T %É- / A

ARCHAEOLOGY AS ANTHROPOLOGY

LEWIS R. BINFORD

. ABSTRACT

is argued that archaeology has made few contribu-to the general field of anthropology with regard to

lining cultural similarities and differences. Oner factor contributing to this lack is asserted to be the;ncy to treat artifacts as equal and comparable traits(i can be explained within a single model of cultureje and modification. It is suggested that "materialre" can and does represent the structure of the totalral system, and that explanations of differences andarities between certain classes of material culture areiropriate and inadequate as explanations for suchvations within other classes bf ítems. Similarly,ge in the total cultural system must be viewed in anHve context both social and environmental, notisically viewed as the result of "influences," "stim-pr even "migrations" between and among geographi-defined units.«•ce major functional sub-classes of material cultureiscussed: technomic, socio-technic, and ideo-techrúc,¡11 as stylistic formal properties which cross-cut theseoríes. In general terms these recognized classes ofriáis are discussed with regard to the processes ofje within each class.iing the above distinctions in what is termed a sys-! approach, the problem of the appearance and chang-tílization of native copper in eastern North Americacussed. Hypotheses resulting from the application ofystemic approach are: (1) the initial appearancetive copper implements is in the context of the pro-Dn of socio-technic ítems; (2) the increased produc-jf socio-technic ítems in the late Archaic period isd to an increase in population following the shift! exploitation of aquatic resources roughly coincidentthe Nipissing high water stage of the ancestral Greati; (3) this correlation is explicable in the increasedive pressures favoring material means of status com-cation once populations had increased to the point?ersonal recognition was no longer a workable basisSerential role behavior; (4) the general shift in lateras from formally "utilitarian" ítems to the manufac-ot formally "nonurilitarian" ítems of copper is ex->le in the postulated shift from purely egalitarian toisingly nonegalitarian means of status attainment.

HAS BEEN aptly stated that "American"chaeology is anthropology or it is nothing"Mey and Phillips 1958: 2). The purpose ofdiscussion is to evalúate the role which theaeological discipline is playing in furtheringaims of anthropology and to offer certainístions as to how we, as archaeologists, maytably shoulder more responsibility for fur-P8 the aims of our field.itially, it must be asked, "What are the aimsrthropology?" Most will agree that the inte-** field is striving to explícate and explain°tal range of physical and cultural similari-

ties and differences characteristic of the entirespatial-temporal span of man's existence (fordiscussion, see Kroeber 1953). Archaeology hascertainly made major contributions as far asexplication is concerned. Our current knowl-edge of the diversity which characterizes therange of extinct cultural systems is far superiorto the limited knowledge available fifty yearsago. Although this contribution is "admirable"and necessary, it has been noted that archae-ology has made essentially no contribution inthe realm of explanation: "So little work hasbeen done in American archaeology on the ex-planatory level that it is difficult to find a ñamefor it" (Willey and Phillips 1958:5).

Before carrying this criticism further, somestatement about what is meant by explanationmust be offered. The meaning which explana-tion has within a scientific frame of reference issimpíy the demonstrarían of a constant articula-tion of variables within a system and the meas-urement of the concomitant variability amongthe variables within the system. Processualchange in one variable can then be shown to re-late in a predictable and quantifiable way tochanges in other variables, the latter changing inturn relative to changes in the structure of thesystem as a whole. This approach to explanationpresupposes concern with process, or the opera-tion and structural modification of systems. Itis suggested that archaeologists have not mademajor explanatory contributions to the field ofanthropology because they do not conceive ofarchaeological data in a systemic frame ofreference. Archaeological data are viewed par-ticularistically and "explanation" is offered interms of specific events rather than in terms ofprocess (see Buettner-Janusch 1957 for discus-sion of particularism).

Archaeologists tacitly assume that artifacts,regardless of their functional context, can betreated as equal and comparable "traits." Oncedifferences and similarities are "defined" interms of these equal and comparable "traits,"interpreta tion proceeds within something of atheoretical vacuum that conceives of differencesand similarities as the result of "blending,""directional influences," and "stimulation" be-tween and among "historical traditions" definedlargely on the basis of postulated local or re-gional continuity in the human populations.

