Lewis Binford, Professor of Archaeology, passed away on April 11, 2011. I am not sure how well-known Prof. Binford is amongst the latest generation of Classical Archaeologists, but his work had a very strong impact on my development. I was first introduced to his work as a Freshman at the University of Albany, SUNY in a course “Introduction to Archaeology” and was immediately turned onto the premise that we should not simply recover and describe artifacts but we need to “interrogate” archaeological features and assemblages according to a scientific method in order to draw conclusions about human cultures. This all seems self-evident today, but when he developed his theories and, in fact, a new school of archaeology in the 1960s and 70s (called, New Archeology or Processual Archaeology), he was a revolutionary. He was not the first or last to write archaeological theory, but he certainly made archaeological theory a more important part of scholarship.
Binford was an undergraduate and graduate student at a time when archaeology was in transition. The age of Antiquarianism was on the wane as more and more scholars began to pay attention to all details of archaeological projects: careful stratigraphic excavation techniques, proper recording of trenches, features and finds, analysis of all archaeological objects. Conclusions were broadening out from descriptions of this or that building or object to discussions of “cultures”. Archaeologists used seriation to study the development of artifact assemblages and features over time; they were discussing cultural change and influence. There were also background debates about the discipline of archaeology – normally viewed as a “fun” tool for answering “higher level” anthropological or historical questions.
As he matured, Binford sought to do more and to put the discipline of Archaeology on the map. Some of his key articles are “Archaeology as Anthropology” (1962), “Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process” (1965), and “Some Comments on Historical versus Processual Archaeology” (1968). It was also in 1968 that he edited a volume with his wife Sally Binford “New Perspectives in Archeology,” the result of a conference he organized in order to demonstrate the state of the discipline. Through these and later works, he developed his ideas and I will describe the basic tenets.
Perhaps the two greatest ambitions of the New Archeology were to elucidate cultural systems and processes and to study the statics and dynamics of human cultures. Drawing from systems theory and structuralism, Binford proposed that archaeological materials can be studied in order to reveal information regarding cultural systems and sub-systems (e.g., social organization, religion, science, technology, art). Any sub-system of a given culture can affect or be affected by other sub-systems, which can lead to small or significant cultural change. Binford argued that archaeological materials can be used to effectively study non-material aspects of culture.
Linked to this, Binford sought to investigate the statics and dynamics of cultures: archaeology is the study of “static” objects and features which can reveal important information regarding the dynamics of society. For example, the examination of a stone tool (type of stone, shape, technique) can reveal technological innovations, function and so forth. Comparisons of stone tools from different times may lead to understandings in change (not only that we see type X first and then type Y). We can ask questions such as who made the tool and how? Why this particular stone quality and/or shape? What affected change in stone quality and/or shape from X to Y – greater efficiency? response to environmental change? religion? influence from another culture? “Processual change in one variable can then be shown to relate in a predictable and quantifiable way to changes in other variables, the latter changing in turn relative to changes in the structure of the system as a whole. This approach to explanation presupposes concern with process, or the operation and structural modification of systems” (Binford 1962, 217).
In order to achieve this, Binford proposed adhesion to the scientific method of beginning with explicit aims, establishing and following an approach, gathering evidence, testing hypothesis; if hypothesis is correct, it joins body of reliable knowledge upon which new hypotheses can be based, if not the researcher develops a new hypothesis to be tested. Archaeological excavation should be conducted scientifically to obtain solid data – attention to strata, recovering and documenting all features and artifacts. Computer analyses were now available as were early archaeometric techniques such as Carbon 14 dating. Because Binford was a prehistorian, his evidence was quite scarce (unlike classical archaeologists who have far more material evidence); therefore, Binford relied strongly upon ethnographic analogy. He stressed that while the study of living cultures could help interpret archaeological scenarios, he was cautious, indicating that careful testing and comparison had to be conducted and that similarities between ancient and modern patterns might not explain the past.
Binford clearly had his critics and it is amusing to read articles of his critics and his responses. One of his earliest critics, Walter W. Taylor, essentially stated in a review of “New Perspectives in Archeology” that Binford and his colleagues were not really doing anything new despite statements that they were moving away from “traditional archaeology”; Taylor wrote that the “New Archeologists” were re-hashing in a dramatic way archaeological theory which had been developed 20 years prior. One major critique was of Binford’s “covering laws”. Earlier in his career Binford maintained that human culture developed in a more or less parallel manner regardless of time and space; he set out to establish general covering laws that could explain any archaeological situation.
Binford clearly developed many ideas which archaeologists can agree with or not; most importantly he was an extremely vocal advocate of archaeological theory. Archaeologists must really set out to think about their data; they should not be content with description. In order to draw important “cultural” conclusions from a set of data, one needs to develop serious questions and approaches and must examine data in the context of the questions and approaches. Indeed, know it or not, most contemporary archaeologists follow his essential model.
When I was writing my PhD dissertation on Roman pottery, I read a lot of archaeological theory; I even co-organized a conference in Rome called “Archaeological Methods and Approaches.” At some point, I decided to write a fan letter to Prof. Binford….and he responded! He wrote that he was pleased to hear that classical archaeologists were reading his (and others’) work and were keeping a pulse on archaeological theory. He was one of the Greats - so read some of his work!
