1964 Binford L. A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design
1964 Binford L. A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to American Antiquity
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
VOLUME 29 APRIL 1964 NUMBER 4
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
426 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 29, No. 4, 1964
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BINFORD ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN 427
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
428 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 29, No. 4, 1964
signed a definite location for a given unit of (1) The population to be sampled and the units com-
time. The population has a distribution in space posing it must be clearly defined so that there will be no
question as to what the sample represents.
consisting of the aggregate of individual loca-
tions (Duncan and others 1961: 21). In addi- (2) A universe partitioned by a frame composed of
many small units is preferable to one composed of fewer
tion to a distribution, we can speak of the spa- but larger units. This is a safeguard against accidental
tial structure of a population. Structure sug- inclusion of an unrepresentative amount of "hetero-
gests a pattern of interrelationships among dis- geneity" in any given sample.
tinguishable parts of an organized whole (Dun- (3) The units of the frame should be approximately
can and others 1961: 2), and for our purposes equal in size. This eliminates bias which could result
the spatial structure of archaeological popula- from a systematic relationship between the structure and
the size of the population.
tions derives from the complex interrelation-
ships between people, activities, and material (4) All units should be independent of each other
so that if one is drawn for sampling, it will in no way
items within a cultural system. In addition, we affect the choice of another.
may speak of the form of a population, which is
(5) The same units should be used in sampling, tabu-
the nature and quantitatively variable consti- lation, and analysis. A sample of mounds is of no use if
tution of subclasses and the relative frequency generalizations about general site distributions are being
of analytical units. attempted.
The application of the method of probability (6) The universe must be present or cataloged so that
every unit in it is listed or can be given an identifying
sampling presupposes that a universe can be sub-
symbol to be used during the drawing of a sample. For
divided into distinct and identifiable units called instance, a grid system is established with 12 ten-foot
sample units. These units may be natural units, squares on a side, and 20 of the 144 squares are chosen
such as sites or individual projectile points, or for excavation by a random method. Later, it is decided
to extend the grid system six more squares in one direc-
they may be arbitrary units, such as 6-inch levels tion. The enlarged system does not have the random
in an excavation, or surface areas defined by a character of the sample drawn under the frame defined
grid system. Regardless of the basis for defini- by the original grid system.
tion, the application of the method of probability (7) The method of drawing the sample should be
completely independent of the characteristics to be ex-
sampling presupposes the availability of a list of amined.
all the potential sample units within the uni-
(8) In order for the sample to remain random, every
verse. This list is called the frame and provides unit drawn must be accessible. For instance, in the case
the basis for the actual selection of the sample where a site has been selected for sampling and the prop-
units to be investigated. The frame varies with erty owner refuses permission to dig, inaccessibility biases
the nature of the archaeological population the sample. This is particularly true because refusal of
permission may be related to ideas of the "value" of
under investigation. When a population of sites materials on his property relative to those on others'
is sampled, the frame is normally a list of sites property.
within a stated universe, such as the alluvial With these principles serving as a background,
bottoms of the Rock River between two specified we can turn to a discussion of types of sampling
points. When partial coverage of a population and their ranges of applicability to archaeologi-
within a stated universe is attempted, the sample cal investigation. Although there are many
units are selected from the frame so that all types of sampling, only two will be discussed:
units of the frame have an equal chance of be- simple random sampling and stratified sampling.
ing chosen for investigation; the selection is gov-
erned by the "laws of chance" alone, maximiz- SIMPLE RANDOM SAMPLING
ing the reliability of the sample. This is by far the simplest of the methods of
Before we approach the subject of different probability sampling. It implies that an equal
methods of probability sampling and their range probability of selection is assigned to each unit
of application in archaeological research, cer- of the frame at the time of sample selection.
