Lewis R. Binford

Archaeology As Anthropology

It is argued that archaeology has made few contributions to the general field of anthropology with regard to explaining cultural similarities and differences. One major factor contributing to this lack is asserted to be the tendency to treat artifacts as equal and comparable traits which can be explained within a single model of culture change and modification. It is suggested that “material culture” can and does represent the structure of the total cultural system, and that explanations of differences and similarities between certain classes of material culture are inappropriate and inadequate as explanations for such observations within other classes of items. Similarly, change in the total cultural system must be viewed in an adaptive context both social and environmental, not whimsically viewed as the result of “influences,” “stimuli,” or even “migrations” between and among geographically defined units. Three major functional sub-classes of material culture are discussed: technomic, socio-technic, and ideo-technic, as well as stylistic formal properties which cross-cut these categories. In general terms these recognized classes of materials are discussed with regard to the processes of change within each class. Using the above distinctions in what is termed a systemic approach, the problem of the appearance and changing utilization of native copper in eastern North America is discussed. Hypotheses resulting from the application of the systemic approach are: (1) the initial appearance of native copper implements is in the context of the production of socio-technic items; (2) the increased production of socio-technic items in the late Archaic period is related to an increase in population following the shift to the exploitation of aquatic resources roughly coincident with the Nipissing high water stage of the ancestral Great Lakes; (3) this correlation is explicable in the increased selective pressures favoring material means of status communication once populations had increased to the point that personal recognition was no longer a workable basis for differential role behavior; (4) the general shift in later periods from formally “utilitarian” items to the manufacture of formally “nonutilitarian” items of copper is explicable in the postulated shift from purely egalitarian to increasingly nonegalitarian means of status attainment.

Systematic Butchery by Plio/Pleistocene Hominids at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

Human origins research by archaeologists has expanded the evidence of the diet and subsistence activities of ancient hominids. We examine an important component of that evidence, the 1.75-million-year-old faunal assemblage from the FLK Zinjanthropus site at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Skeletal-part frequencies are used to evaluate hominid access to and differential transport of carcass portions of differing nutritional value. Cut-mark frequencies and locations are used to evaluate butchery patterns including skinning, disarticulation, and defleshing of carcasses. In contrast to other recently published assessments of the FLK Zinjanthropus data, we conclude that (1) ancient hominids had full access to meaty carcasses of many small and large animals prior to any substantial loss of meat or marrow bones through other predator or scavenger feeding; (2) ancient hominids were butchering animal carcasses by an efficient and systematic technique that involved skinning, disarticulation, and defleshing; and (3) the FLK Zinjanthropus site represents a place where the secondary butchering of selected carcass portions and the consumption of substantial quantities of meat and marrow occurred.

The archaeology of place

Abstract It is suggested that if archaeologists are to be successful in understanding the organization of past cultural systems they must understand the organizational relationships among places which were differentially used during the operation of past systems. This point is illustrated by observations made among the Nunamiut Eskimo. Against this background it is demonstrated that the two most common forms of archaeological systematics, “assemblage”- versus “type”-based systematics, are not appropriate for the study of places. In the latter case, it is not possible to analyze places as such, while one cannot see places with different “content” as part of a single system in the former. It is concluded that current archaeological systematics are totally inappropriate for studying past systems of adaptation and their evolutionary modification.

Dimensional analysis of behavior and site structure: learning from an Eskimo hunting stand

Detailed behavioral observations permitted the dimensional analysis of formation processes operative on the Mask site, a Nunamiut Eskimo hunting stand. Activity structure, technological organization, disposal mode, and spatial organization were all seen as behavioral dimensions that could each vary, altering the patterns of assemblage content and spatial disposition at an archaeological site. These ethnoarchaeological experiences were then contrasted with those recently reported by John Yellen (1977), and a critical evaluation of his “conclusions” was conducted from the perspective of the Eskimo experience. It was pointed out that basic differences in philosophy and approach to research largely conditioned the contrasting character of the conclusions drawn from the different experiences.

Rethinking the Middle/Upper Paleolithic Transition [and Comments and Replies]

This paper critically examines previous statements concerning the nature of the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition in Western Europe. Mellarss overview of the transition in southwestern France forms the point of departure for discussion. Several of Mellarss contentions are modified in light of methodological weaknesses and recently available data. It is suggested that many observed Middle/Upper Paleolithic differences are best understood with reference to a restructuring of social relations across the boundary. This is seen to be consistent with the suggestions of Sally and Lewis Binford based on mortuary practices and lithic variability.

An Alyawara Day: The Stone Quarry

The activities of the ethnographers and three Alyawara men during the course of a trip to a stone quarry in Central Australia are described. The excavation, shaping, and reduction of cores for the production of standardized flakes and blades was observed on the trip. These observations are then used as the basis for a short discussion regarding the current literature treating lithic techniques. Some contemporary approaches or interpretations may be in need of modification as we become increasingly aware of the variability in technique that may well stand behind the manufactured products we regularly analyze and study.

PARADIGMS, SYSTEMATICS, AND ARCHAEOLOGY

The ways archaeologists view the past--their paradigms--directly influence their interpretations of the archaeological record. Paradigm change need not be irrational or undirected; such change can best be accomplished by focusing attention on the various ways that dynamic cultural processes can be linked with the static archaeological record.

Were There Elephant Hunters at Torralba

In recent years there has been growing skepticism among some students of the pre-Sapiens sapiens hominids that the earlier romantic views, which pictured early man as a mighty hunter, are an accurate construction of the past. In fact, the trend in much recent work has been to modify this view and to see as unwarranted much of the evidence previously cited in support of the “mighty hunter” view of the past. Some have begun the serious investigation of the distinct possibility that early man was more commonly a scavenger of animal carcasses than a successful predator. This view, while seriously discussed for the pre-Homo erectus hominids, has not been popularly adopted for the investigation of Homo erectus himself. In fact, many theorists consider Homo erectus to be the author of what is referred to as the “hunting way of life” and believe that this shift may in fact stand behind the species’ successful radiation into new environmental zones (Shipman 1984).

Butchering, sharing, and the archaeological record

Abstract Richard Gould has recently advocated certain methodological positions he considers to be appropriate to the field of archaeology. These positions have been placed in critical contrast to propositions which this author allegedly advocates with regard to archaeological method and theory. This paper seeks to correct Goulds representation of this authors views and to place in a broader perspective the suggestions which he has offered to the field for consideration.

Seeing the Present and Interpreting the Past—and Keeping Things Straight

In order to interpret what we see in the archaeological record, inferences must be made regarding (a) the formation processes of the material record and how they reflect the role that places played in the organization of the past and (b) how that role (and the organizations as well) changed through time. Two different strategies of “looking” are currently in vogue: site surveys and nonsite or distributional or landscape approaches. When interpretation is based on the paradoxical seriation/settlement pattern methodology, traditional site surveys are clearly not appropriate for addressing organizational questions. When interpretation is based on inferences (middle-range theory) as robust as those commonly used to identify features, however, the first question about the role that places played in the system can be addressed. On the other hand, nonsite approaches are more productively directed toward answering the second question.