Society for American Archaeology

A Logical Sequence of Archaeological Objectives

Author(s): B. K. Swartz, Jr.
Reviewed work(s):
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Oct., 1967), pp. 487-497
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694076 .
Accessed: 27/08/2012 10:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org
 A LOGICAL SEQUENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES
B. K. SWARTZ,JR.
ABSTRACT edge a common set of procedures-the his-
A series of seven idealized levels of procedurein con- toricaland scientific methods. Researchis seen
ductingarchaeologicalresearchis proposed: preparation, to proceedfromthe formulation of a problem
acquisition,analysis,interpretation, integration,compari- or definition of an ultimateobjective,the acqui-
son, and abstraction.This schemewas employedto inves- sitionof data, analysis,interpretation, and then
tigate archaeological phenomena from Lava Beds Na-
tional Monument,northernCalifornia.
synthesis and comparison. In the strategy of cul-
ture history,rigidnessrefersto this accepted
A NECESSARY activityof archaeologistsis procedure,and inclusivenessto its applicability
the preparationof "sitereports."The for- to the full range of archaeologicalobjectives.
mat of such reportshas been formalizedand Indeed,a similarsetofprocedureshas been pro-
standardizedas modernarchaeologyhas devel- posed byPhillips(Willey and Phillips1958: 4):
oped. The purposeof thispaper is the fomula- Field Work,Culture-HistoricalIntegration, and
tion of a conceptualizedmethodological frame- Processual Interpretation. The sequence of gen-
work which makes explicitthe objectivesand eralized proceduresproposed in this paper is
proceduresimplied in site reportorganization. Preparation,Acquisition,Analysis,Interpreta-
Rouse (1953: 57) uses the termobjective"to tion,Integration, Comparison,and Abstraction.
referto the end productof any particularseg- Each of these procedures has a principlegoal
mentin the procedureof cultural-historical re- or objective, and of course, numeroussmaller
search." Rouse'susageis employedhere.A pro- ones which can be pursued independently, every
cedureis the activityrequiredto achieve a spe- approach being investigated until all avenues
cifiedobjective. This frameworkwas success- are exhausted. Recognitionof thisfact on the
fullyapplied in studying archaeologicalmaterial analyticlevel is notedby Brew (1946: 65) who
from Lava Beds National Monument, Cali- pleads for more not fewer, classifications.
-

fornia(Swartz 1964, 1967). These subsidiary,independently pursued,objec-

In discussingthe proceduresof archaeological tives may cross-cut the idealized, basic,logically
researchin general,Rouse (1953: 58) dichoto- orderedprocedures,but such occurrencesare of
mizes the strategyof culturehistoryinto two a practicalconsiderationand need not conflict
alternativeapproaches: "One is to devise a withthe largerprimaryobjectives.
rigid,all-inclusiveprogramofresearch,in which The contentof this paper, because of the
one objectivefollowslogicallyupon theprevious investigative approach utilized,will be uneven
one untiltheultimate,mostimportant objective as to the novelnessof ideas. In orderto make
is reached. The other. . . treating each objective clear how proceduresoperate, the trite and
as if it were of equal importanceforbuilding obvious are complementedby what I view as
up the cultural-historicalapproach." Rouse the new and unique.
suggeststhat Taylor is an advocate of the first
alternative(Taylor 1948: 133) and thathe him- PREPARATION
self pursues the second alternative.Recently Preparationis the acquaintingof oneselfwith
Rouse (1965) has formalizedhis approach,list- thenatureand scope of thearchaeologicalprob-
ing three"procedures"and fourtypesof objec- lem or basic objectiveto be resolved. The na-
tives. AlthoughI feelthatthesetwoapproaches tureof archaeologicalproblemformation is well
are supplementary, in this paper the rigid"all statedby Mayer-Oakes(1966: 10, orderof pre-
inclusive program of research," rejected by sentationaltered):
Rouse,will be considered.Mayer-Oakes(1966)
has proposedanothertypeofmodel forarchaeo- . . . We can see that there are two main problem
of scholars in archae-
orientationscurrentlycharacteristic
logical procedures, anguilineal, rather than ology. We dichotomizethese into the "sponge" or all-
Rouse's (1965) multilinealor my rectilineal inclusive orientationor approach and the "selective" or
schemes. narrower orientation. At this point a fact of life to
The fact is the "one-time"
A basic sequence of archaeologicalobjectives, archaeologistsrears its head.
nature of the raw data with which archaeologistsmust
logicallyordered,appears justifiedat a general- deal. Because archaeologistsmust dig and thus destroy
ized level. There is basic to all fieldsof knowl- in order to read the basic record left them by past cul-
487
488 AMERICANANTIQUITY [ VOL.32,No. 4,1967

tures,all fieldworkershave the responsibility sitionof data is fromthe generalor region,to