tain principles which underlie and guide the re- The term random refers to the method of select-
search design aimed at the proper and efficient ing the sample units to be investigated rather
execution of sampling techniques will be men- than to the method of investigating any given
tioned. This presentation is adapted from a sec- unit. A practical procedure for selecting a ran-
tion entitled "Types of Sampling" by Parten dom sample is by utilizing a table of random
(1950). numbers (Arkin and Colton 1957: 142). The
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BINFORD ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN 429
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
430 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 29, No. 4, 1964
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BINFORD ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN 431
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
432 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 29, No. 4, 1964
or may not exhibit a complex cultural history. is the methodological aim of sampling a uni-
A site could be repeatedly occupied by repre- verse of sites regionally defined.
sentatives of the same stable socio-cultural sys- Two major sources of error arise in the inves-
tem for the same purposes, in which case there tigation of site populations. The first source of er-
may be a complex depositional history with a ror is incomplete and nonrepresentative cover-
simple cultural history. Similarly, a site with a age of the range of variation represented among
simple depositional history may exhibit a com- sites within the universe. This arises inevitably as
plex cultural history, for example, an extended a result of the "selection" of sites for investi-
long-term occupation spanning a period of major gation on the basis of criteria other than those of
structural changes in the cultural system. A the method of probability sampling. For instance,
single locus may be sequentially occupied by sites are frequently selected because of a high
social units of different socio-cultural or socio- density of cultural items almost to the exclusion
political units, adding to the complexity of the of sites with low density. The density of cultural
cultural history of the site. items at a site is a formal attribute of the specific
activity loci and is only relevant to the selection
(4) Sites and areas within sites vary function- of sites for excavation as an attribute in a pro-
ally. Since sites are the result of cultural activi-
visional site typology. A given universe may
ties performed by social units within restricted
have very few sites with dense concentrations
spatial bounds, we would expect them to vary
of cultural items, while the number of sites ex-
formally as a function of the activities of the
hibiting less-dense concentrations may be quite
social units represented. It is a known and de-
high. In this case, the sample of sites for investi-
monstrable fact that socio-cultural systems vary
gation must be composed of a proportionally
in the degree to which social segments perform
higher number of sites exhibiting low densities
specialized tasks, as well as in the cyclical pat- of cultural items. The second source of error is
tern of task performance at any given location.
failure to sample with sufficient intensity to
These differences have spatial correlates with
yield a reliable measure of the variability present
regard to the loci of task performance; hence we in the population. Inadequate sample size meas-
expect sites to vary formally and spatially with ured by the number of investigated sites is one
regard to the nature of the tasks performed at of the major sources of error. Ideally, a sam-
each, and the social composition of the units ple of sites should be adequate to represent the
performing the tasks. formal range of variability in site form, the rela-
All possible combinations of the above-men- tive frequencies of recognized site types, and
tioned basic forms of variation may occur at their spatial structuring within the universe.
sites which archaeologists investigate. Archae-
POPULATIONS OF ECOFACTS
ologists must be prepared to make the pertinent
observations needed to define the form and In addition to the investigation of cultural
structure of the populations of artifacts and cul- items, features, and activity loci, we must sam-
turally relevant nonartifactual material present, ple populations of ecofacts. Ecofact is the term
and to isolate the form and structure of his- applied to all culturally relevant nonartifactual
data. Cultural systems are adaptive systems,
torically different archaeological assemblages
and in order to understand their operation and
represented. Unlike populations of cultural
the processes of their modification, we must be
items or features where the normal universe
in a position to define their adaptive milieu. All
is the site, the sampling universe for populations those elements which represent or inform about
of sites is of necessity a region. Once the archae- the points of articulation between the cultural
ologist has determined the relative homogeneity system and other natural systems must be sam-
of the sampled site population as regards the pled. This is an extremely important phase of
historical and functional nature of the archae- archaeological data collection and is accom-
ological assemblage present, he is in a position panied by many field complications in terms of
to consider the nature of the site as a whole and methods of observation and sampling. The gen-
to classify it within a typology of sites (based on eral class of ecofacts can be broken down into
the attributes of both the form of the artifactual many subclasses representing different popula-
elements present and the structure of their spa- tions, such as pollen, soil, and animal bone,
tial and formal associations). Such an approach each with specific attendant sampling problems.