217

218 AMERICAN ANTÍQU/TY [ Vot.28, No.2,]

I suggest that this undifferentiated and un-structured view is inadequate, that artifacts hav-ing their primary functional context in differentoperational sub-systems of the total cultural sys-tem will exhibit differences and similarities diff-erentially, in terms of the structure of the cultur-al system of which they were a part. Further,that the temporal and spatial spans within andbetween broad functional categories will varywith the structure of the systematic relationshipsbetween socio-cultural systems. Study of thesedifferential distributions can potentially yieldvaluable information concerning the nature ofsocial organization within, and changing rela-tionships between, socio-cultural systems. Inshort, the explanation of differences and similar-ities between archaeological complexes must beoffered in terms of our current knowledge of thestructural and functional characteristics of cul-tural systems.

Specific "historical" explanations, if they canbe demonstrated, simply explicate mechanismsof cultural process. They add nothing to theexplanation of the processes of cultural changeand evolution. If migrations can be shown tohave taken place, then this explication presentsan explanatory problem; what adaptive circum-stances, evolutionary processes, induced the rñi-~gration (ThompSon 1958: 1)? We must seekexplanation in systemic terms for classes of his-torical events such as migrations, establishmentof "contact" between áreas previously isolated,etc. Only then will we make major contribu-tions in the área of explanation and provide abasis for the further advancement of anthro-pological theory.

As an exercise in explication of the method-ological questions raised here, I will present ageneral discussion of a particular systemic ap-proaclviñ the evaluation of archaeological as-semblages and utilize these distinctions in anattempted explanación of a particular set ofarchaeological observations.

Culture is viewed as the extra-somatic meansof adaptation for the human organism (White1959: 8). I am concerned with all those sub-systems within the broader cultural systemwhich are: (a) extra-somatic or not, dependentupon biological process for modincation or struc-tural definition (this is not to say that the formand process cannot be viewed as rooted in bio-logical process, only that diversity and processesof diversification are not explicable in terms ofbiological process), and which (b) function to

adapt the human organism, conceivedcally, to its total environment both physicalsocial.

Within this framework it is consistent to itechnology, those tools and social relatiotishlwhich articúlate the organism with the physiñenvironment, as closely related to the natuof the environment. For example, we would iexpect to find large quantities of fishhoamong the recent archaeological remains fr<jthe Kalahari desert! However, this viewnot be thought of as "environmental determulism" for we assume a systematic relationshbetween the human organism and his envirment in which culture is the intervening vari!ble. In short, we are speaking of the ecologicsystem (Steward 1955: 36). We can obsecertain constant adaptive requirements onpart of the organism and similarly certain adántive limitations, given specific kinds of envirooment. However, limitations as well as thetential of the environment must be vievalways in terms of the intervening variable^the human ecological system, that is, culture.1

With such an approach we should not,surprised to note similarities in technolgamo.ng groups of similar levéis of social ce

^pléxity inhabiting the boreal forest (Spaiíing 1946) or any other broad environmerjzone. The comparative study of culturaltems with variable technologies in a similar^vironmental range or similar technologiediffering environments is a major methodoloof what Steward (1955: 36-42) has called "¿tural ecology," and certainly is a valuable meof increasing our understanding of cultural ]cesses. Such a methodology is also usefullelucidating the structural relationships betwmajor cultural sub-systems such as theand ideological sub-systems. Prior to the iniStion of such studies by archaeologists we mustjable to distinguish those relevant artifactual (ments within the total artifact assemblage wh3have the primary functional context in thejcial, technological, and ideological sub-syst|of the total cultural system. We shouldequate "material culture" with technoloSimilarly we should not seek explanatiorobserved differences and similarities in "matculture" within a single interpretative fram|reference. It has often been suggested thatlcannot dig up a social system or ideolgGranted we cannot excávate a kinship teology or a philosophy, but we can and do <

