Hegmon

Society for American Archaeology
Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology
Author(s): Michelle Hegmon
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 68, No. 2 (Apr., 2003), pp. 213-243
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557078 .
Accessed: 01/02/2011 11:23
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 at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. .
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 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 support@jstor.org.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
SPECIAL SECTION: MAPPING THE TERRAIN OF AMERICANIST ARCHAEOLOGY
SETTING THEORETICAL EGOS ASIDE:

ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
Michelle Hegmon
Theory in North Americanarchaeology is characterized in terms offoci and approaches manifested in research issues, rather
than in explicit or oppositional theoretical positions. While there are some clear-cut theoretical perspectives-evolutionary
ecology, behavioral archaeology, and Darwinian archaeology-a large majority of North American archaeologyfits a broad
category here called "processual-plus."Among the major themes that crosscut many or all of the approaches are interests in
gender, agency/practice, symbols and meaning, material culture,and native perspectives. Gender archaeology is paradigmatic
ofprocessual-plus archaeology, in that it draws on a diversity of theoretical approaches to address a common issue. Emphasis
on agency and practice is an importantdevelopment, though conceptions of agency are too often linked to Westernideas of
individuals and motivation. The vast majorityof North American archaeology, includingpostprocessual approaches, is mod-
ern, not postmodern, in orientation. The relative dearth of theoreticalargumentpositively contributesto diversityand dialogue,
but it also may cause North American theory to receive inadequate attention and unfortunate misunderstandingsof post-
modernism.
La teoria en la arqueologiade NorteAmericaestd caracterizadaen terminosde enfoquesy consideracionesmanifestadosenprob-

lemdticasde investigaci6n,mds que en posiciones teoricas explicitas u opuestas. En tanto que hay algunas perspectivasteoricas
definidas-ecologia evolucionaria, arqueologfadel comportamiento,y arqueologia Darviniana-la gran mayorfade la arque-
ologia de Norte America encaja en una categoria amplia que aquf se denomina como "procesual-plus."Entre los temasprinci-
pales que entrecruzanmuchoso todos los enfoques estdn los que se interesanen el genero, en el organismo o en la prdctica, el
que se centra en los simbolos y significados, el enfocado en la culturamaterial, y en las perspectivas indigenas. La arqueologia
de genero es paradigmdticade la arqueologiaprocesual-plus,en la medida en que se extiendeen la diversidadde enfoqueste6ri-
cos para atendera unaproblemdticacomun.El enfasis en el organismoy la prdctica es un desarrolloimportante,aunquelas con-
cepciones sobre el agente son vinculadas con muchafrecuenciaa las ideas occidentales de individuosy de motivaci6n.La gran
mayorfa de la arqueologia de Norte America, incluyendoel enfoquepostprocesual, es moderno,pero no postmoderno,en ori-
entacidn.La relativa escasez de argumentostedricos contribuyepositivamentea la diversidady al didlogo, pero tambienpuede
causar a la teorfa Norteamericanael recibiruna atencidn inadecuaday puede llevar desafortunadamentea malentenderel post-
modernismo.
T heory is, or shouldbe, a set of generalguid- us to ignore many others;we do not see the world
ing principlesthat help us-as researchers as it reallyis (if suchvision is everscientificallypos-
and as curioushumanbeings-make sense sible) but, rather,throughthe categoriesand labels
of specific cases and of the world aroundus. Con- necessarilydefinedby our theories.
frontedwith infinitestimuliandbits of information, Focushereis ontheoryin NorthAmericanarchae-
theory can help us focus on those bits that are par- ology, specifically, the archaeology of pre-
ticularlyimportant,understandtheir interrelation- Columbian North America (including northern
ships, and transform that information into Mexico but excluding Mesoamerica)primarilyas
knowledge.Theorygives us tools to identify,label, done by NorthAmericanarchaeologists(very few
andexplain.Thus,theory-as well as language,cul- non-North Americans do archaeology in North
ture, and almost all human approaches to the America, althoughNorth Americansdo archaeol-
world-is at once enabling and constraining. In ogy in many partsof the world).Theoryat a conti-
orderto enlightenus aboutone realm,it encourages nental level is potentially overwhelming, but in
Michelle Hegmon * Departmentof Anthropology,Arizona State University,Tempe,AZ 85287-2402
AmericanAntiquity,68(2), 2003, pp. 213-243

Copyright? 2003 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
213
214 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
mappingout this topic into an article-lengthtreat- archaeologistswho work on pre-ColumbianNorth

ment,I foundmyselfgratefulforthegeographiccon- Americawere trainedin departmentsof anthropol-
straints.Although there is plenty of theory to go ogy,' which considerarchaeologyto be one of sev-
around,today(intheearlytwenty-firstcentury)there eral subdisciplines (the others being physical
is much less explicit discussion of theoryin North anthropology,linguistics,and socioculturalanthro-
Americanarchaeologythanin archaeologydone by pology). I arguethat NorthAmericanarchaeology
scholarsin otherplaces,especiallyBritain.Through- is, overall,characterizedby considerabletolerance
outthis article,I considerways in whichtheorycon- of theoreticaldiversity,and it may be that some of
strains and enables North American archaeology, this open-mindednessstems fromthe broadanthro-
and at the same time I explore the possibility that pological trainingthatmost archaeologistsreceive.
moderationin theoreticalrhetoricitself is enabling.
I drawon theorypublishedin all venues,especially Mapping the Theoretical Landscape
since 1995, butin an effortto keep the list of refer- I divide the theoreticallandscapeof NorthAmeri-
ences shorterthan the text, I emphasizeexamples can archaeologyinto two mainparts.The firstcom-
publishedin AmericanAntiquity. prises three well-defined and self-identified
My primarypurposeis to identify what I see as perspectives,fairlyclosely tied to a few individuals
the theoreticaldirectionsthathelp us makesense of and schools. The second, which I labelprocessual-
the archaeologyof NorthAmerica.Thus, I include plus, incorporatesthe majorityof NorthAmerican
considerablediscussion of issues and approaches archaeologyand is more loosely defined.For other
that are not usually consideredto be "generalthe- theoreticalmaps (which identify more splits in the
ory"but which I believe representimportanttheo- processual-plus category),see Hodder(2001),Knapp
reticallyinformedprinciplesand underlyingideas. (1996), Preucel (1991, 1995), and Schiffer(2000).
This is in contrastto a straightforwardreviewof the- The threeself-identifiedperspectives,madeexplicit
ory,providedby several recentvolumes andarticles in a series of recentarticlesin AmericanAntiquity
(Hodder 2001; Jones 2002; Preucel 1991; Preucel (Broughton and O'Connell 1999; O'Brien et al.
and Hodder 1996; Schiffer2000; Yoffee and Sher- 1998;Schiffer1996, 1999)are(1) evolutionaryecol-
ratt1993). I focus on two realms.The firstis theory ogy; (2) behavioralarchaeology;and(3) Darwinian
that helps us understandwhat humans do, what archaeology,2also called evolutionaryarchaeology
Schiffer (2000:1) broadly labels social theory or selectionism. Behavioral and Darwinian
(though see Hodder 2002). The interpretationof approachesaremostlyappliedby U.S. scholars,and
materialcultureis an importantcomponentof this leadingauthorsin bothschools (Neff 2001; Schiffer
realm of theory,but I do not try to cover the broad et al. 2001) felt they were seriouslymisinterpreted
rangeof theory(sometimescalledmiddlerange)that in a recentdiscussionby Loney (2000), who is atthe
focuses specificallyon artifactsor the archaeologi- Universityof Glasgow.Spencer(1987)differentiates
cal record;in this sense my directionis contraryto Darwinianfromprocessualapproachesto evolution,
that set forth by Binford (2001). The second and the latterincludingaspectsof evolutionaryecology.
shorterrealm involves general theoreticaldiscus-
The ThreeSelf-IdentifiedPerspectives
sions regardingepistemology.
Because this articleis intendedfor a special sec- Evolutionaryecology (also the nameof ajournal)is
tion in an issue of AmericanAntiquityto be distrib- "anevolutionaryscience concernedwith the differ-
uted at the WorldArchaeologicalCongress, some entialpersistenceof variabilityin behaviorovertime"
backgroundfor non-NorthAmericanistsis neces- (Kelly 2000:64). A subset of evolutionaryecology
sary:The firstpeople to occupy the Americaswere knownas humanbehavioralecology (HBE)involves
anatomically moder humans, although the date the applicationof evolutionaryecology to humans
(probablybetween11,500and20,000 B.P.)andpath andhumanbehavior;in partit representsan attempt
of theirentryarevigorouslydebated(e.g.,Anderson to addressJulianSteward's(1955) culturalecology
and Gillam2000; Fiedel 1999; Meltzeret al. 1997; withrigorousevolutionarytheory(Winterhalder and
Straus2000). In the 1500s the first Europeansto Smith 2000:51). Most evolutionary ecology
come to North America encountereda variety of approachesto archaeologyfit thisdefinitionof HBE,
middle-rangesocieties but no states.Finally, most butI retainthe termevolutionaryecologybecauseit
Michelle Hegmon] ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 215
is usedby mostpractitioners. Anthropologicalappli- drawson kin selectiontheoryto discussgriefandthe