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BINFORD ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN 433
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
434 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 29, No. 4, 1964
of time and money in excavation will yield the these segments were articulated into a func-
desired information. Sites selected for excava-tional cultural system. We want to know the
tion must be investigated so that they can demographic
be basis and how it varies with respect
formally defined from the standpoint of the to isolated structural changes in the cultural sys-
tems. In short, we want to know all we can
nature of the populations of cultural items pres-
ent, but equal attention must also be given about
to the structure and functioning of the ex-
the population of cultural features. This is the
tinct cultural systems and how they relate one
only way to approach the necessary task of de- to another as regards processes of change and
veloping a site typology in functional and struc-evolution.
tural terms, an absolute necessity for the defini-The initial problem is the location of the
tion and isolation of the archaeological structure
various loci of past cultural activity within the
of extinct cultural systems. The latter is judgedregion. This phase of the work should be di-
a necessary step toward the scientific investiga-rected toward determining the density and dis-
tion of cultural processes. tribution of activity loci with respect to classes
of ecofactual phenomena, such as plant com-
A HYPOTHETICAL RESEARCH DESIGN
munities, physiographic features, and soil types.
In an initial attempt to think through some In order to accomplish this task, there is only one
appropriate procedure short of complete cover-
of the practical problems associated with the de-
sign and execution of a research program whichage, a procedure rooted in some form of probabil-
attempts to operationalize some of the sugges- ity sampling. One suggested approach is to strat-
tions advanced thus far, I will present a "hypo-ify the regional universe on the basis of ecofactu-
thetical" research program. Hypothetical aliscriteria judged desirable to control, such as soil
placed in quotes because many of the ideas and types. If we assume for purposes of presentation
problems discussed are the result of work cur-that soil types have been decided upon for the
areal stratification, in most cases the bounds of
rently being undertaken in the southern part of
the various soils will be defined fairly accurately
Illinois, specifically in the Carlyle Reservoir. Re-
gardless of the projected implementation on
ofa soil map, and we can simply determine the
extent of each in square miles, acres, or other
many of the ideas set forth, the program remains
hypothetical because the suggestions are un- appropriate units. Having accomplished this,
tried and undemonstrated. It is hoped that by we can impose a frame within each sampling
stratum (areas of common soil type). It will be
presenting these ideas in the form of a research
"model," others may gain a clearer understand- remembered that a universe partitioned by
ing of what is intended by the application of many small sample units is preferable to one
probability sampling approaches in field work. fewer but larger units, and that the units
with
It is further hoped that this model can serveof as the frame should be approximately equal in
a "whipping boy" for the improvement and fur- size. Using these guides, we can impose a grid
ther development of field methods and the exe- system over the areas of the various soil types.
cution of well-planned research designs. The actual size of a given unit in the frame
Let us assume that we are given the task of would be determined by considerations of sur-
investigating the prehistoric remains withinvey a logistics and the need to have multiple but
region. Our aim is to determine with the great-also practicable units for investigation. For pur-
poses of presentation, it is assumed that the grid
est degree of precision and reliability the nature
of the extinct cultural systems represented for is composed of squares equaling one-half square
the entire range of human occupation. We mustmile. We would then count and enumerate
face the problem of isolating the variable cul- each unit in the separate frames for each sam-
tural items, cultural features, and sites of ac- pling stratum (soil type). The next methodo-
tivity for the cultural systems represented. logical
In consideration is arriving at a "sample
addition, we must gather ecofactual data as a size." This can be quite complicated. For pur-
basis for understanding the way in which the poses of argument, it will be dismissed and we
extinct cultural systems participated in the re- will assume that a 20% areal coverage within
gional ecosystems of the past. We want to know each sampling stratum has been judged sufficient.
