Archaeological Epistemology and Praxis: Multidimensional Context

Archaeological Epistemology and Praxis: Multidimensional Context Vivian S. James

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST VIEWED AS “TWO PAGES SIDE BY SIDE” This document is the slides and text of the presentation I gave at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) held April 6-10, 2016, in Orlando, Florida. Only 15 minutes was allowed for the presentation, so much remains to be taken into consideration. For instance, Hodder’s 1992 Theory and Practice in Archaeology, which discusses context at length, and the many Computer Applications & Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) Proceedings are not included. Additional time constraints forced me to rely more heavily on journal articles than their authors’ full-length books, which is in the process of being rectified. A more complete treatment is in the works and this presentation regarding context as theory and its predecessor introducing institutional context should be regarded as ideas in progress. My thought is that approaching context as theory enables an archaeological theorization of GIS as an archaeological methodology, that context is applied as theory in archaeological practice, and that context is theory that has been developed, written, tested, and refined by archaeology. Comments and suggestions may be emailed to me at [email protected]. I would especially like to hear from others researching along similar lines. © 2016 Vivian S. James. All rights reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Merlin for his enduring love and patience, for believing in me, and for the magic that made it possible for me to be here today. Additionally, I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Marilyn Masson, University at Albany Christina Rieth, New York State Museum Sean Rafferty, University at Albany Terry Powis, Kennesaw State University Robert Feranec, New York State Museum for asking an impossible question for which the only answer was context.

Archaeological Epistemology and Praxis: Multidimensional Context Vivian S. James, RPA, B.S., M.A. Dept. of Anthropology, University at Albany, SUNY Dept. of First-Year and Transitional Studies, Kennesaw State University

Society for American Archaeology 81st Annual Meeting April 6-10, 2016 Orlando, Florida

Good afternoon. My goals this afternoon are to provide archaeologists a new way to think about archaeology and to theorize archaeological GIS.

CIRCLE OF CONTEXT TAYLOR 1948

Near the end of the fourth chapter of Taylor’s 1948 A Study of Archeology, he uses the phrase “circle of context” to describe how the process of shifting between inductive and deductive reasoning expands archaeological understanding of culture in the past.

HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE

http://alfa-img.com/show/hermeneutic-circle.html

The visualization of a circle of context, reminiscent of the hermeneutical circle of interpretation described by Carbonelli (2011), inspired me to think more deeply about what context is and specifically what context is in archaeology.

http://i0.wp.com/www.theweavingloom.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/CircleWeaveAddingThreadCover.jpg

http://i0.wp.com/www.theweavingloom.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/1 0/DoubleWarpWords.jpg

© Arts and Activities http://thislittleclassofmine.blogspot.com/2009/11/animal-clan-weavings.html

The term context, according to Butzer (1980) and reiterated by Burke (2002), comes from the Latin word contexere, meaning “to weave” and is related to contextus, which indicates “connection.” Weaving a number of disparate ideas from multiple disciplines together produced a tapestry that transformed my understanding from context as description to context as theory. Context, as it is used linguistically and in most other disciplines, can be defined as everything other than whatever is being examined. In archaeology, literally everything is context, or at least, everything has potential context. This potentiality, which includes whatever is being examined, distinguishes the archaeological understanding of context. Where other disciplines create context that is equivalent to the warp of a tapestry, the background threads upon which an understanding of the original object can become known, context in archaeology also contains an inclusive and textured weft. Archaeology is truly capable of weaving a tapestry that enables the past to be visible in the present.

