read schiffer rathje 1975

7/28/2019 Read Schiffer Rathje 1975

1/7

Behavioral Archaeology: Four Strategies

Author(s): J. Jefferson Reid, Michael B. Schiffer, William L. RathjeSource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 77, No. 4 (Dec., 1975), pp. 864-869Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/674794

Accessed: 21/11/2008 16:04

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 unless

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

may 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 athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

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

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing andAmerican Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAmerican Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/674794?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/674794?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/7

BehavioralArchaeology:FourStrategiesl

J. JEFFERSON REID,MICHAEL B. SCHIFFER,and WILLIAML. RATHJEUniversity of ArizonaTo some it might seem as though archae-ology has ceased to exist as an organizeddiscipline. "Paleoethnology," "ethno-archaeology," "action," "living," "experi-mental," "contract," "public," "pro-cessual," "historic," "systems," and "in-dustrial archaeology," as well as many otherseemingly disparate programs, compete forthe attention of modern archaeologists. Thisdiversification of research interests is sofar-reaching that it compels us to ask funda-mental questions about what we are doing,why we are doing it, and how it relates towhat others are doing. We contend that theexpansion of archaeology into little-exploreddomains is an expectable outcome of severallong-term processes operating in the dis-cipline. Clearly, these processes are leading

to an expanded conception of the natureand aims of archaeology. Archaeology hasnot ceased to exist as an organized dis-cipline; it is merely reorganizing into a newconfiguration.This paper outlines some features of thatnew configuration. We show that archae-ology can be defined simply as the study ofrelationships between human behavior andmaterial culture. The kinds of questions thatcan be asked about these relationships formthe basis for our proposal that a behavioralarchaeology consists of four interrelatedstrategies. These strategies are integrated bythe circulation of general questions andgeneral laws.Behauiorul Archaeology

A behavioral archaeology is the study ofmaterial objects regardless of time or spacein order to describe and explain humanbehavior (Deetz 1972; Leone 1972; Long-acre 1972; Reid and Schiffer 1973). Therelationships between human behavior andmaterial objects can be approached from

Submitted for publication October 24, 1974Accepted for publication February 25, 1975

severaldirections, dependingon the natureof the questions asked. Therefore,the fourstrategies of a behavioral archaeologyaredefined on the basis of questiontype (Fig.1).

Material ObjectsPast

Human Past 1Behavior Present 3

Present24

Fig. 1. Strategiesof a behavioral rchaeology.Strategy 1

Strategy 1 is concerned with usingmate-rial culture that was made in the past toanswerspecific questionsabout past humanbehavior. For example,one mightask:Whatwas the population of the GrasshopperPueblo between A.D. 12'15 and A.D. 1400?When was the Joint Site occupied? Whatplant and animal resources were exploitedby the Upper Pleistocene inhabitants ofTabun? Such specific questions, bound toparticular ime-spaceloci, form the basisofarchaeology as it has been traditionallypracticed.It should be emphasized hat whilepartic-ular questions deal with both descriptionand explanation of past events and systemproperties(Binford1962), explanatorygoalshave properly come to dominatestudies ofthe past (Willey and Sabloff 1974). Asarchaeologistsgrappledwith the nature ofexplanation,they found it necessary o drawon a wide variety of behavioral laws tofacilitate documenting and explaining pastevents. Regardlessof whether or not onesubscribes o the Hempel-Oppenheimmodelof explanation, the emerging mportanceoflawsin archaeology s apparent.Archaeologistsworkingwithin Strategy 1are law-users(Binford 1968; Trigger1970;Fritz and Plog 1970; Watson,LeBlanc,andRedman 1971; Schiffer 1972). Some fail torecognize this fact, ytt proceed to makeassumptions that function as laws. For ex-ample, Jennings (1974:129) remarks con-cerning he NorthAmericanArchaic hat "asthe population increasedand regionalvaria-tion accelerated, there is more and morelikelihood of local cultural exchange fromgroupto group."