and obliga-
tion to observe,recordand collectdata as completelyand
the particularor specimen(Table 1). Proceeding
thoroughly as the appropriatetechniquesallow. This may
in this order, Fragile-Patternareas (Hayden
be in conflictwith a particular,limited probleminterest,
1965) can be recordedbeforetheyare irrevoca-
but is a fundamental qualification to the concept of
relativitywith regardto problemformulation. blydisturbed.Althoughthisorderof presenta-
in reality this
Fundamentalto thepreparationprocedure,then tion will be followed here,
is an academic or professional sincerity
in view- sequence does not always occur. For example,
the Pioneer phase of the Hohokam was dis-
point.
covered not from the preliminary surveyin the
There are two aspects of preparation: (1)
excava-
surveyof workalreadydone, and (2) prepara- area, but from intensivestratigraphic
tion for the technicalproblemsof field work. tions at a particular site, Snaketown (Haury,
The preliminary surveyof the existingmaterial personalcommunication, 1963).
forthe area differs fromreconnaissance, as used The first
step is to deal with collectionswhich
are acquired by reconnaissance. The resultsof
in acquisition,in that it precedes actual field
work. reconnaissance can be broken down intonatural
and cultural divisions. The term "natural" re-
The goal of surveying previousworkis to gain
a broad knowledgeof the entirearea in which fers to objects not modified by human agencies,
are so modified.
one is workingby surveying all pertinentmate- and "cultural"to thosewhich
Natural remains acquired by reconnaissance in-
rial,in otherwords,publishedaccounts,includ-
clude landscape specimens, eitherfaunal,botan-
ing previous local archaeologyand the local
Cultural
ethnography, geology,botany,and zoologyand ical (Fosberg1960), or petrographic.
also data obtainedfromthe regionby museums remains include site records and surface collec-
tions of portable artifacts. As reconnaissance is
and collectors.
done, regional records, consisting of graphicand
The goal in organizingan expeditionis to
are
locate a qualifiedcrew with suitabletechnical writtendescriptions,are obtained. Maps
produced, either by ground or aerial survey.
equipmentat a specificspot. Among the prob-
down
lems involved in such a task are the securing The resultsof recordingare again broken
of permissionsand funds,transportation, ade- into natural and cultural. The results dealing
quate housing,food, and choice of trainingof with natural phenomena are physiography,
personnel. Schwartz's(1961: 533-45) concept whichis importantforecologicalinterpretation.
of logistical accounting is concernedwith this The cultural results
are concernedwith cul-
aspectof preparation. tural phenomena and consistof data bearingon
demographicdistributions.
The nextorderof procedureis the investiga-
ACQUISITION tionofsites. The methodused is normallyexca-
Acquisitionis the mechanicalprocessof de- vation,withthe resultsagain beingdividedinto
rivingdata fromthe fieldfor later studyand natural and cultural. The formerinclude col-
analysis. Theoreticallyit is useful to separate lectionsof paleontologicalspecimensand soil
acquisitionfromanalysisand interpretation, but samples (Taylor 1957), and the latter,cultural
*on a practicallevel theyoftenproceed simul- features.The naturalspecimens, are important
taneously.For example,it is oftenimpossiblefor in determining such factorsas climaticchange,
an excavator to avoid recognizingan artifact seasonal occupation, group food biases, 'and
thathas been collectedas a projectilepoint. In butchering techniques(White 1952,1953,1954).
general, acquisition is a field activity,while The cultural recordsobtainedat this time are
analysisis done in a laboratory. settlement patterns(Willey 1953;Trigger1967).
The two main operationsunder acquisition In thepast,archaeologists have tendedtoneglect
are collectingand recording.Ideally,collection this intermediatelevel of procedure,and it is
includesthe obtainingof objects,while records felt that more notice should be given to this
include the graphicand writtendescriptionof approach in the future.
phenomenacollected,exposed, or observedin The last level of proceduredeals with speci-
the field. However, the simultaneityof these mens. Here collectionsare made by the physi-
operationsmustbe stressedhere. Graphic rec- cal processesof extracting and assemblingspeci-
ordsare oftwokinds,photographs and sketches. mens.The emphasisinexcavationis stratigraphic
In theory,the orderof proceduresin the acqui- and withinthesite,ratherthanaerialor beyond
SWARTZ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES 489

TABLE 1. SEQUENCES OF ACQUISITIONPROCEDURES

COLLECTING
METHOD RESULTS RESULTS
NATURAL CULTURAL
REGION Reconnaissance Landscape specimens Sites and
surfacecollections
SITE Excavation Paleontologicalspecimens Features
SPECIMEN and soil samples Portableartifacts

REC ORDING
METHOD RESULTS RESULTS
NATURAL CULTURAL
REGION Graphicand Physiography Demographicdistributions
SITE written Soil profile Settlementpattern
SPECIMEN description Context Content

the site. The collectionsobtained are natural 1942: 22). These units need not necessarily
(paleontologicalspecimensand soil samples), have cultural significance.
and cultural (portable artifacts). Of course, The basic unitemployedin archaeologyis the
graphicand writtenrecordsare also obtained. attribute.An attributeis any qualityor aspect
The writtenrecordsshould include such cata- ofmaterialmanifestation thatcan be orderedor
logingand labelingofspecimensas is needed for described.As Spauldingpointsout (1960: 61)
close correlatingwith field records,and such an
detailednoteson associationsas are stressedby attributemay be one of a continuousgroup,a measure-
Taylor (1948: 152-202). The natural-cultural ment of length . . . or a discretequality, as in the case
dichotomy,as used above, cannot always be of observingthat an object is made of bone.... [It] may
applied in the studyof associations,since,for be a physical or chemical property. . weight,shape,
chemical composition,etc.
example, artifactsmay be associatedin a nat-
ural stratigraphicdeposit,or, as occurs in the Krieger'stermfeature(1944: 286) is equivalent
Southwest,natural fossilfetishesmay be con- to an attribute.
tainedin artificial
leatherbags. Attributesthat are diagnostictemporal-spa-
tial indicatorsare heretermedmodes. The con-
ANALYSIS cept of mode was introducedintothe literature
To understandthe distinction made in defin- by Rouse (1939: 11) and is equivalentto Krie-
ing theseterms,the difference betweenanalysis ger'scharacter(1944: 286). Rouse would limit
and interpretation mustbe made clear. Analy- mode to include only attributeswith cultural
sis is the procedurewherebyarchaeologicaldata signifiance,while I would exclude attributes
are placed in a framework of timeand space; it with cultural significancethat possessed no
is the initial step in the studyingof archaeo- time-spaceimplication.
logicalmaterialsobtainedin the field(Brainerd By the term"mode" is meant any standard,concept,or
1951: 302). Analysis,as here defined,may be custom which governsthe behavior of the artisansof a
community.. . . Analyticclassification,
then,must single
consideredto be distinctin its purposes and out modes which are cultural,and exclude those traits
goals fromculturalreconstruction, forwhich it [attributes] which are purely biological, chemical or
providestherequiredtemporal-spatial ordering. physical(Rouse 1960: 313-14).
Analysis,then,can be seen as the manipulation It is conceivable,though perhaps improbable,
of massesof archaeologicaldata forthe purpose that an attributemay have temporal-spatial
of derivingtemporal-spatialorder. Such order significance, but no cultural significance.For
mustbe accompaniedby classification, the pros example,unknownto a communityof potters,
cedure by which manipulable units, essential a macroscopically imperceptible alterationmight
for demonstratingsimilaritiesand differences naturallyoccur in a clay depositthat is micro-
throughtime and space, are formed(Osgood scopicallydetectableto an archaeologistwhen
490 AMERICANANTIQUITY [ VOL. 32,No. 4,1967

