Some Comments on Historical versus Processual Archaeology Author(s): Lewis R. Binford Source: Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol.

24, No. 3 (Autumn, 1968), pp. 267-275 Published by: University of New Mexico Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629348 Accessed: 27/05/2009 16:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Southwestern Journal of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

SOME COMMENTS ON HISTORICAL VERSUS PROCESSUAL ARCHAEOLOGY LEWIS R. BINFORD

RECENTLYPUBLISHED ARTICLEby Sabloffand Willey (1967)

L discussedsome aspects of historicalversus processualapproachesin archaeto the ology. The authorsacknowledge need for archaeologists concernthemselves must give research with processual but argue that archaeologists priority questions of to the reconstruction historicalevents: an It is our feeling that, at least at the presentstate of . . . knowledge, underfactorsin proper events can lead to placementof processual of historical standing we ratherthan the reverse. . . Furthermore, do not wish to imply in perspective, we the that by switching historical-processual our statements priorities have accepted a theoreticalposition which is essentiallynon-evolutionary (Sabloff and Willey 1967:313). Sabloff and Willey add in a footnote that their view ". .. would approachthat of Steward's (1955) 'multilinearevolution"' (Sabloff and Willey 1967:313). The purpose of this paper is to discuss their proposalswith respect to two major points: first, the nature of explanation; and second, the feasibility of working accordingto the prioritiesset forth by Sabloff and Willey. It is disagreementover these two fundamentalpoints, I feel, that creates the greatest and the advocatesof what betweenthe more traditionalarchaeologists difficulties has cometo be knownas the "newarchaeology." Sabloff and Willey are concernedwith understandingthe collapse of the Classic Lowland Maya cultural system about 900 A.D. The evidence they cite to document the collapse consists of widespreadabandonmentof sites, decline in frequencyof construction, decline in ceramics,apparentpopulationreduction, and so forth. The authorsthen proposea "newhypotheticalsolution": In boldest form, the hypothesisstates that the SouthernLowlands. .were invadedby non-Classic beganin the 9th CenturyA.D., Maya peoples.This invasion and it set in motiona train of events that destroyedthe ClassicMaya within 100 years(Sabloffand Willey 1967:312). Does this hypotheticalformulationof Sabloff and Willey constitutea valid explanationof the collapse of the LowlandMaya? A distinguishedphilosopherof states: science,Carl Hempel, in a discussionof explanation, of The explanation the occurrence an event of some specifickind . . at a of factors certainplace and time consists. . . in indicatingthe causesor determining that a set of events . . . have caused the eventin question].Now the assertion [of amounts the statement to to the eventto be explained, that, according certaingeneral
267
VOL.24, 1968

268

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

to consistsof two parts: first, the events According Hempel,an explanation are believed be relevant to which the precede eventto be explained set temporally the a set of general is formulated whichconnects "causes" laws forth;second, with their"effects" sucha waythat if we knowthat the earlier in eventshave takenplace, would ableto predict eventwewishto explain. we be the of Sabloffand Willey hypothesize therewas an invasion the Lowland that can Maya areaby non-Classic Mayanpeoples.This statement be taken as a to consider relevant the Maya of specification the prioreventthat the authors the But lawswhichallowus to connect proposed are collapse. where the general invasion in motion "set causeandeffect?Is the statement the hypothesized that a trainof events destroyed Classic and that the Maya"(Sabloff Willey1967:313) have no necessary a generallaw? It can be reasonably that invasions argued relevance the generalexplanation sociocultural of to collapseas such. For exthe that we mightcite caseswhereinvasions occurred did not precipitate ample, of we mightcite instances socioculof the societyinvaded. collapse Similarly, of sitesin the turalcollapse-suchas the 12th-13th abandonment major century to American do not appear be explicable reference invato Southwest-that by of on the relevance sions.Suchempirical wouldcastdoubt casesto the contrary invasions theexplanation sociocultural to of collapse. Lowland of to the Wouldwe be anycloser understanding collapse the Classic the documented fact that an Mayaevenif Sabloffand Willey had thoroughly the invasion occurred? had Sincethey offerno processual arguments regarding in about of whichmighthavebeencrucial bringing characteristics the invaders Sabloff of the collapse the ClassicLowland negatively. Maya,we mustanswer reandWilleydo not referthisevent-the invasion-toanygeneral propositions whichareamenable testing. to Because thislack,it of cultural garding dynamics this of or invasion to evaluate is impossible assessthe relevance the proposed to madeby othersaboutgenerallaws of casein termsof propositions particular
culturaldynamics.

