8/13/2019 Schiffer 99

1/4

Society for American Archaeology

Behavioral Archaeology: Some ClarificationsAuthor(s): Michael Brian SchifferReviewed work(s):Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Jan., 1999), pp. 166-168Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694352 .

Accessed: 20/05/2012 14:59

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2694352?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2694352?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

8/13/2019 Schiffer 99

2/4

BEHAVIORAL ARCHAEOLOGY: SOME CLARIFICATIONSMichaelBrian chiffer

In their ommentnSchiffer1996),BroughtonndO'Connellperpetuateeveral ommionmisconceptionsboutbehavioralarchaeology.hisbrief eply larifies he haracter ndgoals ofbehavioral rchaeology nd ndicates hat his igorous ro-gram s nowbeginningoproduce social theory eyond he xplanation f variabilityn artifact esigns.En sitcommentario obre chiffer1996) BroughtonO'Connel 1998) perpettianariosmalentendidosomnunesobre a arqule-ologiaconductal indica uesitvigoroso rogramastd mpezando producir eoria social queva midslld de a explicaci6nde variabilidad n eldisenioe artefactos.

Jm delighted hatBroughtonnd O'Connellhave reacted o constructivelyo my experi-mentnarchaeologicalommunication.ddingevolutionarycology othe rogramsnder iscus-sion shouldhavea salutoryffect y bringingnother oices ndviews. n response o Broughtonand O'Connell'spiece,mypoints refewbutnotunimportant.I agreewith irtuallyhe ntiretyf Broughtonand O'Connell's comments bout selectionistarchaeology,ut must ake ssue with ome oftheir tatementsbout the behavioral rogram.Broughtonnd O'Connellperpetuateeveralmis-conceptionsbout ehavioralrchaeologyhat reregrettablyrevalentn thediscipline.Perhapsmost eriously,heymisconstrueehav-ioral rchaeology'sharacterndgoals.They laimthat the program'sgoals are to reconstruct ndexplainvariationnpasthuman ehavior empha-sis noriginal).nfact, one f he ive ublicationsthey itefor his tatementupportst.The first(Schiffer972)makesno mention f behavioralarchaeology, uch ess its goals. The second(Schiffer976)does not peak f goalsper e,butoffers ehavioral rchaeologys theparticularconfigurationfprinciples,ctivities,nd ntereststhatweofferoreintegratehe iscipline Schiffer1995a:69, rig.1976).Wealsomade learbehav-ioral rchaeology'snique onceptionfthedisci-pline's ubjectmatter,hichs not onfinedothe

past but encompassestherelationshipsetweenhuman ehavior nd material ulturen all timesand all places (Schiffer 995a:69, orig. 1976;emphasis dded).Thiscrucial hrase aptureshecore fbehavioralrchaeology.itationshree ndfour Schiffer 983, 1987) are about formationprocesses nddo not ealexplicitly ith ehavioralarchaeology.owever,chiffer1987:4) does reit-erate hat rchaeology'subjectmatter- humanbehavior nd materialulture -hasno spatial rtemporal oundaries. ifth, nd finally, chiffer(1995a:23) gain tates hat ehavioralrchaeologyis aboutpeople-artifactelationshipsn all timesandplaces, nd mphasizeshe ehavioralists'on-ceptualizationf rchaeologys a unique cientificenterpriseaving ambitiousoals.Ironically, n the paper that stimulatedBroughton nd O'Connell's comment Schiffer1996) ies this uccinct tatement:Behavioralistsseek to explain ariabilitynd change n humanbehavioryemphasizinghe tudy frelationshipsbetweenpeople and their artifacts Schiffer1996:644).Thus,behavioralrchaeology's oalsare he road oalsof he ocial ndbehavioralci-ences, ut hey ntail unique ocus npeople-arti-fact nteractionsegardlessftime rspace.Broughtonnd O'Connellrecognize hat hebehavioralists'irstask, s archaeologists,as toprovide firm oundationor stablishingnfer-ences from hearchaeological ecord. hus,we

Michael Brian Schiffer DepartmentfAnthropology,niversityfArizona, ucsonAZ 85721American ntiquity,4(1), 1999, p. 166-168Copyright 1999bythe ociety orAmericanrchaeology166