incorporated into a potteryform. Such an If one proceededin an ideallyinductiveman-

alterationcould quite likely be sensitiveto ner, he would identifyand record all recog-
changein timeand space. An attributecaused nizable attributesof a collectionof artifacts,
by this clay alterationwould have no cultural sinceclassesare on a higherlevel of abstraction.
significanceif imperceptibleto the potterson a By temporal-spatialgrouping,modes could be
consciousand subconsciouslevel. extracted.The next step would be the sorting
Anotherunitused in archaeology, butseldom of artifactsinto classesand then the relatingof
formallydefined,is a class. A class is simplya attributesto these classesfortypedescriptions.
groupof artifactssortedtogetheras a unit by Here a conflictbetweenideal and practicalpro-
similarityof appearance. Class as used here cedureoccurs.Most attributes occurin artifacts.
differs fromOsgood'smeaning(1942: 22) which To avoid processingthe collection a second
is restricted
to a groupof artifacts manufactured time,it can be initiallysortedintoclasses,which
fromthesame material.Daugherty'stermform can then be describedforclass rangeand attri-
(1962: 4) impliesthatshape or formis the only bute identification simultaneously.
criterionused, and therefore, is not employed Additional time-spacedata, primarilyasso-
here. A class, a groupof classes,or a subclass, ciationalratherthan formalin nature,can be
thatsuccessfully servesas a diagnostictemporal- obtainedfromnon-artifactual materialssuch as
spatialindicatoris a type. A type,like a mode, midden components(not to be confusedwith
need not have culturalsignificance.This use of occupationalcomponentsas used below) and
thetypeconceptconforms withSteward's(1954: faunaland floralremains.Distinctionsbetween
54) Historical-Index Type. In essence,a typeis attributesand classes are based on artifactual
nothingmore than a related set of recurring remains.Confusionis caused ifthisterminology
artifact-bound attributes.Spaulding (1953) and is extended to non-artifactualmaterials. In
Shepard (1956) have implicitlyextended the Swartz (1964, 1967) they were treated sepa-
concept of type to include clusteringsof attri- ratelyon the analyticallevel.
butes,statistically derived,independentof arti- The associationof a clusterof modes or of a
fact classes. I believethat thisdoes violenceto group of typesin geologicalcontextwithina
the typologicalconceptand thatsuch a termas singlesiteis here definedas a component.The
attribute-cluster would be moreappropriate. concept of component was introduced into
Gross differences between excavation units Americanarchaeologyby McKern (1939: 508).
representingdifferentcomponentsof distinct "The manifestationof any given focus [see
persistentdifferences of large samples of arti- below] at a specificsite is termeda component
factsofa simpleor basicnaturearebestdetected of that focus." Often,in generalparlance,the
by typologicalanalysis. More subtledifferences term occupation,and in Californiathe term
within componentunits,or with small collec- settlement(Heizer 1958: 99, 100), are used as
tionsof artifactssufficiently elaboratedso as to synonymsforMcKern's component.
providestylistic are best detectedby
variability, A component,or groupof components,in a
modal analysis. limitedregionor zone, occurringwithina re-
In the use of typesfortime-spaceplacement, strictedtimespanthat possessesmodes or types
the relationshipof attributesthat comprisean sufficiently to distinguishit from
characteristic
artifactmustbe considered. It is this relation- all othersimilarly conceivedunits,is heretermed
ship thatprovidesan artifactwithitsdistinctive a phase. This termwas firstconceivedby Glad-
flavorand makes possibleits classification with win at the 1931 Gila Pueblo Conference(Olson
a type. Types not onlyconsiderthe occurrence 1962: 459), and it is equivalentto the concepts
ofartifact-bound setsof attributes,butalso their of focus in McKern's MidwesternTaxonomic
relationshipto one another necessitatedby System(1939: 308), faciesin California(Heizer
shared artifactexistence. This added dimen- 1958: 99, 100), and assemblageas used in Old
sion of the type,not presentforisolatedmodes, World paleolithicarchaeology(Braidwood1946:
makesit veryimportantas a time-saving sorting 136). Although material-cultureunits quite
device. Besides this,the use of typesfortime- likelywill fail to coincidewith social units,the
space alignmentsis conventionalin archaeolog- comparisonof componentsto Murdock's com-
ical literatureand providesa largebodyof com- munitiesand of phases to pre-statesocieties
parative data amenable to larger synthetic (tribes or villages) is suggestive(Willey and
studies. Phillips 1958: 49-50).
SWARTZ ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES 491

In general,I concurwithWilley and Phillips radiocarbondesignations)is not a date, but an

