Society for American Archaeology

Society for American Archaeology Review Author(s): Gary M. Feinman Review by: Gary M. Feinman Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 431-433 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281038 Accessed: 11-07-2015 22:19 UTC

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 [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.105.215.146 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:19:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTES

cated much of his long professional career to the study of rock art in Chile. Over the past several years Niemeyer and his colleagues have published a series of informative and comprehensive studies of regional petroglyph forms in northern and central Chile. Although these studies largely have been descriptive, they have been well-organized and well-illustrated publications with color photographs and drawings. More important, they have set the work in a regional contextual framework, providing some idea of the types of cultures which produced this art. The volume under review does little of this. Within a chosen area of the las Pintadas de Marquesa quebrada, situated in north-central Chile east of the coastal town of La Serena, 593 petroglyphs were recorded. These petroglyphs are etched on loose boulders and angular rocks clustered on the side slope and floor of the quebrada (alluvial fan). The volume is 236 pages in length, of which 68 pages are dedicated to an introduction, a brief culture-historical background, a discussion of the typology, and a two-page conclusion. The work claims to be a "modele mathematique d'analyse statistique" for interpretation of the language of the rock art, though only exhaustive and useful number charts listing and comparing different attributes of the motif designs are provided, and without much description or integration of patterning and possible meaning. Nor do we see a spatial analysis of the different types of elements across the site; instead, only single elements are demonstrated and compared. Worse yet, the study does not meet the previous high standard of data presentation and illustration set by Niemeyer. The text also tells briefly the story of the expedition and the working and taxonomic methods, and then sets out to classify the art forms. The analytical approach is along traditional lines, straightforward and uninspired, but evidently is aided by Niemeyer's own deep knowledge of this region and natural history. Although the analysis is detailed in terms of cross-listing and comparing sites with motifs and motifs with motifs, it consists of the more-or-less subjective assignment of specific traits to defined "styles." There is no considerable discussion of the potential chronological implications of these forms. The petroglyphs include numerous human figures, mostly tall and slender "stick" figures. Often they are grouped and on various occasions specific scenes clearly are being depicted. They also appear to be single elements on isolated stones. The remaining elements are abstract geometric and simple geometric designs and circles, and numerous versions of circles, lines, and mazeways. The monograph is flawed by virtue of the fact that recent archaeological analysis and thinking (particularly in Europe, where it is said that a period of ideational renaissance is underway in archaeology) were ignored. If the publication is aimed at the European audience (and I suppose it is since it was written in French), it should have included more culture-historical background to place the work in a more informative prehistoric setting. Most of us probably agree that rock art was an important and integrated part of the society that created it and that in order to under-

431

stand the art one would need to understand, or at least attempt to understand, the society of which the art formed a part. This the authors have not done adequately as in previous studies and this is where many readers interested in the Andes, in rock art, or in hunting-and-gathering groups in general may be disappointed. Although the approach of this study is subjective, it is not without empirical value. The authors have made a noteworthy contribution simply by detailed recording and reporting of the rock art. Such a detailed study has produced a high degree of connoisseurship that has value, although the conditions of this knowledge cannot be reduced easily to a set of explicit and objective conditions or rules. There can be no doubt that Niemeyer and his colleagues know these materials and their judgment of them is not to be taken lightly. American Archaeology Past and Future: A Celebration of the Society for American Archaeology 1935-1985. DAVID J. MELTZER, DON D. FOWLER, and JEREMY A. SABLOFF, editors. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1986. 479 pp. $35.00 (cloth); $19.95 (paper). Reviewed by Gary M. Feinman, University of Wisconsin-Madison. During the first five days of May, 1985, the fiftieth anniversary of the Society for American Archaeology was commemorated with a celebratory meeting that included 59 sessions and an attendance of nearly 2,000. A series of special events was arranged, including an invited day-long symposium on "The History and State of the Art of American Archaeology" and a Plenary session in which three "Views of the Development of American Archaeology" were presented. Sixteen of the contributors to these sessions revised their presentations, and these then were assembled and introduced by the three volume editors who, as members of the Society's Fiftieth Anniversary Committee, helped to organize the entire fete. As noted frequently in the collection, perhaps the most significant change in archaeology over the Society's duration is the dramatic expansion in the size and diversity of the field. The number of journals, specializations, methodologies, graduate programs, and information has increased at a rapid pace, making meaningful communication across the breadth of the field (and with other disciplines and fields) more difficult, if not, at times, impossible. Given this challenge of integration, the Anniversary Committee deserves high praise for endeavoring to bridge the ever-widening gaps by arranging this series of general syntheses by accomplished and charismatic figures in contemporary archaeology. The contributors, editors, and the Smithsonian Institution Press also merit acclaim for seeing the handsome volume so rapidly to press, thus insuring that the presented ideas and interpretations will be mulled over and digested productively rather than rotting on the vine of delays (all too frequent with edited collections). In purpose, the volume sets a tone for the syntheses, reflections, and even paradigmatic confron-


432

AMERICANANTIQUITY

tations that will be necessary over the forthcoming decades if we, as archaeologists, are to raise our heads out of the sands of methodological mania, regional particularism, and technical specialization often enough to maintain an internally coherent field. Although, like contemporary archaeology, this collection is notable for its diversity, several thematic threads provide the warp that interweaves the foursection weft (Overview, Themes in the History of Archaeology, New Looks at Past Problems, CurrentTrends and Prospects) that structures the volume contributions. An appropriately broad range of reflections is offered on archaeology's history and contemporary practice. As participant observers, William G. Haag and Jesse D. Jennings cover the last six decades. The former chronicles the dramatic transition in fieldwork methodology, while the latter surveys North American prehistory with a kind of parental balance and optimism. In an insightful review, Jacob W. Gruber builds the intellectual connections between the development of the culture concept as "a comprehensive and consistent system of behavior" (p. 183), and the transition in archaeological interest from artifact collection to past behavioral patterns. More specific are Curtis M. Hinsley's illustration of the diverse and decentralized foundations of American archaeology through the particular case of Edgar Lee Hewett and the School of American Research (1906-1912), as well as Donald K. Grayson's discussion of nineteenth-century "eoliths" and their eventual interpretation through logical experimentation and argument, a preview of contemporary "middle-range" research. In one of the more stimulating essays, Bruce G. Trigger combines positivist and relativist approaches in a historical review of the dialectical interplay between American society and archaeology. The piece establishes an important thematic current for the volume which also runs through Don D. Fowler's discussion of the trials, tribulations, and efforts surrounding the conservation of American archaeological resources and Mark P. Leone's useful primer, "Symbolic, Structural, and Critical Archaeology." Recent substantive findings as well as methodological and theoretical advances concerning the "Origins of Food Production in the New World" are synthesized by Barbara L. Stark, who favors "push" (population-resource relationships) over "pull" (human exploitation-resource variability) or social models to explain this process. With the world populace spiraling toward five billion, one wonders how much our contemporary environment influences such continued perceptions of the causal primacy of prehistoric demographic pressure despite data that is equivocal at best. By looking back, the volume provides ample impetus to take stock of contemporary archaeology. Perhaps now, the diverse ideas, assumptions, methods, and philosophies (some productive, others less so) that still too frequently are considered jointly (like interlocking pieces in a jigsaw puzzle) under the rubric, "new" archaeology, will be disentangled and evaluated independently. In the possible dawn of a revisionistic era, the last thing archaeology needs is to throw away any more babies with the bath water. In this respect, the constructively critical but even-handed articles on

[Vol. 53, No. 2, 1988]

formal and mathematical methods by George L. Cowgill and "Archaeological Interpretation, 1985" by Patty Jo Watson are particularly valuable. Ruthann Knudson examines the distinctive aims and constraints of"Contemporary Cultural Resource Management" in its own context. Cowgill shepherds us from recent sins: the equation of "uniformities" (statistical relations) and "regularities" (theoretically connected uniformities), the delusion over the adequacy of most small spatial samples, the myth that mathematical overkill can hide insufficient data, and the acceptance of models which neglect the often "long and complex road between the identification and description of structure in the archaeological record and its accepted interpretation in terms of ancient sociocultural phenomena" (p. 373). Yet Cowgill, like Watson, and Lewis R. Binford in the concluding essay, recognizes that, while improvement in our bridging arguments is necessary, the building of such logical connectors gains relevance when used as steps to resolve the larger theoretical questions. Such is not the agenda of all the contributors. In a paper ostensibly about "Contemporary Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in America," David H. Thomas argues that "mid-range theory" has been elevated to the forefront of archaeological inquiry (p. 246) and that we should look for "invariant linkages between the archaeological record and the behavior that produced it" (p. 245, emphasis mine). The editors argue "that the primary problem facing the field today is a methodological one" (p. 16) and "that we must teach ourselves ... to make sense of the archaeological record on its own terms" (p. 13). While the informational contributions of archaeology's past half century have been significant, only three papers were commissioned to interpret data substantively (those by Thomas, Stark, and a comparative review of state origins by Henry T. Wright), and these were placed in the section symbolically labeled "past problems." In contrast, Robert C. Dunnell's thoughtful overview of "Five Decades of American Archaeology" is positioned alone in the volume's opening section where. in conjunction with the editorial introduction, it sets a narrow, conservative tone. Dunnell takes a dim view of"new archaeology" apart from its heightened interest in method. He argues (p. 41) "[w]hatever the reason for the broad appeal of the new archaeology, it is clearly based on the promise of the new approach, not its products." Yet, this overdose of negativism can be tempered simply by comparing the data that problem-oriented synthesizers, such as Childe and Steward, had to work with three to four decades ago compared with what was pulled together by Wright and Stark. That is not to suggest that we have, or are even close to, answers, although some interpretive positions have been eliminated. Archaeologists are beginning to come to grips with the frightening complexities of human societies and histories, but the last thing we should do is stage a full retreat to what Watson refers to as Dunnell's "very narrow empiricist" position. Besides, since there are undoubtedly many more ways to throw things away (deposition) than there are pathways to agriculture or state development, I see few immediate prospects for the elucidation of any but the most trivial "invariant linkages"


REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTES

between the record and past behavior. Such actualistic bridges clearly help generate plausible interpretations (though they do not demonstrate past realities) and thus should be pursued. But, just as Thomas (p. 248) argues that modern flintknappers do no more than reproduce human behavior that plausibly could serve as models for the past, the same "Kon Tiki" criticism can be leveled against most actualistic analyses. There is more in the volume to help us understand our discipline's past and evaluate its present than to chart our future. Not unexpectedly, many of the progressive ideas are generated by Binford, who notes that archaeology's unique temporal perspective and "opportunity to study scales of reality that are experientially denied to the ethnographer" give us the chance "to gain an understanding of humankind and its transformations not previously appreciated by most social scientists" (p. 475). Importantly, achievement of such goals requires that we build the theory and bridging arguments necessary to analyze past human systems at the multiple spatial and temporal scales visible through judicious use of the archaeological record. I recognize that this review may anger and offend some, particularly those who find me out of step with the revisionist tide on the horizon. Perhaps they are right. After all, no one has yet told me how to read (or listen) to the archaeological record on its own terms. Archaeological Geology. GEORGE RAPP, JR. and JOHN A. GIFFORD, editors. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1985. xvii + 435 pp., figures, tables, appendix, index. $35.00 (cloth). Reviewed by C. Reid Ferring, North Texas State University. The title and contents of this volume of 14 papers reflect, in different ways, the editors' description of the topic: "the elucidation of past cultures from a disciplinary stance that is more geological than archaeological." The editors did not attempt "complete coverage" of the topic; thus the strengths and weaknesses of the volume rest within the separate contributions of the papers. The leading chapter by Gifford and Rapp describes the history, philosophy, and perspectives of archaeological geology. Following a review of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century roots, they briefly consider the more recent emergence of archaeological geology as practiced by American and British geologists. The last part of the chapter is devoted to a consideration of archaeological geology as a subdivision of geology. They reinspect Butzer's definition of geoarchaeology and conclude that these two subdisciplines exhibit "contrasting and legitimate research goals." The other contribution by the editors is an extensive topical bibliography. Under headings such as ceramic petrography, environmental geoarchaeology, lithic materials, and archaeological sediments, they provide a valuable source of references on methods and applications. The remaining chapters fall into three general categories: contextual and on-site investigations, geochronology, and artifact analyses. Donald Davidson's chap-

433

ter on geomorphology and archaeology is a rounded review with contextual approaches to sites and thorough documentation of landform change as themes. With numerous Old and New World examples, and appropriate homage to the ubiquitous way-paving of Karl Butzer, Davidson considers different site settings: fluvial, coastal and lacustrine, and desert. Overall, Davidson's discussion of geomorphic mapping and the importance of documenting geomorphic change relative to within- and between-site records is a valuable introduction to this area of research. Fekri Hassan lucidly develops an overview of paleoenvironments and archaeological studies of settlement/subsistence, site-formation processes, and culture change. Hassan's emphasis explicitly is geoarchaeological, and his ultimate concern is an anthropological perspective on the past. The priorities of establishing a chronology, documenting sedimentary evidence for past environments and site-formation contexts are enumerated. Hassan mainly illustrates his themes with examples from the Near East. John Kraft, Ilhan Kayan, and Stanley Aschenbrenner consider geologic studies of coastal change as part of archaeological investigations. Following a thorough review of Holocene coastal sedimentology, they use a series of examples from the Aegean area to illustrate archaeological implications of coastal sedimentarygeomorphic change. Their discussions include important methodological considerations. Reuben Bullard compares investigations at Carthage and Tell Gezer (Israel), providing a somewhat eclectic discussion of methods of site investigation. Allusions to techniques including trace-element analysis and petrography would have been enhanced by organized data presentation and literature citation. James E. King's paper on palynological applications to archaeology is a brief introduction to the topic, dominated by review of central Illinois paleoenvironments. He also considers dietary reconstruction using coprolites and culturally important pollen from archaeological sites. Robert C. Eidt's discussion of anthrosols is a technical review of physical and chemical changes to soils resulting from human activities. Discussions of subjects such as soil redox probably are beyond the grasp of students lacking a background in basic geochemistry, but at the same time would be superficial for a soils scientist. Similarly, his use of European soils terminology will require Americans to engage in a challenging bit of correlation with the U.S.D.A.'s Soil Taxonoiny. The appendix on methods for determining soil phosphates, organic matter content, and Eh-pH contrasts with the detail of other chapters. An annotated bibliography of germane soils-chemistry literature would have met his objective better than the appendix. John Weymouth and Robert Huggins contributed a useful overview of methods for geophysical surveying of archaeological sites. They describe the history of and basic theory behind magnetic and resistivity surveying. Applications of both techniques to a series of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sites in the North American midcontinent are described in detail. A variety of graphical techniques are employed, and the illustration of both magnetic and resistivity signatures for the same archaeological features is instructive. This