cations of evolutionaryecology proceed by devel- treatmentof young adultsin Hohokamburials,but
oping general models-derived from evolutionary he explicitlysees his approachas complementaryto
theory-that make predictionsabout behaviorsin Marxistandprocessualinterpretations.
ecologicalcontextsandevaluatingthosemodelswith Behavioral archaeology was first set forth by
ethnographicand sometimes archaeologicaldata Reid, Schiffer,andRathje(1975), althoughtodayit
(Winterhalder andSmith2000).Whileearlierarchae- is most closely associated with Michael Schiffer
ological work in this perspectivefocused on how (1995), his students,and others who have worked
humans cope with the environment(e.g., the diet withhim atthe Universityof Arizona(e.g., LaMotta
breadthmodel), recent applicationsalso consider and Schiffer2001; Schifferand Skibo 1997; Skibo
social issues, such as sharing and status (Boone et al. 1995; Walker2002; Zedenio1997). Behavior-
2000). Some evolutionaryecologists, particularly ism focuses on "the relationshipbetween human
those doing ethnographicwork,focus on notionsof behaviorsand materialculturein all times and all
evolutionaryfitness and the relationshipbetween a places" (Schiffer 1999:166), thus it includes mod-
behaviorand its reproductiveconsequences (e.g., ernmaterialculturestudies(e.g., Schifferet al. 1994).
Hawkeset al. 1995). In contrast,most archaeologi- As the name implies, focus is on behavior-not on
cal applicationsareless directlyconcernedwithbio- moreabstractconceptssuchas culture-and theway
logicalreproductionandinsteadfocus on issues such behaviorcreatedthe archaeologicalrecord.Behav-
as foraging strategies.Bamforth(2002) notes that ioralarchaeologymaybe mostwell knownfordevel-
thereis sometimes only a weak link between such oping methodologies(e.g., the study of formation
food-relatedissues andevolution. processes [Schiffer 1987] and artifactlife histories
At least in NorthAmericanarchaeology,evolu- [Schiffer 1995:55-66]) that advanceour ability to
tionaryecology is most commonlyappliedto stud- understandthearchaeologicalrecordandthusrecon-
ies of hunter-gatherers or small-scale structpast behavior.However,especially in recent
horticulturalists,often involvingdatafrom Califor- work, behavioral archaeologists have explicitly
niaortheGreatBasin,whereforagingcontinuedinto turnedtheir attentiontoward explainingbehavior,
historictimes. For example,Kelly (2001) uses data including issues such as meaning (Schiffer with
from the CarsonSink (Nevada)to evaluatemodels Miller1999),ritual(Walker2002;WalkerandLucero
regardingsettlementandresidentialmobility,anda 2000), and complex societies (LaMottaand Schif-
numberof studies focus on diet breadthand prey fer 2001). For example, in developing theory to
choice (see summaryin Broughtonand O'Connell explainartifactvariability,SchifferandSkibo(1997)
1999:154-156). Examplesfromelsewherein North focus on factorsinfluencingthe behaviorof produc-
Americainclude Shott's (1996a) applicationof the ers, includingeverythingfrom social processesand
diet breadthmodel to understandchanges in point negotiationsto the performancecharacteristicsof
size in the Midwest(see also chaptersin Bartonand the finishedartifact.
Clark1997) andFitzhugh's(2001) workon riskand Schiffer (1999:167) emphasizes that neither
inventionin the Gulf of Alaska. behavioral archaeology nor any other theoretical
Many archaeologistswho drawon evolutionary approachis exclusively the best way to addressall
ecology also seem open to othermodes of inquiry. archaeologicalproblems.He has explicitly triedto
For example,althoughKelly (2000) is quitecritical buildbridgesto otherapproachesin his organization
of Darwinianarchaeology,he suggestswaysin which of conferencesandeditedvolumes(1996, 2000; see
elements of evolutionaryecology and behavioral also Skibo and Feinman 1999; Skibo et al. 1995).
archaeologycould be used in conjunctionwith Dar- Scholarsassociatedwith the behavioralperspective
winian approaches,and he specifically draws on also write aboutotherissues (e.g., Skibo and Schif-
behavioralinsightsintoperformancecharacteristics fer 1995). Finally,althoughrelativelyfew individu-
to developanevolutionaryecologicalperspectiveon als (primarilythose cited above) explicitly develop
stone tools. Barlow (2001), in researchon the rela- or drawon behavioraltheory,many of the method-
tive advantagesof addingmaize to a foragingstrat- ological and some of the theoretical insights of
egy in the Southwest,alsoconsidersissues of gender. behavioralarchaeologyhave been widely incorpo-
And in a verydifferentexample,MacDonald(2001) ratedintovariousarchaeologicalapproaches,includ-
ing concepts of technological strategies (Nelson processes. He goes on to suggest that Darwinian
1991) and accumulationsresearch(Pauketat1989; archaeologydoes not applyevolutionarytheoryper
Shott 1996b;VarienandMills 1997). se, butinsteadusesevolutionas a metaphor(i.e.,traits
Darwinianarchaeology,the most tightlydefined arelike genes). I believethatone reasonforthe vitu-
perspective,is primarilyassociatedwithRobertDun- perativenatureof many debates about Darwinian
nell, now retiredfromthe Universityof Washington archaeologyis a lack of flexibility.Whilemost other
(Dunnell1980is akey earlystatement),his students, theoreticalapproachestodayareregardedas tools or
andnow some of his students'students(e.g., Leonard perspectivesuseful for addressingcertainkinds of
and Jones 1987; Leonardand Reed 1993; Neiman issues, Darwinianarchaeologyis takenas more of
1995; O'Brien and Lyman2000). Some studiesby an all-or-nothingproposition;one eitheraccepts it
David Braun(e.g., 1983, 1990) and David Rindos (believesin it?) or rejectsit.
(e.g., 1989) arealso oftencited as examplesof Dar- The problemis compoundedby a lack of agree-
winianarchaeology,althoughbothscholarsseem to mentregardingdefinitions,especiallyof widelyused
have developed this perspectiveindependently.In termssuch as style andfunction. Darwinianarchae-
addition,HectorNeff (e.g., 1992,2000) worksin this ologists have arguedthat style and functioncannot
perspective,althoughhe did not studywithDunnell. be distinguisheda priori but, rather,are identified
Although Neff, in his work with compositional based on patternsof change over time, which indi-
analysisandin a recent(2000) statement,contributes cate whethera traitis functionalandthus subjectto
to a diversityof approaches,it is my impressionthat selection (Dunnell 1978; Hurt and Rakita 2001).
most scholarswho subscribeto Darwinianarchae- Most non-Darwinianarchaeologistsseem to ignore
ology use this approachprimarilyor even exclu- these definitions, and recent discussions consider
sively.They were less thanwelcomingof Schiffer's concepts that would be oxymoronicin Darwinian
attemptsatbridgebuilding(e.g., LymanandO'Brien terms, such as the function of style or the style of
1998; O'Brienet al. 1998). technologies (Hegmon 1998). One exception is
The goal of Darwinianarchaeologyis to bring recent(European)workby ShennanandWilkinson
Darwinian theory to bear on the archaeological (2001), who do not embracethe Darwinianarchae-
recordand thus to replacegeneralconcepts of cul- ology school butwho do explicitlyaddresssome of
turalevolutionwith a more rigorousand scientific its concepts. Specifically,they concludethat while
understanding of evolution(arecentsummaryis pro- the idea of style as neutralwith regardto selection
videdin Leonard2001). Focusis on the "replicative is a useful heuristic,it does not accountfor actual
success"of componentsofphenotypes,whatarchae- frequencydistributionsand, thus,thatthereis not a
ologists commonlycall traits.If the traitsare func- radicaldifferencebetween functionaland stylistic
tionallyadvantageousandthusincreasereproductive variation.Froma different(Darwinian)perspective,
success, then they are subjectto positive selection. Neff (2000) also seems to soften the line between
In contrast,nonfunctional(stylistic) traitsare sub- style andfunction.Specifically,he findssome com-
ject to processessuch as drift.Manyapplicationsof mon groundwith evolutionaryecology, concluding
Darwinianarchaeologyfocus on materialculture, thatselection need not necessarilyact throughbio-
andsome arereviewedin the sectionon materialcul- logical reproductionbut,rather,thatit can also be a
ture below. A different example is Leonard and culturalprocess.Thesekindsof perspectivesaresug-
Reed's (1993) attemptto explainpatternsof aggre- gestiveof anopeningof theoreticalborders,although
gation in the Southwestin termsof the differential Darwinianarchaeologyremainsmuchmoreclosed
success of strategiesof labororganization. thanothertheoreticalapproaches.
The sourcesof variationandprocessesof selec-
Processual-Plus
tion,as conceptualizedin Darwinianarchaeology,are
the causes of much debate,misunderstanding,and A largemajorityof NorthAmericanarchaeologists
criticism.Forexample,Bamforth(2002:442)argues do not associate themselves with one of the three
thatlinks betweenarchaeologicalpatternsandDar- approachesoutlinedabove. Many of these scholars
winian processes are incorrect because selection wouldprobablysay thatthey are"generallyproces-
operates at an individuallevel but archaeological sual"but also interestedin otherperspectives,and
observationsconcern remains of aggregate/group some explicitlytryto combineprocessualandpost-
processualinsights(e.g., Duke 1995;Preucel1991). Steponaitis 1981; see Trigger 1989a:368), an

While some might emphasizetheir postprocessual approachthattoday is sharedacrossthe theoretical
leanings,theoreticalallegianceis not a majorissue. spectrum.Generalprinciplesare not eschewed,but
I use the termprocessual-plusto referto this broad no longermusta studyexplicitlyaddressgenerallaws
arrayof approaches.My use of a single label is not of culturalprocessesto be consideredimportantand
intendedto imply that there is one unified theory. worthyof publicationin AmericanAntiquity.As is
Rather,I use a single termbecause I believe thatit elaboratedbelow, interestin specific cases fits well
is more useful to considercrosscuttingtrendsthan withNativeAmericans'concernwiththeirtribalhis-
to seek lines of difference.In general,I arguethat toriesas well as workon culturalaffiliation.
manyconceptsfromthepostprocessualarchaeology Postprocessualarchaeologyrejectedsocial evo-
of the 1980s (as characterizedby Hodder[1991])- lutionary typologies and conceptions of
includinginterestsinmeaning,agency,andgender- cultures/societiesas entitieswith volition or needs.
have been incorporatedinto the processual(plus) Instead,emphasis was on individuals,agency, and
mainstream(a trend Brumfiel [1992] noticed and internalimpetusforchange.Similarly,manyproces-
encourageda decadeago). Preucel(1995) notesthat sual archaeologists(e.g., Shennan 1993) identified
common trendshave even been set forthin recent problemswithevolutionaryframeworks,thoughthey
revisions of well-established textbooks (Thomas more often revised thantotally rejectedtypologies
1989; Willey and Sabloff 1992). This is in contrast (e.g., Earle and Johnson1987). Todaymany North
to the situationin Europe,particularlyBritain,where Americanarchaeologists,from across the theoreti-
the processual/postprocessualseparationis much cal spectrum,incorporateconsiderationof individ-
greater. Recent postprocessual volumes (e.g., uals,social strategies,andinternalsocietaldynamics
Thomas 2000; Tilley 1993; also the new journal intotheiraccountsof change(e.g., Byers 1999;Fein-
Social Archaeology)includesome NorthAmerican man et al. 2000; McGuireand Saitta 1996; Potter
authorsbut only one chapter(Gero 2000) on pre- 2000a, 2000b; Trubitt2000; Vehik2002).
ColumbianNorthAmericanarchaeology.Inthissec- Postprocessual archaeology emphasized the
tion I consider elements of the processual-plus importanceof symbols and meaning.Whereasear-
approachin general terms;my characterizationis lierprocessualarchaeologyhad(verygingerly)men-
substantiatedbelow,as I considercurrentdirections tioned cognition and ideas (e.g., Binford's [1962]
in more detail. conceptof "ideotechnic"artifacts),postprocessual-
The New Archaeology of the 1960s and early ists declaredthatmeaningis everywhere,in "trash"
1970s advocated scientific (sometimes positivist) andsubsistenceas well as in ritual.As Robbputsit:
approachesand the search for general laws (e.g., "Thequestionis not whetherwe can find symbols
Binford 1964; Watsonet al. 1971). Although not archaeologically,but whetherwe can find anything
explicitlyrejected,these emphaseswere moderated culturalthat is not symbolic" (1998:331). Today,
somewhat as the New Archaeology maturedinto symbolsandmeaningareeverywherein processual
whatis now calledprocessualarchaeology(Redman (also behavioral[see Schifferwith Miller 1999]) as
1991). Earlystatementsof postprocessualarchaeol- well as postprocessualaccounts(forsomeoverviews,
ogy (especially Hodder 1982, Hodder, ed. 1982; see Brown1997;Robb1999;forrecentNorthAmer-
ShanksandTilley 1987a,1987b)emphasizedappar- ican examples,see Byers 1999; Gambleet al. 2001;
ently differentapproachesinvolving interpretation Ortman2000;VanNest et al. 2001;WhalenandMin-
andhistory.Althoughthe idea of (humanistic)inter- nis 2001). In his recentreview, Robb (1998) even
pretationwas/is controversial,the postprocessual identifiesa perspectivecharacteristicof processual
emphasison historycoincidedwitha processualturn archaeology: the "symbols as tokens" approach,
toward(or back to) the study of specific cases. For which involves an emphasison the role of symbols
example,Braun(1991) arguedthatquestionsabout in communication.Thereis also muchrecentwork
why MidwesternWoodlandpotterywas decorated (mostly by processualists) on the evolution of
couldonlybe understoodin termsof thespecificlocal humans'symbolic capacityand cognitivearchaeol-
and historicalsetting.More commonly,processual- ogy (e.g.,LindlyandClark1990;RenfrewandScarre
ists focused on specificcases as examplesof andin 1998;RenfrewandZubrow1994), primarilyfocus-
relation to the largercontext (e.g., Kintigh 1982; ing on the Old World.
Finally, postprocessualarchaeology embraced inspiredpostprocessualdirections(e.g.,Wylie1992).