(1958: 40-1) thatthe phase is thelargestinduc- age. To avoid these terminological misnomers,
tivelyintegratedwhole cultureunitof manage- Smiley (1955: 18) suggeststhe termsrelative
able proportionsfor archaeological analysis. placement and time placement forrelativeand
However,largerunits,termedcultures,compar- absolutedates respectively.
able to McKern's aspect, have been usefully There are two methodsfordetermining rela-
employed by Ritchie (1965). They propose, tiveplacement,stratigraphy and seriation.Strati-
however,two integrative ordinatesthat enable graphyis the relativeplacementof events by
syntheses of portionsofphase unitsintobroader depositionalassociation.As pointedout byPhil-
temporal-spatialdimensions- the horizonand lips,Ford,and Griffin (1951: 241), stratigraphy
the tradition.ParaphrasingWilley and Phillips should not be confusedwithstratification. The
and inserting the nomenclatureproposedin the latter refersonly to the physicalprocessesof
precedingdiscussion,a horizoncan be defined depositionand involvesno theoreticalimplica-
as a spatialcontinuity bymodesand tions. Stratification
represented may be naturalin that the
typeswhose nature and means of occurrence layersof deposit,or strata,are visible,or it may
permitthe assumptionof theirbroad and rapid be metricalwheretheyare not visible.
geographicalspread; a traditionis a temporal The stratigraphicmethod is based on two
continuityrepresentedby modes and types principles, superposition and identification
whose natureand means of occurrencepermit (Rowe 1961: 324). The principleof superposi-
the assumptionof theirgradual and persistent tion statesthat a deposit that overliesanother
development within a narrow geographical deposit is youngerin age. Superpositionneed
range. The use of traditionshould not be con- not be only vertical,but it can be largelyhori-
fused with the "full culture" traditionoften zontal,as longas overlappingof depositsoccurs;
utilized by archaeologiststo circumventthe or it mayeven be reversedthroughredeposition
amorphous term of "culture" in describing byhumanagency(Hawley 1937). The principle
archaeologicalmanifestations. ofsuperpositionwas firstformulated byNicolaus
Archaeologicalcolle ctions, temporally-spa- Steno in 1669 (Heizer 1962: 4-5), and it was
tiallyordered,are heretermedcomplexes.Com- first applied to archaeological problems by
plexes are portionsof phases that share some Thomas Jefferson in 1782 (Rowe 1961: 324).
common mode, or are partitiveunits of such The second principle,identification, statesthat
interrelated segments.Braidwood'stermindus, deposits in various regionscan be temporally
try,used in Old World archaeology(Braidwood correlatedby use of specifieddiagnostickeys,
1946: 136), is similarin concept to complex. such as fossilsor artifacts, incorporatedwithin
Distributionsof specificmodes and types can them.The firstapplicationof identification was
also be plottedon the ordinates. byJohnSmithin 1796,and, accordingto Rowe,
Two typesof temporalplacementare gen- it was not utilizedby archaeologists untilmen-
erallyrecognizedand termedby mostarchaeo- tionedby 0. C. F. Lisch in 1847 (Rowe 1961:
logistsas relative dating and absolute dating 324). The compilationof the European paleo-
(Heizer 1953: 4). Relative"dating"is the tem- lithic sequence by Gabriel de Mortilletin the
poral placementof events in associationwith late 19th centurywas accomplished by the
one another. No fixedpointin timeis used as applicationof this principle.
a referent.Because of thisfactactual "dating" Conventionally stratigraphic relationships
is impossible. One can say that a particular have been noted macroscopicallyby observing
eventoccurredbeforeor afteranother,but one such phenomenaas geologicalcompositionand
cannotsay that a particulareventoccurredat a fossiland artifactoccurrence.The use ofmicro-
certainpointin time. chemical and microphysicalobservationscan
"Absolutedating"is not absolutein the strict also provideimportant information
stratigraphic
meaningoftheword.An absolutedate can only and makemoreprecisemacroscopicdistinctions.
be expressed as a metaphysicalconcept of a The mostnotable achievementsalong thisline
momentaryexistence,and it cannot be empir- are pollen analysisand Oakley's (1948) work
ically measured. Also "absolute dating" need on measurement of fluorinecontentin fossilized
not be expressedas a date, but also as an age. bone.
For example,A.D. 1492 is a date, but 475 years The second method,seriation,is the relative
ago (or B.P.-before as
present, oftenused in placement of eventsby the comparisonof fre-
492 AMERICANANTIQUITY [ VOL.32,No. 4,1967

quencies of various mode or type similarities. a temporal-spatialunit so that an artifactin-