is laws, a set of eventsof the kinds mentioned regularlyaccompanied an event by of the kind [for whichan explanation sought] (Hempel 1965:232). is

is which can Thesesamecriticisms be madeeverytimean argument offered between events whenthe onlyjustification a causeandeffectrelationship proposes nature the events of cited.In actualpractice is for sucha proposal the sequential for of it is morecommon the proponents "historical" thisis rarely done; explanaaboutthe "plausible" of tionsto makeassumptions response peopleto certain remain in of behavior These"laws" human situations. implicit theirarguments. of such connective are Giventhe methods most historians, propositions rarely

HISTORICALVS. PROCESSUAL ARCHAEOLOGY

269

tested to determinetheir validity.This failure of historicalexplanationis alluded to in a statement which Spaulding (1968) cites from Brodbeck (1962:254) "There is no such thing as 'historical'explanation,only the explanationof historicalevents." Sabloff and Willey might well counterthe criticismoffered here by pointing out that they werenot attemptingto explainthe Maya collapse.They state: It must be obvious,at this point . . . that our hypothesis does not really solve the whole"mystery" the fall of Maya civilization the SouthernLowlands, of in nor doesit rigorously of attemptto do so . . . To repeat,one of the majorpurposes this to paperhas been to showthat the best way to get answers the processual problems with the fall of the Maya is throughthe buildingof a properhistorical connected framework (SabloffandWilley 1967:329-330). If their effortswerenot directedtowardthe explanationof culturaldynamics, how can we evaluate their suggestionson proper researchproceduresand priorities to be followed in seeking explanations?Their major point is stated several times in differentways. For example,they emphasizethat "by first gaining control of the historicalvariables will then be in an excellentpositionto eventually we control of the processualones" (Sabloff and Willey 1967:330). The probgain lem of criticalimportancehere is the criterionused for judging what constitutes a "properhistorical framework" (Sabloff and Willey 1967:330). Sabloff and Willey appearto assumethat the relevanceof historicalfacts is self-evidentand is primaryand that processualunderstanding to be gained through the inductive study of these facts. Although this position is not explicitly stated, their agreement with Steward'smultilinearapproachseems to substantiatetheir adherence to this point of view. Steward explicitly states: "... I wish to stress that my delimitationof problemand method precludesall efforts to achieveuniversalexplanationsor formulationsof humanbehavior" (Steward 1955:7-8). In another place he assertsthat the methodof multilinearevolution". . . is empiricalrather than deductive" (Steward 1955:18). That Sabloff and Willey subscribeto an inductivistphilosophyis furtherdocumented their very argumentthat gaining by an understanding processualfactors is secondaryto gaining an understanding of of historicalevents. I think it can be argued,however,that a "properhistoricalperspective" cannot be gained without coping with processualproblems.Process,as I understand it, refers to the dynamicrelationships(causes and effects) operativeamong the componentsof a systemor betweensystematiccomponentsand the environment. In orderto deal with processwe must seek explanationsfor observedphenomena, and it is only through explanations our observations of that we gain any knowl-