864

DISCUSSION NDDEBATE


3/7

DISCUSSION AND DEBATE 865It is usually arguedthat the laws we usederive from ethnology or other socialsciences (Trigger1970), and it is now quitefashionable to discuss the interrelationshipof archaeologyand ethnology (Chang1967a,1967b), even though this relationship s saidto involve a one-way flow of generallawsinto archaeology. While it is certainly truethat some archaeologistsborrow laws fromother disciplines,especially ethnology, it isnot true that this flow need be unidirection-al. Otherarchaeologists ealizethat a scienceis likely to produceonly the laws for whichit has a use. Consequently, here-isno reasonto expect that ethnology, or any otherdiscipline,has produced,or can produce, allthe laws required o describeand explaintheevents of the past (Schiffer 1971). The

thrustof this realizationhas been the devel-opmentof Strategy2.Strategy 2

ResearchwithinStrategy2 pursuesgener-al questions in present material culture inorder to acquirelaws useful for the study ofthe past. Some generalquestions that typifyStrategy2 are:Whatarethe traces of varioustechniquesof manufactureon a giventypeof material? What is the relationship be-tween the population of a site and itshabitation area? How long does it takevariousmaterials o decay undergivencondi-tons of deposition? Why are whole, usableitems discarded?These are generalquestionsbecause they are not bound to specifictime-space referents. The answers to thesequestions take the form of experimentallaws. Experimental archaeology (Ascher1961), action archaeology(KleindienstandWatson 1956 ), ethnoarchaeology (OswaltandVanStone 1967), andlivingarchaeology(Gould 1968) are labels for var ants ofStrategy2.Although many early studies producedinterestingand useful results, in general heytreated a narrow range of variables.Mostdealt with manufacturing behavior, thetraces of use wear on specific types ofartifacts, or variousprocessesof decay andnoncultural deposition (Clark1960; Heizerand Graham1967; Hesterand Heizer 1973;Hole and Heizer 1973). We emphasizethatStrategy 2 straddles the entire range ofbehavioral and organizationalvariables inrelation to material, spatial, and even en-vironmental variables. Research efforts

guiding this expansionare underway(Whiteand Thomas 197 2; Saraydarand Shimada1973; Schiffer 1973; Binford 1973; Long-acre 1974). One looks forwardto the daywhen the full potential of Strategy 2 isachieved.

The development of Strategy 2 resultsfrom a longstanding,tacit recognitionthatbehavioral aws are needed to answerques-tions about the past. By establishingtheselaws in ongoing systems and by variousexperiments archaeologistshave expanded,more by necessity than design,their realiza-tion of what archaeologycan become, andmThatrchaeologyhas alreadybecome.As archaeologists nvestigateda varietyofquestions on present materialculture, theyfound, like generationsof ethnologists be-fore them, that ethnographicdata were notvery useful for testing laws about long-termprocesses of cultural change. There havebeen two solutionsto this problem.The firstwas to turn to non-anthropologicaldis-ciplines in searchof potentially useful laws.Thus a major trend now evident in archae-ology is interdisciplinaryborrowing. Prin-ciples, methods, and techniquesfrom fieldsas diverse as systems theory, biologicalecology, informationtheory, and locationalgeography now frequently punctuate thearchaeological iterature.Although the ulti-mate utility of many of these ideas remainsto be demonstrated, such borrowings areinevitableandnecessary.The second solution was to explore thepossibility that the archaeological recorditself might be an ideal laboratory forderiving laws of cultural change processes(Binford 1962; Wauchope 1966; Leone1968; Zubrow 1971; Woodall 1972; Plog1973a, 1973b, 1974). Once available, heselaws could also be applied to explain andpredict contemporary behavioral change.The realizationthat archaeologists ould usetheir data base from the past to answerquestions about long-termchangeprocesseshas led to the conscious emergence ofStrategy3.Strategy 3Strategy 3 is the pursuit of generalquestions in the study of past materialremains to derive behavioral laws of wideapplicabilitythat illuminatepast as well aspresenthumanbehavior.The questionsthattypify this strategy, like those in Strategy2,are general and do not have specific time-space referents.Examples nclude: Whatarethe determinantsof variabilityin organiza-tional complexity? What factors explainvariability in storage capacity? How doculturalsystems adaptto changes n popula-tion? As in Strategy 2, these questions areanswered n termsof laws An implicationofthis strategyis thatsuch laws arepotentiallyrelevant to modern social problems andissues.


4/7

866 AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST [77,1975 ]Strategy 3 with its prominent theme ofsocial relevance is deeply rooted in thewritings of the late Paul S. Martin ( 1954,1971; Martin, Quimby, and Collier 194 7;Martinand Plog 1973; Fritz and Plog 1970).