ARCHAEOLOGY AS ANTHROPOLOGY 219

the material Ítems which functioned to-r with these more behavioral elementsn the appropriate cultural sub-systems.formal structure of artifact assemblages to-x with the between element contextual re-iships should and do present a systematic[mderstandable picture of the total extinctral system. It is no more justifiable foricologists to attempt explanation of certainjl, temporal, and spatial similarities andenees within a single frame of reference¡t would be for an ethnographer to attemptnation of differences in cousin terminology,¡ of socio-cultural integración, styles of¡ and modes of transportation all with ther.variables or within the same frame of«nce. These classes or ítems are articulatedently within an integrated cultural system,5 the pertinent variables with which eachiculated, and exhibit concomitant varia-ire different. This fact obvíales the singlehatory frame of reference. The processesihge pertinent to each are different becausef'different ways in which they function iníbuting to the total adaptive system.hsistent with this line of reasoning is theion that we as archaeologists must face theím of identifying technomic artifacts from

aitifactual forms. Technomic signifiesV, artifacts having their primary functionalxt in coping directly with the physical en-nent. Variability in the technomic com-its of archaeological assemblages is seenmarily explicable in the ecological frameerence. Here, we must concern ourselvessuch phenomena as extractive efficiency,ncy in performing bio-compensatory tasksas heat retention, the nature of available¡ees, their distribution, density, and loci ofbility, etc. In this área of research and ex-tion, the archaeologist is in a position toa direct contribution to the field of anthro-J. We can directly correlate technomicwith environmental variables since we canthe distribution of fossil flora and fauna

independent data — giving us the naturemct environments.?ther major class of artifacts which theíologists recover can be termed socio-techrypese artifacts were the material elementlfI their primary functional context in thesub-systems of the total cultural system.•ub-system functions as the extra-somatic' of articulating individuáis one with an-

other into cohesive groups capable of efficientlymaintaining themselves and of manipulatingthe technology. Artifacts such as a king'scrown, a warrior's coup stick, a copper from theNorthwest coast, etc., fall into this category.Changes in the relative complexity of the socio-technic component of an archaeological assenvblage can be related to changes in the structureof the social system which they represent. Cer-tainly the evolutionary processes, while corre-lated and related, are not the same for explain-ing structural changes in technologícal and so-cial phenomena. Factors such as demography,presence or absence of between-group compe-titiori, etc., as well as the basic factors whichaffect technological change, must be consideredwhen attempting to explain social change. Notonly are the relevant variables different, thereis a further difference when speaking of socio-technic artifacts. The explanation of the basicform and structure of the socio-technic com-ponent of an artifactual assemblage lies in thenature and structure of the social system whichit represents. Observable differences andchanges in the socio-technic components of ar-chaeological assemblages must be explaíned withreference to structural changes in the social sys-,tem and in terms of processes of social changeand evolution.

Thus, archaeologists can initially only indirect-ly contribute to the investigation of social evo-lution. I would consider the study and estab-lishment of correlations between types of socialstructure classified on the basis of behavioralattributes and structural types of material ele-ments as one of the major áreas of anthropologi-cal research yet to be developed. Once suchcorrelations are established, archaeologists canattack the problems of evolutionary change insocial systems. It is my opinión that only whenwe have the entire temporal span of culturalevolution as our "laboratory" can we make sub-stantial gains in the critical área of social anthro-pological research.

The third major class of Ítems which archae-ologists frequently recover can be termed ideo-technic artifacts. ítems of this class have theirprimary functional context in the ideologicalcomponent of the social system. These are theÍtems which signify and symbolize the ideologi-cal rationalizations for the social system and fur-ther provide the symbolic milieu in which in-dividuáis are enculturated, a necessity if theyare to take their place as functional participants

220 AMERICAN ANTIQU/TY [ VoL.28, No.

in the social system. Such Ítems as figures ofdeities, clan symbols, symbols of natural agen-cíes, etc., fall into this general category. Formaldiversity in the structural complexity and infunctional classes of this category of ítems mustgenerally be related to changes in the structureof the society, henee explanations must besought in the local adaptive situation ratherthan in the área of "historical explanations." Aswas the case with socio-technic Ítems, we mustseek to establish correlations between generícclasses of the ideological system and the struc-ture of the material symbolism. Only after suchcorrelations have been established can archae-ologists study in a systematic way this compon-ent of the social sub-system.