THEORY, MODEL, & METHOD SCILLA 1759 [1647]

What distinguishes archaeological theory from archaeological method? Theories have shape. These shapes are models. Clarke (1972) defined archaeological models as: “pieces of machinery that relate observations to theoretical ideas,” they are simplified heuristic constructions of what are thought to be the critical elements and processes of a complexity, a “skeletal expression of a theory.” Gould (2002) recognized that theories have shapes when he used Scilla’s seventeenth century painting of an articulated coral to model the structure of evolutionary theory. Good theories, such as Stenonis’ (1699) ideas about stratigraphy, have multidimensional shapes. They are tensile, flexible enough to withstand modifications over time as Gould found Darwin’s (1859) theory of evolution to be. They are also interdisciplinary, applicable in multiple fields and as Schiffer (1988) informed us: “..archaeology is the quintessential interdisciplinary discipline, incorporating varied home-grown theories as well as theories from nearly all other social and natural sciences. Indeed, the basic structure of archaeological theory is that of multiple and loosely coupled hierarchies. Although principles within each hierarchy cohere substantively and may be related logically, such connections largely are lacking between hierarchies. However, principles in different hierarchies are linked procedurally in the archaeological research process.” It is the interdisciplinary nature of archaeology that both enables archaeology in the sense of the borrowing of ideas from other disciplines and enables archaeology to inform other disciplines.

http://www.dayofarchaeology.com/good-morning-archaeology/

TASK LIST

FLOW CHART http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/blog/oasis/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/oasis-flowchart-v1-6.png

The only models that can be made of methodologies are task lists and flow charts. Task lists are flat, unidimensional shapes. The tasks are not necessarily sequential or even related to one another. Complicated methods and sequenced task lists can be organized into a flowchart, changing the overall shape from a simple line to a rectangle. Each progressive step in a flow chart is usually tied to a hypothesis, if only as some organizing principle, providing a second dimension. These bidimensional models that connect methods with hypotheses about methods – Binford’s (1982) “middle range” theory – make up the bulk of archaeological theorizing.

THEORY, MODEL, & METHOD Canis lupus familiaris San Nicolas Island, California

Bos taurus a) right tibia b) left femur. Hutson, et al. 2013: 4147

https://thesebonesofmine.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/ostephagia-111-hutson-etal13.jpg

http://insider.si.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/IMG_069522.jpg

Most simple analyses are two dimensional as the following example demonstrates. The data are only related in that they are sets of animal bones that had nice photographs available online along with some information about their provenience. Even when two middle range hypotheses are tested, the result is still only a two dimensional model.

DESCRIPTION

COMPARATIVE METHOD COMPARATIVE ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

SPECIES

Dog

B. taurus

not exposed

exposed

CONCLUSION: DIFFERENCE

TAPHONOMY

The first hypothesis is that bones from different species will be morphologically different, so the zooarchaeological task is to visually examine bones to determine species by the different shape of the bones. This idea can be further extended to include the taphonomic idea that bones exposed on the surface will appear visually different from bones that are buried, with the task being another visual inspection. You can see for yourself that the result is descriptive in nature and looks like a flow chart. It is when models reach a third dimension, when they move beyond ideas about methods into ideas about life, that they become theory.

“QUEST FOR A SEAT AT THE HIGH TABLE” LYMAN 2007

Archaeological Theory

Does archaeology produce theory? Taylor said no. To Taylor, archaeology was “no more than a method and a set of specialized techniques for the gathering of cultural information.” This has essentially remained the perspective of archaeology as Lyman (2007) has informed us. Taylor firmly disavowed the eighteenth century perspective of Hume that the study of man was the center of the sciences and restricted his consideration to cultural anthropology in relation to archaeology, preventing him from reaching any other conclusion than the one he did. A decade ago, Johnson (2006) reconsidered the question and answered yes and no – yes, archaeology uses theory, but no, archaeology has not produced any unique theory. In this case, his definition of theory as “the order we choose to put the facts in” – echoing Phillips and Willey’s (1953) take on the “jigsaw hypothesis” – limited his conclusion, a limit that Coudart (2006) criticized at the time. His focus on theory as organizing could be viewed as limiting archaeological theory to the middle range as I have pointed out that organizing principles only bring a second dimension to methodology. Schiffer’s definition of context as “a series of basic premises, postulates, or assumptions that specify certain fundamental entities, processes, or mechanisms, often implicating phenomena that themselves are unobservable (at the time of theory formulation)” is a more inclusive description of theory. Though not explicit in his review of archaeological theory, Schiffer saw archaeological theory as a “dynamic” part of a process. Finally, Lyman optimistically expressed the hope that archaeology could develop theory and take a “seat at the high table” in the twenty-first century if only archaeologists would stop limiting themselves to doing cultural anthropology of the past. What ties archaeological research together into a single, coherent discipline? The answer is deceptively simple. Context. It crosses all boundaries of archaeological research. It applies in all regions and to all materials. But what is context in archaeology? And how does context connect archaeology to the other sciences? Due to time limitations, only the skeleton of multidimensional context can be presented here.