This theme of relevance has been stifled inthe past for lack of an appropriatemethod-ological vehicle and has remained only amuted plea until the emergence of explicitconcern with formulating laws. Since lawsare atemporal and aspatial, they should beapplicable to any situation where the initialand boundary conditions are met (Hempel1966; Reynolds 1971 ). Though concernwith laws provides he long-awaitedmethod-ological breakthrough, relevance and thesearch for laws are not inseparablybound.Laws can be formulated and tested withoutbeing applied in a socially relevant context.This is an investigator'sprerogative. How-ever, in order for statements derived fromthe past to be applied in a sociallyrelevant context of the present, they mustconform to the format of a law.Strategy 3 gives substance to the claimthat within anthropology only archaeologypossesses the requisite time depth necessaryto the study of long-term cultural change(cf. Plog 1973b, 1974). It is difficult toimagine insisting on the importanceof timedepth without also insisting on the need forgenerating and testing laws since archae-ology's contributions to predictive anthro-pological theory are contingent on theselaws (Titiev 1961:183).Time depth is not archaeologys onlypotential contribution to anthropology. Byvirtue of years of researchwithin Strategies1 and 2 archaeologists now possess anexpanding body of theory, method, andbehavioral laws for the study of materialobjects and human behavior regardlessoftime and space. As archaeologists n urbanenvironmentshave sought to teach and testarchaeologicalprinciples, they have turnedto modern materialculture as an untapped,renewable data base. In exploring the rela-tionships between archaeologicalprinciplesand material culture, they have discoveredthat archaeologycan make contributions tothe understandingof present human behav-ior and have thereby opened the way toStrategy 4 (Salwen 1973; Reid, Rathje andSchiffer 1974; Rathje 1974).Strategy 4

Strategy4 is the study of present materialobjects in ongoing cultural systems todescribe and explain present human lrehav-ior. Strategy 4, then, includes the study ofcontemporary industrial as well as non-industrial societies. However, its potential

contribution to social science derives fromthe research possibilities of studying modernmaterial culture in modern industrial soci-eties.The questions asked within Strategy 4 areusually specific questions about ongoingsocieties. For example: What patterns ofmeat and liquor consumption characterizedifferent ethnic groups in Tucson, Arizona?Do members of higher socioeconomic groupswaste non-renewable resources in Fayette-ville, Arkansas? How many times is a tele-vision set owned before it is discarded in LosAngeles? The Garbage Project at the Univer-sity of Arizona is now exploring solutions tomany interesting questions in Strategy 4(Rathje 1974). It is anticipated that Strategy4 holds much promise for those concernedwith archaeological relevance and for thosewishing to contribute to the analysis andexplanation of modern behavior.The expansion of research into Strategies2, 3, and 4 more accurately reflects thedevelopment of archaeology as a disciplineand should permit a more meaningfulprocessual history of this subject to bepresented in the near future. The importanceof this expansion to present discussions isthat it reflects the essential interrelatednessof all four strategies. The pursuit of Strategy1 has always required information gainedthrough Strategy 2 and these requirementsneed not be met exclusively by ethnologists.In like manner, Strategy 3 embodiesprocedures that seek to contribute to an-thropological theory and thereby to anunderstanding of contemporary behavior.Recognition of Strategy 4 merely closes alogical set of research options to embracethe attainment of goals common to mostarchaeologists. We emphasize that abehavioral archaeology is a synthesis of whatarchaeologists have done and aspire to doand that the essential interrelatedness amongthe strategies has roots deep in the progres-sive development of the discipline as awhole.Information Flow

Viewed as a conjunction of four strate-gies, archaeology is more than a looseaggregation of subfields. Instead, thestrategies of a behavioral archaeology areintegrated by the flow of general questionsand general laws. A behavioral archaeologymust exceed the sum of its parts since itdepends upon the interaction among all fourstrategies. This interaction further distin-guishes the uniqueness of individual researchand highlights the unity of combined re-search activity.Strategies 1 and 4 emphasize the idi-


5/7

DISCUSSION AND DEBATE 867ographic component of archaeology whileStrategies 2 and 3 emphasize the nomotheticcomponent. Within this framework, thetiresome debate about archaeology as his-tory or science is seen to revolve around theoveremphasis upon one component to theexclusion of the other.Strategies 1 and 4, concerned with answer-ing particular questions about the past andpresent, cannot exist without Strategies 2and 3 to provide needed laws. On the otherhand, particular questions raised withinStrategies 1 and 4 can lead to the discoverythat no appropriate laws are available. Thisimpasse is resolved when a general question,formulated and fed into Strategy 2 or 3,serves as a basis for law construction andtesting.