criticalperspectives,in thatit consideredthe ways Regardless of its initial relationship with post-
thepresentinfluences(ordetermines)interpretations processualarchaeology,the long-neglectedstudyof
of the past and how interpretationsbecome partof genderin archaeologybecameenormouslypopular
the present.Recentworkfromacrossthe theoretical by the late 1980s; today it is almost mainstreamin
gamutincludesat least moderatelycriticalperspec- manytheoreticalperspectives,althoughtherearestill
tives, althoughoften withoutexplicit discussion of skeptics and unduly harsh reviews. Much of this
criticaltheory.Forexample,althoughWatsonis wary work is done by Anglo-Saxonresearchersworking
of aspectsof postprocessualism (WatsonandFotiadis in all partsof the world(see ConkeyandGero1997).
1990), in some of herworkshe has demonstratedhow Feminist perspectivesand researchon gender are
archaeologists'interpretations of domesticationin much less popularin othercountriesand traditions
the easternUnited Statesreproducedan androcen- (Coudart1998).3
tricbias,includingassumptionsaboutwomenaspas- The very idea of an archaeologyof genderwas a
sive bearersof culture(WatsonandKennedy1991). feministconcept,andmany of the firstapplications
Researchon violence andwarfarealso oftenexplic- hada criticaledge andfoundandrocentric bias (e.g.,
itly considersthe socialmilieuof theresearcher(see WatsonandKennedy1991).Numerouspublications
overviewin Otterbein2000) or the politicalramifi- have since engenderedthe North Americanpast,
cations of the research,as has been broughtto the focusingon womenandmorerecentlyon all genders
fore by the debateaboutcannibalismin the South- andon genderrelations.A few scholarshavelinked
west (Billman et al. 2000; Dongoske et al. 2000; the archaeologyof genderto new ways of knowing
Martin2000; TurnerandTurner1999). thepast.Forexample,Spector(1991, 1993)explores
the powerof narrative"ethnography" abouta deco-
Theoretical Directions, 1: Major Themes ratedawl anda girl'stransitionto womanhoodamong
In this and the following section I identifymany of theDakota.Morethanjust a story,Spector'saccount
the majortheoreticaldirectionsin NorthAmerican is one a few examplesof a hermeneuticapproachin
archaeology today. First I discuss five pervasive NorthAmericanarchaeology(see reviewin Preucel
issues, most of which have seen cumulativedevel- 1995).A recentreviewby ConkeyandGero(1997)
opmentin the past two decades. Then, in the next emphasizestheimportanceof feministtheoryandthe
section, I characterizerecent trends in terms of feministcritiqueof scienceforthepracticeof archae-
changingkey wordsandphrases.Conceptually,these ology,includingissues of agencyin knowledgepro-
two sectionscoverthesamegeneralground;whether duction,theorganizationof researchprojects,andthe
issues areincludedin thefirstor seconddependspri- acknowledgmentof ambiguity.
marilyon whethertheycanbe characterized in terms More commonly, recent researchon gender in
of changingkey wordsor phrases.One of the issues North American archaeology focuses on what
thatemerges,andthatI returnto in the finalsection, women (and sometimes men) did in the past, how
is that focus on issues or concepts crosscutstheo- they were treated,and the implicationsfor gender
reticalapproachesandthusleadsto positivedialogue relations.Much of this work,which Preucel(1995)
and dynamicsyntheses. classesas analyticalfeminism,is anexcellentexam-
ple of whatI meanby processual-plusarchaeology,
The Past Is Engendered in thatit takeson postprocessualthemesbutattempts
The archaeologyof genderis in many ways para- to develop systematicmethodologiesand general-
digmaticofprocessual-plusarchaeologyandthethe- izableconclusions.It also includescontributionsby
oreticalopennessthatcharacterizesmuch of North behavioralarchaeology(Skibo and Schiffer 1995)
Americanarchaeologytoday.Archaeologicalfocus andevolutionaryecology (Barlow2001). Not all of
on genderdevelopedconcurrentlywith postproces- this literatureis feminist; nor does it necessarily
sualismin the 1980s. Clearlyboth were partof the drawon feministtheory.4But as ourunderstanding
same theoreticalcurrent;some see the archaeology of gender in the past increases, it raises questions
of genderas partof postprocessualarchaeology(e.g., relevantto feminist, gender,and social theory,and
Hodder1991), whereasotherssuggest thatit was a thus it has the potentialto contributeto, as well as
separate approach that paralleled and perhaps draw from, this body of literature.For example,
Crown(2000) organizeda volumethatexploreshow an arrayof theoreticalapproaches-ranging from

gender relations and the activities of women and postmodernnarrativesand overtly political state-
men changedover time in the Southwest.Although ments to methodologicalstudiesand the searchfor
the volume focuses on the archaeologyof gender, generallaws-that might seem antithetical.But the
theresultshaveimplications-regardingsuchissues common interestin an importantsubjectseems to
as perceptionsof women's labor as drudgeryor a inspirea relativelack of antagonismandeven open-
valued contributionto subsistenceand the relative mindedness.In this case at least, theoreticaldiver-
statusof elite women-relevant to feministandgen- sity contributesto dynamism.
eral theory (Lamphere2000). Other recent work
thatengendersNorthAmericanprehistoryincludes Agency Is Everywhere
that by Arnold and Wicker (2001), Claassen and Archaeologists(myself included)arefond of citing
Joyce (1997), CrownandFish (1996), Eastmanand Bourdieu (especially 1977), Giddens (especially
Rodning (2001), Munson (2000), and Spielmann 1984), and Ortner(1984) regardingpractice and
(1995). agency.Thissocialtheoryhashadenormousexplicit
Anotherlink betweengenderandarchaeological andimpliciteffectson NorthAmericanarchaeology,
theoryconcernsepistemologicalissues.Specifically, as it inspiresconceptualizationsof a pastpopulated
Wylie(1992;see alsoBrumfiel1996)exploresissues by people(ratherthanculturesorsystems).However,
of politicallymotivatedresearch,concludingthatthe thispopularityhas also led to some conceptualprob-
archaeologicalrecordprovidesevidentialconstraints lems. One is an overemphasison agency, in isola-
that should allow archaeologiststo evaluate their tion from structureand practice,although,as Clark
ideas (whatevertheir source) systematically.Fur- notes, thereis no separaterealmof "agencytheory"
thermore,gender archaeologyhas ties to feminist (2000:97). A second is the assumed equation of
researchon genderpolitics andequityissues. Some agentswithWestern"individuals"andlack of atten-
of this workfocuses specificallyon the treatmentof tion to the relationalaspects of personhood(Clay
womenarchaeologistsin termsof issues such as hir- 1992; Gillespie2001; Strather 1981).
ing, promotion,and fieldworkopportunities.There Althoughit has deep rootsin social theory,espe-
is also a growingbody of studiesthatdemonstrates cially Marxism,the termagencywas broughtto the
how gender politics and sometimes outright dis- fore recentlyby Giddens,who definesit as individ-
criminationaffectarchaeologicalpracticetodayand uals' capabilityof doing things, regardlessof their
historically and, thus, how politics influence our intent:"Agencyconcernsevents of which an indi-
knowledgeof thepast(e.g., Gero2000;Hutson2002; vidual is the perpetrator,in the sense that the indi-
Nelson et al. 1994; Parezo 1993;Wright1996). vidual could, at any phase in a given sequence of
In sum,the archaeologyof genderis an exemplar conduct, have acted differently"(1984:9). Dobres
of what I see as the positivedevelopmentsin North andRobb(2000:8-9) offera list of recentdefinitions,
Americanarchaeology,in thatit manifestsan open- as well as the useful encapsulationthatagencyis "a
ness anddynamismthatresultfromdialogueacross socially significantquality of action."At least for
theoreticallines. In its initial stages it was at least Giddens,agency is inextricablylinkedto structure,
partiallypostprocessual,butit also involvedproces- andalthoughhe sees structureandagencyas having
sual scholars,and gender researchbecame partof a recursiverelationship,his emphasisis primarilyon
many theoreticalperspectives.Some of the more how structureis createdandperpetuated,theprocess
postprocessual aspects of gender archaeology, he calls structuration.Bourdieu (1977, 1990) and
including a critical perspective and interests in Ortner(1984) emphasizepractice,whichOrtnerhas
agency, pushed processual archaeology into new arguedis almostanythingpeople do thathas politi-
realms. Conversely, processual concerns with cal implications.Practiceis embeddedin structure,
methodologicalrigorandgeneralconceptsmayhave and it is throughpracticethat agents reproduceor
made postprocessualgenderresearchmore widely transformstructure.However,discussionsof agency
applicableand acceptable.Such interfacesare the sometimes forget this embeddedness(as Wiessner
essence of processual-plusarchaeology,which in [2002] notes) and equateagencywith the strategies
this sense includesaspectsof behavioralandevolu- or intentionsof relativelyunconstrainedself-inter-
tionaryecology.The archaeologyof genderincludes estedindividuals.Practiceandagencyhaveto do with
similarly conceptualizedprocesses, but the terms views competitionand strivingfor statusas among
emphasizedifferentcomponentsof these processes. the driving forces that lead to the emergence of
Agencyis more "behindthe scenes,"in thatit has to ascribedinequalityon the NorthwestCoast (1991;
do withcapabilityandis sometimes(I thinkwrongly) Maschnerand Patton 1996). A similarperspective
associated with motivation. In contrast,practice regarding aggrandizers is developed by Hayden
refersdirectlyto whatpeople do. Focus on practice, (1995). Kantner(1996) draws on an actor-based
ratherthan agency, leads to a more dynamic and model of political competitionto explaindevelop-
humanizedpictureof people's activitiesand of the ments associated with Chaco Canyon. Finally,
relationsamongindividuals,institutions,and struc- Arnold(2000; see also 1993, 1995) explicitly dis-
ture (Dobres and Robb 2000:4-5). The fact that cusses agency in her considerationof the develop-
archaeologistsoften focus only on agency suggests ment of craft specializationand leadershipamong
that the insights of practicetheory-especially the Chumashchiefdomson theCaliforniacoast,andshe
recursiverelationshipsamongpractice,agency,and views the developmentof hierarchicalrelationsas a
structure-are sometimes overlooked, a theme I resultof opportunisticand costly reorganizationby
assess below. well-placedcanoe-owningleaders.The authorsof
Explicit discussionsof agency in NorthAmeri- these accountsseem to assumethatstrivingfor sta-
can archaeology are probably most common in tus or aggrandizementis universallya characteristic
accounts of leadership and inequality. Pauketat of at least some membersof all societies.This is in
(1994) has arguedfor the importanceof elite-con- contrastto the agentsconceptualizedin practicethe-
trolledideology and symbolismin the rise of Mis- ory,who are much more constrainedby antecedent
sissippianchiefdoms.However,in morerecentwork culturalpractices(see discussionin Clark2000:97).
(2000) he also considershow the practicesof com- Discussionsof agencyarealso prevalentin stud-
monersandemergentelite resultedin the construc- ies of leadershipandsocialchangein the Southwest.
tion of Mississippianmoundsandsocialhierarchies, Schachner(2001) identifiescontextsin whichagents
even if the end-a powerful chiefdom-was not were able to instigate social and especially ritual
intendedby all agents.He emphasizesthatpractices change,but reversalof those changes suggeststhat
were based in the establishedstructurebut that, as theleaderswerenotableto institutionalizethem.His
the scale changed, the structurewas transformed. accountspecifically focuses on the recursiverela-
Thus,Pauketatspecificallydrawson practicetheory tionshipbetweenagencyandstructure,in thatagents'
(notjust agency)andattributeschangeto morethan practices-involving Giddensian rules and
elite manipulations.In work that focuses on less resources-are derived from and may transform
complex traditions,Cobb and Garrow(1996; Cobb structure.Varien(1999) drawson Giddens'sconcept
2000) drawon ideasof agencyandstructureto under- of structurationto conceptualizehow agency(in the
standthe extent to which local developmentswere form of residentialmobility)was enabledand con-
and were not drawn into Mississippian politics. strainedby the structure(i.e., the landtenuresystem)
Smith (1992a) drawson Giddensto arguethatMis- and how the result (settlement on the landscape)
sissippiancalendricaldevices can be understoodas becamepartof andeventuallycontributed to thetrans-
authoritativeresources and structuralprinciples. formationof thestructure. Incontrastto manyarchae-
Saitta(1994)-who uses Marxisttheoryandargues ological applications of practice theory,Varien's
that agency has been overemphasized-focuses on accountgives particularemphasisto structure.
understandingthe structuralcontextof class devel- Agencyis a componentof thecorporate/network
opment and surplusextraction,including what he models of leadershipdeveloped by Blanton et al.
calls communalextraction.Therole of nonelitesand (1996) andrecentlyappliedto understanding thepit-
economic factors in Mississippian chiefdoms are house-to-pueblotransition(Feinmanet al.2000) and
also emphasizedby Maxham(2000), Milner(1998), otheraspectsof southwestern(Mills 2000) andMis-
andMuller(1997), thoughwithless explicitempha- sissippian(Trubitt2000) prehistory,althoughthese
sis on agency or practicetheory. applicationsdo not all explicitlydiscussagency.An
Other researchinto the developmentof social importantissue thatcouldbe exploredfromthisper-
inequalitiesalso emphasizesthe actionsof leaders. spectiveconcernsagencyin differentkindsof lead-
For example, Maschner'sevolutionaryperspective ership systems. That is, it is relatively easy for
Westernscholarsto conceptualizetheagencyof lead- theory(e.g., Ferguson1996a).Finally,landscapesare