270

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

when observations edge of the past. Explanation beginsfor the archaeologist madeon the archaeological or record linkedthrough lawsof cultural behavare ioral functioning past conditions events.Successful to or and explanation the of process synonymous, bothproceed are and the understanding dialectically-by formulation hypotheses of two laws on the relationships between or (potential morevariables) the testingof theirvalidity and data.Hypothagainst empirical esesaboutcauseand effectmustbe explicitly formulated then tested.Only and whenthisis donearewe in a position judgewhatfactsmightbe relevant; to only thencanwe objectively evaluate implicit the whichunderly "plausipropositions ble"historical of data. interpretations archaeological Sablof andWilley (1967:313)referto my concerted the effortsto redirect attentionof archaeologists problems process.These urgingshave been to of not visionbut by a conviction archaeologists that must prompted by a messianic We soundscientific method. beginwith observations the archaeon by proceed thenmoveto explain differences similarities observe. the and we record, ological This meanssettingforth processual that permitus to link archaehypotheses in to them.Once ologicalremains eventsor conditions the pastwhichproduced what additional observations are stated,we can determine hypotheses explicitly to data of If mustbe madeor available collected testthevalidity ourhypotheses. wouldbe raisedto the statusof laws regarding the suchhypotheses validated, remains the functioning extinctcultural in of It roleof archaeological systems. that or wereprowas in the contextof such functioning the artifacts features or it of duced, used,anddiscarded abandoned; wasalsoin the context a functionthatthe characteristic associations distributions proand were cultural system ing formulation testing-is necand This procedure-observation, duced. hypothesis of with problems process is whatconstitutes scientific and the involved essarily method. If we omitanyof thesestepsand appealto unstated processual propositions we in in explaining reconobservations, can havelittle confidence the historical The at offered. onlyrecourse this pointis the one offered Raymond struction by or by Thompson(1956:335)that we evaluatereconstructions interpretations of the the evaluating competence the personwho is proposing reconstruction. soundscientific and for This is scarcely procedure, I feel it is necessary us to means judging validity statements archaeology for the of in haveobjective instead of relying faithor personal opinion. upon If the propositions to our of appealed in explaining observations the archaeare record correct, we willhavegained then of ological knowledge the past.Oth-

HISTORICALVS. PROCESSUAL ARCHAEOLOGY

271

we of record erwise, will haveachieved knowledge the archaeological itself, only whichis, of course, contemporary a It mightalso be pointedout phenomenon. that mosttextbooks syntheses the contemporary and in literature archaeological aredescriptive of ourknowledge the archaeological of and record not expositions summaries ourknowledge the past;nor do theypresent of of knowledge gained the or of regarding functioning evolutionary dynamics past culturalsystems. Griffin 1967andJennings (See,for instance, 1968.) If we canattainknowledge of thepastandof the operation pastcultural of the systems through explanation of observations madeon the archaeological we to record, can thenproceed the task of explaining eventsand seek to formulate lawsdealingwith the dypast namics systemic of and of functioning theevolution cultural systems. As in anyscientific whenonechanges context whichoneconin the situation, sidersthingsand eventsobservable the external in featuresor world,different of characteristics thosethingsor eventsbecome relevant.(Fora gooddiscussion of thispointseeWhite 1959.)Thus,as we shift ourperspective one of exfrom in observations termsof processes eventsin the past and archaeological plaining thosepastprocesses events, characteristics the and to the to an attempt explain of record as relevant testingexplanatory for will sought archaeological propositions fromthosecharacteristics observed relevant the earlier as be quitedifferent in thatthereareminimally contexts relevance two of in phaseof work.This means and the termsof whichwe observe conceptualize archaeological In record. addithe tion to ignoring contextual differences between "facts" withrespect explato in nationsof differences similarities and observed the archaeological record and for differences similarities and betweenculturalsystemsor past explanations assumes self-evident singlecontextof releas a events,the inductive procedure vancefor factsas theyrelateto scientific method. The inductive is procedure to and themin termsof assumed facts,studytheminferentially, interpret gather lawsof culture This procedure behavior. observational and/orhuman organizes materials termsof implicitassumptions in abouttheirinterrelationships (interor of to recpretation) as a means the formulation newpropositions (Steward's but or ommendation), it neverallowsfor the testingof theseassumptions new A methoddoesnot recognize once empirical that propositions. simpleinductive materials employed the contextof testing,the contextof relevance are in has andnewor different factsmaybe needed. is maintained thatwe It here changed must continually workbackand forth between contexts explaining the of the and record explaining past;between contexts proposition the the of archaeological formulation and This is necessary (induction) proposition testing (deduction).