We cannot emphasize too strongly thatthese research strategies are interdependentand together contribute to a more sub-stantial body of theory and method and amore powerful behavioral discipline. This isnot to say that any individual must becompetent in the execution of all fourstrategies. That would be inefficient. It isalso apparent that a single investigator mayoperate simultaneously in more than onestrategy. Yet, if questions raised withinStrategies 1 and 4 are to be successfullyanswered, it is necessary that the disciplineas a whole support studies in Strategies 2and 3. Furthermore, if Strategies 2 and 3 areto succeed in producing useful laws, thenappropriate questions must be obtainedfrom Strategies 1 and 4.Conclusion

The development of Strategies 2, 3, and axhas led to a redefinition of archaeologybased on a broad conception of its subjectmatter and the kinds of questions that areasked. It no longer seems possible to viewarchaeology as only the study of the past.To be sure, questions in Strategy 1 willproperly continue to occupy the researchefforts of most archaeologists, but a moreproductive view of the field as an integratedwhole recognizes the essential contributionof other archaeologists. In the framework ofa behavioral archaeology, the study ofurbanization at Teotihuacan, stone chippingin the Outback, human adju,stments to en-vironmental stress, and meat consumption inTucson, Arizona, are all legitimate andproductive archaeological research activities.No tes

IWe wish to thank those colleagues,students and nameless voices in several pro-fessional meeting audiences who assisted in

the refinement of our ideas through theircomments and encouragement. We areespecially grateful to Merrilee H. Salmon foradvice and invaluable assistance in the natureof logical things and to H. A. Luebbermann,Jr., for his perceptive comments on the finaldraft. However, the responsibility for anylapse of mind or pen that remains will, ofcourse, be assigned by any one author to theother two.References CitedAscher, Robert1961 Experimental Archeology. Ameri-can Anthropologist 63:793-816.Binford, Lewis R.1962 Archaeology as Anthropology.

American Antiquity 28: 217-225.1968 Archeological Perspectives. In NewPerspectives in Archeology. S. Binfordand L. Binford, Eds. Chicago: Aldine.pp. 5-32.1973 Interassemblage Variability-TheMousterian and the "Functional"Argument. In the Explanation ofCulture Change: Models in Prehistory.C. Renfrew, Ed London: Duckworth.pp. 227-254.Chang, K. C.1967a Rethinking Archaeology. NewYork: Random House.1967b Major Aspects of the Interrela-tionship of Archaeology and Ethnol-ogy. Current Anthropology 8: 227-234.Clark, J. G. D.1960 Archaeology and Society: Recon-structing the Prehistoric Past. London:Methuen.Deetz, James F.1972 Archaeology as a Social Science.In Contemporary Archaeology. M.

Leone, Ed. Carbondale: SouthernIllinois University Press. pp. 108-117.Fritz, John M., and Fred T. Plog1970 The Nature of Archaeological Ex-planation. American Antiquity35:405-412.Gould, Richard A.1968 Living Archaeology: The Ngatat-jara of Western Australia. South-western Journal of Anthropology24: 101-122.Heizer, Robert F., and John A. Graham1967 A Guide to Field Methods inArchaeology. Palo Alto, CA: NationalPress.Hempel, Carl G.19 66 The Philosophy of NaturalS c i e n ce. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.