ers-with individualpowerandsometimespersonal also sometimes viewed from the perspective of
glory and wealth-in networksystems (thoughsee agency and practice;for example, Sneadand Preu-
Gillespie 2001). However,agencyin corporatesys- cel consider processes of "'place making' which
temsremainsundertheorized, andSouthwestarchae- involvesboththe 'domesticationof thephysical'and
ology (as well as Puebloethnography)would be an the 'naturalizationof the social"' (1999:171).
excellent contextin which to develop such theory. A different perspective on agency is being
Archaeologistsexplicitly concernedwith prac- exploredby a smallnumberof archaeologistsusing
tice, agency, and leadershipare not alone in popu- agent-basedmodeling. In these computermodels,
lating the past with active people. Behavioral agents (not necessarilyconceptualizedas individu-
archaeology,thoughdevelopedalonga differentthe- als)collect information,makedecisions,act,andcan
oreticaltrajectory,similarlyinvolves focus on what learnandchangeas a resultof theiractions(Kohler
people do. Explicitlinks betweenbehavioraltheory 2000). Althoughagent-basedmodelingis not about
and the concept of agency are exploredby Walker agency per se, it does have theoreticalrelevance.
and Lucero (2000), who drawon concepts of arti- Specifically,at least some agent-basedmodels are
fact life historiesand agency to considerhow peo- generative,in thatagents'actionscontributeto struc-
ple manipulatedsocial andritualcontexts. ture,which then sets the stage for furtheractions,a
Interest in practice theory and agency is also process not unlike Giddens's structuration. Agent-
closely tiedto archaeologicalinterestin gender.The based models are currently being developed to
veryidea of "engendering" the pastpopulatesit with explorethe dynamicsof settlementin two partsof
agents(rather than facelessblobs [Tringham1991]); the Southwest (Kohler,Kresl, et al. 2000; Rauch
engenderedagentsarediverseandhavevariousinter- 2002).
ests, needs,capabilities,andstructuralopportunities In variousforms,agency is everywherein North
and constraints.Practice theory often sees direct Americanarchaeologytoday.Many archaeologists
application in archaeological studies of gender explicitlydiscusstheoreticalconceptsof agencyand
(DobresandRobb 2000:7), and it has links to fem- practice;others(especiallyin genderstudies)use the
inist theory (Conkey and Gero 1997). In archaeo- conceptsmore implicitly.In reviewingsome of this
logical studiesof genderin NorthAmerica,practice work,I haveconsideredconceptsof agencythatare
theory is generally more implicit than explicit, linked to practicetheory to be particularlypraise-
althoughSassaman's(2000) accountof the origins worthy.Thisis becausethesestudieshelpus to under-
of potteryin the Southeastconceptualizeswomen's standthe ways thatagency-part of whatmakesus
andmen's activitiesin termsof agency.But regard- human-is culturally constituted and thus is not
less of terminology,manyaccountsof the contribu- immutable. In general, different perspectives on
tions of prehistoricwomen-who plantedthe first agencyseemto coexistwithlittlerancorbutalso with
domesticcrops(WatsonandKennedy1991 [though regrettably little dialogue. That is, different
see Fritz1999]),who usedawls to workhides(Spec- researchersor approachesutilize differentconcepts
tor 1991, 1993), andwho organizedtheirlives so as or definitions of agency, but discussion (or even
to fitin potteryproduction(CrownandWills 1995)- acknowledgment)of those differencesis minimal.
are accountsof agency. Thus,the potentialfor theoreticaldynamismexists
Agency also underliesrecentarchaeologicalper- in the variedapproachesto the same word or con-
spectivesregardingpeople'srelationswiththemate- cept, butit has yet to be fully developed.
rial world. For example, some of my work has Forat least two reasons,NorthAmericanarchae-
involvedconsiderationof Pueblo potterystyle as a ology has somethingspecial to offerto archaeolog-
"social strategy"(Hegmon 1995). The use of food ical interestsin agency.First,becauseof therichness
in social strategiesandin powerrelationsis increas- of the recordand qualityof dating,thereare many
ingly consideredin studiesof theMississippian(e.g., cases in which we can observe the details of prac-
Welsh and Scarry1995) and the Southwest(Potter tice, even cases where efforts to instigatechanges
2000a). A numberof studies of architecture(some seem to have failed (e.g., Schachner2001). Second,
drawingon spacesyntaxtheory)now conceptualize because much of North American archaeologyis
its constructionand use partlyin terms of practice about times and places in which institutionalized
inequalitywas not prevalent,it gives us the oppor- at least the general class of meanings-status and
tunityto conceptualizepracticeandagencyin a world prestige-conveyed by certaingoods.Althoughsuch
very unlike our own. accountsof meaningmay be less thansatisfyingto
those inclinedtowardinterpretativeapproaches,the
Is AnythingNot Symbolic?
generalandvagueequationof certainstylesormate-
An emphasis on symbols and meaning was advo- rials with prestige is not necessarilyinaccurate,in
cated by postprocessualarchaeology,and, as dis- thatknowledgeof specificmeaningsmay havebeen
cussedabove,considerationof thesetopicshas been restricted to elites or to specialist practitioners
incorporatedinto the processual-plusmainstream (Brandt 1994; Earle 1990). Furthermore,many
andintobehavioralapproaches(SchifferwithMiller accountsdo attemptto get at otherlevels of mean-
1999; Walker 2002; Zedeno 1997). Many North ing. For example,in discussingthe PlateauInterac-
Americanistsview symbols as a means of commu- tion Spherein theNorthwest,HaydenandSchulting
nicating and manipulatingspecific kinds of infor- (1997) suggest that some prestigegoods may have
mation;thus,they mightbe lumpedinto whatRobb incorporatedmeaningsrelatingto specificbeliefs in
(1998:332-334) calls the "symbolsas tokens"cate- a guardianspirit.In anotherexample,Pauketatand
gory.However,contraryto Robb'sfairlycriticalchar- Emerson (1991) argue that MississippianRamey
acterization,these archaeologistsdo not necessarily Incised pots communicatedan ideology in which
assume thatsymbolic meaningsare fixed or singu- elites were seen as mediatorsof the cosmos.
lar. Rather,many would also agree that meaning The role of history and historicalmeaningsin
resides in the interactionbetweenpeople andmate- social processes is also receivingincreasingatten-
rialculture(e.g., SchifferwithMiller 1999) andthat tion. Mortuarypracticeshave long been viewed as
all behavioris symbolicallymediatedand is both importantmeans of maintaininglinks with the past
actionandmeaning(Trigger1998a).Thus,although andthuslegitimatinglong-termclaimsto land(e.g.,
most of these symbolicallyinclined NorthAmeri- Charles and Buikstra 1983). This perspective is
canists would not self-identifyas poststructuralists receivingnew applications,as in Dunham's(1999)
(thoughsee Dunham1999),theydo havesomething explorationof how collective mortuarypractices
in common with the approachRobb (1998) calls stretchedsocialrelationsacrosstimeandthus"deep-
"symbolsas tesserae." ened" the past in late prehistoricVirginia. Other
North Americanists'treatmentof symbols and accountsfocus on how past symbols andmeanings
meaningcan be consideredin termsof at least three weremanipulatedin emergingpoliticalprocesses-
generalrealms.The first,andprobablythe broadest, forexample,howpost-Chacoandevelopmentsincor-
is that meaning is now seen as intrinsic to many poratedsymboliclinks to Chaco (Fowlerand Stein
social andeconomicprocesses,sometimesas partof 1992; Kintighet al. 1996; Lekson 1999).
ritual behavioror religion. This is probablymost A second realmin which meaningand symbols
apparent in variedapproachesto leadership and the are given considerableattentionis in interpretations
rise of politicalsystems.Forexample,followingear- of all kinds and scales of archaeologicalevidence,
lier workby Judge(1989), the spectaculardevelop- rangingfrom portablematerialcultureto architec-
ment of ChacoCanyon(northernNew Mexico) and ture and landscapes.Materialcultureis discussed
the surroundingregionalsystemin the eleventhand more specifically below; here I emphasize how
early twelfth centuriesis viewed at least in partas analysesattemptto interpretthegeneralandspecific
the rise of a complex ritual system, involving pil- meaningsincorporatedinto thatmaterial,for exam-
grimagesinto the canyon(Renfrew2001; see sum- ple, the RameyIncisedpotterydiscussedabove,the
mary in Mills 2002). While enormous effort was ideology associatedwith southwesternSaladoPoly-
devotedtowardthe procurementand productionof chrome(Crown1994), and the metaphoricrootsof
goodsthatweremovedintoChacoCanyon,relatively Mesa Verdeceramic designs (Ortman2000). Pro-
little material(otherthanrituallychargedturquoise) ductionof materialcultureis also sometimesunder-
moved out (Mills 2002). stood in termsof the meaningof thatmaterial-for
The concepts of prestigetechnologies (Hayden example, the ritualdemandfor glaze ware pottery
1998) and prestigegoods (Frankensteinand Row- (Spielmann1998, 2002).
lands 1978;FriedmanandRowlands1977) consider Although archaeologistshave long studiedthe
spatialdistributionof architectureand settlements, only a small fractionof NorthAmericaniststudies