This methodis based on the assumptionthata ventorycan be determined.Interpretation from
mode or type will appear, graduallyincrease, a singlesiteassemblageis possibleand is a corn
thendecreasein frequency, and will eventually mon archaeologicalprocedure.Such interpreta-
disappear,never to reappearagain. To be cer- tion may be quite misleading,however. For
tain of which directiona seriationalsequence example, think of the distortionspossible in
movesthroughtime,some associationalreferent interpreting a siteonlyseasonallyoccupied.
is necessary(similarly seriation, accordingto The bulk of directevidenceon culturalevo-
Rowe 1961: 326). Unfortunately, preconceived lution has been derivedfromdata interpreted
ideas of evolutionarydevelopment,such as fromarchaeologicalremains.Awarenessof the
crude to refinedor simple to complex,evolu- value of interpretation is largelyincipient,how-
tionary seriation (Rowe: 1961: 324) may be ever. This lack of emphasiswas pointedout by
invoked. Rather precise placement can be Steward and Seltzer (1938) and was strongly
achieved by analyzinglarge,diversesamplesof indictedby Taylor (1948).
at least somewhatelaboratedartifactswith in- Epistemologicalconsiderations of archaeolog-
tensivestatisticaltechniques. The most ambi- ical interpretationhave been examined by
tiousattemptof thisapproachto archaeological Thompson (1958). Archaeologicalinterpreta-
data is the Brainerd-Robinson seriationmatrix tionis theresultofthe inferential processwhich
(Robinson1951; Brainerd1951). proceeds in two steps,indicationand testing.
Time placementcan be accomplishedby us- Indicationis that activityof makingindicated
inghistoricalrecords,historicaltimeplacement conclusionsfromobservedindicativedata. Test-
or calendrics,or by studyingnaturalphenome- ingis that activityof makinginferences by anal-
na, naturaltime placement. If some aspect of ogy of indicated conclusionswith probative
naturalphenomenais discoveredthataltersat a data. The inferential processis operativeon the
constantrate,it can serve as a clock to age or analyticlevel, but it is presentedhere since it
date an associatedevent. Tree-ringand radio- is at the interpretative level thatthefinalresults
carbontechniquesare the mostsuccessfulin this ofinference becomemanifest.
fieldfor placementof archaeologicalmaterial. The mostreliableprobativedata are associa-
Time and relativeplacementcan worktogether tions. Fromthe relativepositionoftwo or more
(for example,the discoveryof a specificcondi- objectswith one another,or with one or more
tionat the timean eventtookplace). The con- objects with some significantnatural feature,
dition must then be related to some constant valuable probativedata can be obtained. For
natural change (as with widespread volcanic example,if red ocher is foundadheringto the
depositionor paleomagnetism)or be recorded grindingsurfaceof a palette,the inferencethat
historically(for example, accounts of astro- the paletteservedas a device forpreparingred
nomicalphenomenasuch as eclipses). paint pigmentseems plausible. Interpretation
of this typecorrespondsto Taylor's "Conjunc,
INTERPRETATION tiveApproach" (Taylor 1948).
Proceduresof interpretation do not actually Less reliableare ethnographicdata obtained
follow upon the previous objective of time- in the same area as the archaeologicalmaterials.
space frameworkformulation, but ratherthey Best resultsof thistypeof data can be obtained
startat the same time as analysis,utilizingthe if the archaeologicalmaterialis not too earlyin
additionaldata of analysis,but directingthese time,and ifrecentconquestsand invasionshave
data to a different goal. The goal of interpreta- not occurredin the same area. If these condi-
tion is to discoverhow an assemblageof arti- tions are met, it can be assumed that thereis
factswas manufacturedand used at a certain historicalcontinuity betweenethnographic prac-
place and at a specifictime,it is not the order- tices and archaeological evidence. Interpreta-
ing of data temporallyor spatially. Although tionin thissituationhas beentermedthe"Direct
interpretation as an activityis also employed HistoricalApproach" by Steward (1942).
at otherlevelsof procedure(forexample,chro- Local ethnographicdata are oftenunobtain-
nologicalinterpretation), here use of the term able. Attention should be given to finding
will be restricted to culturalreconstruction.A ethnographic analogsfromsocietieswithsimilar
comprehensive interpretation procedurecannot subsistencelevels and habitats. This type of
be performeduntilafteranalysishas identified comparisonis called the "New Analogy" by
SWARTZ ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES 493

Ascher (1961a). Of courseifdata of thisnature processes. This distinctionis well stated by

are unavailable, otherethnographicdata must Kroeber(1935: 545-6):
be relied upon. I suggest as the distinctivefeature of the historical
If ethnographic data are unavailableor poor, approach,in any field,not dealingwith timesequences-
"ExperimentalAnalogy" (Ascher 1961b) can thoughthat almost inevitablycrops out where historical
be utilized. Valuable inferenceson chipping impulses are genuine and strong- but an endeavor at
descriptiveintegration.By "descriptive"I mean that the
techniquesof paleolithic tools have been ob- phenomena are preservedintactas phenomena,so far as
tainedin thismanner(Semenov 1964). that is possible; in distinctionfrom the approach of the
The smallest units in interpretative signifi- nonhistoricalsciences, which set out to decompose phe-
cance are here termedelements.Linton'scon- nomena in orderto determineprocessesas such. History
cept of item (1936: 397) is comparable. Ele- of course does not ignoreprocess,but it does refuseto set
it as itsfirstobjective. Processin historyis a nexus among
mentsfallintotwobasic categories, manufactur- phenomena treatedas phenomena,not as a thing to be
ing techniquesand uses of objects. There are sought out and extractedfrom phenomena. Historical
three typesof manufacturing techniques: (1) activityis essentially a procedure of integratingphe-
selection of materials for manufacture;(2) nomena as such; scientificactivity,whateverits ultimate
manufacturing of objectsby reduction,that is, resynthesis, is essentiallya procedure of analysis,of dis-
solvingphenomena in orderto converttheminto process
the removingof matterfroman originalpiece formulations.(Emphasis added)
of raw material; (3) manufacturing of objects
by construction,combiningraw materials to The basic unitof reconstruction is herecalled
build a qualitativelydistinctform.The analytic a pattern. This conceptis similarto Wissler's
counterpart of an elementis an attribute. "UniversalPattern" (1923: 73-98) and Reed's
Uses may be eitherdynamic(that is, a mov- "Culture Category" (1958: 154) and should
ing action is required in its employment)or not be confusedwith McKern's (1939) use of
static. Also, uses may be utilitarian(required the word as an analytictaxon.
formaintaininga livelihood) or nonutilitarian. Unlike complexes,patternsmust occur at
A descriptionof the manufacturing techniques one time and place, that is, withina phase as
and ofthe uses of an assemblageof artifacts pro- definedby Willey and Phillips (1958: 22-3).
vides the techniculture(Osgood 1942: 33) of a The analyticprocedureof defininga phase in
community. space and time must precede cultural recon-
A largersyntheticunit is the trait. A trait struction of interpretative data intopatterns..A
differs froman elementin that a "unit of obser- description of the patterns ofa phase constitutes,
vation" is implied (Wissler 1923: 50). In essentially, an "archaeologicalethnography," or
archaeology,due to the natureof the materials what Taylor calls "historiography" (1948: 31).
studied,a traitacquires a more formalaspect. Using the terms proposed in this paper, the
Traits are simply"functionaltypes,"classes of followingstandardizationof nomenclaturecan
be proposed(Table 2).
artifactsgroupedtogetheron the basis of sus-
As pointedout byWilleyand Phillips(1958:
pected commonuse. Functionaltypesseldom
41-2), the largestmanageableunit of cultural
coincidewithanalytictypes,which are defined integration is the phase. It is felt,however,that
on temporal-spatial bases. on the interpretative procedurallevel, a larger
taxon,based on cultureformationprocesses,is
INTEGRATION
possible. Such traitscan be formulatedby cor-
There are two aspectsof integration:recon- relatingthreevariables:(1) typeof habitat,(2)
structionand synthesis.The objectiveof the areal distribution,and (3) subsistencelevel.
firstis to reconstruct, as completelyas possible These variablesare not mutuallyexclusivein
frominferentialdata, how a group of people that whereversocietieswith simplesubsistence
lived in a certainplace and at a certaintime. economiesare greatlyaffectedby habitat,those
On the otherhand, synthesisis the procedure with more complex subsistenceeconomiesare
by whichlargerculture-content units,of a taxo- less so. With the developmentof posturban
nomicnature,are formulatedand described. conqueststates,habitatvariablesbecome negli-
In integration the outlookis historicalin that gible and historical-culturalfactors,such as
it attemptsto reconstructand synthesizedata militaryconquest,become the primeconsidera-
ratherthanbeingscientific, whichatomizesdata tions. Here areal distribution replaces habitat
and manipulates them in order to discover typefordefiningsuperphaseunits.
494 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 32, No. 4,1967

