The culture-historical approach in archaeology focuses on identifying distinct cultural groups through shared material remains. It classifies artifacts, maps their distribution, and uses seriation to establish chronologies, aiming to reconstruct past cultures and their interactions.
While influential, this approach has limitations. It can oversimplify cultural diversity, overemphasize artifacts, lack explicit theory, and neglect environmental factors. These shortcomings led to the development of new archaeological perspectives in later decades.
Culture-Historical Approach
Culture-historical approach in archaeology
- Framework for interpreting archaeological record emphasizes identification and description of distinct cultural groups
- Cultures defined by shared sets of material remains, particularly artifacts with distinctive styles or types (pottery, tools)
- Explains cultural change through diffusion, migration, or invasion rather than internal development
- Divides archaeological record into series of cultural periods or stages based on changes in artifact types (Paleolithic, Neolithic)
- Aims to reconstruct history of past cultures and their interactions by analyzing spatial and temporal distribution of artifact types
Methods of artifact classification
- Typology classifies artifacts into distinct types based on shared attributes
- Shape, size, material, and decoration
- Types seen as markers of specific cultures or cultural periods (Clovis points)
- Changes in artifact types over time interpreted as evidence of cultural change or interaction
- Seriation arranges artifact types or assemblages into chronological sequence based on relative frequencies
- Assumes artifact types have limited lifespan and popularity rises and falls over time
- Establishes cultural chronologies and traces spread of cultural traits (Southwestern pottery styles)
- Distribution mapping plots artifact types or cultural traits on maps to identify spatial patterns
- Delineates cultural areas or provinces and traces movement of people or ideas
- Interprets similarities in artifact types across regions as evidence of cultural diffusion or migration (obsidian trade)
Limitations of culture-historical approach
- Oversimplifies cultural diversity and change
- Views cultures as static, homogeneous entities rather than dynamic, diverse systems
- Overlooks role of internal social, economic, and political factors in shaping cultural change
- Overemphasizes artifacts and typology
- Focuses primarily on classifying and describing artifacts rather than understanding social and cultural context
- Assumes artifact types directly reflect cultural identities and boundaries
- Lacks explicit theory and methodology
- Relies heavily on intuitive interpretations and assumptions rather than explicit theoretical frameworks or testable hypotheses
- Uses subjective and poorly defined methods for defining types and establishing chronologies
- Neglects environmental and ecological factors
- Views cultural change as result of external factors such as diffusion or migration
- Overlooks role of environmental adaptation and resource exploitation in shaping cultural practices and material culture (subsistence strategies)