much more attentionhas focused recently on the of symbols and meaning. Discussion of these top-
meaningof thatconstructionand the way in which ics, or at least acknowledgmentof theirimportance,
it createda culturallymeaningfullandscape.A num- is everywhere.A few moreexamplesshouldhelp to
ber of scholarshave been profoundlyinfluencedby illustratethe breadthof this concern:Odess (1998)
Basso's (1996) accountof how places take on cul- emphasizesthe importanceof meaningin his study
turalmeanings,meaningsthatareexplicitlyused in of AlaskanDorset style and exchange;VanNest et
social interactions.Growingnumbersof studiesare al. (2001) considerthe symbolic dimensionsof sod
consideringthemeaningsof Chacoanstructuresand blocks used in the constructionof Hopewell (Mid-
the ways thattheyrelateto the landscape(e.g., Stein west U.S.) mounds;andWilson(1995) considersthe
and Lekson 1992). Zedefio (1997), in developing symbolic importanceof tipi rings on the Plains.
behavioralprinciplesregardinglandscapes,incor- Unfortunately, althoughI see discussionsof symbols
poratesaspectsof meaningandtheconceptof place. andmeaningeverywherein NorthAmericanarchae-
Inearlierwork,CharlesandBuikstra(1983) empha- ology, their theoreticalimpact is limited; Robb's
sized how MidwesternArchaicmortuarypractices (1998) recent review of "symbolsin archaeology"
were a means of assertingland claims associated includesveryfew NorthAmericanexamples.Itmay
with increasinglyintensivelanduse. More recently be thatNorthAmericanapproachesreceiveless atten-
(and focusing on a laterperiod),they considerhow tion because they are less extreme (i.e., not post-
the constructionof mounds and tombs "re-created modem) andthusdo not appearto be "cutting-edge
the cosmos, vertically and horizontallydifferenti- theory."But whatNorthAmericadoes haveto offer
ated,just as they provideda forumfor the negotia- to the archaeologicalstudyof symbolsis a diversity
tion of powerrelationsamongthe living"(Buikstra of approachesthat,in a processual-plussense, bring
and Charles1999:216). a varietyof theoreticalperspectivesto bearon a com-
A thirdrealmof focus on symbolsandmeanings mon interest.
involves a revitalizedinterestin understandingpre-
New Waysof ViewingMaterial Culture
historic ideas and cosmologies, not just as partof
social processes but also for their own sake. This Archaeologicalresearchhas obviouslyalwaysbeen
trendis perhapsmost apparentin the easternUnited concerned with the materialremains of the past.
States,wheredetailsof shamanisticpracticesandthe However,in recentyearsarchaeologistshavefocused
variousformsof theMississippianSoutheasternCer- on understandingmaterialculture as a subject of
emonial Complex are often the focus of research interestin its ownright,notsimplyas a kindorsource
(Brown 1997; Galloway 1984). The cosmological of data(Chilton1999;NassaneyandJohnson2000).
significance of everything from iconography, to This trendtakesmanyformsthattranscendtheoret-
architecture, to theplacementof moundson theland- ical approaches(see Hodder2001:9), andinterestin
scape being exploredin variouscontexts,includ-
is materialculturegoes far beyondarchaeology(e.g.,
ing theMimbresof the Southwest(Shafer1995) and the recently launchedJournal of Material Culture
the Illinois Hopewell (Buikstraand Charles 1999). Studies).
Recentstudiesof rockartalso oftenfocus on under- Behavioral archaeology is directly concerned
standingits meaning and content, as in Whitley's with the relationshipbetween humanbehaviorand
(2000) work on the artof the shamanin California. materialculture.In some cases (suchas the workon
Archaeoastronomyresearch provides additional artifact design summarized above [Schiffer and
examples.Manyof thesesubjectswerepursuedprior Skibo 1997]) focus is on functional/technological
to the postprocessualboom of the 1980s, and most characteristics.Otherstudiesattemptto understand
of this workis being done by researcherswho prob- trendsin materialculture(e.g., the lack of develop-
ably do not self-identifyas postprocessual.Never- ment of the electriccar)in termsof largersociocul-
theless, growing interestand recent work in these turalcurrents(Schifferet al. 1994).Materialculture
arenasdemonstrateopennessto at least some post- is alsocentralto manyDarwinianapproaches: specif-
processual ideas, in the spirit of processual-plus ically, the phenotype,which comprisesbehavioral
archaeology. andmaterialtraitsandis subjectto Darwinianselec-
In this subsection I have explicitly mentioned tion; and Darwinian archaeologists' attempts to
understandthe culturaland selectiveprocessesthat have been "prestigious"in some sense, theirdistri-