8/13/2019 Schiffer 99

3/4

COEMENTSN1 7

have suppliedconceptual ools for creatingbehavioral ast:newmodels of inferencee.g.,Dean 1978; Schiffer976, Chapter ; Sullivan1978) longwithnnumerablerinciplesproducedbyexperimentalrchaeologistsndethnoarchaeol-ogists),many fwhich re employed or opingwith variabilityhatformation rocesses ntro-duced into the archaeological and historicalrecords. rguably,he mprovementf inferencehas beenbehavioralrchaeology's ajor ontribu-tion o thedisciplinehus ar.Broughton nd O'Connell also acknowledgethat ehavioralrchaeologistsecentlyavebeguntoaddress xplanatoryuestions,ocusingn arti-fact esign, laiming hat Thebasicexpectationisthat esignwillbe optimal' ith espectofunc-tion. Although heword ptimal oes appear nSchifferndSkibo 1987),werenouncedtsuse nthe same issue of Current nthropologyhenreplyingothe ommentators,nd havenotusedoptimal s a technical erm ince.Moreover,nourmost ecent aper SchifferndSkibo 1997),which s a fully eneralheoryfartifactesign,we haveframedhe roblemna way hat bviatesany reconceptionsbout ptimality.n thatffort,weurge nvestigatorso ttendo he iverse ehav-ioral and social factors hat ffecthe artisan'sweighting of performance haracteristics-mechanical,hermal,isual, coustic,tc.-in anyspecific rtifact'sesign.Whether given rtifactdesign optimizes given erformanceharacter-istic rcharacteristicss always nempiricalues-tion.We alsoadvocatebandoninghe ermstyleandfunctionecause heyre oo mpreciseor ci-entific work. Apparently,Broughton andO'Connellhave doptedMcGuire's1995)carica-ture fourapproachoexplainingrtifactesignrather han loselyreading ur recent heoreticalstatementsndcase studiese.g.,Schiffer991;Schiffert al. 1994).Like others before them, Broughton ndO'Connell fault ehavioralrchaeologyor ack-ing a general odyoftheory,pplicable o anyhominid,hat roduces estable ypothesesbouttherelationshipetween elevantcologicalvari-ablesand pecificorms fbehavior ndmorphol-ogy. They believe thatevolutionary cologyuniquely rovides uchtheory.efore larifyingthebehavioralists'pproachobuildinggeneral,explanatory,r social heory,brieflyxamine

Broughtonnd O'Connell's claimthat volution-ary cologys the nswer oall ofourtheoreticalquestions.Evolutionarycology as valuable ormulationsto contributeo the mix of models nd theoriesneeded or xplaininghe ntire ange fbehavioralvariabilityndchange hatnterestsrchaeologists.But evolutionarycology,ike selectionism,ost-processualism,nd behavioral rchaeology,acksthe heoriesequiredoanswer ur very uestion.Given hewide ange f urrentuestions, emustacknowledgehat heories rom iverse rogramsareneeded ohelp nswer hem. orexample,fwanted oexplain ariabilityn nstitutionaldeolo-gies in complex ocieties, wouldfirst urn orinsights o Marxist heorists.imilarly,f I wereinterestednexplaininghe ources fvariabilityna specific echnology,woulddrawuponbehav-ioral heorynd models.And, f suddenly ad ayen oexplain untingehaviorsna foragingoci-ety, would mmediatelyoneup onevolutionaryecology.No theoreticalrogramnarchaeology-or elsewheren the sciences-is comprehensivewhentcomes o explainingariabilitynd hangeinhuman ehavior.t strikes e as littlemore hanwishfulhinkingo believe hat nyprogram owpossesses heorieshatanexplainmore han tinyfractionf thetotalityf human ehavioral ari-ability.Preoccupiedormorethan wodecades withputting rchaeologicalnference n a scientificfooting,omebehavioralrchaeologists,ncludingthisauthor, ave acknowledgedn thepastfewyears he need to devotemore ffortobuildingsocial heoriessensu chiffer988).Behavioralarchaeologistssserthat urfocus-the archaeo-logical focus-on people-artifactnteractionsestablishes new ndunique erspectiveor uild-ing ocial heorySchiffer995b:23).Neithernthe ocial ciences, or n the ife ci-ences,nor nthephysicalciences ave nvestiga-tors erected theory upon an ontologythatrecognizes hereality f human xistence: urincessant nd diverse nteractions ithmyriadthingsSchiffer995b, 999a;Walkertal. 1995).Behavioralists erely laim thatthisontology,alongwith ountless ehavioralmodels suchaslife-historyodelspertainingopeople, rtifacts,places, behavioral components, etc.-e.g.,LaMotta ndSchiffer999; Rathje nd Schiffer

8/13/2019 Schiffer 99

4/4

168 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 64, No. 1, 1999]

1982; Schiffer976,1995a,1995b,1996; Walker1995,1998;Zedefio 997),provides springboardfor onstructingew ocialtheory.roughtonndO'Connellmply hat ehavioralrchaeologyasareduced otentialo generateocial heoryncom-parision oevolutionarycology nd,presumably,other rograms. owever,s the abovecitationsindicate, urtheory-buildingffortsow go wellbeyond he xplanationfartifactesign see alsoSchiffer992,Chapters-7). And,more ecently,behavioralistsave offered theory fmeaning(SchifferndMiller 999b) nd generalheoryfcommunicationSchiffer nd Miller 1999a).Moreover,many rchaeologists ho do not self-identifys behavioralists,ncluding ome post-processualistsnd evolutionarycologists, recontributingo the evelopmentfdiverseheoriescompatiblewith the behavioral rograme.g.,Hayden1998;Thomas1996). t is preciselyhisbroadening ront f theory-buildingfforts,otabstractronouncementsromdvocates fotherprograms,hatwilldefine he oundariesfbehav-ioral rchaeology'spplicability.Unlikeevolutionarycologists, electionists,andmany ostprocessualists,ehavioralistso notbelieve hat ff-the-shelfheories rom ther isci-plines urnishnswers oeveryxplanatoryues-tion.Behavioralistsdvocate newontologyorconstructingocial heoryhat rivilegeshe nves-tigationfpeople-artifactelationshipsnall timesandplaces.Uponthediligenttudy f these ela-tionships ehavioral rchaeologists-andmanyothers-arequietly onstructingewtheories fhumanbehavior, ringingo fruitionmyearlyvision f rchaeologys a ratherpecial ehavioralsciencehaving xtraordinaryotentialSchiffer1975).

References itedDean, J.S.1978 Independent ating in ArchaeologicalAnalysis.Advances in Archaeological Method and Theoty1:223-255.Hayden, .1998 Practical ndPrestigeechnologies:he Evolution fMaterial ystems. ournalfArchaeological ethod ndTheory:1-55.LaMotta, .M., andM. B. Schiffer

1999 Fornation rocesses f HouseFloorAssemblages.nTheArchaeology fHouseholdActivities,ditedby P.Allison. outledge,ondon.McGuire, . H.1995 BehavioralArchaeology: eflections f a ProdigalSon. nExpanding rchaeology,dited yJ.M. Skibo,W.

H. Walker,ndA. E. Nielsen, p. 162-177.UniversityfUtah ress, altLake City.Rathje,W.L., andM. B. Schiffer1982 Archaeology.arcourt raceJovanovich,ewYork.Schiffer,. B.1972 Archaeological Context and SystemicContext.Anmericanntiquity7:156-165.1975 Archaeology as Behavioral Science. AmericacnAnthropologist7:836-848.1976 Behavioral rcheology.cademic ress,NewYork.1983 Towardthe Identificationf Formation rocesses.American ntiquity8:675-706.1987 Formationrocessesof theArchaeological ecord.UniversityfNew MexicoPress, lbuquerque.1988 The StructurefArchaeological heory.AmericanAntiquity3:461-485.1991 ThePortableRadio in American ife.UniversityfArizona ress, ucson.1992 Technological erspectivesn BehavioralChange.UniversityfArizona ress, ucson.1995a Behavioral rchaeology:Firstrinciples. niversityofUtah ress, altLakeCity.1995b Social Theory and History in BehavioralArchaeology.nExpanding rchaeology,dited yJ.M.Skibo,W. H. Walker, nd A. E. Nielsen,pp. 22-35.UniversityfUtah ress, altLakeCity.1996 Some RelationshipsBetween Behavioral andEvolutionary Archaeologies. American Antiquity61:643-662.Schiffer,. B.,T. C. Butts,nd K. Grimm1994 Taking harge:TheElectric utomobilenAmerica.Smithsoniannstitutionress,Washington,. C.Schiffer,. B., andA. R. Miller1999a Beyond Language. Artifacts,Behaviot; and

Commitunication.outledge,ondon.1999b A Behavioral heory fMeaning. n PotteryndPeople, dited yJ.M. Skibo nd G. Feinman. niversityofUtah ress, altLakeCity.Schiffer,. B., andJ.M. Skibo1987 TheoryndExperimentnthe tudy fTechnologicalChange. urrentnthropology8:595-622.1997 The Explanation f Artifact ariability.mericanAntiquity2:27-50.Sullivan, . P.1978 Inference nd Evidence: A Discussion of theConceptualroblems.dvancesnArchaeological ethodandTheory:183-222.Thomas, .1996 Time, ulture,nd dentity.outledge,ondon.Walker,W. H.1995 Ceremonial rash?nExpanding rchaeology,ditedbyJ.M. Skibo,W. H.Walker,ndA. E. Nielsen, p.1-12.UniversityfUtah ress, altLakeCity.1998 Where are the Witches f Prehistory?ournal fArchaeological ethod ndTheoty:245-308.Walker,W.H.,J.M. Skibo, ndA. E. Nielsen1995 Introduction:xpanding rchaeology.n ExpandingArchaeology,dited yJ.M. Skibo,W. H.Walker,ndA.E. Nielsen, p. 1-12.Universityf UtahPress, altLakeCity.Zedefio,M.N.1997 Landscapes, andUse, and theHistoryfTerritoiyFormation: n Examplefrom hePuebloan outhwest.JournalfArchaeological ethod ndTheoty:67-103.

ReceivedJuly ,1998; acceptedJuly 1, 1998