the internal structure of the systems, the degree The next step is to draw the sample for each
of structural differentiation and functional spe- sampling stratum, and this may be accomplished
cialization of the social segments, as well as howby use of a table of random numbers. The sam-
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BINFORD ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN 435
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
436 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 29, No. 4, 1964
A typical example of the execution of such cerning a the nature of variation that is observ-
program is given below: able in populations of surface-collected cultural
(1) Impose a frame over the area of the site in theitems and with techniques of probability sam-
pling. Are sites that exhibit similar size, density,
form of a grid system composed of sampling units of ap-
propriate size. and composition of cultural item populations
(2) Enumerate the sampling units in the frame from similar with respect to populations of cultural
one to n. Determine the necessary sample size and then features, depositional and cultural history, and
determine the appropriate sampling interval.
general function within the cultural systems rep-
(3) Consult a table of random numbers and draw the resented? If such a hypothesis were to be con-
initial sample unit. Then draw each sample unit separate
from the initial one by the designated sampling interval.
firmed, we would be in a position to generalize
far beyond the data derived from direct excava-
(4) Locate on the site the selected sampling units and
collect all cultural items within the bounds of that unit. tion and could make statements about settle-
ment systems based largely on surface-collected
This procedure can be speeded considerably data. This is not possible when sites are not
in open or cultivated areas by use of a "dog- treated within a sampling universe or when sur-
leash" technique. Each person who collects face data are not used in the generation of struc-
items has attached to his belt a cord of prede- tural hypotheses.
termined length to which is attached a stake. How do we actually go about the selection of
The stake is placed in the ground at the appro- sites for excavation? The following procedure is
priate location, and the person collects all the suggested:
cultural items within the radius of the circle de-
(1) Develop a taxonomy of sites based on formal at-
fined by the "dog leash." The location of sam- tributes investigated during the surface survey.
pling units can be determined quickly by means (2) Determine the relative frequencies and distribu-
of a tape and compass or with a transit. Such a tions of site types according to the original sampling
method is considerably faster than setting up a strata, for example, soil types.
grid and collecting items from a square unit, all (3) Stratify the population of sites into sampling
four corners of which must be defined. strata based on the typology further stratified in terms
of the original areal strata, that is, soil types.
Regardless of the particular procedure fol-
(4) Determine in terms of the time and funds avail-
lowed, application of the principles of proba- able what proportion of the total number of each site type
bility sampling to the collection of cultural items can be excavated to yield reliable information on their
from the surface makes possible the objective internal composition.
definition of the site in terms of density dines. (5) Enumerate each site in each sampling stratum
from one to n.
This permits objective comparison of sites in
terms of site size and item density, in addition (6) Consult a table of random numbers and draw the
appropriate sampling units designated by the random
to the form, homogeneity, and structure of the numbers.
population of cultural items present. On the (7) Proceed to excavate all those sites whose unit-
basis of such comparisons, we can arrive at a designator number was drawn from the table of random
provisional typology of the range of variability numbers.
in the population of sites within the regional The use of such a procedure can be justified
universe. Working hypotheses can be generated in a number of ways. First, it will be remem-
to account for the observable differences and
bered that the initial taxonomy based on sur-
similarities in form, density, and spatial struc- face-collected materials grouped sites judged to
ture, and these hypotheses can be tested by ex- be similar or different. Within each taxonomic
cavation.
class, sites are excavated to test the reliability of
A comparative study of information collected
this judgment and to further explicate the nature
through the application of sampling techniquesof the variability through more detailed investi-
provides a basic set of data for the construction
gation of populations of cultural items and fea-
of a stratified sampling frame of provisionaltures.