Cross-cutting all of these general classes ofartifacts are formal characteristics which can betermed stylistic, formal qualities that are not di-rectly explicable in terms of the nature of theraw materials, technology of production, or vari-ability in the structure of the technological andsocial sub-systems of the total cultural system.These formal qualities are believed to have theirprimary functional context in providing a sym-bolicaíiy diverse yet pervasive artifactual envir-onment promoting group solidarity and servingas a basis for group awareness and identity. Thispan-systemic set of symbols is the milieu of en-culturation and a basis for the recognition ofsocial distinctiveness. "One of the main fuñe-tibns of the arts as communication is to reinforcebelief, custom, and valúes" (Beals and Hoijer1955: 548). The distribution of style types andtraditions is believed to be largely correlatedwith áreas of commonality in level of culturalcomplexity and in mode of adaptación. Changesin the temporal-spatial distribution of style typesare believed to be related to changes in the struc-ture of socio-cultural systems either broughtabout through processes of in situ evolution, orby changes in the cultural environment to whichlocal socio-cultural systems are adapted, therebyinitiating evolutionary change. It is believedthat stylistic attributes are most fruitfullystudied when questions of ethnic origin, migra-tion, and interacción between groups is the sub-ject of explication. However, when explana-tions are sought, the total adaptive context ofthe socio-cultural system in question must beinvestigated. In this field of research archaeolo-gists are in an excellent position to make majorcontributions to the general field of anthro-pology, for we can work directly in terms of

correlations of the structure of artifact asséblages with rates of style change, direction]style-spread, and stability of style-continuity

Having recognized three general functíclasses of artifacts: technomic, socio-tec]and ideo-technic, as well as a category of foistylistic attributes, each characterized by diing functions within the total cultural sy$and correspondingly different processeschange, it is suggested that our current theocal orientation is insufficient and inadequatiattempting explanation. h is argued thatplanations of differences and similaritiestween archaeological assemblages as a ^must first consider the nature of differenceach of these major categories and onlysuch evaluation can adequate explanaronpotheses be offered.

Given this brief and oversimplified intntion, I will turn to a specific case, the Oídper complex (Wittry and Ritzenthaler 1It has long been observed and frequentlyas a case of technological "devolución" thaing the Archaic period fine and superio:per utilitarian tools were manufactured, \as, during Early and Middlc "Woodlandcopper was used primarily for the producnonurilitarian ítems (Griffin 1952: 356).explore this interesting situation in ten(1) the frame of reference presented(2) generalizations which have previouslmade concerning the nature of culture <and (3) a set of hypotheses concerning titionships between certain forms of socio-artifacts and the structure of the social ¡that they represent.

The normal assumption when thinkinthe copper artifacts typical of the Oídcomplex is that they are primarily tec(manufactured for use in directly copithe physical environment). It is gassumed that these tools were superiorfunctional equivalents in both stone a'because of their durability and presumeiority in accomplishing cutting andtasks. It is a common generalization thíthe realm of technology more efficietend to replace less efficient forms.Copper case seems to be an excepción.

Absolute efficiency in performance isside of the coin when viewed in ancontext. Adaptive efficiency must