de t a i led con t e x t s

con t e x t p r e sen t con t e x t

c au s a l con t e x t

fu l land in c lu s i v e con t e x t

a r cheo lo g i c a l cu l tu r a l con t e x t

c i r c leo f con t e x t

CONTEXT TAYLOR 1948

con t e x tu a l s i gn i f i c an ce con t e x t o f cu l tu r e

de v e lopmen t o fcon t e x t

pe r t inen t con t e x t s

con t e x tu a l s yn the s i s

h i s to r i c a l con t e x t s

con t e x t s

cu l tu r a l con t e x t s

Starting with Taylor, who defined “cultural context” as the product of historiography – which he ultimately concluded is the goal of archaeological research – context in archaeology is usually understood to be everything other than the object being studied. Yet, Taylor used the term context in fifteen different expressions. All told, he used “context” or its plural 117 times in 202 pages! Where at first glance this may appear to be a confusing array of usages, and considering Johnson’s “complex and shifting kaleidoscope of interests, contexts and discourses” in archaeological theory, all are correct uses and have been productive in archaeological praxis. To me, this represented opportunity – the glimmerings of multidimensionality.

CULTURE-HISTORICAL INTEGRATION WILLEY & PHILLIPS 1953:630

To Phillips and Willey, context was separate from time and space and was related to function. They equated Taylor’s conjunctive approach to a “contextual approach,” which they contrasted to their taxonomical approach and thought of as a “luxury.” Alternatively, they offered the culturehistorical theory, which as you can see in their model only has two dimensions.

CONTEXT

WILLEY & PHILLIPS 1953 FORM (OBJECT)

SPACE

TIME

The important taxonomical categories were: “space, time, and form” or object. They were almost led to context as a theory, but their overfocus on Taylor and taxonomical categories prevented them from seeing the three dimensional in favor of a two dimensional model.

FUNCTIONAL CONTEXT BINFORD 1962

FORM (OBJECT)

SPACE

FUNCTION

TIME

Binford (1962) extended the object-space-time of Phillips and Willey by adding in consideration of function. An early attempt at layering empirical inferences, it is essentially a methodology paper about social function based on association. The “functional context” model has a different shape from that of object-space-time, but is three dimensional despite the fact that Binford was using context as a middle range theory.

SYSTEMIC CONTEXT SCHIFFER 1972:159

Schiffer (1972) carried Binford’s functional context a step further into “systemic context,” which is a complex, bidimensional middle range theory about how the archaeological record is formed. He separated systemic context from archaeological context, which is synonomous with the archaeological record.