site Only by the use of such a procedure can
types within which selection of sites for excava-
we explicate the meaning of observed differences
tion can be made. This brings us to one ofinthe
the surface-collected material and thereby
major questions considered: how do we knowprovide the necessary information for confirm-
where to dig? I think that the answer toingthis
the validity of generalizations based on such
data. Secondly, the procedure insures an ade-
question logically rests with a methodology
quate and representative sample of the popula-
which attempts to test working hypotheses con-
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BINFORD ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN 437
tion of cultural activity loci within the defined generally inadequate as a sampling frame for
universe. It is a complete and unbiased across- cultural features. Ideally, we should have an
the-board investigation of the full range of X-ray for- machine which would allow us to locate
mal variability within the population. and formally evaluate the range of variation
The next phase of research planning ismanifest to in cultural features. Given such infor-
many the most important, and it is the phase mation, we could construct a frame and exca-
that has received most attention under the ru- vate features within each recognized formal class
bric of "field methods." Initially, it must beinrec- proportion to their relative frequency. Such
ognized that in excavation we are not sampling a procedure would be analogous to excavating
activity loci; we are sampling populations of selected on the basis of a previously de-
sites
cultural items, cultural features, and ecofacts fined frame of site types. Unfortunately, no such
at an activity locus that may or may not have X-raya machine exists, and we must attempt to
complex cultural and depositional history. We the desired sample by opening up areas
obtain
want data which will allow us to understand of the site in such a way as to (1) allow the
the historical aspects of the various occupations,recognition of the presence of cultural features,
as well as the functions of the occupations in the (2) provide a representative spatial coverage of
total cultural system represented. the universe in order to define the spatial distri-
If we view excavation as having a particular bution and structure of the features, and
(3) provide the necessary contextual data for
role in the scheme of data collection, it is reason-
able to think in terms of an excavational strate- the formal analysis of the recognized features.
gy. First, it must be kept in mind that all exca- This discourse is not intended as a discussion
vation is exploratory in addition to being a meth-of excavational techniques. However, a limited
od for securing samples. Some phases of exca- discussion of some widely utilized approaches as
vation may be parametric in the sense of it be- they relate to the general problems of research
ing possible to enumerate a sampling frame prior strategy seem to be in order.
to data collection, while other phases are ex- Ideally, once a site is selected as a unit in a
ploratory and sampling must be only provision-sampling frame of sites, it should be completely
ally parametric. Spatial control on a horizontal excavated. In such a case, there will be no ques-
axis makes possible the parametric definition oftion about one's ability to give parametric defini-
a sampling frame in terms of spatial units. Thistion to a sampling frame for cultural items com-
type of frame is ideal for investigation of the mensurate with the efficient investigation of cul-
homogeneity or heterogeneity of the popula- tural features. Complete excavation will insure
tion of cultural items, and it is appropriate for complete recovery of the entire record of past
exploratory work that seeks the solution of prob- activities at the given location.
lems of depositional and cultural history. How-In most cases it is impossible to undertake
ever, it is with excavation that we hope to ac- complete excavation of a site; only rarely are
complish the maximum correlational control funds and personnel available for such an un-
and thereby obtain the data that will allow re- dertaking, particularly when sites are large. One
liable interpretation of the internal variation inmethod frequently resorted to when faced with
the spatial structure of functional and stylistic a large site, or when the investigator is interested
classes of cultural items. Excavation will furtherin obtaining information concerning the consti-
provide well-documented and correlated sam-tution of the population of cultural features, is
ples of ecofacts, the basic data relevant to the to open up large "block" areas such as was done
nature of the local environment, and the way in at Kincaid (Cole 1951). A relatively large num-
which the represented social units were adaptedber of contiguous excavation units were opened,
to it. It is by correlating the distributions of cul-
and this resulted in the complete excavation of
tural items with different functional classes aof large "block" of the site area. This method in-
cultural features that insight into the "causes" sures recovery of the formal range of cultural
