Society for American Archaeology

Comments on David Meltzer's "Paradigms and the Nature of Change in AmericanArchaeology"Author(s): Jay F. CusterSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Jul., 1981), pp. 660-661Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/280614 .Accessed: 22/02/2011 07:08

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 unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay 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=sam. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof 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 toAmerican Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

1975 Nonsite sampling in archaeology: up the creek without a site? In Sampling in archaeology, edited by James W. Mueller, pp. 61-81. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1976 Figuring anthropology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips

1958 Method and theory in American archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

COMMENTS ON DAVID MELTZER'S "PARADIGMS AND THE NATURE OF CHANGE IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY"

Jay F. Custer

Meltzer indicates that little change is evidenced by the New Archaeology. To the contrary, analysis of changes in archaeological theory since 1960, in light of changes in anthropological theory, indicates that a ma- jor metaphysical shift from historical, particularistic research to nomothetic research seeking explanations has occurred. Therefore, a major paradigm shift is indicated.

In his analysis of recent changes in archaeological theory David Meltzer (1979) indicates that

very little is new within the New Archaeology. Working from the assumption that a change in metaphysics, rather than a change in methods, is the main indicator of a paradigmatic shift, Meltzer notes that, "the shifts that occurred in the 1960s were wholly commensurate with the metaphysics of the previous 'paradigm' "

(1979:653). By focusing on reconstructions and method in his attempt to isolate a paradigm shift which could be correlated with the New Archaeology or to demonstrate the absence of such a shift, Meltzer has looked in the wrong place. A considera- tion of the goals of archaeological research and of the place of archaeological theory within an- thropological theory reveals significant changes since the 1960s.

Following the work of Marvin Harris (1968), it can be stated that general anthropology of the 1930s and 1940s was still strongly affected by the historical particularism of Franz Boas. Lowie and Kroeber can both be seen as following the Boasian tradition (Harris 1968:342-343) and estab- lishing a program of particularistic research orientations. The direct historical approach (Wedel 1938; Strong 1935; Steward 1942) represented a logical consequent of the adoption of the historical, particularist, theoretical stance (Willey and Sabloff 1974:114). If ethnographically ob- served groups were to be understood, it was necessary to understand their history. Archaeology was viewed as a method of providing the data needed for this understanding and was used ex- clusively within a particularistic research program. As such, the construction of chronologies and the reconstruction of past lifeways in archaeology could be viewed as ends in themselves. The criticism of archaeology as being atheoretical (Willey and Phillips 1958:1) was directed toward this viewpoint.

With the re-emergence of cultural evolution as a valid research strategy in the 1940s and 1950s (Harris 1968:634; Willey and Sabloff 1974:178) and a general revival of nomothetic studies in an- thropology (Harris 1968:605), the relationship between archaeology and cultural anthropology

1975 Nonsite sampling in archaeology: up the creek without a site? In Sampling in archaeology, edited by James W. Mueller, pp. 61-81. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1976 Figuring anthropology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips

1958 Method and theory in American archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

COMMENTS ON DAVID MELTZER'S "PARADIGMS AND THE NATURE OF CHANGE IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY"

Jay F. Custer

Meltzer indicates that little change is evidenced by the New Archaeology. To the contrary, analysis of changes in archaeological theory since 1960, in light of changes in anthropological theory, indicates that a ma- jor metaphysical shift from historical, particularistic research to nomothetic research seeking explanations has occurred. Therefore, a major paradigm shift is indicated.

In his analysis of recent changes in archaeological theory David Meltzer (1979) indicates that

very little is new within the New Archaeology. Working from the assumption that a change in metaphysics, rather than a change in methods, is the main indicator of a paradigmatic shift, Meltzer notes that, "the shifts that occurred in the 1960s were wholly commensurate with the metaphysics of the previous 'paradigm' "

(1979:653). By focusing on reconstructions and method in his attempt to isolate a paradigm shift which could be correlated with the New Archaeology or to demonstrate the absence of such a shift, Meltzer has looked in the wrong place. A considera- tion of the goals of archaeological research and of the place of archaeological theory within an- thropological theory reveals significant changes since the 1960s.