6/7

868 AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST [77,1975]Hester,Thomas R., and Robert F. Heizer197 3 Bibliography of Archaeology I:Experiments, Lithic Technology andPetrography.Addison-WesleyModularPublicationsNo. 29.Hole, Frank,and Robert F. Heizer1973 An Introduction to PrehistoricArcheology. New York: Holt, Rine-hart and Winston.Jennings,Jesse D.1974 Prehistoryof North America.NewYork: McGraw-Hill.Kleindienst, Maxine, R., and Patty Jo Wat-son1956 Action Archeology: The Arche-ological Inventory of a Living Com-m unity. Anthropology Tomorrow5:75-78.Leone, MarkP.1968 Neolithic Economic Autonomyand Social Distance. Science162:1 150-1151.1972 Issues in AnthropologicalArchae-ology. In ContemporaryArchaeology.M. Leone, Ed. Carbondale:SouthernIllinois UniversityPress.pp. 14-27.Longacre,WilliamA.19 7 2 Comments on ArchaeologicalAnalysis of Prehistoric Society. Nor-wegian Archaeological Review 5: 7-9.1974 Kalinga Pottery-Making:The Evo-

lution of a ResearchDesign.In Fron-tiers of Anthropology. M. Leaf, Ed.New York: Van Nostrand. pp. 51-67.Martin,Paul S.1954 Comments. American Anthro-pologist 56:570-572.1971 The Revolution in Archaeology.AmericanAntiquity 3 6: 1-8.Martin,Paul S., and Fred T. Plog1973 The Archaeology of Arizona.NewYork: NaturalHistoryPress.Martin, Paul S., George L. Quimby, andDonald Collier1947 Indians Before Columbus.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Oswalt,W. H., and J. W. Van Stone1967 The Ethnoarcheologyof Crow Vil-lage, Alaska. Bureauof AmericanEth-nology Bulletin 199.Plog, Fred T.1973a Laws, Systems of Laws, and theExplanation of Observed Variability.In The Explanation of CultureChange:Models in Prehistory.C. Ren-frew, Ed. London: Duckworth. pp.649-662.1973b DiachronicAnthropology.In Re-search and Theory in CurrentArche-ology. C. Redman, Ed. New York:Wiley. pp. 181-198.1974 The Study of PrehistoricChange.New York: AcademicPress.

Rathje,WilliamL.1974 The GarbageProject: A New Wayof Looking at the Problemsof Archae-ology. Archaeology27:236-241.Reid, J. Jefferson, and MichaelB. Schiffer1973 Prospectsfor a BehavioralArchae-ology. Paper presented at the 7 2ndAnnual Meeting of the AmericanAn-thropological Association, NewOrleans.Reid, J. Jefferson, William L. Rathje, andMichaelB. Schiffer1974 ExpandingArchaeology.AmericanAntiquity 39:125-126.Reynolds, Paul D.1971 A Primer n Theory Construction.New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Salwen, Bert1973 Archeology in Megalopolis. n Re-search and Theory in CurrentArche-ology. C. Redman, Ed. New York:Wiley. pp. 151-163.Saraydar,Stephen, and Izumi Shimada1973 Experimental Archaeology ANew Outlook. American Antiquity28: 344-350.Schiffer, MichaelB.1971 Archaeology as Behavioral Sci-ence. Paper presented at the 36thAnnual Meeting of the Society forAmericanArchaeology,Norman.197 2 Archaeological Context and Sys-temic Context. American Antiquity37: 156-165.1973 The Relationship Between AccessVolume and Content Diversity ofStorage Facilities. AmericanAntiquity38:1 14-116.Titiev, Mischa1961 Introduction to Cultural Anthro-pology. New York: Holt, RinehartandWinston.Trigger,BruceG.197 0 Aims in Prehistoric Archaeology.Antiquity 44: 26-37.Watson, Patty Jo, Steven A. LeBlanc, andCharlesL. Redman1971 Explanation in Archaeology: AnExplicitly Scientific Approach. NewYork: ColumbiaUniversityPress.Wauchope,Robert1966 ArchaeologicalSurveyof NorthernGeorgia.Society for AmericanArchae-ology Memoir21.White,J. P., and D. H. Thomas1972 What Mean these Stones? Ethno-taxonomic Models and ArchaeologicalInterpretations in the New GuineaHighlands. n Models in Archaeology.D. Clarke, Ed. London: Methuen. pp.27 5-308.Willey,Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff


7/7

DISCUSSION AND DEBATEISCUSSION AND DEBATE 869691974 A History of American Archae-ology. San Francisco:Freeman.Woodall,J. Ned1972 An Introduction o ModernArche-ology. Cambridge,MA:Schenkman.Zubrow,EzraB. W.1971 Carrying Capacity and DynamicEquilibriumin the PrehistoricSouth-west. AmericanAntiquity36:127-138.

