In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

8 174 Arch~aeological Lessons from a Mogollon Pueblo I have, for some time, held the view (Renfrew 1982a) that for valid insights into the theoretical positions of archaeologists we would do better to look at their working papers, that is to say to the application of their thinking to specific cases, than to their more programmatic statements or to their attempts to write philosophy. -Colin Renfrew (1994:4-5) We have borrowed the title of this chapter from the early ethnoarchaeological study by Longacre and Ayres (1968), "Archaeological Lessons from an Apache Wickiup." In so doing, we extend the Grasshopper heuristic metaphor as we reconnect with a major theme of this narrativeGrasshopper research as a proving ground for method and theory, a thirty-year study that reveals some important features of American archaeology 's recent history. In this chapter, we evaluate the questions, concepts, and procedures of three archaeologies-culture history, processual archaeology, and behavioral archaeology- as they were expressed at Grasshopper and as they permitted access to the past behavior reflected in that specific archaeological record. We do not attempt a global examination of these archaeologies or a thorough historical treatment of the full range of questions, concepts, and procedures embraced by each. Such an admittedly worthwhile analysis will remain for future students of archaeological historiography with larger purpose. We qualify our subject matter further by labeling the archaeologies after the traditional type-variety system. We refer to the culture history we examine as the Point of Pines variety, processual archaeology as the Hay Hollow variety, and behavioral archaeology as the Grasshopper variety. These represent distinctly southwestern expressions of research programs that may have been presented differently in other domains. Our purpose, then, is straightforward. Three directors went to Grasshopper , each with a different approach to acquiring knowledge of a large, prehistoric pueblo community. We consider the basic questionhow did these three approaches in addressing the prehistory of this place and its interesting questions of past behavior? In our evaluation, we seek to determine which questions, concepts, and procedures worked to produce knowledge of the past and which did not. We approach our appraisal by looking broadly at research issues, theory, and methods , recognizing that there is not complete symmetry among the three archaeologies in these arenas. After considering each archaeological approach in turn, we present the Grasshopper-Chavez Pass debate as an illustration of the differences between processual and behavioral archaeology . Culture History at Grasshopper The first three years of fieldwork at Grasshopper-the 1965 seasonalready influenced by William Longacre's presence as field director-are not fully representative of culture history in the Pueblo Southwest and certainly not in American archaeology. The initial field examination of a five-hundred-room neolithic village would have been much the same, regardless of the conceptual frame of reference. Apart from the immense task of setting up a camp and providing essential services to twenty students and ten staff in the midst of the central Arizona mountains, there were three essential objectives-map the site, determine the archaeological and geological context, and assess the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the cultural remains. Research Issues and Concepts Culture history has taken a beating over the past forty or so years, especially at the hands of aggressive, young, processual archaeologists seeking a place within a highly structured, academic network (see Gibbon 1989:64-66). A less jaundiced perspective reveals that culture history in the Southwest and at Grasshopper was neither atheoretical nor lacking research problems, as some have suggested (e.g., Binford 1972). Archaeological Lessons from a Mogollon Pueblo 175 Moreover, many of the research questions tackled by Raymond Thompson and crew have returned to popularity in the 1990s, indicating their perennial importance. The criteria for selecting Grasshopper for investigation-it was a relatively unknown place dating to a relatively unknown time-were justifiable within the framework of cultural history. Culture history tackled the research questions set forth by A. V. Kidder, which we discussed in chapter 3. The archaeologist chose an unknown region or period for investigation by selectively excavating sites that would fill the gaps in knowledge. In the most general sense, "knowledge" meant the punctuations in time-space matrix that are labeled phases. phase is the conceptual workhorse of culture history, representing "the smallest unit into which a culture history could be divided" (Haury 1988: 18). Thompson had no need to create a local phase sequence for Grasshopper . Emil Haury (1985:377; Haury and Sayles 1947) already had established...

pdf

Additional Information

ISBN
9780816533176
Related ISBN
9780816524013
MARC Record
OCLC
967587911
Pages
288
Launched on MUSE
2017-01-05
Language
English
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.