272

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

if we are to maximizethe potential informationcontainedin the archaeological record;our destructionof this recordin searchof facts relevantin a single context precludesthe possibilityof subsequent searchfor facts relevantin a different context. I argue that Sabloff and Willey's suggestionsregardinghistoricalpriorities are defensibleonly in the context of an inductivistphilosophyand that such a Even if we do not accusethem of scientificprocedure. philosophyis unacceptable advocatingan inferentialmethodology,how can we understandtheir argument favoring priority for the constructionof a "properhistorical framework"?If have not yet solved all the explanatory they meanby this that archaeologists problems of the significanceof archaeological remainsfor past conditionsand events and that our first job should be the sound explanationof the archaeological recwith them. But in that case they would be urgord, I would be in full agreement to ing archaeologists give priorityto processualstudies, and they explicitlydeny this. The failure of their methodand the inadequacies their suggestedpriorities of is demonstrated their failure to deal directly with the problemof how they by derived their proposedinvasion of the Mayan Lowlands from the facts of the record.We are presentedwith the following archaeological facts: archaeological 1. At the site of Seibalduringthe 9th centuryfine paste potteryis a common wareassociated bothpublicand residential with structures. 2. Fine paste pottery is a non-Classic trait, stylisticallyand technicallymost to waresfromthe Gulf Coastarea. similar analogous 3. Stelae erectedat SeibalbetweenA.D. 850 and 890 exhibitnon-Classic traits similarto those known from Yucatanand CentralMexico; these stelae also share morethantwentystylistic features withthe finepastewares. 4. A building constructed with a round plan, previously unknownin Classic in Mexico. to Mayasites,has analogies structures YucatanandCentral 5. Figurines Seibalaresimilar formto Gulf Coastspecimens. in at 6. The locationof "ceremonial activities" within the site of Seibal was shifted fromGroupD structures defensible (a (a area) to GroupA structures nondefensible area). 7. The population Seibalreached peakduringthisperiod. of its From these facts how do Sabloff and Willey arriveat the propositionthat they signify an invasionby "non-Classic" peoples?As far as I can determine,this conis reachedby the traditionalarchaeological clusion methodof "plausibleinterpre-

HISTORICALVS. PROCESSUAL ARCHAEOLOGY

273

tation." The lawsunderlying an interpretation implicit assumed such are and to be true;therefore, interpretation plausible. the This implicitlaw of archaeis to in ological interpretation appears be thattemporal continuity the formal propertiesof artifacts varies withsocialcontinuity. Thereare,however, directly many cases thecontrary to which demonstrate thisis notnecessarily that true. It wouldseemlikely,furthermore, if therehad beenan invasion that there shouldbe someevidence conflict. therearchaeological of Is evidence Seibalfor at the "superior and weapons"-darts atlatls-which,it is suggested(Sabloffand the invaders military a Is for Willey 1967:327),gave advantage? thereevidence the existence Seibalof military at whichone mightexpectif the incompounds vaders weremilitaristic engaged "raiding the restof the Peten"(Saband in of loff andWilley 1967:329)? of Why shouldthe population Seibalhavereached its peakafterthe proposed takeover the invaders? How was food procured by anddistributed theinvaders? for Shouldtherenot havebeenevidence a major of in and of change theeconomic subsistence logistics sucha group? Until empirical materials from the archaeological recordcan be shownto conform expectations termsof deduced to in of inconsequences the proposed and of whichpermitthe arguments of vasion, untilthe validity the propositions relevance offered relating for facts archaeological to past eventsand conditions has been demonstrated, Sabloffand Willey'sinterpretation cannotbe said to haveprovided witha "proper us If historical framework." futureresearch should theirinterpretation such an undercorrect, proofwouldbe dependent prove upon of classesof material itemsin standing processual amongvarious relationships the dynamics cultural of thenwouldwe be ableto relatereliably systems. Only ourcontemporary observations pastconditions events. to and archaeological In summary,haveargued thereis a necessary stepin archaeological I that first research-theattempt explain to madeon the archaeological observations record formulation testing.It has beenstressed this step necesand that by hypothesis
sarily involvescoping with problemsof process.We attempt to explain similarities and differencesin archaeological remainsin terms of the functioningof material items in a cultural system and the processualfeatures of the operationor evolutionof the culturalsystemsresponsible the variedartifact forms, associfor ations, and distributionsobservablein the ground. Sabloff and Willey are not unique in approachingthis task intuitively and inferentially;this has been the in Advocatesof the so-called"new archaeology" acceptedprocedure archaeology. are not, as Jenningswould have us believe,simplyreinterpreting data and old old ideas:

274

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

This referto the "newarchaeology." Someof the moreimpatient youngscholars term seemsto imply the utilization new "theoretical" of viewpoints(whichare less and theoriesthan new hypotheses restatements old assumptions) the assistance of or of the ancillary sciences alongwith the old data and old ideas (Jennings1968:329). Insofar as the ideas and theoriesof scienceare old, Jenningsis right; however,in the field of archaeologythese ideas are revolutionary. Most of my own efforts and those of my colleaguesin the "new archaeology" have been directedtoward the disproofof the old principlesof interpretation which gave the ring of plausiWe to traditionalreconstructions interpretations. seek to replacethese and bility laws that are validated in the context of the episteinadequatepropositionsby mology of science,so that we may gain an accurateknowledgeof the past. This that a changein methodologyis needed paperis one moreattemptto demonstrate so that archaeologists begin to test the validity of explanatory will principlescurrentlyin use and attemptto refineor replacethem by verifiedhypothesesrelating the significanceof archaeological data to past conditions.Only after these procedures are followed will we be in a position to establish a "properhistorical framework."
BIBLIOGRAPHY BRODBECK, MAY

in 1962 "Explanation, and 'Imperfect' Prediction, Knowledge," ScientificExplanation, Spaceand Time (ed. by HerbertFeigl and GroverMaxwell), of vol. Minnesota Studiesin Philosophy Science, III. pp. 231-272.
GRIFFIN,JAMESB.
HEMPEL, CARL G.

1967 Eastern North American a Science156:175-191. Archaeology: Summary. 1965 "The Functionof GeneralLaws in History,"in Aspects of Scientific and Explanation OtherEssaysin the Philosophy Science,pp. 231-243. of New York: The FreePress.

JENNINGS,JESSED.

New York:McGraw-Hill 1968 Prehistory North America. BookCo. of in 1967 The Collapseof Maya Civilization the SouthernLowlands:a Conof Southwestern sideration Historyand Process. Journalof Anthropology 23:311-336.

SABLOFF, JEREMY A., AND GORDON R. WILLEY

SPAULDING, ALBERT C.

in in in 1968 "Explanation Archeology," New Perspectives Archeology(ed. by Sally R. Binfordand LewisR. Binford), pp. 33-40. Chicago:Aldine Co. Publishing
STEWARD, JULIAN H.

Evolution. 1955 Theoryof CultureChange:the Methodology Multilinear of of Urbana:University IllinoisPress.

HISTORICALVS. PROCESSUALARCHAEOLOGY
H. THOMPSON,RAYMOND

275

nal of Anthropology 12:327-332. A. WHITE,LESLIE

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

1956 The Subjective Inference.Southwestern Elementin Archaeological Jour61:227-251. of 1959 The Concept Culture. American Anthropologist