ReinventingAnthropology:Response o KaplanandDonaldDELLHYMESUniversityof Pennsy vania

I appreciatethe serious reviewsof Rein-venting Anthropology by Kaplan (AA76:824-839, 1974) and Donald (AA76:857-861, 1974). They are the first. Iwould like to clarifya few respects n whichmy own contribution has been misunder-stood, or perhapsbeen insufficiently clear.Kaplan(p. 824) suggeststhat to beginbysaying that anthropology, f reinventednow,would not be the same, is a cryptic way ofsayingthat anthropologyhas becomeotiose.Later in the essay I state that the point ofview is to revise,not to repudiate.The initialremark s a way of dramatizing he problemof departmentalboundariesandof parochialinterpretations of the notion of "generalanthropology." Such problemsare familiarin any discipline;I wrote amid what was tome traumaticexperience.The book's majorpurposeis taken to be"to tell us what forms and directions thisrevitalization of the discipline ought totake" (p. 824). In my own mind, the majorpurposeis to question:validanswersdependupon continuing reflection and practicalexperience.It is perhapsinevitable that ReinuentingAnthropology should seem a symbol, and aunitary one. In fact, it is accidental hat it isthe only U.S. statement of such issues inbook-form. Others contemplated books atthe time (cf. note 2 of my essay). Thebook's symbolic status, then, owes more toeditorial habit and Sitzfleisch han to dis-tinctive passion or position. As it is, thebook's main use, apart from serving as atarget, has come to be as startingpoint fordiscussion of issues that must be part ofanthropology'scontinuingself-reflectionandcritique.This fulfills its majorpurpose(it is,indeed, part of a seriesof "anti-textbooks").

1974 A History of American Archae-ology. San Francisco:Freeman.Woodall,J. Ned1972 An Introduction o ModernArche-ology. Cambridge,MA:Schenkman.Zubrow,EzraB. W.1971 Carrying Capacity and DynamicEquilibriumin the PrehistoricSouth-west. AmericanAntiquity36:127-138.

ReinventingAnthropology:Response o KaplanandDonaldDELLHYMESUniversityof Pennsy vania

I appreciatethe serious reviewsof Rein-venting Anthropology by Kaplan (AA76:824-839, 1974) and Donald (AA76:857-861, 1974). They are the first. Iwould like to clarifya few respects n whichmy own contribution has been misunder-stood, or perhapsbeen insufficiently clear.Kaplan(p. 824) suggeststhat to beginbysaying that anthropology, f reinventednow,would not be the same, is a cryptic way ofsayingthat anthropologyhas becomeotiose.Later in the essay I state that the point ofview is to revise,not to repudiate.The initialremark s a way of dramatizing he problemof departmentalboundariesandof parochialinterpretations of the notion of "generalanthropology." Such problemsare familiarin any discipline;I wrote amid what was tome traumaticexperience.The book's majorpurposeis taken to be"to tell us what forms and directions thisrevitalization of the discipline ought totake" (p. 824). In my own mind, the majorpurposeis to question:validanswersdependupon continuing reflection and practicalexperience.It is perhapsinevitable that ReinuentingAnthropology should seem a symbol, and aunitary one. In fact, it is accidental hat it isthe only U.S. statement of such issues inbook-form. Others contemplated books atthe time (cf. note 2 of my essay). Thebook's symbolic status, then, owes more toeditorial habit and Sitzfleisch han to dis-tinctive passion or position. As it is, thebook's main use, apart from serving as atarget, has come to be as startingpoint fordiscussion of issues that must be part ofanthropology'scontinuingself-reflectionandcritique.This fulfills its majorpurpose(it is,indeed, part of a seriesof "anti-textbooks").

