Method and Theory in Historical Archeology STANLEY SOUTH ACADEMIC PRESS NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO LONDON ‘A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, PublishersConynionr © 1977, sy AcabeMte PRESS, Isc, ANEORSEATION STORAGE AND RETRIFVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT a AAR Ree oat NE Yor toms United Kingdom Edition published by ACADEMIC PRESS. INC (LONDON) LTD. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data South, Stanley A (Studies in archeology) Incudes bibliographies and inde Le Unjied Sexes-Antiquities, 2, Indians of North AmericaAntiquties, 3, Archaeology Methodology, Tite £159.5.865, 970 7540616 ISBN 0-12. 655750-0 For Jolfre L. Coe Acritically rigorous: stresses faults, and stringent and often f serves well those whContents Foreword Preface Acknowledgments List of Cited Figures and Tables Theoretical Foundation Toward a Science of Cultural Evolution The Polearm of Archealagy—A Bill of Particulars for Theoretical Thrusts A Study of Trends in Historical Archeology—Evaluating the State of the Field The Slowly Emerging Trend in Historical Archeology toward Archeological Science: A Personal View References Quantitative Analysis and Pattern Recognition The Importance of Quantitative Analysis to Pattern Recognition References The Brunswick Pattern of Refuse Disposal Method and Context The Hepburn-Reonalds House (S7) Nath Moore's Front (S10) he Public House-Tailor Shop (825) References The Carolina Antifact Pattern Theoretical Considerations The Method of Abstracting the Carolina Artifact Pattern The Carolina Artifact Pattern Testing the Carolina Artifact Patteen The Applicable Range of the Carolina Artifact Pattern Appendix References 2 % 31 31 8 " 530 51 56 65 83 83 38 106 m ma 125 Be8 The Frontier Artifact Pattern Defining the Pattern ‘Comparing the Frontier Pattern with the Carolina Pattern—Isolating Variables The Hepburn-Reonalds House (57), A Deviant from the Carolina and Frontier Patterns Antifact Pattern at Fort Watson, S.C Appendix References Exploring Analytical Techniques Examining the Kitchen Artifact Patterns Isolating Variables through Comparison of Simple Ratios Summarizing Viewpoint—The Flax Hackle Example Exploring Inventory Pattern for Comparison with Archeological Pattern References Revealing Culture Process through the Formula Concept ‘The Horizon Phenomenon Revealed in Ceramic Analysis in Historical Archeology Introduction The Problem The Tools Application of the Tools Interpretive Summary Examining the Statistical Confidence and Correlation of the Formula The Horizon Concept Revealed in the Application of the Mean Ceramic Date Formula to Spanish Majolica in the New World Appendixes References Methodological Considerations The Function of Observation in the Archeological Process Classification of the Archeological Record Methodological Phases in the Archeological Process Evaluation of Observational Situations Relative to the Archeological Data Bank References The Archeologist’ Responsibility in Cultural Resource Management Studies Conclusion References Index ut 141 146 154 158 160 163 167 167 ” 183 190 198, 201 201 201 203 207 28 230 236 236 252 22 a a 29 308 33 a7 37 330 aa Foreword Rarely is a book published that is more than of passing interest, This is one of the rare ones in that iti the first systematic comparative study of archaeological data relative to the historic period in North America. Additionally it is a book with vision; it looks beyond the data and com- parative material presented to the advancement of archaeological science. It is much more, however, than a polemic-laden thesis. It is solidly based in the use of empirical material, and it is modest in that while looking beyond the materials and specific arguments presented it does not attempt to go beyond the current state of the field; instead it is concerned with building a sound research foundation for envisioned progress in science Stanley South is doing in this book what Francois Bordes did_for European paleolithic studies, namely arguing ecessity for quantita- tive studies as the very basis for pattern recognition. In the absence of ¢femonsiiated\-patterning —spatial—sttuctural_or temporal—there Sn fact nothing to which the investigator may direct a why question, Tor as long as there are only particular facts there are only particular questions, Once there are demonstrated general facts, then one may ask general questions. Only with the latter is scientific progress possible. Once such general facts are demonstrated and the focus of study moves to com- parative pattern recognition and evaluation of variability, particularistic approaches are thereafter trivial, uninteresting, and boring—even to their advocates. | anticipate a major change in the character of historic sites literature after the publication of this book While I anticipate that this book is an important “turning point” in the field of historie sites archaeology, it will be of great interest to anthro- pologists concerned with other time periods. For instance, | am curious as to why South’s ceramic formula works so well on historic period materials, He has already demonstrated that there is a great deal of func- tional variability among sites of the historic period, for example,contrasts between his Carolina Pattern and the Frontier Pattern. Were there not functional differences among sites in the types and kinds of containers used? Is stylistic or production variability independent of vessel function in the Historic Period? If so, is this always the case, and if not, why are there differences in the relationships between design characteristics related to functional differences in containers versus design characteristics reflecting stylistic, symbolic, or simple inform: tional aspects of production? Were replacement rates similar in all s tings? If not, variability in the accuracy of the “ceramic dates” may be anticipated. Investigation of such questions may lead to greater under- standing of the archaeological record, as well as to what it tells us about the dynamics of cultural systems and the causal conditions which bring about their modification, Welcome historic sites archaeology to the science of archaeology. Lewis R. Binford Preface This book is based on the premise that the archeologist is concerned with understanding past lifeways, culture history, and culture process by examining the material remains of culture reflecting these processes. The conceptual framework for this understanding is that of evolutionary theory. The method whereby these phenomena of the past are examined pivots on the recognition of pattern in the archeological record. Once pattern is abstracted and synthesized with other patterns, these demonstrated regularities are often expressed as empirical laws. The explanation of why these lawlike regularities exist is the goal of ar- cheology. The explanation is addressed to the causal processes in the past cultural system in the form of hypotheses to be tested with new data through research designs specifically constructed to fit the questions being asked. The understanding of culture process and how it works comes through this basic procedure of archeological science. This understanding. provides a conceptual environment within which new theory is invented to explain the phenomena the archeologist has observed. With this procedure as basic 10 archealogical science, it follows that the use of ethnographic data and historical documentation by the ar cheologist does not result in a different kind of archeology merely because a wider data base is available. This fact has been obvious to me throughout two decades of full-time archeological research during which | have excavated a range of sites from Early Archaic, to Mississip- pian, to eighteenth-century historic, to the twentieth century. This viewpoint is not generally shared by archeologists, however. Many colleagues assume historical archeology is a particularistic involvement with details of history, cataloging, and classification. This book is designed to demonstrate that this is not enough, that the archeologist has a responsibility to go further than this and to address the culture process by scientific procedures. There is historical reason for the more limited approach in that his- torical archeology has so frequently been done by archeologists with a