y/viewed in terms of economy, that is, ependiture versus energy conservador

ARCHAEOLOGY AS ANTHROPOLOGY 221

;54). F°r one'tool to be adaptively morent than another there must be either a low-of energy expenditure per unit of energyiservation in task performance, or an in-¡ ¡n energy conservation per unit of per-nee over a constant energy expenditure»1 production. Viewed this way, we mayion the position that copper tools wereologically more efficient. The productionpper tools utilizing the techniques em-d in the manufacture of Oíd Copper speci-certainly required tremendous expendi-of both time and labor. The sources ofT are not in the áreas of most dense Oíderimplements (Wittry 1951), henee travelí sources, or at least the establishment of;cs nerworks based on kin ties extendinglarge áreas, was a prerequisite for the pro-ient of the raw material. Extraction of thei, using the primitive mining techniquesplified by the aboriginal mining pits on Islee and the Keewenaw Península (Holmes| required further 'expenditure of time andí Raw materials for the production of thejonal equivalents of the copper tools wasIlly available locally or at least availablene point within the bounds of the normalitadve cycle. ExtracUon was essentially aring process requiring no specialized tech-s, and could be accomplished incidental! performance of other tasks. Certainly in• of expenditures of time and energy, asIs the distribución of sources of raw ma-5 and techniques of extraction, copper re-á a tremendous expenditure as opposedv materials of stone and bone.e processing phase of tool production ap-!to present an equally puzzling ratio withi to expenditure of energy. The processingPPer into a finished artifact normally re-5 the separation of crystalline impurities' the copper. Following this processingíi normal procedure seems to have been tod and partially flatten small bits of copper1 were then pounded together to "build"jtfact (Cushing 1894). Once the essential• nad been achieved, further hammering,p8i and polishing were required. I suggestPIS process is more time consuming thanK- and finishing an artifact by chippingPT even the pecking and grinding technique3Ved in the production of ground stone,- « follows that there was a much greaterwiture of time and energy in the produc-

tion of copper tools than in the production oftheir functional equivalents in either bone orstone.

Turning now to the problem of energy con-servation in task performance, we may ask whatdifferentials existed. It seems fairly certain thatcopper was probably more durable and couldhave been utilized for a longer period of time.As far as what differentials existed between cop-per and stone, as regards cutting and piercingfunctions, only experiments can determine.Considering all of the evidence, the quality ofdurability appears to have been the only possi-ble realm which could compénsate for the differ-entials in expenditure of energy between stoneand bone as opposed to copper in the área ofprocurement and processing of the raw material.What evidence exists that would suggest thatdurability was in fact the compensatory qualitywhich made copper tools technologically moreefficient?

All the available evidence suggests the con-trary interpretation. First, we do not have evi-dence that the raw material was re-used to anygreat extent once an artifact was broken or"worn out." If this had -been the case, we wouldexpect to have a general lack of battered and"worn oui" pitees and some examples of re-worked pieces, whereas evidence of use is a com-mon characteristic of recovered specimens, andto my knowledge reworked pieces are uncom-mon if not unknown.

Second, when found in a primary archaeologi-cal context, copper tools are almost invariablypart of burial goods. If durability was the com-pensatory factor in the efficiency equation, cer-tainly some social mechanism for retaining thecopper tools as functioning parts of the tech-nology would have been established. This doesnot appear to have been the case. Since dura-bility can be ruled out as the compensatory fac-tor, we must conclude that copper tools werenot technologically more efficient than theirfunctional equivalents in both stone and bone.Having reached this "conclusión," it remains toexplore the problem of the initial appearanceof copper tools and to examine the observationthat there was a shift from the use of copper forthe production of utilitarian tools to nonutili-tarian Ítems.

It is proposed that the observed shift and theinitial appearance of copper tools can best beexplained under the hypothesis that they didnot function primarily as technomíc ítems. I

¡ií

IIÜ'I

I

222 AMERÍCAN ANTÍQUITY [ VOL. 28, No

suggest that in both the Oíd Copper and latercultural systems to the south, copper was util-ized primarily for the production of socio-tech-nt'c ítems.

Fried (1960) discusses certain pertinent dis-tinctions between societies with regard to sys-tems of status grading. Societies on a low gen-eral level of cultural complexity, measured interms of functional specialization and structuraldifferentiation, normally have an "egalitarian"system of status grading. The term "egalitarian"signifies that status positions are open to allpersons within the limits of certain sex and ageclasses, who through their individual physicaland mental characteristics are capable of greaterachievement in coping with the environment.Among societies of greater complexity, statusgrading may be less egalitarian. Where rankingis the primary mechanism of status grading,status positions are closed. There are qualifica-tions for attainment that are not simply a func-tion of one's personal physical and mental capa-bilities.