of differential distributions is obtained, and features present in any given block but, as nor-
hence understanding of the range, location, andmally implemented, does not insure that the ex-
nature of the various activities conducted at thecavated block is representative of the range of
site. Sampling frames designed solely to ob-features and activity loci present at the site. As
tain cultural items and provide information con- normally practiced, the block or blocks selected
cerning depositional and cultural history are for excavation are in the "core" area of the site
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
438 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 29, No. 4, 1964
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BINFORD ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN 439
culture
basis of a random or systematic sampling historical aspects, more and more atten-
pattern
within a grid frame. This procedure,tion must
as in thebe given to maintaining maximum
earlier case, should provide the data necessary
correlational control. The intensity of sampling
for the reliable definition and isolation of
ordiffer-
the sample size needed to ensure adequate
ent stylistic and functional areas within data
theincreases
total with the heterogeneity of the uni-
site area. Next is the problem of sampling verse under investigation. This means that data
popu-
lations of cultural features. Since the site has necessary for justifying the step from one phase
several components, tight correlational control to another become expanded, and in general the
must be exercised to ensure the possibility nature
of of the appropriate phases changes with
correlating feature forms with forms of culturalthe complexity and form of the universe. The
more complex the site, the more complex the
items representative of discrete occupational epi-
sodes. An appropriate procedure is to employ excavational procedures, and the larger must be
block excavations as the second phase. Since thethe recovered samples for any given phase of
multicomponent nature of the site presumably excavation.
would have been recognized during the early This recognition provides the justification for
stages of the test-pitting phase, such a procedure
what I call the planning of an excavational se-
also ensures that the initial exploratory expo- quence. In areas where a number of sites have
sures will yield information obtained under con-been selected for excavation, the temporal se-
ditions of maximum correlational control. This quence of excavation can be very important in
hopefully makes possible the correlation of fea- promoting the efficient use of resources in both
ture types with old soil surfaces, which in turn labor and funds. The initial sites excavated
can be isolated and investigated in terms of should be the least complex, so that the chances
cultural-item content. With this type of infor- of making false correlations are diminished and
mation we should, assuming that the block ex- the maximum conditions obtain for observing
posures have been successful, be able to develop
the formal spatial structure of features and cul-
a formal taxonomy of features which can betural items. Once an understanding is gained
correlated with the variable populations of cul-
of the formal and structural characteristics
tural items representative of the separate occu-
which may be encountered, one is in a much
pations. Once such correlations are established,
better position to investigate a complex site
the third phase of excavation can begin, thewhere the nature of the variability may not be
"stripping phase." This is removal, by meansso clearly depicted. Informed excavation of a
of power equipment or by hand, without at-complex site can often greatly expedite its effi-
tempting to recover cultural items, of the com- cient investigation.
plete cultural deposit down to the level where It is hoped that by following this "hypotheti-
cultural features can be observed intruding into cal" research program, the reader has gained a
the natural. Once this is accomplished, theseclearer understanding of what is intended by
features can be mapped and excavated, usingthe argument that methods of probability sam-
techniques that will ensure maximum correla-pling are applicable on all levels of field investi-
tional control. The distributional data thus ob-
gation. By pointing out some of the complica-
tained will supplement that already collected tions, I trust an appreciation can be gained as to
and make possible the definition of activity areas
the potential which the application of proba-
and the general internal community structure bility sampling methods holds for improving our
representative of the separate occupations. data-collection methods. Such methods further
If we have been careful in planning and suc-provide a basis for a greatly expanded analysis
cessful in the execution of the three phasesof ofarchaeological data directed toward the defi-
excavation, we should have the data necessary nition of archaeological assemblages in struc-
for the demonstration of differences and simi- tural terms, ultimately with a view toward the
larities between occupations in terms of the for-
isolation and definition of extinct cultural sys-
mal, spatial, and structural composition of tems.