affect the persistenceand transmissionof material butions suggest that they were more than simply
traits.Forexample,Braun(1983) explainsdecreas- tokensof elite leadershipandmustbe understoodin
ing wall thicknessin MidwesternWoodlandpottery termsof theirroles in social andpoliticalstrategies
as a resultof directionalselectivepressurescaused (Cobb 1993; Saitta1999).
by subsistenceand demographicchanges (see also WhosePast Is It?
Neff 1992:173-174). Neiman(1995) examineshow
variationin the style of IllinoisWoodland(i.e., pre- Although Native Americans' involvement in the
200 B.C. to A.D. 800) cookingpotlips resultedfrom archaeologyof theirancestorshasincreasedin recent
drift and intergrouptransmission.Leonard(2001) years (Anawak 1989; Dongoske et al., eds. 2000;
considers hypothesesregardingthe culturaltrans- McGuire 1992a:829;Naranjo1995), most archae-
mission of Casas Grandes ceramic traits (A.D. ology of pre-ColumbianNorthAmericais still done
1275-1400 in northernMexico). by archaeologistsof Europeandescent.Realization
Finally, focus on materialcultureis part of the of this imbalancehas becomepoliticized,especially
processual-plustrend.In a vastarrayof recentwork, withthepassageof theNativeAmericanGravesPro-
NorthAmericanists(andothers)areconsideringall tection and RepatriationAct (NAGPRA)of 1990.
aspects of materialcultureand how they relate to Some of these issues arethe subjectof anotherarti-
social, cultural, historical, and technological cle in this issue (see also Ferguson1996b). Here I
processes.Much of this workis refreshinglyfree of focus on how currenttheoryis relatedto these polit-
absolutiststatements.Technologyis understoodto ical developments,and I emphasize that the rela-
have social significance,bothin the sense thatsome tionshipis complexandmulticausal.In manyways,
technologies are symbolically charged (following awarenessof "whoseancestorswe arestudying"has
Lechtman's[1977] concept of technologicalstyle) made archaeologistsmorecriticallyawareof possi-
and regardingthe linkage of technological styles ble biases and the implications of archaeological
with social identity.Althoughin some cases tech- research,althoughformal criticaltheory (e.g., the
nologicalstyles arethe resultof subconscioustradi- workof Habermas)is not oftenexplicitlydiscussed
tions (what Sackett [1982] calls "isochrestic" regardingpre-ColumbianNorthAmericanarchae-
variation),these same styles are seen as taking on ology (butsee Leone and Preucel1992).
particularsocial significancewhen the context of As Trigger(1980) madeclear,NewArchaeology,
theiruse changes,for example,as a resultof migra- in its searchforgenerallaws, oftentreatednativepeo-
tion (Starket al. 1995;see reviewin Hegmon 1998). ples as objectsof researchorsourcesof data.He sug-
Productionof materialcultureis not simply an eco- gests that more concern with the history of native
nomicprocessbutis also imbuedwith social signif- peoples mighthelp move archaeologistsawayfrom
icance. Theoretically,one of the most important this detachedview. His suggestionwas appliedby
componentsof thisrenewedinterestin materialcul- Duke (1995), whose emphasis on local historyin
tureis theconception-not unrelatedto practicethe- southwesternColoradois closely linkedto the inter-
ory-of materialas a dynamicpart of culture(see est of localUtepeople-who participated in his field-
Skibo and Feinman1999). In some cases, material work-in their own history and ancestors.History
cultureand its productionare explicitlyinterpreted hasreceivedmuchmorearchaeological(andgeneral
in termsof actors'social strategies,as in my analy- anthropological)attentionsince the 1980s.As I dis-
sis of Pueblo potterydesign style (Hegmon 1995), cussed above, the processual archaeology of the
Sassaman's(1995) discussionof potteryand inno- 1980s includedgrowinginterestin particularcases
vationin the Southeast,Duke's(1992) discussionof in lieu of generallaws, and postprocessualarchae-
innovationand conservatismin stone tools in the ology explicitlyemphasizedthe importanceof his-
northernPlains, and Krause's(1995) discussionof tory.
how easternmoundswere used in the manipulation Concernwith particularhistoriesis also linked
of social power.Assessmentsof the prestigegoods to the rekindlingof archeologicalinterest in how
model are also leading to insightsin these regards. people relateto the landscape,includingissues of
In many NorthAmericancases (i.e., nonstatesoci- place, abandonment,and migration.Among other
eties), althoughexotic or labor-intensivegoods may points,recentstudiesof abandonmentnow empha-
size that residentialmoves should not be equated demonstratesthe pervasivenessof the concepts of
with relinquishmentof ownershipandcertainlynot agency andpractice,discussedabove.
with the disappearanceof a people (Nelson and
Evolutionof Culture- Diverse Trajectories
Schachner 2002:169). In some cases, this work
includes considerationof native oral histories (a of Change
subject also of interest in the direct historical Evolutionwill probablyalwaysbe a partof anthro-
approach in the mid-twentieth century) and the pology,andarchaeologistswill alwaysbe concerned
developmentof new theory for incorporatingoral with the long-termevolution of culture.However,
historicalperspectivesalong with other sources of NorthAmericanarchaeologistshaverecentlymoved
data(Echo-Hawk2000; Whiteley2002; thoughsee awayfromdescribingparticularsequencesas exam-
Mason 2000). Forexample,Bemardini(2002) uses ples of culturalevolutionandtowardotherconcep-
Hopi oraltraditionas a sourceof hypothesesregard- tions of culturechange. This shift in terminology
ing migrationprocesses thathe then assesses with goes far beyond mere semantics;it representsan
archaeologicaldata,andDongoskeet al. (1997) dis- increasinglysophisticatedunderstandingof evolu-
cuss how the Hopi (people) did not become Hopi tion as a theoreticalconceptand of what used to be
(the culturalidentity)until they joined togetherat called archaeologicalcultures,which are no longer
the Hopi villages (the place). conceptualizedas boundedentities assumedto be
NAGPRAmandatesdeterminationof thecultural units of evolution.Finally,this shift recognizesthat
affiliationof remainsand thus has directly spurred manyculturalchangesareneitherunilinearnoruni-
NorthAmericanarchaeologiststo considerissues of directional,anideawithprecursorsin workby Stew-
ethnicityandculturalidentity(Dongoskeet al. 1997) ard(1955) and Sahlins and Service (1960).
at the same time that these issues were receiving Amongtheideasandterminologythathavecome
increasing attentionin anthropologicaland social to replaceculturalevolutionare "pathsto complex-
theory.Thisincludesworkon how socialboundaries ity"(see also Hayden[1995] on pathwaysto power)
andethnicitiescanbe recognized(Croes1989;Jones and "cycling."One widely appliedexample of the
1997; Stark 1998); how archaeological style formeris basedon the distinctionbetweencorporate
zones/regions should be interpreted, from both andnetwork/exclusionary modes of politicalaction
archaeological(Duff2002) andlinguistic(Shauland (Blanton et al. 1996). These are describedin more
Hill 1998) perspectives;andwhetherthe conceptof detail below; here the point is that the switch from
ethnicity is applicable in many prestate contexts corporateto networkstrategiesis notnecessarilyuni-
(Shennan1989).All of these issues havetheoretical directional-nor is one necessarilymore complex
relevance well beyond the boundaries of North than the other. The concept of cycling has been
America. appliedin variouscontextsin easternNorthAmer-
ica. Cobb (1991) views the long-termdevelopment
Theoretical Directions, 2: of Late Archaic, Hopewell, and Mississippian
Changing Key Words exchangesystems in termsof Braudel'sthree-level
Terminologyis bothindicativeof andpartof theory. cycle of historicalchange (structure,conjuncture,
Here I focus on terminology-key words and and event). Focusing on the Mississippian,Ander-
phrases-as a way of characterizingrecentchanges son (1994, 1996)arguesthatcycling,specificallythe
in NorthAmericanarchaeologicaltheory.I tryto go rise andcollapseof complexchiefdoms,is an inher-
beyondmerelylabelingconceptsas "in style"(e.g., ent propertyof chiefdoms. Although Anderson's
bell bottoms[again])or "outof style"(everythingin modelis notuniversallyaccepted(e.g., Scarry1999),
my closet). Rather,in manycases I arguethatwhat nonlineardevelopments-such as fission-fusion-
were once widely used concepts(e.g., "evolution") do seem to characterizemany parts of the Missis-
are now appliedmore narrowlybut also more pre- sippianworld(Blitz 1999).
cisely. Onetermthatappearsrepeatedlyis strategies Thereareexceptionsto my generalizationabout
(organizational and leadership strategies, social theshiftawayfromconcernwiththeevolutionof cul-
strategies,landuse andtechnologicalstrategies);in ture.Forexample,Richersonet al. (2001) developa
all respectsit suggests that archaeologistsare con- generalexplanationfor the originsof agriculturein
ceiving of what people did in the past and thus the Holocene(the processesthey discuss areworld-
wide, buttheyincludesome NorthAmericancases). (see the discussionin Jones 1997) similarlyview it,
And Smith (1992b) considersthe developmentof at least in part, as an organizationalstrategythat
earlyagriculturein easternNorthAmericaas coevo- buildson culturaltraditionsand inheritance.
lution(see alsoRindos1984).Theseexceptionsmake One example of the new emphasison organiza-
clearthattherehas not been an absoluterejectionof tional strategiesis the conceptionof two modes of
the conceptof the evolutionof cultureperse. Rather, politicalorganization,corporateandnetwork(orig-
the term evolutionis being appliedwith more dis- inally developedin Blantonet al. 1996 and applied
crimination,so thatevery changeor transformation to North America in Feinman et al. 2001, Trubitt
is no longerconsideredto be "evolutionary" (see also 2000, andnumerouschaptersin Mills 2000; see also
Trigger's [1998b] historicaltreatment of sociocul- Hayden 1995 regarding leadership strategies).
turalevolution).Furthermore, differentschools and Althoughthedifferencebetweensocial organization
approaches-including Darwinian archaeologyand andpolitical organizationmay seem to be splitting
evolutionaryecology (as discussed here) as well as hairs,the point is thatthe politicalmodes comprise
dualtransmissiontheory(BoydandRicherson1985), sets of leadershipstrategies that crosscut various
evolutionarypsychology(e.g., Barkowet al. 1992), kinds of societies and may coexist in a given social
andsociobiology(e.g.,Dawkins1976)-explore dif- formation.Anotherimportantaspect of the corpo-
ferentways evolution(in a Darwiniansense) might rate/networkdistinctionis that it directs attention
be manifestedin or contributeto culturechange. towardprocessesof leadershipratherthanassuming
that leadershipis somehow preestablishedby the
The Social Organization-- Organizational social structure;even when leadershipis institution-
Strategies alized it is not passivelyperpetuated.
The phrase "social organization"is by no means A relateddevelopmentis anincreasinginterestin
gone from the NorthAmericanliterature;nor am I the dynamicsof power.Most NorthAmericanists-
suggestingthatit shouldbe. Butwhatis mostlygone althoughthey seem to be awareof Foucault'swork
is the focus on identifying, describing,and espe- and various conceptions of power (Wolf 1990)-
cially classifying the (static) social organizationof focus on how individualsor groups establish and
a period or place. North Americanarchaeologists maintain"powerto" and "powerover."For exam-
have insteadmoved towardunderstandingvarious ple, Emerson (1997) defines an "architectureof
aspects of social relations,includingkinship,lead- power"used by the elite to signify and extendtheir
ership,labor,andexchange,in diverseanddynamic control at and aroundthe Mississippiancenter of
ways, perspectivesthatoften bridgeprocessualand Cahokia (see also Knight 1998; Lewis and Stout
postprocessualinterests(Schiffer2000:6, 9). These 1998).This architectureof powerconceptis applied
interestsin strategiesand organizationaldynamics by WhalenandMinnis(2001) to assessthelevel and
haveprecursorsin theNewArchaeology(e.g., Deetz scaleof influenceof CasasGrandesin northernMex-
1968;Freeman1968),buttheyhavebeenbroughtto ico. Sebastian(1992)considershowleadersin Chaco
the fore more commonlyin recentyears. Canyon establishedand maintainedauthorityand
Archaeologicalinterestin kinshiphas been mod- the complex relationshipof these processesto sur-
erate,at best (e.g., Howell andKintigh1996). How- plus production.
ever, a few recent studies that have addressedthe An importantcomponentof the shift away from
topicconceptualizekinshipnotas a systemto be clas- the study of "the social organization"is the disag-
sifiedbut,rather,as an organizationalstrategy,a per- gregationof its variouscomponents(see Mills2000).
spective consonantwith recent work in social and Oneexampleis Saitta's(1997) Marxistargumentthat
kinshiptheory.For example,Jones (1996) sees the developmentsat Chaco Canyon were the result of
rise of linealorganizationin Californiaas a response the communal appropriationof labor,ratherthan
to the need for women'sprocessinglabor;McGuire beingcontrolledby ritualspecialists,who hadpower
(1992b) considersthe role of kinshipin the recruit- in differentrealms.Theconceptof "heterarchy" sim-
ment of much neededlaborin Hohokamirrigation ilarly directs attentiontowardprocesses of leader-
systems; and Peregrine (2001) views matrilocal shipratherthanorganizationaltypes,althoughit has
groupsas the basis of a corporatepolitical strategy seen few applicationsto the nonstatesocieties of
in Chaco Canyon. Some conceptions of ethnicity NorthAmerica (one exception is Rautman1998).
Finally,chaptersin Diehl 2000 considerthe "costs Costin's emphasiswas on high degrees of special-
and benefits,"to varioussocial actors,of hierarchi- ization-such as those associatedwith states-her
cal strategies. general approach has been both modified and
advancedin applicationsto the differentkinds of
Types-+ Dimensions specializationseen in NorthAmerica (e.g., Crown
As New Archaeology/processual archaeologists andMills 1995; Hegmonet al. 1997).
directedattentiontowardunderstandingandanalyz- Archaeologists'understanding of mobilityis also
ing artifactstyle in relationto social organization, becomingincreasingly multidimensional(see Rocek
many eschewed typological classificationsin favor in
1996), partbuilding on Binford's(1980) distinc-
of attributeanalysis(e.g., Plog 1980).Morerecently tion between logistic and residential mobilities.
therehas been a moderationof this approachand a Ratherthan classifying occupations as mobile or
renewed interest in artifacttypologies (e.g., Duff sedentary,all societies-even thosethatinvolveyear-
1996). Todaytypes, attributes,or both may be the roundresidencein one location-may practicesome
basisof analysis,dependingon the questionathand. kind of mobility.Relevantconceptsinclude"short-
This reconsiderationof artifacttypologies, in con- term sedentism"(Nelson and LeBlanc 1986) and
junctionwith recentdevelopmentsin social theory, householdresidentialmobilityin thecontextof com-
has also moved archaeologistsaway fromthe typo- munitystability(Varien1999).
logical classificationof socialformsorpracticesand Although North Americanarchaeologistshave
towardan emphasis on understandingthe relevant moved away from social typologies, all social cat-
variables. egories have not been absolutelyrejected.In par-
A prime example is movementaway from Ser- ticular,the concept of chiefdom still has analytical
vice's (1971) bands-tribes-chiefdoms-statesevolu- salience (Earle 1991), not necessarilyas a precur-
tionarysequence.Instead,thereis muchmorefocus sor to the state(Yoffee 1993) or in Service's (1971)
on relevantdimensionsthatmay crosscutthese cat- sense as a redistributivetheocracybut,rather,as an
egories (see Feinman and Neitzel 1984), such as interestingandvariedorganizationalformin its own
organizationalstrategiesand forms of power (the right.Forexample, Gambleet al. (2001) use multi-
corporateandnetworkmodes),as well as alternative ple lines of archaeological,bioarchaeological,and
formsof leadership,suchas heterarchyandthecom- ethnographicevidence to arguefor the early exis-
munalappropriation of labor(discussedabove).This tence of a Chumashchiefdomin southernCalifor-
shift has resultedin a welcome end to acrimonious nia, and Arnold (1993, 1995) and Ames (1995)
debatesaboutthe presenceor absence of hierarchy considervariousaspects of production(controlled
or whetherone prehistoriccase is more or less com- by chiefs and at the householdlevel, respectively)
plex than another.For example, debate (centered in chiefly societies. Interestingly,althoughthereis
aroundthe sites of ChavezPass and Grasshopper) much interest in the natureof complexity in the
aboutinstitutionalizedsocialinequalitiesin latepre- Southwest,theconceptof chiefdomis rarelyinvoked
HispanicwesternPuebloshas been replacedby the because leadership seems to have taken different
conclusion that the Pueblos were both egalitarian forms (Mills 2000). This selective use of a poten-
and hierarchical(McGuireand Saitta 1996; Plog tially controversialconcept suggests a theoretical
1995). In a differentapproach,Nelson (1995) com- maturity,and it is likely thatwork on the rich data-
paresdevelopmentsat La Quemada(northernMex- base on NorthAmericanchiefdoms-which often
ico) and Chaco Canyon,concludes that they were persistedinto protohistoricperiods-will advance
complex in differentways, and sets forth general archaeologists'understandingof this social organi-
dimensionsof complexity. zationalform.
Researchon otherkinds of topics has similarly
ParticularisticExplanations-+
involveda shiftfromtypesto dimensions.The orga- Eschewing
and Diffusion
nizationof production/specialization had long been Migration
characterizedin terms of categories/typessuch as In theirquestfor generallaws of culturalprocesses,
householdsandworkshops.However,sinceCostin's some New Archaeologistsrejected"particularistic"
(1991) seminalessay,muchworkhasfocusedinstead explanations based on diffusion and migration.
on the dimensions of specialization. Whereas Althoughtheirreasoningmade theoreticalsense-
diffusionis notanexplanation-the resultwas a lack cal perspectiveshavemovedawayfromthisusageof

of attentionto significantevents such as large-scale adaptation,althoughtheterm(asa noun)is stillsome-
populationmovements(seeAnthony1990).Perhaps times used as a sort of shorthandfor "howhumans
as partof a renewedprocessual-plusinterestin par- lived on the landscape."From the processual-plus
ticularcases, archaeologistshave againturnedcon- perspective,a way of living on a landscapeis often
siderableattentiontowardthe movementof people conceptualizedas a result of humanproblemsolv-
and apparentspreadof traits. ing, a landuse or subsistencestrategy.Forexample,
Numerousstudies have documentedprehistoric in his investigationof the increaseduse of rockshel-
migrationsandabandonments in NorthAmerica.Fur- tersin easternNorthAmericain the earlyHolocene,
thermore,ratherthanusing migrationsimply as an Walthall(1998:234,followingKellyandTodd1988)
explanation for change, much attention is now arguesthatpeople"reorganized theirmobilitystrate-
focusedon understanding thesocialprocessesof pop- as
gies" they shifted toward more exploitationof non-
ulationmovementand resettlement(e.g., Cameron migratorygame.Similarly, Smith andMcNees(1999)
1995; Duff 1998;M. Nelson 2000; Snow 1995). To interpret slab-lined basins in Wyomingin termsof a
a lesserdegree,attentionis beingturnedtowardunder- long-term land use strategy involvedtheexploita-
that
standingwhatwe see archaeologicallyas the spread tion of stable, predictableresources.From a Dar-
of traits.A series of articlesin AmericanAntiquity winianperspective,the way thathumanslive on the
64(2) examinesthe spreadof point technologiesin landscapeis aresultof evolutionaryprocesses,specif-
differentpartsof NorthAmerica,emphasizingpri- icallythedifferentialpersistenceandselectionof suc-
marilytechnologicalfactors.In contrast,Sassaman cessful traits.Larsonet al. (1996) arguethattactics
(1995) focuses on the social factorsinvolvedin the such as aggregationand exchangewere selectedfor
spread(andrestrictionson thespread)of potterytech- duringa favorableclimaticperiodandthatthesetac-
nology in the Southeast. Considering general ticsmadethesocietiesof northernArizona andsouth-
processesratherthan specifictechnologies,B. Nel- ern Utah particularlyvulnerableto later climatic
son (2000)examinesthelong-distancereverberations downturns.
of the collapse of Teotihuacanandits impactin the
Rituals as Integrative-* Rituals/Feastingas
U.S. Southwest,morethan650 kmdistant.Andfrom
a different perspective,Darwinianarchaeologists Strategies, Contextsfor Social Action
have focused on betterunderstandingthe diffusion Therehad been a tendencyfor archaeologists(par-
of style (e.g., Neiman1995;thoughsee Shennanand ticularlyworkingin the Southwest)to assume that
Wilkinson2001).A stillmostlyneglectedtopicin this rituals,feasts,andothercommunaleventswerenec-
realmis the spreadof symbolsandwhatappearto be essarily integrative,in a Durkheimiansense (Heg-
religiousideas.Examples,such as the Katchinareli- mon 1989;Hill 1970;Longacre1970),despiteclassic
gion in the Southwestand the SoutheasternCere- accounts to the contrary(e.g., Benedict's [1934]
monialComplexin the easternU.S., havebeen well descriptionof the Kwakiutl).Morerecentworkhas
documented,but much workremainsto be done on recognized(again?)thatrituals,especiallyfeasting,
understanding how andwhypeopleadoptednewreli- may also havebeencompetitive(Hayden1995) and
gious practices(a few studiesthatbegin to probeat mayhaveprovidedimportantcontextsin whichlead-
these issues includeAdams 1991, Knight1984, and ers could enact social change (Aldenderfer1993).
WareandBlinman2000). Thisrecognitionhas led to focus on the contextand
content of ritual,particularlythe degree to which
Adaptationas a Process -+ Land Use access was public or restricted(e.g., Hockett1998;
Strategies/DifferentialPersistence Schachner2001), as well as detailedanalysesof food
In earlierdecades,cultureswere sometimesconcep- and cooking remains (Blinman 1989; Blitz 1993;
tualizedas "adaptivesystems"(Binford1968) or as Hockett 1998; Pauketatet al. 2002; Potter2000b),
humans'"extrasomatic meansof adaptation."Adap- to determineto what degree a ritualor feast might
tation(a process)was somehowsomethingthathap- have been controlledby leaders or was otherwise
penedto cultures(thoughthecomplexityof thisidea competitive.One key conclusion of recentwork is
haslongbeenrecognized[e.g.,Durham1976]).More thatritualmay simultaneouslyintegrateanddiffer-
recently,archaeologistsworkingin varioustheoreti- entiateandthatcooperationandcompetitionareparts
of the sameprocessoperatingatdifferentlevels (Pot- archaeologiststo reconsiderconceptsof explanation