Following the work of Marvin Harris (1968), it can be stated that general anthropology of the 1930s and 1940s was still strongly affected by the historical particularism of Franz Boas. Lowie and Kroeber can both be seen as following the Boasian tradition (Harris 1968:342-343) and estab- lishing a program of particularistic research orientations. The direct historical approach (Wedel 1938; Strong 1935; Steward 1942) represented a logical consequent of the adoption of the historical, particularist, theoretical stance (Willey and Sabloff 1974:114). If ethnographically ob- served groups were to be understood, it was necessary to understand their history. Archaeology was viewed as a method of providing the data needed for this understanding and was used ex- clusively within a particularistic research program. As such, the construction of chronologies and the reconstruction of past lifeways in archaeology could be viewed as ends in themselves. The criticism of archaeology as being atheoretical (Willey and Phillips 1958:1) was directed toward this viewpoint.

With the re-emergence of cultural evolution as a valid research strategy in the 1940s and 1950s (Harris 1968:634; Willey and Sabloff 1974:178) and a general revival of nomothetic studies in an- thropology (Harris 1968:605), the relationship between archaeology and cultural anthropology

Jay F. Custer, Department of Anthropology, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19711 Jay F. Custer, Department of Anthropology, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19711

660 660 [Vol. 46, No. 3,1981] [Vol. 46, No. 3,1981]

COMMENTS

changed. Harris notes that Julian Steward's theories of cultural ecology, founded in part upon de- tailed archaeological reconstructions, were especially important in that they "played a key role in bringing the results of cultural materialist strategy to the conduct and interpretation of ar- chaeological research" (Harris 1968:675). In other words, cultural evolution and cultural ecology as research strategies and explanatory goals were part of a revival of nomothetic research pro- grams. Archaeologists not only could provide relevant data through their reconstructions, but as noted by Binford (1962:217-218), archaeologists were in a position to provide nomothetic ex- planations or archaeological laws. The generation of these explanations required comparison of data from archaeological reconstructions and recourse to more general principles, generally those provided by cultural ecology and cultural evolution.

The differences between empirical generalizations, through reconstructions, and explanations constitute major qualitative differences. These differences are made explicit in Binford's (1978:357-360, 1979:591-593) criticisms of Yellen's (1978) work with !Kung bushman ethno- archaeology. The requirements of comparable data for generalization also acts to put a premium on increasingly more rigorous "scientific" methods. The development of more rigore rigorous method- ologies within reconstruction is noted by Meltzer (1979:653-654), and he is correct in noting their basic continuity with earlier research sch schemes.

Nevertheless, the shift from particularistic reconstructions as ends in themselves, at least as far as the archaeologist was concerned, to the use of reconstructions as bases for nomothetic ex- planations represents a major metaphysical reorientation. Following Meltzer's own scheme for sensing indications of paradigm shifts, one such shift is certainly evident in archaeology since 1960. It should be noted that the shift is not complete due to confusion about the meaning of ex- planation (Binford 1977) and to a lack of disciplinary goals (Dunnell 1978). However, the mechanics of the shift in paradigms cannot, and should not, obscure the recognition of the funda- mental metaphysical shift which has occurred.

REFERENCES CITED

Binford, L. R. 1962 Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225. 1977 For theory building in archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1978 Dimensional analysis of behavior and site structure. American Antiquity 43:330-361. 1979 Comments on confusion. American Antiquity 44:591-593.

Dunnell, R. 1978 Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity 43:192-202.

Harris, M. 1968 The rise of anthropological theory. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York.

Meltzer, D. J. 1979 Paradigms and the nature of change in American archaeology. American Antiquity 44:644-657.

Steward, J. 1942 The direct historical approach to archaeology. American Antiquity 7:337-343.

Strong, W. D. 1935 An introduction to Nebraska archaeology. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 93(10).

Wedel, W. R. 1938 The direct historical approach in Pawnee archaeology. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 97(7).

Wiley, G. R., and P. Phillips 1958 Method and theory in American archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Willey, G. R., and J. Sabloff 1974 A history of American archaeology. Freeman, San Francisco.

Yellen, J. E. 1978 Archaeological approaches to the present. Academic Press, New York.

661