TABLE 2. A SUGGESTED STANDARDIZATION OF ANALYTICAL NOMENCLATURE

General Analytical Interpretative

artifact-free,
specific attribute mode element
artifact-bound,interrelated
attributes class type trait
integrative,
attributes
and/orclasses collection complex pattern

forsome reason,have been

Anthropologists, ciples,frompersisting uniformitiesand regulari-
little concernedwith formulating large histor- ties. The focal point of anthropologicalstudy
icallyderivedtaxonomicunitsand have either is culture. This conceptcan onlybe explained
resortedto outlininguniversalstages (Childe on its own terms.The relationships of culture
1956,1960;Willey and Phillips1958) or to em- and environment(of prime interestto the
ployingcomparativestudies in an attemptto archaeologist), and ofcultureand theindividual
discoverculturalprocesses(Steward 1955; Hes- are illuminating to the human ecologistand the
ter 1962). In otherwords,emphasishas been psychologist, respectively,but are of littlesig-
put on studyingcultural regularities,rather nificanceto the culturalanthropologist on this
than uniformities.For thisreasonthereis little finallevel of procedure.
terminologyto draw upon in discussinghis- The recognition of the abstractnatureof cul-
toricalsuper-phaseunits. ture was observedand termed "superorganic"
Beals and Hester (1960), usingsimplesubsis- by Kroeber(1917). This idea was furtherpro-
tenceCaliforniaethnographic data,have formu- mulgatedby White (1949). An abstractionis
lated unitswhich theyterm"EcologyTypes." simplya constant,used to explain phenomena.
Their concern is with the cultural response Cultureis used by the anthropologist to explain
withinthesetypes,however,and theterm"Cul- humanbehaviorin thesame manneras the con-
tureEcologyType" would be moreappropriate. cept of gravityis used by a physicistto explain
Complex subsistencesocietiescan be classified theprinciplesoffallingbodies.Gravitydoes not
intowhat Steward (1955: 88) has termed"Cul- exist,nor does culture. They are abstractions
tureArea Types." These two "types"of types from reality. Examples of such formulations
can thenbe amalgamatedinto"CultureHistory would be statementslike "cultureis learned,"
Types,"thistermbeingused to designatesuper- or it is "sociallytransmitted,"etc. An example
phase taxonomicunits. of explanation at this level, obtained from
archaeologicalevidence, is increasingcultural
COMPARISON complexitythroughtime demonstrated,with
The procedureof comparisonis not a step exceptions(forexample,by Meggers1954), by
but it is an alter-
developingout of integration, the increasingquantityand diversity of artifac-
native approach to interpretative data. It is tual remainsfound in more recentarchaeolog-
scientificin outlook,atomizingand manipulat- ical horizons.
ingdata in orderto discoverprocesses. Abstractionis the ultimateand finalobjective
of archaeologicaland general anthropological
Cross-culturetypesconsistof culture cores of those area
[culture history]types which never recur two or more research.The sterilenatureoftheultimateindi-
times in historical independence of one another and cates the need forfurtherdevelopingthe field
which representsimilarlevels of socioculturalintegration of culturehistory.
(Steward 1955: 89).
In usingthisconceptin archaeology,subsistence CONCLUSIONS
level would be more usefulthan sociocultural Two generalconclusionsbecome apparentin
integrationin that it can be more directlyin- attempting to identifyand orderarchaeological
ferredfromarchaeologicalevidence.By utilizing objectivesforsitereportorganization.The first
the comparativemethod, regularitiescan be is thatan objectiveusuallydoes notdevelopinto
discovered. the succeedingobjectivebut, rather,establishes
ABSTRACTION thenecessaryconditionforthe pursuanceof the
The ultimategoal of integrationand com- nextobjective.The proceduresused to achieve
ofgenerallaws,orprin- each subsequent objective,therefore,are de-
parisonis the abstraction
SWARTZ ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES 495