A classic example of ranking is found amongsocieties with a ramage form of social organiza-tion (Sahlins 1958: 139-180). In such societiesstatus is determined by one's proximity indescent from a common ancestor. High statusis accorded those in the direct Une of descent,calculated in terms of primogeniture, whilecadet lines of descent occupy positions of lowerstatus depending on their proximity to the directline.

Another form of internally ranked system isone in which attainment of a particular statusposition is closed to all except those membersof a particular kin group who may occupy adifferentiated status position, but open to allmembers of that kin group on an egalitarianbasis.

Other forms of status grading are recognized,but for the purposes of this discussion the majordistinction between egalitarian and ranked sys-tems is sufficient. I propose that there is a di-rect relationship between the nature of the sys-tem of status grading within a society and thequantity, form, and structure of socio-techniccomponents of its archaeological assemblage.

It is proposed that among egalitarian societiesstatus symbols are symbolic of the technologicalactivities for which outstanding performance isrewarded by increased status. In many casesthey will be formally technomic ítems manufac-tured of "exotic" material or elaborately decor-

ated and/or painstakingly manufactured.not imply that the Ítems could not or \verused technomically, simply that their prein the assemblage is explicable only in refeto the social system. ,

Within such a system the structure Qsocio-technic component as regards "conté*relationships should be simple. Various isymbols will be possessed by nearly all in<uals within the limits of age and sex eldifferentiation within such a class being 1;quantitative and qualitative rather than bmal exclusión of particular forms to partistatus grades. The degree to which socio-tesymbols of status will be utilized within antarian group should largely be a functiigroup size and the intensity and constanpersonal acquaintance among all indivicomposing the society. Where small grouand general lack of interaction with ngroups is the normal pattern, then the ¡dance of status symbols should be low. \igroup size is large and/or where between-)interactions are widespread, lowering th{macy and familiarity between interactingviduals, then there should be a greater andgeneral use of material means of statusmunication. ¡\

Another characteristic of the manipujof status symbols among societies with jtially egalítarian systems of status grading \be the destrucción at death of an indivijsymbols of status. Status attainment beingtarian, status symbols would be personaliti<could not be inherited as such. Inclusjgrave accompaniments or outright destrtwould be the suggested mode of disposstatus Ítems among such groups. '

Among societies where status gradingjto be of a nonegalitarian type, the statusbols should be more esoteric in form. )form would normally be dictated by the idícal symbolism which rationalizes and eisizes the particular interna! ranking systthe means of partitioning the society. The,ture of the socio-technic component of osemblage should be more complex, witcomplexity increasing directly as the comeof the interna! ranking system. Possession jtain forms may become exclusively resfriacertain status positions. As the degree o|plexity in ranking increases there shoulosimilar increase in the differentiationtextual associations in the form of diffe

AD] ARCHAEOLOGY AS ANTHROPOLOGY 223

jient at death, differential access to goods¡ervices evidenced in the formal and spatial•entiation in habitations and storage áreas,We would also expect to observe differen-íi among the class of status symbols them-s as regards those which were utilized on adial basis as opposed to those that were>nalities. Similarly, we would expect tocatus symbols more frequently inherited ata as inheritance increases as the mechanismitus ascription.;rtainly these are suggestions which must besed as hypotheses and tested against eth-aphic data. Nevertheless it is hoped thatdiscussion is sufficient to serve as a back-nd against which an explanatbry hypothesiserning the Oíd Copper materials can beed as an example of the potential utility oftype of systemic approach to archaeological