ter2000a). The idea of integrationhas not been dis- (anissue also beingexploredby philosophersof sci-
carded(Hollimon2001), butit is being appliedmore ence [MorrisonandMorgan1999]).Thatis, in these
selectively. approachesto modeling, change is often an emer-
gent propertyratherthanthe effect of one variable
ExplanatoryModels -4 Modeling on another.Theresultis thatthereis no simpleanswer
New Archaeology strived to develop explanatory to the "why"questions,butthereis enhancedunder-
models of culturalprocessesthatposit relationships standing.
amonggeneralvariablessuchas integrationanddif- Humansin the Environment-+ Humansas Part
ferentiation(Plog 1974). Today the term model is
of the Environment
commonly used, but it usually refers to a dynamic
descriptionof a particularcase (e.g., Daniel 2001; The environmenthas become an increasinglycom-
Kuehn 1998; Lovis et al. 2001). A differentkind of plex concept,in social theoryand politics (Castree
approachis invoked by the concept of modeling. and Braun2001), and for NorthAmericanarchae-
Whereas models generallyposit fixed/linearrela- ologists.No longeris the (natural)environmentsim-
tionshipsamongvariablesandthuscanbe illustrated ply a setting for human activity, a variable in
with flowcharts, modeling involves what mathe- explanatory models, or a source of constraints.
maticianscall "dynamical"relations,such that the Archaeologists'theoriesaboutthe environmentand
natureof variablesand their interrelationshipscan humans'partin it areinfluencedin partby develop-
change(i.e., agentscanlearn)andnewpropertiescan ments in the "new ecologies," which emphasize
emerge.Agent-basedmodeling,discussedabove,is processes of disequilibrium and instability (see
one example, and Kohler (2000) emphasizes that reviewin Zimmerer1994).
agent-basedmodels involvedynamicsandrelations This increasinglycomplicatedunderstandingof
amongagents rather than variables.Another (related) "environment" has several implications in North
perspective is based in the many versions of com- American archaeologicaltheory.It is increasingly
plexity theory(see reviews in Lewin 1999; Manson evident that even the relatively small-scale pre-
2001). Application of some versions of complexity Columbian societies of NorthAmericahad a major
theory to the contemporary social world may be impact on the environment (e.g., Kohler and
politicallyquestionable, in thatsome arguethat it nat- Matthews 1988; Minnis 1985; Redman 1999).And
uralizes and justifies a laissez-faire attitude and whileimpactsometimesinvolvednegativeprocesses
processes of exploitation (see Best and Kellner such as erosion,deforestation,and salinization,it is
2001:123-128). Still,complexitytheoriesmay offer also becomingclearthat"impact"is not alwaysthe
archaeologistsnew waysof conceptualizingchange, most appropriateconcept. Humans contributedto
in thatthey provideinsightsinto how (notnecessar- the ecology of which they were a part,for example,
ily why) majorchangescan come aboutas a result throughdeliberateburning(Delcourtet al. 1998),and
of seemingly minor perturbations (issues also in least some cases, human practices may have
exploredwithregardto catastrophetheory[Renfrew increasedbiological diversity(Minnis and Elisens
1978]). A group of researchers,working with the 2000). Not only is "theenvironment" partlya human
SantaFe Institute,havedrawnon complexitytheory creation,it is also conceived as having inseparable
to examine sequencesof changes in the Southwest naturalandculturalcomponents,in thatit is always
(GumermanandGell-Mann1994;Kohler,VanPelt, occupied by other humans.Research on environ-
and Yap 2000), and Bentley and Maschner(2001) mentalsubjectsincreasinglyis linkedto culturalcon-
drawon complexitytheoryto understandthe evolu- cepts of symbols and meaning.Some earlierwork
tion of stylistic changesin pottery. on domestication(e.g., Ford 1977) explored how
The mathematicaland computationalcomplex- changesin humans'use of plantsinvolvedchanging
ity involvedin agent-basedmodelingandcomplex- culturalconcepts.Recenttheorizingregardingland-
ity theory suggests that neither will become scapestakesthisperspectiveeven further.As Knapp
mainstreamapplicationsin archaeology.Still, they andAshmoreput it, no longer are landscapes/envi-
are important as new ways of conceptualizing ronmentssimplybackdrops:"Landscapeis anentity
processes of change. In addition,they may cause that exists by virtueof its being perceived,experi-
enced,andcontextualizedby people"(1999:1).This rarystudiesthatformallytest hypotheses;for exam-

theoreticalperspectiveis givenpracticalapplication ple, Gamble et al. (2001) explicitly evaluateargu-
by the U.S. ForestService,which has recentlycon- mentsmade by two differentresearchers(regarding
sidered how landscapes (rather than arbitrarily the beginningof Chumashchiefdoms),andRicher-
defineddistricts)mightbe usedas management/plan- son et al. (2001) evaluatehypothesesregardingthe
ningunitsthataresensitiveto environmental-cultural originsof agricultureworldwide.These exceptions
dynamics (Duke 1995:209). Finally, the environ- suggest that the formal scientific method has not
ment is becoming a focus for some archaeologists beenabsolutelyrejected,butneitheris it appliedfor-
(e.g., van der Leeuw and Redman2002) to expand mulaically;rather,it is todayused only whenspecif-
the reach of archaeology,throughinterdisciplinary ically appropriateto the researchquestionsat hand.
studiesandeffortsto use archaeological(especially Threeinterrelatedsets of epistemologicalissues
long-termdiachronic)perspectives to addressissues have receivedsome attentionin recentNorthAmer-
of contemporaryrelevance. ican archaeology.The firsthas to do with the nature
of science and the extent to which variousarchae-
Epistemology ologies are scientific.VanPoolandVanPool(1999)
In contrastto the heyday of the New Archaeology, definesciencebroadly,in termsof sevencriteria,and
epistemologicaldebateshavebeenrelativelyuncom- they argue that "moderate"postprocessualismfits
mon in recent North American archaeology.Dis- thesecriteriaandthatit (aswell as processualarchae-
cussions about the virtues of various theoretical ology) is scientific.However,theircharacterization
perspectives (reviewed above) have primarily of science and their emphasis on epistemological
focused on the natureof humansociety andculture unityarechallengedby Hutson(2001) andbyArnold
change and on how they shouldbe conceptualized. andWilkens(2001). Wylie (2000:229), reactingin
Thus, these discussions have mostly been about partto the "sciencewars,"suggests thatwe should
ontology, thoughthey have epistemologicalimpli- move awayfromthe ideathatthereis sucha unified
cations with regardto the ways issues should be thingas "science"andinsteadshouldbe concerned
investigated. with the process of inquiry.Insteadof tryingto be
InearlierdecadesNorthAmericanarchaeologists (or not be) science, she argues that archaeology's
often formallyappliedthe deductivemethod,eval- ideal should be "thatof holding ideas as well as
uating explicitly statedhypotheses(and often also belief, open to revision in light of experience"
null hypotheses)by means of explicitly statedtest (2000:234).
implications(e.g., Hill 1970;LightfootandFeinman A second relatedissue derivesfrom criticalthe-
1982). Recentapproachestendto takea less formal ory.To whatextentis ourapparentunderstanding of
approach. It is still common for researchquestions, the a
past product of our presentcontextand the soci-
expectations,and means of evaluationto be made ology of archaeologicalpractice?In what ways is
clear,butthe labels of the scientificmethodseem to "thepast"knowable?Hot debateaboutthese ques-
be less important,andthe structureof investigation tions was partof the work of early postprocessual-
is less assertively deductive. Instead, accounts of ism and its detractors(e.g., Binford 1989; Shanks
researchtend to move fairlyfreely amongresearch and Tilley 1987a, 1987b). But more recentlymost
questions,relevantinformation,andnew interpreta- archaeologists have turned away from asking
tions andquestions.Forexample,WhalenandMin- whetherwe can "know"the past (a yes-or-noques-
nis (2001) apply (rather than "test") concepts tion) towardconsideringways in which the present
regardingthe architectureof powerto theirdataon influences research and, conversely, asking how
Casas Grandes.While theirinvestigationis guided archaeologycan and should contributeto current
by thisgeneralidea,theyalsoconsiderwaysin which issues (Pinsky and Wylie 1995; see also Preucel's
the conceptis not applicableandprobeotherkinds [1995:152-153] discussion of Criticalneo-Marx-
of variabilityin Casas Grandesarchitecture.In my ism). Most North Americanarchaeologistswould
mind,thisnew style of presentationmoreaccurately probablyagreethatourresearchquestions(if notalso
representsthe real researchprocess, althoughthe our interpretations)are influenced by our present
decreasein formalitymay also providefewer safe- socialandpoliticalcontext,butatthesametimemost
guardsagainstlogical errors.There are contempo- also seem to eschew what Trigger (1989b) calls
"hyperrelativism." A surge of interestsince around investigatethenatureof chiefdoms.Similarly,Cowan