ABSTRACTION Indianapolis, Indiana (Swartz 1965: 114-17), and the

30thAnnual Meetingof the SocietyforAmericanArchae-
ology,May 8, 1965, Urbana, Illinois. The writervalues
the perceptiveobservationsofferedby Drs. IrvingRouse
and William J.Mayer-Oakes,but takes full responsibility
INTEGRATION CO RISON for content and views. An earlier version of this work
was read by Drs. Emil W. Haury and Raymond H.
Thompson,who also offeredhelpful criticisms.
ASCHER, ROBERT
ThEPR BTA?I ON
1961a Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation.
SouthwesternJournalof Anthropology,Vol. 17,
No. 4, pp. 317-25. Albuquerque.
1961b ExperimentalArcheology. American Anthro-
ANALYSIS pologist,Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 793-816. Menasha.
BEALS, RALPH L. AND JAMES A. HESTER, JR.
1960 A New Ecological Typologyof the California
Indians. Selected Papers of the Fifth Interna-
ACQ'QT IITI GN tional Congress of Anthropologicaland Ethno-
logical Science, edited by AnthonyF. C. Wal-
lace, pp. 411-19. Philadelphia.
BRAIDWOOD,
ROBERTJ.
PREPAITI ON 1946 Terminologyin Prehistory.Human Origins,
Ser. 2, 2nd ed., No. 14. Chicago.
FIG. 1. A logical sequence of archaeologicalobjectives. BRAINERD, GEORGE W.
1951 The Place of ChronologicalOrderingin Archae-
ological Analysis. American Antiquity,Vol. 16,
pendent upon prerequisiteconditions,not on No. 4, pp. 301-13. Salt Lake City.
priordevelopment.The most criticalexample BREW,J. 0.
of thisis the necessityof orderingtemporally- 1946 The Archaeologyof Alkali Ridge,Southwestern
spatiallya phase, beforethe lifewayof the culb Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Amer-
ican Archaeologyand Ethnology,Harvard Uni-
ture-bearers of that phase can be fullyrecon- versity,Vol. 21. Cambridge.
structed.The procedureofreconstruction is not
a developmentfromphase placement,but it is CHILDE, V. GORDON
1956 Man Makes Himself,3rd ed. Watts,London.
a distinctprocedure,operatingonly afterthe
1960 What Happened in History,rev. ed. Parrish,
phase placementhas been established. London.
The secondconclusionconcernsthefeasibility
DAUGHERTY,RICHARDD.
of formulating a rectilinealsequence of general- 1962 The Methodologyof Typology. Paper delivered
ized objectives.A completeideal sequencemay at the First Conferenceof Western Archaeolo-
not be realized,however,since the integration- gists on Problemsof Point Typology,Pocatello.
comparison level offerstwo alternativeap- FoSBERG,F. R.
proaches (Fig. 1). What approach is to be 1960 Plant Collecting as an AnthropologicalField
emphasizedwill depend on the outlook and Method. El Palacio, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 125-39.
Santa Fe.
theoreticalbias of the investigator.
HAWLEY, FLORENCEM.
Acknowledgments.I am indebted,primarily,to two 1937 ReverseStratigraphy.American Antiquity,Vol. 2,
sources for the theoreticalframeworkof this article.The No. 4, pp. 297-9. Menasha.
formulationof the problem,the distinctionbetweenanaly-
sis and synthesis (the latter here termed integration), HAYDEN, JULIAN D.
and certaintheoreticalviews on analysisare based on Dr. 1965 Fragile-PatternAreas. AmericanAntiquity,Vol.
George W. Brainerd'sideas, to which I was exposed in a 31, No. 2, pp. 272-6. Salt Lake City.
seminar he conducted at UCLA in 1954. The ideas on HEIZER, ROBERT F.
interpretationhave been heavilyinfluencedby my studies
1953 Long-RangeDating in Archaeology.In Anthro-
under Dr. Raymond H. Thompson, at the Universityof pology Today, edited by A. L. Kroeber,pp. 3-
Arizona, from 1958 to 1964. The ideas expressed at the 42. Universityof Chicago Press,Chicago.
beginningof the discussionon datingare, also, essentially
his views. 1958 A Guide to ArchaeologicalField Methods, 3rd
rev. ed. National Press, Palo Alto.
A modified segment of this paper entitled "A Sug-
gestedStandardizationof Nomenclaturein Archaeological HEIZER, ROBERTF. (EDITOR)
Methodology,"was deliveredto the 80th Annual Meeting 1962 Man's Discovery of His Past. Prentice-Hall,
of the Indiana Academy of Science, October 30, 1964, Englewood Cliffs.
496 AMERICANANTIQUITY [ VOL.32,No. 4,1967

HESTER, JAMES J. 1953 The Strategyof Culture History. In Anthro-

1962 A Comparative Typologyof New World Cul-
tures. American Anthropologist,
Vol. 64, No. 5,
pp. 1001-15. Menasha.
KRIEGER,ALEX D.
1944 The TypologicalConcept. AmericanAntiquity,
Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 271-88. Menasha.
KROEBER, A. L.
1917 The Superorganic. American Anthropologist,
Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 163-213. Menasha.
1935 History and Science in Anthropology.Amer-
ican Anthropologist, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 539-69.
Menasha.
pologyToday, editedbyA. L. Kroeber,pp. 57-76.
Universityof Chicago Press,Chicago.
1960 The Classificationof Artifactsin Archaeology.
American Antquity,Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 313-23.
Salt Lake City.
1965 The Place of "Peoples" in PrehistoricResearch.
Journalof the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute,
Vol. 95, Pt. 1, pp. 1-15. London.
ROWE, JOHNHOWLAND
1961 Stratigraphyand Seriation.AmericanAntiquity,
Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 324-30. Salt Lake City.
SCHWARTZ, BARTON M.