REFINED CONTEXTUAL PARADIGM BUTZER 1978; 1980

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

NONCULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

SPACE TIME

This differed substantially from Butzer’s 1978 and 1980 calls for context as a means of integrating archaeology. He defined context as “a fourdimensional, spatial-temporal matrix that comprises both a cultural and non-cultural environment, and that can apply to a single artifact or to a constellation of sites.” His emphasis on the ecological context of sites is a locus of connection to the other sciences and he points to the historical inclusion of ecology in archaeological research. Indeed, one need only to recall Keller’s treatise on The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland and Other Parts of Europe (translated into English by Lee in 1866) to find an early example of “environmental archaeology” that includes archaeobotany, geoarchaeology, and zooarchaeology. But just as Taylor lost sight of context as a theory because he was focused on criticizing the taxonomists and Phillips and Willey lost sight of a real theory because they were focused on Taylor, Butzer overfocused on ecology and his “refined contextual paradigm” never really caught on. Context in the refined contextual paradigm is the fourth dimension, the cube in the center of the tesseract model, that emerges from understanding the cultural and non-cultural environments in space and time.

TASKSCAPE INGOLD 1993

http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_groups/fp_wh3.html

As the end of the twentieth century neared, the archaeological understanding of context deepened. The concept of “taskscape” advanced by Ingold in 1993, expanded the circle of context. Archaeological sites are connected places in which people as active agents performed a multitude of tasks individually and collectively within a specific time frame, shaping and shaped by the landscape. A hunting camp, for instance, is not limited to the boundary of the camp. The taskscape or context of the task also includes the forest where the hunting happens and the river where the hunters washed the blood off their hands.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT LYMAN 2012

WEST

PROVENIENCE

ALTITUDE

SPACE

SOUTH

EAST

TIME STRATIGRAPHY

NORTH

DEPTH

ASSOCIATION PLOW ZONE CULTURAL LAYER UNDISTURBED SOIL

Entering the twenty-first century, we see a more technical approach to “archaeological context.” Stein (2008) looked at the “interpretive potential of provenience” and defined context as “characteristics of archaeological data that emerge from the analysis of documented associations among artifact assemblage variation, matrix composition, and provenience” omitting the landscape while acknowledging that archaeologists often impose a context upon their data. Additionally, she mentions primary context and secondary context and discusses stratigraphy in relation to the formation processes of the archaeological record. Lyman (2012), in response to Stein, defined archaeological context as a four dimensional construct of the tridimensional provenience plus association. Lyman’s definition is theory. It can be modeled and includes multiple subtheories, such as Stenonis on stratigraphy and Worsaae (1843) on association, and methodologies incorporative of middle range theory. Note that what archaeology calls “association” is equivalent to the idea that everything is potential context.

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT JAMES 2015:7

A provenienced archaeological site or subsite where a specific type of operation occurred in the past that is identified by associated features and artifact assemblages.

Archaeology has no agreed upon aggregate term for identifiable cultural places usually termed “ritual context,” “ceremonial site,” “residential context,” “public context,” and a host of similar phrases. They are sometimes called “functional contexts” in the literature, but this can be confused with Binford’s use of “functional context” in regards to tool function. So last year, I presented a paper that introduced the aggregate term “operational context,” which sounded too much like actions in the present. After reflection, I am reintroducing the idea here as “institutional context,” which is “defined as a provenienced archaeological site or subsite where a specific type of operation occurred in the past that is identified by associated features and artifact assemblages.” It differs from taskscape in that the taskscape is a multitude of temporally related locations in which related activities to complete a task have occurred. Institutional contexts are those locations which are limited to specific types of activities. Residential activities, for instance, occur in residential contexts. The idea allows for multiuse contexts in the sense that a ritual context can include the residential-like preparation and consumption of food for ceremonial feasts as well as non-residential activities like public ceremonies. One final form of context that is seldom explicit in archaeological writing, but is always implicit is research context. All of archaeology happens in a time and place, with all the opportunities and constraints that exist in that time and place. They can be economical, political, personal, ecological, etc. The reality of the research context adds an additional dimension to context. I will now conclude with a brief summary explanation of my ideas about multidimensional context as archaeological theory.

MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONTEXT RESEARCH CONTEXT

ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT

DEPOSITIONAL CONTEXT FORMATIONAL CONTEXT

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

SOCIAL CONTEXT

After studying all these ideas about context in archaeology – and many more – a bewildering array of colors and textures, I realized that all of these perspectives are accurate, even when they are critical of one another. How is that possible? It is possible because context is not a thing, it is a theory. Beginning with initial description, each analysis layers onto previous research, layers that overlap and are sometimes embedded. The model that I created includes the six major theoretical categories of archaeology. Each of the spheres can be examined on their own, but are also synergistically related and dynamically interconnected.

http://wellcomeimages.org/indexplus/gallery/DNA.html?f=19&vf=1

THEORY

METHOD

MODEL

http://i0.wp.com/www.theweavingloom.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CircleWeaveAddingThreadCover.jpg

MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONTEXT

Context is everything – it is the epistemelogical foundation of archaeology. My assertion is that multidimensional context is the epistemological result of archaeological praxis. The warp of the tapestry is the connection between theory and model. Methodology organizes and weaves the warp and the weft – the data or observations – together to produce the tapestry. Without methodology, theory is only a hypothesis. But when theory, model, and methodology are woven skillfully together, the tapestry of life in the past appears with all of its nuance and texture. Thank you.

C I TA T ION S B in fo rd ,Lew i sR .1962A rchaeo log ya sAn th ropo log y .Ame r i canAn t iqu i ty28 (2 ) :217225 . B in fo rd,Lew i sR .1981Bone s :An c ien t Menand Mode rn My th s .A cadem i cP re ss ,NewY o rk . Bu tze r,Ka r lW .1978T owa rdanIn teg ra ted ,Con te x tua lApp roa ch inA rchaeo log y :APe rsona lV iew .Jou rna lo fA rchaeo log i ca lS c ien ce 5 :191193 . Bu tze r,Ka r lW .1980 Con te x tinA rchaeo log y :AnA l te rna t i vePe rspe c t i ve .Jou rna lo fF ie ldA rchaeo log y7 (4 ) :417422 . C la rke ,Da v idL .1972Mode l s inA rchaeo log y . Me thuen&Co .L td . ,London . Couda r t, An i ck2006IsA rchaeo log yaS c ien ce ,anA r to raCo l le c t iono fInd i v idua lE xpe r imen ts . . .?A rchaeo log i ca lD ia logue s 13 (2 ) :132138 . Da rw in ,Cha r le s1964Onthe O r ig ino fSpe c ie sb yCha r le sDa rw in ,AFa cs im i leo ftheF i rs tEd i t ion . Ha rva rdUn i ve rs i tyP re ss , Camb r idge , Ma ssa chu se t tsandLondon ,Eng land .O r ig ina l l ypub l i shed1859Onthe O r ig ino fSpe c ie sb y Mean so fNa tu ra lSe le c t ion , o rtheP re se rva t iono fFa vou redRa ce s intheS t rugg lefo rL i fe ,John Mu r ra y ,London . Gou ld ,S tephenJa y2002 TheS t ru c tu reo fE vo lu t iona ryH i s to ry .TheBe l knapP re ss ,Camb r idge , Ma ssa chu se t ts . Hegmon, M i che l le2003Se t t ingTheo re t i ca lEgo sA s ide :Issue sandTheo ry inNo r thAme r i canA rchaeo log y .Ame r i canAn t iqu i ty 68 (2 ) :213243 . Ingo ld ,T im1993TheT empo ra l i tyo ftheLand scape .Wo r ldA rchaeo log y 25 (2 ) :152174. Jame s ,V i v ianS .2015 Ope ra t iona lCon te x t :S ta t ingthe Ob v iou s(AndNo tSo Ob v iou s ) .Pape rp re sen teda ttheAn th ropo log y G radua teS tuden tO rgan i za t ionS tuden tS ympo s ium ,A lban y ,NewY o rk . John son , Ma t thewH .2006 OntheNa tu reo fTheo re t i ca lA rchaeo log yandA rchaeo log i ca lTheo ry .A rchaeo log i ca lD ia logue s 13 (2 ) :1 17132.