(¡uggest that the Oíd Copper copper toolstheir primary functional context as symbolsliieved status in cultural systems with antarian system of status grading. The settle-

patterns and general level of culturallopment suggested by the archaeological re-

as is commensurate with a band level ofvculturp.l integrarion (Martin, Quimby, and.ier 1947: 299), that level within whichitarian systems of status grading are dom-¡t (Fried 1960). The technomic form, ap-¡nt lack of technomic efficiency, relative scar-i and frequent occurrence in burials of cop-artifacts all suggest that their primary func-.was as socio-technic Ítems. Having reached; conclusión," we are then in a position to^ in systemic terms, questions concerning£ period of appearance, disappearance, andshift to nonutilitarian forms of copper Ítems>ng later prehistoric socio-cultural systems of*rn North America.ipropose that the initial appearance of for-•y 'utilitarian" copper tools in the Great

región is explicable in terms of a majorexpansión in the región following the

llrig stage of the ancestral Great Lakes.Brease in population density was the re-mcreases in gross productivity following

|loitative shift to aquatic resources during!'pissing stage. The increased populationsTierally demonstrable in terms of the in-

number of archaeological sites ascribablePost-Nipissing period. The shift to

aquatic resources is demonstrable in the initialappearance of quantities of fish remains in thesites of this period and in the sites of electionfor occupation, adjacent to prominent loci ofavailability for exploiting aquatic resources. Itis proposed that with the increasing populationdensity, the selective pressures fostering the sym-bolic communication of status, as opposed to thedependence on personal recognition as the basesfor differential role behavior, were sufficient toresult in the initial appearance of a new class ofsocio-technic Ítems, formally technomic statussymbols.

The failure to perpetúate the practice of themanufacture of copper tools on any exténsivebasis in the Great Lakes región should be ex-plicable in terms of the changing structure of thesocial systems in that área during Woodlandtimes. The exact type of social structure charac-teristic of Early Woodland period is at presentpoorly understood. I would suggest that therewas a major structural change between the Late \/Archaic and Early Woodland periods, probablyin the direction of a simple clan and moietybasis for social integrarion with a correspondingshift in the systems of status grading and theobsolescence of the older material means ofstatus communication.

The presence of copper tools of essentiallynonutilitarian form within such complexes asAdena, Hopewell, and Mississippian are mostcertainly explicable in terms of their socio-technic functions within much more complexsocial systems. Within the latter societies statusgrading was not purely on an egalitarian basis,and the nonutilitarian copper forms of statussymbols would be formally commensurate withthe ideological rationalizations for the variousascriptive status systems.

This explanatory "theory" has the advantageof "explaining": (1) the period of appearance '•/of copper and probably other "exotic" materialsin the Late Archaic period; (2) the form of thecopper ítems; (3) their frequently noted contex-tual relations, for example, placement in burials;(4) their disappearance, which would be an"enigma" if they functioned primarily as tech-nomic ítems; and (5) the use of copper for thealmost exclusive production of "nonutilitarian"ítems in later and certainly more complex cul-tures of the eastern United States. This ex-planatory theory is advanced on the basis ofcurrently available information, and regardless

224 AMERíCAN ANT/QUÍTY [ VOL. 28, Nojof whether or not it can stand as the correct ex-planation of the "Oíd Copper Problem" whenmore data are available, I suggest that onlywithin a systemic frame of reference could suchan inclusive explanation be offered. Here lies theadvantage of the systemic approach.

Archaeology must accept a greater responsi-bility in the furtherance of the aims of anthro-pology. Until the tremendous quantities of datawhich the archaeologist controls are used in thesolution of problems dealing with cultural evo-lution or systemic change, we are not only failingto contribute to the furtherance of the aims ofanthropology but retarding the accomplishmentof these aims. We as archaeologists have avail-able a wide range of variability and a large sam-ple of cultural systems. Ethnographers are re-stricted to the small and formally limited extantcultural systems.

Archaeologists should be among the bestqualified to study and directly test hypothesesconcerning the process of evolutionary change,particularly processes of change that are rela-tively slow, or hypotheses that postúlate tem-poral-processual priorities as regards total cul-tural systems. The lack of theoretic^l concernand rather nai've attempts at explanation whicharchaeologists currently advance must be modi-fied.