LINTON, RALPH 1961 LogisticalAccountingforArchaeologicalExpe-

ditions. In "Excavations at Goleta." Archaeo-
1936 The Study of Man. Appleton-CenturyCrofts, logical Survey Annual Report 1960-1961, pp.
New York. 433-45. Department of Anthropologyand So,
MCKERN, W. C. ciology,Universityof California,Los Angeles.
1939 The MidwesternTaxonomic Method as an Aid SEMENOV, S. A.
to Archaeological Culture Study. American
Antiquity,Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.. 301-13. Menasha. 1964 Prehistoric Technology. Cory, Adams and
Mackay, London.
MAYER-OAKES, WILLIAM J.
SHEPARD, ANNA 0.
1966 Towards a Theoretical Frameworkfor Doing
Archaeology. MS, in possession of author,Ball 1956 Ceramics forthe Archaeologist.Carnegie Insti-
State University,Muncie. tution of Washington,Publication 609. Wash-
ington.
MEGGERS,BETTY J.
1954 EnvironmentalLimitationof the Development SMILEY,TERAHL.
of Culture. American Anthropologist,
Vol. 56, 1955 The GeochronologicalApproach to Temporal
No. 5, pp. 801-24. Menasha. Problems. In "Geochronology,"edited by Terah
L. Smiley, pp. 15-28. PhysicalScience Bulletin,
OAKLEY, KENNETH P. No. 2. Universityof Arizona,Tucson.
1948 Fluorine and Relative Dating of Bones. The
Advancement of Science, Vol. 4, No. 16, pp. SPAULDING, ALBERT C.
336-7. London. 1953 StatisticalTechniques forthe Discoveryof Arti-
OLSON, ALAN P.
fact Types. AmericanAntiquity,Vol. 18, No. 4,
pp. 305-13. Salt Lake City.
1962 A Historyof the Phase Concept in the South-
west. American Antiquity,Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 1960 StatisticalDescriptionand Comparisonof Arti-
457-72. Salt Lake City. factAssemblages. In "The Applicationof Quan-
titativeMethods in Archaeology,"edited by Rob-
OSGOOD, CORNELIUS ert F. Heizer and SherburneF. Cook, pp. 60-92.
1942 The Ciboney Culture of Cayo Redondo, Cuba. Viking Fund Publicationsin Anthropology,No.
Yale UniversityPublications in Anthropology, 28. Chicago.
No. 25. New Haven.
STEWARD, JULIAN H.
PHILLIPS, PHILIP, J.A. FORD, AND J.B. GRIFFIN 1942 The Direct HistoricalApproach to Archaeology.
1951 ArchaeologicalSurveyof the Lower Mississippi American Antiquity,Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 337-43.
Valley 1940-1947. Papers of the Peabody Mu- Menasha.
seum of American Archaeologyand Ethnology, 1954 Types of Types. In "On the Concept of Types,"
Harvard University,Vol. 25. Cambridge. by J.A. Ford. AmericanAnthropologist, Vol. 56,
REED, ERIK K. No. 1, pp. 54-7. Menasha.
1958 Excavation in Mancos Canyon, Colorado. Uni- 1955 Theoryof Culture Change. Universityof Illinois
versityof Utah AnthropologicalPapers, No. 35. Press,Urbana.
Salt Lake City.
STEWARD,
JULIAN H. ANDFRANKSELTZER
RITCHIE, WILLIAM A. 1938 Function and Configurationin Archaeology.
1965 The Archaeologyof New York State. Natural American Antiquity,Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 4-10.
HistoryPress,Garden City. Menasha.
ROBINSON,W. S.
B. K.,JR.
SWARTZ,
1951A Method forChronologicalOrderingArchaeo- 1964 ArchaeologicalInvestigationsat Lava Beds Na-
logical Deposits. American Antiquity,Vol. 16, tional Monument,California. MS, doctoral dis-
No. 4, pp. 293-301. Salt Lake City. sertation,Universityof Arizona,Tucson.
RousE, IRVING 1965 A Suggested Standardizationof Nomenclature
1939 Prehistoryin Haiti: A Study of Method. Yale in Archaeological Methodology. Proceedingsof
UniversityPublications in Anthropology,No. the Indiana Academy of Science for 1964, Vol.
21. New Haven. 74, pp. 114-17. Indianapolis.
SWARTZ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES 497

1967 ArchaeologicalInvestigationsat Lava Beds Na- WHITE, THEODORE E.

tionalMonument,California: A Studyof Objec-
tives. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State Uni-
versityMuseum. Pocatello. (in press)
TAYLOR, WALTER W.
1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoirs of the Amer-
ican Anthropological Association, No. 69.
Menasha.
TAYLOR, WALTER W. (EDITOR)
1957 The Identificationof Non-ArtifactualMaterials.
National Research Council, Publication 565.
Washington.
WILLEY, GORDON R.
1952 Observationson the ButcheringTechnique of
Some Aboriginal Peoples: No. 1. American
Antiquity,Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 337-8. Salt Lake
City.
1953 Observationson the ButcheringTechnique of
Some Aboriginal Peoples: No. 2. American
Antiquity,Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 160-4. Salt Lake
City.
1954 Observationson the ButcheringTechnique of
Some AboriginalPeoples: Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6. Amer-
ican Antiquity,Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 254-64. Salt
Lake City.

THOMPSON, RAYMOND H. 1953 PrehistoricSettlementPatternsof the Viru'Val-

ley, Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology,Bul-
1958 Modern Yucatecan Maya Pottery-Making.Mem- letin 155. Washington.
oirs of the Society for American Archaeology,
No. 15. Salt Lake City. WILLEY, GORDON R. AND PHILIP PHILLIPS
1958 Method and Theoryin American Archaeology.
TRIGGER, BRUCE G. Universityof Chicago Press,Chicago.
1967 SettlementArchaeology-Its Goals and Prom-
ise. AmericanAntiquity,Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 149- WISSLER, CLARK
60. Salt Lake City. 1923 Man and Culture. Thomas Y. Crowell, New
York.
WHITE, LESLIE A. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
1949 The Science of Culture. Farrar,Straus, New Muncie,Indiana
York. May, 1967