C I TA T ION S

Lee ,JohnEdwa rd1866TheLa keDwe l l ing so fSw i tze r landand O the rPa r tso fEu ropeb yFe rd inandKe l le r .Longman s ,G reen ,and Co . ,London . L yman,R .Lee2007A rchaeo log y ’ s Que s tfo raSea ta ttheH ighT ab leo fAn th ropo log y .Jou rna lo fAn th ropo log i ca lA rchaeo log y 26 :133149 . L yman ,R .Lee2012AH i s to r i ca lS ke tchontheCon cep tso fA rchaeo log i ca lA sso c ia t ion ,Con te x t ,andP ro ven ien ce .Jou rna lo f A rchaeo log i ca l Me thodandTheo ry19 :207240 . Ph i l l ip s ,Ph i l ip ,and Go rdonR .W i l le y1953 Me thodandTheo ry inAme r i canA rcheo log y :An Ope ra t iona lBa s i sfo rCu l tu reH i s to r i ca l In teg ra t ion .Ame r i canAn th ropo log i s t55 (5 ) :615633 . S ch i f fe r, M i chae lB .1972A rchaeo log i ca lCon te x tandS ys tem i cCon te x t .Ame r i canAn t iqu i ty37 (2 ) :156165 . S ch i f fe r, M i chae lB .1988TheS t ru c tu reo fA rchaeo log i ca lTheo ry .Ame r i canAn t iqu i ty53 (3 ) :461485 . S c i l la,Ago s t ino1759Co ra l iumA r t i cu la tumquodCop io s i ss imumin Rup ibu se tCo l l ibu sMe ssanae Repe r i tu r.( “A r t i cu la tedCo ra l , Found in G rea tAbundan ce intheC l i f fsandH i l l so f Me ss ina ” )InDeCo rpo r ibu sMa r in i s Lap ide scen t ibu squaeDe fo ssaRepe r iun tu r ( “OnPe t r i f ied Ma r ineAn ima l stha ta reFoundBu r ied ” ) ,T a v.XX I ,F ig .I .Mona ld in i,Rome .O r ig ina l l ypub l i shed in1670LaVana Spe cu la z ioneD i s inganna tada lSen so( “V a inSpe cu la t ionUnde ce i vedb ytheSen se s ” ) .A .Co l i cch ia,Nap le s . S te in ,Ju l ieK .2008E xp lo r ingtheH i s to r i ca lFounda t ion sandIn te rp re t i vePo ten t ia lo fP ro ven ien ce .InA rchaeo log i ca lCon cep tsfo r theS tud yo ftheCu l tu ra lPa s t ,ed i tedb yA .P .Su l l i van ,pp .108124 .Un i ve rs i tyo fU tahP re ss ,Sa l tLa keC i ty . S tenon i s,N i co la i1699DeSo l idoin t ra So l id vmNa tv ra l i te rCon ten to:D i sse r ta t ion i sp rod rom vsadSe ren i ss im vm.S te l lae,F lo ren t iae. W i thre fe ren cetotheEng l i sht ran s la t ionpub l i shedb yJohn Ga r re t tW in te r1916 TheP rod romu so fN i co lau sS teno ’ sD i sse r ta t ion : Con ce rn ingaSo l idBod yEn c lo sedb yP ro ce sso fNa tu rew i th inaSo l id .The Ma cm i l lanCompan y ,NewY o rkandLondon . T a y lo r , Wa l te r1948AS tud yo fA rchaeo log y .Memo i rsNo .69 .Ame r i canAn th ropo log i ca lA sso c ia t ion , Wa sh ing ton ,D .C . Thoms, W i l l iamJ .1849TheP r ime va lAn t iqu i t ie so fDenma rkb yJ .J .A .Wo rsaae.JohnHen ryPa rke r ,London .