the
separate populations defined by both culturalOf equal importance is the recognition that
items and features. field work must not be conducted separately
Enough has been said to suggest what is in-from analysis. Running analysis is a necessary
tended by phase excavations. As the complex-part of feature description, and of even greater
ity of a site is compounded in depositional andimportance is the recognition that the results of
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
440 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [ VOL. 29, NO. 4, 1964
running analysis largely serve as the basis for the cerning the internal structure and ecological
planning and decision-making regarding succes- setting of successive cultural systems. It is ob-
sive methodological steps taken in the execution served that under current programs of salvage
of a field program. Much ink has been spilt on archaeology and greater foundation support
the argument that the archaeologist as such is for archaeological research, archaeologists are
a technician (Taylor 1948: 43). Only in a very actually being given the opportunity to study
restricted sense can such a position be defended such regions. It is argued that, in spite of such
because the field archaeologist is forever making opportunities, our current practices largely ob-
decisions as to what are pertinent and relevant viate the recovery of data necessary to the study
"facts." Such decisions can only be made with of cultural process. The development of tech-
knowledge and understanding of the questions niques for the recovery of data in structural
being asked of the data. The field archaeolo- terms is believed to be crucial, for it is the struc-
gist must also be an anthropologist to make such ture of archaeological remains that informs
decisions efficiently and effectively. As Brew about the cultural system, and it is the cultural
(1946: 65) has argued that there is no single or system which is the seat of process.
even adequate taxonomy sufficient for "bringing Probability sampling is suggested as a major
out all the evidence," so I also argue that there methodological improvement which, if executed
is no sufficient set of field techniques. Field work on all levels of data collection in full recognition
must be conducted in terms of a running analy- of the inherent differences in the nature of ob-
sis and against a backdrop of the widest possible servational populations which archaeologists in-
set of questions to which the data are potentially vestigate, can result in the production of ade-
relevant. This is no technician's job. This is the quate and representative data useful in the study
job of an anthropologist specialized in the collec- of cultural process.
tion and analysis of data concerning extinct cul- Observational populations of cultural items,
tural systems. Only after the myth of simplicity features, and activity loci are recognized as hav-
which surrounds the training of field archaeolo- ing certain characteristics which demand differ-
gists is dispelled, and after more attention is ent treatment in both field observation and sam-
given to recovering information concerning the pling methodology. On the other hand, only
operation of extinct cultural systems as opposed two major sampling universes, regions and sites,
to the recovery of things, will archaeologists are recognized as appropriate to field investiga-
make significant advances in studies of cultural tions. Many of the limitations of currently
process. available data are believed to derive from the
failure to sample populations of activity loci
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
within a regional universe. Emphasis has been
It has been argued that as archaeologists on we
sampling populations of cultural items within
are faced with the methodological task ofaiso- regional rather than a site universe. This pro-
cedure has made impossible the structural defi-
lating extinct socio-cultural systems as the most
nition of populations of cultural items or the
appropriate unit for the study of the evolution-
study of activity loci from a structural point of
ary processes which result in cultural similarities
and differences. If we view culture as man's view. Consequently, our current understanding
extrasomatic means of adaptation, we must iso- of the prehistoric past is largely in terms of style
distributions and cultures defined in terms of
late and define the ecological setting of any given
socio-cultural system, not only with respect discrete
to traits and stylistic characteristics; this is
the points of articulation with the physical and certainly not a situation conducive to studies of
biological environment, but also with points cultural
of process.
articulation with the socio-cultural environ- The argument for planned and well-paced
execution of research design has been presented
ment. It is suggested that changes in the ecologi-
cal setting of any given system are the prime in the form of a "hypothetical" research pro-
causative situations activating processes of cul-
gram, along with a limited discussion of the tech-
tural change. niques and levels of applicability of probability
It is argued that the methodology most ap- sampling procedures. Problems attendant upon
propriate to the study of cultural process is a the recovery of structural information within
regional approach in which we attempt to gain both the regional and site universe have been
reliable and representative information con- made explicit in a number of examples of types
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BINFORD ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN 441
This content downloaded from 200.21.104.18 on Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:44:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms