Rathje (University of Arizona) and Pierre Morenon (Rhode Island College) for their ideas and timely advice at the beginning of this project. METHOD AND THEORY IN MODERN MATERIAL- CULTURE STUDIES As the pages of this book will disclose, the archaeology of modern soci eties does not boast a unified body of theory nor a suite of widely accepted methods. The present volume, when taken together with other recent works (e.g., Ascher 1974; Deetz 1977b; Ferguson 1977; Gould 1978a; Quimby 1978; Richardson 1974; South 1977), documents the diverse theoretical stances and methodological approaches now undergoing trials in this nascent field. Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of Us presents a sam pling—by no means representative—of current positions. Some are by now quite familiar to the archaeologist and even lay persons, while a number of others explore new territory. Although these general viewpoints are aired throughout the book, in this part we have assembled papers that are par ticularly devoted to theoretical or methodological issues. Mark Leone begins with a provocative essay that represents an attempt to reconcile or at least moderate divergent views on how the past and present are related. Archaeologists will feel at home with Leone's rejection of Bloch's extreme relativism—that the past is simply a creation of the present. Our conceptions of the past, Leone contends, are surely constrained by the past that survives—material culture. Though not all stories or images of the past are compatible with the material record, there is still ample room for the in fluence of the present to be felt in the perceived past. Social systems exploit the inherent ambiguities of historical evidence by interjecting sociological and ideological messages that serve to reproduce and reinforce the existing order. 1 MODERN MATERIAL CULTURE Copyright © 1981 by Academic Press, Inc. The Archaeology of Us All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISBN 0-12-293580-2 2 Method and Theory in Modern Material-Culture Studies (Meitzer, in a later chapter, also drives home this point.) Leone draws il lustrative material from Colonial Williamsburg, an outdoor historical museum in Virginia. His analysis suggests that present social structure (and perhaps past) is manifest in the behavior acted out in a bakery demonstration, but the rifle exercise by a single individual lacks this level of meaning. Leone con cludes his essay with a discourse on boredom. He suggests that reconstruc tions like Colonial Williamsburg are essentially static and require a temporal dimension that can show how, as the present changes, so does the ritually presented past. Not all readers will agree with Leone's analysis or advice, but few can ignore the profound issues he raises. In the next chapter Richard Wilk and Michael B. Schiffer argue that the principles of fieldwork are the last frontier in using modern material culture to teach archaeology. They critically compare a number of conventional and experimental approaches to fieldwork instruction, and conclude that modern material culture offers some important advantages. In addition to conve nience and lack of expense, a major benefit is that emphasis is placed squarely on learning archaeology's most general principles, those which can be applied later by the student in any specific setting. That all principles of fieldwork can be illustrated with modern material culture is a claim that some investigators will consider to be quite preposterous. Nevertheless, Wilk and Schiffer support this position with a detailed discussion of their "modern material-culture" field school. The course they describe consists of a mix of lectures, demonstrations, readings and, above all, a series of library and practical exercises. The latter, which make use of modern material culture on and near the university campus, strive to train the student in important facets of fieldwork, particularly stressing that fieldwork is as much an intellectual as physical activity. Jeffrey L. Eighmy examines the potential of material culture to con tribute to diachronic studies in anthropology. Because material culture is durable, he points out, it can yield information on past behavior that is unavailable from the verbal sources customarily relied on by ethnographers and sociologists. Eighmy's ethnoarchaeological researches among two Men- nonite communities in Chihuahua, Mexico, elegantly demonstrate how this diachronic potential of artifact studies may be achieved. In a classic use of the comparative method, Eighmy attempts to resolve a paradox in change studies: While theoretical assumptions support the view that behavioral change in small-scale, isolated agricultural communities is slow, a number of empirical works indicate that just the opposite is true. Altkolonier and Som merfelder, where Eighmy did his fieldwork, are two communities matched in nearly all characteristics except social isolation. Data on over 50 years of ar chitectural modifications show that in the more conservative and isolated Altkolonier, architectural innovations catch on later than in Sommerfelder but the actual adoption rate is higer. Eighmy then offers a general explana- Method and Theory in Modern Material-Culture Studies 3 tion to account for these patterns. Ironically, the same forces of conformity that promote conservatism eventually bring about the speedy and whole hearted adoption of innovations. The arguments and case material presented by Eighmy raise the hope that diachronic ethnoarchaeology can provide a long-needed methodological breakthrough in the study of behavioral change. William L. Rathje concludes the first part with an overview of modern material-culture studies. He suggests that their contributions to archaeology fall into four principal areas. Contribution 1 is the teaching of archaeological principles. Modern artifacts are said to offer the teacher of archaeology many advantages, not the least of which is student interest. In addition, many in vestigations, including the Garbage Project, began as student exercises or drew inspiration from them. Contribution 2 of modern material-culture studies is the testing of archaeological principles. Classic investigations such as those carried out by Dethlefsen and Deetz (1966), and more recent ef forts, illustrate the expanding role that modern artifacts are playing in refur bishing archaeology's methodological toolkit. Several later chapters provide evidence for the vitality of this approach. Contribution 3 is in effect "salvage" ethnoarchaeology, recording the archaeology of today. Rathje underscores how imperfect are the traditional methods of record-keeping and conserva tion of material culture, even in an industrial society. All modern material- culture studies, by recording present-day human behavior and material culture, contribute to salvage ethnoarchaeology (for especially good ex amples, see the fourth part of this volume). And, finally, Contribution 4 is that of relating our society to past societies. Here Rathje's discussion shifts from outlining accomplishments to indicating the possibilities for using material-culture studies to develop context-free yardsticks for comparing varied societies—those long dead and those we live in. Rathje's neat scheme seems to accommodate the goals vis-ä-vis archaeology of most modern material-culture studies. At the present time, the diversity of modern material-culture studies is a decided strength. As archaeologists grapple with new-found applications for their unique perspective on human behavior, a premature orthodoxy or nor mal science would be stultifying. The freedom to experiment without paradigmatic shackles, to identify wholly novel questions and creatively devise ways to answer them, are among the undeniable attractions of modern material-culture studies. We should enjoy this exhilarating period of theoretical and methodological anarchy, for it is likely to be short-lived. Already the elements for synthesizing a new science of society, focused through archaeological principles on human behavior and material culture, seem tantalizingly close at hand. M.B.S.
The list of books you might like
