CRITICISMS OF ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALOGY Depresses Time and Denies

CRITICISMS OF ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALOGY ØDepresses Time and Denies Change ØThe Problem of “Equifinality” Many paths to the same outcome ØIs the archaeological record “frozen Behavior”? Can we directly translate archaeological expressions into meaning social, political, or ritual patterns? ØBinford’s definition of the archaeological record as static and contemporary. Translate statics into past dynamics

Is the Archaeological record like Pompeii ARCHAEOLOGISTS DECIDE TO EVALUATE THIS QUESTION

SEVERAL METHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTIFACTS AND MEANINGFUL CULTURAL BEHAVIOR Ø RECORD FORMATION PROCESSES Ø MID-RANGE THEORY Ø ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY

New archaeologists committed to anthropological archaeology. But before you could address questions about culturally meaningful behavior, the nature of the archaeological record had to be investigated Here’s the problem: 1. The archaeological record is composed of artifacts on the surface and buried. Those artifacts are “static”, meaning they don’t interact. 2. New archaeologists are interested in what people do and how they do it ( that’s active or dynamic). The question is how to move from statics to dynamics? 3. And before you do that you have to consider whether the archaeological record has changed over time.

MICHAEL SCHIFFER

RECORD FORMATION PROCESSES Several components to this model: A) The systematic relationship between artifact acquisition, production, use , discard and the formation of the archaeological record. Schiffer wants to know the relationship between life histories of artifacts, the archaeological record, and cultural behavior B) Breaks culture down into a set of activities that transform material into something useful track the life histories of artifacts C) differentiates kinds of artifact contexts SYSTEMIC CONTEXT ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

ASSUMPTIONS THAT SCHIFFER MAKES TO CONSTRUCT SYSTEMIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT Ø CULTURE IS A SYSTEM ( HAVE YOU HEARD THAT BEFORE? ) Ø HUMAN ACTIVITY IS A TRANSFORMATION OF ENERGY THAT TYPICALLY INVOLVES ARTIFACTS Ø ARE THERE OTHERS? WHAT ABOUT ARCHAEOLOGICAL LAWS?

WHAT ARE RECORD FORMATION PROCESSES? WHEN DO THEY OPERATE? WHY DO ARCHAEOLOGISTS STUDY THEM? WHAT IS SCHIFFER’S ULTIMATE GOAL? WHAT DOES HE WANT TO “RECONSTRUCT?

MID-RANGE RESEARCH Binford’s methology for linking Statics to Dynamics Research with the Nunamiut at Anatuvak Pass

What is Mid-Range Theory? IT’S Not general Theory 1. Because the archaeological record is contemporary, can not know the past directly. Can only know the past indirectly through “static” artifacts 2. Required to make that linkage are observations, experiments, and analysis designed to link the present statics with past dynamics: record formation ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology

Questions regarding Mid-Range Theory [based on the Binford article] • What are the goals of Binford’s article: Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure? • Does Binford build a model to address these goals? Or does he address through the analysis of a single place • What are expedient artifacts? What are curated artifacts? • Is Schiffer’s distinction between systemic and archaeological context relevant to this article? How • What is the site function of the Mask site? Is there a relationship between site function and artifact deposition? • Is Binford’s approach to the relationship between cultural activity and artifact different than Schiffer’s? How? • What does Binford want to explain?

Culture Process: General Systems Theory The goal of Culture Process: To create explanations of culture change…. THE CAUSES OF CULTURE CHANGE Systems Theory (or General Systems Theory) was the initial model that was used to construct explanations. So: we need to ask what is system? And how is that definition built into the structure of systems theory

Systems Structure

Definitions • A System: A bounded entity that is made up of component parts. The parts of “interdependent”. That means that the action of one component affects the action of another. • All components of a system have boundary conditions. This means that each component has a range within which they operate Because all components have a range, the system itself has a range within which it can operate. • Homeostasis: maintenance of a system within its boundary conditions • Postive feedback: component deviations are amplified – This can change the system • Negative feedback: Component deviations are depressed and system is maintained at the current or previous state

SYSTEMS THEORY, MORE DEFINITIONS • This definition of system is functional. – Function: as in each component solves a problem – Function: as in each component has a goal— • Keep the system running… human adaptive system • CULTURE AS A SYSTEM – Components, many of which are not observable archaeologically – Each of those components have goals and boundary conditions – The system has goal---- human survival

Archaeological Systems Theory Model Culture T 1 Inputs: Environment Subsistence Settlement Population Culture T 2 Outputs---Change

HOW DOES A CULTURAL SYSTEMS THEORY CAUSE CHANGE? • System change caused by one or more components exceeding their boundary conditions ( positive feedback) • But what throws a component out of equilibrium? New Archaeologists relied on external causes: – Climate change, population growth, resource depletion.

Systems Theory in Mesoamerica What is the role of Systems Theory in this article? What are the causes of change from hunting and gathering to agriculture? Kent Flannery Why do Mesoamerican macrobands become sedentary?

Strengths of Systems Theory Explanations • A major improvement over culture historical explanations of change : invasion, independent invention, or diffusion • Provided a framework for discussing new adaptation: agriculture or the evolution of the state.

Weaknesses of Systems Theory • Causes of change were external (And Post -processualists really disliked this aspect) • System size and complexity required ‘major’ events to result in change • Description of how change occurs; not why