Chang K.C. (ed.) Settlement Archaeology

Palo Alto, California: National Press Books, 1968. — x, 229 p.Archeologists have, over the past decade, become increasingly interested in describing aspects of prehistoric societies that were formerly thought impossible to elucidate. The focus is on reconstructing social organization-residence patterns, task organization, integrative institutions, statuses, and so forth. Argument over how such organizational features can best be discovered and their existence confirmed empirically is increasingly heated; and since this book is an attempt to present an appropriate methodology, it will provoke further healthy escalation of the argument.
Chang's purpose in assembling the 11 very diverse papers in this book is at least threefold: to present some of the basic theoretical and methodological tenets of a fashionable new "approach" in archeology-the "settlement approach"; to present some of the kinds of problems the settlement archeologist must face; and to provide further substantive examples of this so-called "new archeology." While the first of these goals is only partially met, the others fare much better. The book, taken as a whole, is a comprehensive and illuminating discussion of the programs and practices of the settlement "school" of archeology.
A most provocative paper is Chang's own contribution, "Toward a science of prehistoric society," in which he sets forth a rationale and proposed methodology for a settlement approach. A paper by Irving Rouse expresses strong disagreement with Chang, especially with regard to the priority of research procedures. The other papers are all stimulating products of noted professionals, including James Deetz (artifact typology), Robert Ascher (stages of structural decay in contemporary villages), Bruce G. Trigger (determinants of settlement patterns), Sherburne F. Cook and Robert F. Heizer (relationships of floor-space and site area to population size), John W. M. Whiting and Barbara Ayres (architectural and sociological inferences based on dwelling shapes), William Sears (settlement models indicating levels of organizational complexity), Evon Z. Vogt (Zinacantan organizational model as applicable to the prehistoric Maya), and William Y. Adams (inferences from the changing settlement plan of a Nubian village). The final paper is an appraisal by Gordon R. Willey, including an adjudication of the disagreements between Chang and Rouse.
Chang's claim that settlement archeology is a new archeology, although not without merit, is somewhat exaggerated. In the first place, no new theory is presented. The major premises are left implicit, and they represent no departure from traditional eclecticism. Further more, there is little new in a methodological sense. Chang's statement of methodology is essentially a series of definitions of concepts, lacking clearly specified guidelines as to how one might actually go about discovering the organizational features of prehistoric societies. Trigger's paper, though more clear in this regard, reaffirms the traditional method of simply applying inferences drawn from ethnographic data to the archeological record, without adequate test. Methods of analysis also remain unchanged, since the implication is that, once sociological traits have been described, the analytical goal is to place them into foci, phases, and so forth-as has been done traditionally with artifacts. One must conclude, in agreement with Willey's appraisal, that the newness of this endeavor lies primarily in the nature of the data being examined. Instead of making inferences solely from the traditionally considered kinds of artifacts, settlement archeologists are making inferences from a previously inadequately examined class of artifacts-the structures, village plans, and site distributions of prehistoric peoples.
It is also important to note that although Chang conceives of the settlement approach as a beginning toward a science of society, there is little indication in the primary methodological papers (Chang and Trigger) that what are generally accepted as goals and methods of science are being advocated or employed. There is, for example, no indication of interest in explaining variability and change in social organization. Thus far, the goals appear to be primarily descriptive. Science attempts more than this; it involves a commnitment to the search for nomothetic principles-laws or generalizations of process. In addition, this book lacks an awareness of accepted hypothesis-testing procedures; this too is fundamental to a science.
Nonetheless the book is important. It is important because of the continuing claim that settlement studies represent a new approach. It is also important, however, because it does present a departure from tradition-it provides a further demonstration that settlement data are indeed useful in drawing inferences about the ways in which past human societies were organized. The many specific examples (both real and expected) of the relationships between social organization and settlement characteristics are stimulating and useful. And further, these relationships are frequently presented in the form of descriptive cross-cultural generalizations. Such relationships are just beginning to be discovered, and the effort to find them must be encouraged.(Review by James N. Hill, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles in: Science. — 1969. — Vol. 166, Issue 3903. — pp. 367-368).K. C. Chang. Toward a Science of Prehistoric Society.
Irving Rouse. Prehistory, Typology, and the Study of Society.
James Deetz. Cultural Patterning of Behavior as Reflected by Archaeological Materials.
Robert Ascher. Time’s Arrow and the Archaeology of a Contemporary Community.
Bruce G. Trigger. The Determinants of Settlement Patterns.
Sherburne F. Cook and Robert F. Heizer. Relationships among Houses, Settlement Areas, and Population in Aboriginal California.
John W. M. Whiting and Barbara Ayres. Inferences from the Shape of Dwellings.
William Sears. The State and Settlement Patterns in the New World.
Evon Z. Vogt. Some Aspects of Zinacantan Settlement Patterns and Ceremonial Organization.
William Y. Adams. Settlement Pattern in Microcosm: The Changing Aspect of a Nubian Village during Twelve Centuries.
Gordon R. Willey. Settlement Archaeology: An Appraisal.