I have suggested certain ways that could bea beginning in this necessary transition to a sys-temic view of culture, and have set forth a spe-cific argument which hopefully demónstralesthe utility of such an approach. The explana-tory potential which even this limited andhighly specific interpretative approach holdsshould be clear when problems such as "thespread of an Early Woodland burial cult in theNortheast" (Ritchie 1955), the appearance ofthe "Buzzard cult" (Waring and Holder 1945)in the Southeast, or the "Hopewell decline"(Griffin 1960) are recalled. It is my opinión thatuntil we as archaeologists begin thinking of ourdata in terms of total cultural systems, manysuch prehistoric "enigmas" will remain unex-plained. As archaeologists, with the entire spanof culture history as our "laboratory," we can-not afford to keep our theoretícal heads buriedin the sand. We must shoulder our full share ofresponsibility within anthropology. Such achange could go far in advancing the field ofarchaeology specifically, and would certainly ad-vance the general field of anthropology.

BIÍALS, RALPH L. AN» HARRV HOIJI;R1953 An ¡nlrodnction lo Amhropulogy. Tli<. •

mil lan Company, New York.

BUETTNER-JANUSCH, JoHN -j

1957 Boas and Masón: Particularism versus Gen,zation. American Anthropologist, Vol. 592, pp. 318-24. Menasha.

CUSHING, F. H.1894 Primitive Copper Working: An Experirn

Study. American Anthropologist, Vol. 7, {>pp. 93-117. Washington.

FRIED, MORTON H.1960 On the Evolution of Social Stratification an

State. In "Culture in History: Essays in fcof Paul Radin, edited by Stanley Diamond713—31. Columbia University Press, New '

GRIFFIN, JAMES B.1952 Culture Periods in Eastern United State

chaeology. In Arcfioeoíogy of Eastern UStates, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 35University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

1960 Climatic Change: A Contributory Cause <Growth and Decline of Northern HopewCulture. Wisconsin Archeoíogist, Vol. 41,1pp. 21-33. Milwaukee.

HOLMES, WlLLIAM H.

1901 Aboriginal Copper Mines of Isle Royale,Superior. American Antfiropologist, Vol.:4, pp. 684-96. New York.

KROEBER, A. L.1953 Introduction. In: Anthropology Today, i

by A, L. Kroeber, pp. xiii-xv. University ocago Press, Chicago.

MARTIN, PAUL S., GEORGE I. QUIMBY AND DONALD O1947 Indians Be/ore Columbuj. University oí

cago Press, Chicago.

RlTCHIE, WlLLIAM A.

1955 Reccnt Suggestions Suggesting an Early ^land Burial Cult in the Northeast. NewState Museum and Science Service, Circuí40. Rochester.

SAHLINS, MARSHALL D.1958 Social Strati/ication tu Polinesia. Univet

Washington Press, Seattle.

SPAULDINO, ALBERT C.1946 Northeastern Archaeology and General

in the Northern Forest Zone. In "Man in ¡eastern North America," edited by FriJohnson. Papers of the Robert S. Peabodydación /or Archaeoíogy, Vol. 3, pp. 143-61lips Academy, Andover.

rORU ] ARCHAEOLOGY AS ANTHROPOLOGY 225

, JULIÁN H.955 Theory of Culture Change. University of Illi-

nois Press, Urbana.

IPSON, RAYMOND H.958 Preface. In "Migrations in New World Culture

History," edited by Raymond H. Thompson, pp.v-vii. University of Antoría, Social Science Bulle-tin, No. 27. Tucson.

JJG, ANTONIO J. AND PRESTON HOLDER[945 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the

Southeastern United States. American Anthro-pologist, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 1-34. Menasha.

FE, LESLIE A.1959 The Evolución oí Culture. McGraw-Hill Boolc

Company, New York.

WILLEY, CORDÓN R. AND PHILIP PHILLIPS1958 Method and Theory in Archacolosy. University

of Chicago Press, Chicago.

WITTRY, WARREN L.1951 A Preliminary Study of the Oíd Copper Conv

plex. Wisconsin Archeoiogtst, Vol. 32, No. 1,pp. 1-18. Milwaukee.

WITTRV, WARREN L. AND ROBERT E. RITZENTHALER1956 The Oíd Copper Complex: An Archaic Mani-

festarion in Wisconsin. American Antiquity,Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 244-54. Salt Lake City.

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Chicago, Illinois

April, 1962