A key to the book's purposeis need forpersonaldefinitionsof generalanthropology.Kaplanquotesme on this point (p. 826), buttakes the passage to refer to claims toknowledge. In fact, the passageoccurs in acontext devoted to claims to boundaries.Indeed, the passagecontains statements tothis effect and I do not understandhowKaplan mistook it, unless he assumesthatobjective knowledge is bound up with aconventional ype of department.Kaplan does apparentlytake a "person-alistic view of anthropological nquiry andknowledge"to compriseorganizationalandepistemological issues jointly. I can agreewith him that the personalfactor be recog-nized in attempts to improvethe chanceofobtainingobjectivity.But in my view, thereis an irreduciblepersonal ngredient,and thisingredient is only partly an obstacle to beeliminated. In part it is a resource to becultivated. Differentmindsandpersonalitieshave virtues for different kinds of inquiryand mastery.We should think of the knowl-edge made available to us by ethnographyand scholarship as a richly orchestratedscore. Some ideals of objectivity seem toenvisage everyone playing the same oneinstrument, tempo, and tune. We need tocome to terms, for reasons both scientificand democratic, with forms of knowledgethat are inherentlypersonaland situational.Knowledgeaccessible o participantsn com-munities, in particular, s often not accessi-ble to "objective" methods employed bysome who govern,administer,and researchthem.In any case, when many of us object to"objectivity," we are objecting, not to anideal of adequateknowledgeof reality, butto consequences of certain institutionaliza-tions of such an ideal. Like others, I haveseen institutionalized definitions of ob-jectivity cripple inquiry, waste money, anddestroy opportunitiesfor communitiesandpersonswith whomone is personally,as wellas ethnographically,concerned. Moreover,the question of knowledgedoes not havetodo with production alone. It has to do atleast as muchwith distribution. Politicalandethical issues enter anthropology in thisregard with especial force. To focus onobjectiuity may obscurequestionsof respon-sibility. The two concerns are compatible,and acceptanceof responsibilitycan some-times enhance objectivity, but clearly thereis tension between the two; I try to com-menton it in pages 48-58.In maintainingthat anthropologyis un-avoidablya political andethicaldiscipline nvirtue of its subjectmatter,perhaps shouldhaveadded in virtuealso of its personnel.Apossible interpretationof Kaplan'sremarks

A key to the book's purposeis need forpersonaldefinitionsof generalanthropology.Kaplanquotesme on this point (p. 826), buttakes the passage to refer to claims toknowledge. In fact, the passageoccurs in acontext devoted to claims to boundaries.Indeed, the passagecontains statements tothis effect and I do not understandhowKaplan mistook it, unless he assumesthatobjective knowledge is bound up with aconventional ype of department.Kaplan does apparentlytake a "person-alistic view of anthropological nquiry andknowledge"to compriseorganizationalandepistemological issues jointly. I can agreewith him that the personalfactor be recog-nized in attempts to improvethe chanceofobtainingobjectivity.But in my view, thereis an irreduciblepersonal ngredient,and thisingredient is only partly an obstacle to beeliminated. In part it is a resource to becultivated. Differentmindsandpersonalitieshave virtues for different kinds of inquiryand mastery.We should think of the knowl-edge made available to us by ethnographyand scholarship as a richly orchestratedscore. Some ideals of objectivity seem toenvisage everyone playing the same oneinstrument, tempo, and tune. We need tocome to terms, for reasons both scientificand democratic, with forms of knowledgethat are inherentlypersonaland situational.Knowledgeaccessible o participantsn com-munities, in particular, s often not accessi-ble to "objective" methods employed bysome who govern,administer,and researchthem.In any case, when many of us object to"objectivity," we are objecting, not to anideal of adequateknowledgeof reality, butto consequences of certain institutionaliza-tions of such an ideal. Like others, I haveseen institutionalized definitions of ob-jectivity cripple inquiry, waste money, anddestroy opportunitiesfor communitiesandpersonswith whomone is personally,as wellas ethnographically,concerned. Moreover,the question of knowledgedoes not havetodo with production alone. It has to do atleast as muchwith distribution. Politicalandethical issues enter anthropology in thisregard with especial force. To focus onobjectiuity may obscurequestionsof respon-sibility. The two concerns are compatible,and acceptanceof responsibilitycan some-times enhance objectivity, but clearly thereis tension between the two; I try to com-menton it in pages 48-58.In maintainingthat anthropologyis un-avoidablya political andethicaldiscipline nvirtue of its subjectmatter,perhaps shouldhaveadded in virtuealso of its personnel.Apossible interpretationof Kaplan'sremarksubmitted for publication February 11, 1975Accepted for publication March 6, 1975Submitted for publication February 11, 1975Accepted for publication March 6, 1975

read schiffer rathje 1975

Documents