1990 in the history of archaeologicalthought and (1999) used lithic assemblagesto evaluatetheories
research seems to have been part of this under- about technologicaland mobility strategies,but he
standing (Pinsky and Wylie 1995:viii; Trigger also devoted considerableattentionto explaining
1989a). aspectsof the archaeologicalrecord,specificallythe
This moderateview is supportedby recentstate- relationshipbetweenreductionsequencesandflake
mentsby Wylie (1992, 1996, 2000; see also Brum- assemblages.
fiel 1996) aboutthe "evidentialconstraints"thatthe
So What about General Theory?
archaeologicalrecordplaces on ourinterpretations.
While all data are dependenton some theory,the By general theoryI meantheoryaboutthe natureof
pointis to evaluateone theorywith datathatarepri- the world andhow it can and shouldbe understood.
marilydependenton anothertheory.Multiplelines Generalsocial and culturaltheories(such as Marx-
of evidencegenerallyproducebetterevidentialcon- ism, structuralism,andpostmodernism)cross disci-
straints,butWyliereasonablyarguesthatthereis no plines and increasinglyeven encompass both the
single formulathat should be appliedin all cases. sciences and the humanities.Withthe exceptionof
Rather,focus should be on assessing the indepen- practicetheory(whichis more of a perspectivethan
dence or interdependenceof various lines of evi- a specific theory with an underlying norm [see
dence for a particularproblem. Cowgill 2000; Ortner1996:2]),thereis relativelylit-
Finally,heateddebateensued as a resultof Bin- tle mentionof generalsocial theoryin NorthAmer-
ford's (2001) criticismof the idea thatthe archaeo- ican archaeologytoday.Therearesome exceptions,
logical record should be used to evaluate especially at the postprocessualend of the proces-
theories-derived from all sorts of perspectives- sual-plusspectrum(e.g., Duke 1992;Dunham1999;
aboutthe natureof humanbehavior.By workingin McGuire 1992; McGuire and Saitta 1996; Saitta
this perspective,researchersmerely focus on how 1994, 1995, 1997). In addition, evolutionary
they can "interpret" theirdata,an approachBinford approachesdrawon generalscientifictheories.Still,
considersto be deplorable.Instead,he arguesthat discussion of general theory in North American
archaeology'ssubjectmattershouldbe the archae- archaeologyis muchless commonthanit is in Britain
ological record;if archaeologistsproperlyfocus on (e.g., Hodder 1991; Holtorf and Karlsson 2000;
explainingthe archaeologicalrecord,theywill avoid Thomas2000; Tilley 1990).
theproblemof databeingtheorydependent.Because This dearthof explicit discussiondoes not mean
Binfordused recentwork by Odell as a foil for his thatNorthAmericanarchaeologyhas no theoretical
criticisms,Odell(2001) countered,arguingthatgood perspective but, rather,that it is often taken for
researchproblemscanbe derivedfrommanysources granted.My goal in this sectionis to brieflycharac-
andthatthe key is reasonableandindependenttest- terizeNorthAmericanarchaeologyin termsof recent
ing.Althoughthisexchangewas veryrecent,it is my social theory,a discussionthatrequiressome back-
impressionthat it will not turn into a continuing groundand at least basic definitionsof the various
debate.Rather,dependingon the issue athand,most "posts."Althoughthe paragraphsthatfollow (mod-
archaeologistswill sometimes ask questionsabout ernism explainedin one paragraph,poststructural-
the natureof the archaeologicalrecord and some- ism and postmodernism in two) may seem
timesuse thearchaeologicalrecordto evaluatelarger elementaryto some,I amconvincedthattheyarenec-
issues.Bothkindsof questionsarepartof behavioral essary. I have too often heard otherwise well-
archaeology(e.g., workon site formationprocesses informed scholars assume that postmodernismis
andon meaning).And althoughmost of the proces- eithereverythingnew (ofteneverythingnew theydo
sual-pluswork I have reviewed here involves the not like) or everythingcriticalof science.
second kind of question (i.e., issues beyond the Modernism,a productof the Enlightenment,is
archaeologicalrecord),manyof thesameresearchers basedon thebeliefthattheworldis knowablethrough
also ask the firstkindof question,whenappropriate. reasonandthat"reasonadvancesknowledge;knowl-
For example,Pauketat(1989, 1994, 2000) investi- edge enablesscience;and science servesthe libera-
gatedthe accumulationof ceramicrefuse at Missis- tory aims of society" (Peet 1998:194). Modernist
sippian sites and used Mississippian remains to approaches-including Newtonian physics, Dar-
winian evolution, Freudian psychoanalysis, and which seeks to understandunderlyingandgeneral-

structuralism-seek understandingandexplanation izable processes and is sometimes referredto as
in terms of underlyingprinciples.Marxismis also "totalizing," postmodernism(as set forthby Lyotard
moder in its emphasison progress,thoughbecause in ThePostmodernCondition[1984]) is concerned
of its historicalanddialecticalapproaches,Marxism with multiplesurficialrepresentations.Postmoder
is less positivist and less concernedwith universal knowledge also emphasizesdifferences,including
truthsthanmost othermodem approaches.Moder acknowledgmentandtoleranceof the incommensu-
art,such as Cubism,attemptedto "reducepainting rable.Postmoder knowledgeis notjustthepurview
to a few basic principlesaccessibleonly to the intel- of expertsbut is a productof many little narratives
lect" (Cassou 1965:269). and peoples' practices and interactionsat a local
The definitivenessand optimismof modernism scale. The point is not thatnarrativesandrepresen-
werechallengedearlyin thetwentiethcentury,intel- tationscan somehowbe decodedandstrippedaway
lectually by work on entropy,quantummechanics, to reveala "true"underlyingrealitybut,rather,that
and relativitytheory and more generally by stark representationsare the reality (what Baudrillard
realizationsof the destructivepotentialof science. [1983] calls a hyperreality).The force of this hyper-
Physicists themselves began to declare that they reality("true"or not)is seen in the (veryreal)power
should"abandonall attemptsto constructperceptual of the media,such as images of "smart"weaponsin
models,"renounced"theclassicalidealof causality," the Gulf War.Many scholarsdistinguishbetween
and argued that what they observe "is not nature postmodernism,as an approach,and analyses of
itself, but natureexposed to our method of ques- postmoder times fromMarxist(e.g., Harvey1989;
tioning" (Best and Kellner 1997:214-215). Philo- Jameson1991) and otherperspectives.
sophically,these developmentsin the "hardest"of Manyof the theoreticalapproachesthatarerela-
sciences-physics-are representativeof postposi- tively new to NorthAmericanarchaeologyare def-
tivismandsometimesseen as theprecursorsof post- initely modern, not postmodern. These include
modernism(Best and Kellner1997, 2001). Marxism(thoughthereis some discussionof Marx-
Sociallyandphilosophicallytheturntowardpost- ism in the postmodern age [Saitta 1995]), struc-
modernismand poststructuralism is often tracedto turalism,critical theory (especially following the
the failureof the 1968 radicalupheavalsin France, FrankfurtSchool), and,veryimportantly,Giddens's
which led to interestin post-Marxistandpoststruc- work on agency and structuration. Feminist
turalistideas. "Truth"was no longer seen as libera- approachesspanthe modern-postmodern spectrum,
tory. Rather,poststructuralphilosophers such as but feministshave found much to criticizein post-
Foucaultemphasizedthe link between power and structuralandpostmoder theory(e.g., Mascia-Lees
whatis representedas truth.Poststructuralism (like et al. 1989). Thereare a few exceptions(e.g., Dun-
structuralism)is little concerned with the subject ham [1999] explicitly drawson poststructuralcon-
(whichis seen as decentered)but,rather,focuses on cepts), but the vast majority of North American
structuresandforces.Butunlikestructuralism, which archaeology, even approaches classed as post-
focusedon revealinga singularunderlyingstructure processual,is not postmoder. Althoughsome post-
that explainsparticulars,poststructuralism posits a processualarchaeologists,again,especiallyin Britain
multiplicity of fragmented structures by which the (e.g.,HoltorfandKarlsson2000;Tilley 1990;Turner
subjectis buffeted.Thereis little interest(or belief) 2001), are addressingpoststructuralismand post-
in agency or the abilityof actorsto intentionallyact modernism directly, postprocessual archaeology
and affect the world.Some of Bourdieu'sworkcan shouldnot be equatedwith postmodernism(contra
be classedas poststructuralism; in particular,his oft- Duke 1995:211;VanPooland VanPool1999). Per-
cited Outlineof a Theoryof Practice(1977) empha- haps ironically,some of the most computationally
sizes how structures (i.e., habitus) come to be complex approachesin NorthAmericanarchaeol-
embodiedthroughpractice,butagencyis seenas hav- ogy-complexity theory and agent-basedmodel-
ing little or no importance. ing-may be the closestto beingpostmoder in their
Poststructuralismoverlapsto some extent with willingnessto probeindeterminacy.
postmodernism,which is broaderandperhapseven Is "notpostmoder" equivalentto moder? In the
more difficultto define. In contrastto modernism, case of NorthAmericanarchaeology,the answeris,
"Yes,generally."Emphasison generalizableprinci- icanarchaeologistshavepushedtheirtheoreticalegos

ples andscientificreasoning(characteristicespecially to the side, are not excessively attachedto or dis-
of earlierprocessualismas well as evolutionaryecol- missive of any particularapproach,and seem to be
ogy andbehavioralandDarwinianarchaeologies)is open to multipleways of viewing the past (Preucel
definitely modem. The processual-plusinterestin 1991;Trigger1989a:369).Insteadof theoreticalani-
specificcases as theyrelateto thelargercontextorin mosity,thereis refreshingdialogue.
comparativeperspectivesis alsogenerallymoder, in Lack of focus on general theory contributesto
thatit involvesa searchforunderlyingtruths.A mod- open-mindedness,on the one hand, but at another
ernistapproachis often takenfor granted,enabling level this lack of focus can also disguise the impor-
researchersto proceedwiththeirparticularstudies(in tanceof theory.Theoryis omnipresent;it is how we
thetraditionof normalscience)butalsodisablingtheir make sense of the world,even (or especially)if it is
abilityto imagineotherways of viewing the world, not explicit. This is an issue particularlyregarding
especiallywhen"postmodernist" becomesthe appel- modernismandpostmodernism:manyNorthAmer-
lationfor new and oftenmisunderstoodapproaches, ican archaeologistsseem to takea modem perspec-
issues I addressin the finalsection. tive for granted,as the only way of knowing the
world, and dismiss postmodernism (sometimes
Conclusion assumedto be a synonym for "antiscience")out of
In this reviewI have groupedmost NorthAmerican hand.The resultis thatpowerfulandrelevantideas
archaeologyintothreeself-identifiedschools-evo- from postmodernismare not broughtto bear,even
lutionaryecology, behavioral,andDarwinian-and when they might be particularlyrelevantto North
a broadarraythatI label processual-plus.Combin- Americanissues. Examplesincludeperspectiveson
ing all fourperspectives,thereis considerableuse of local knowledgeandincommensurability, especially
variouskindsof evolutionarytheoryas well as prac- with regardto Native Americanviews of the past,
tice theoryandthe conceptof agency.NorthAmer- and alternativeapproachesto causality,especially
ican archaeologistsalso are contributingto many with regardto new techniquesof modeling.
theoretically interestingissues, including gender, There are many developmentsin NorthAmeri-
symbols and meaning,new approachesto concep- can archaeologythat are of broadrelevanceworld-
tualizing society and material culture, and wide, at both theoretical and applied levels. For
localnative histories. However,in contrastto the example, the North American ethnographic and
New Archaeology of several decades ago, and in archaeologicalrecordsprovidegreatdetail on vari-
contrastto some postprocessualwork in Britain, ous formsof social complexityin nonstatesocieties;
North American archaeologytoday involves rela- these includea varietyof chiefdoms(Mississippian
tivelylittlediscussionof generaltheoryandrelatively andon thewesterncoast)andalternativecomplicated
few attemptsto build or contributeto such theory. leadership strategiesin the Southwest. The great
NorthAmericanarchaeologyis not atheoretical,but detail and precise datingpossible in some partsof
most NorthAmericanarchaeologiststoday seem to NorthAmericahavefacilitatedcarefulinvestigations
be more interestedin applications-and in explor- of agencyandpractice,as well as genderissues.The
ing the archaeological record and its implica- detailedrecordand links to ethnographyhave con-
tions-thanin theoryalone (see also Barker1999). tributedto importantstudiesof symbols andmean-
I am not suggestingthatthereis a theoreticalrap- ing, in portablematerialculture,architecture, andthe
prochement,suchthatmostNorthAmericanarchae- environmentandlandscape.Thelist couldgo on, but
ologists subscribeto the sametheory;nordo I think while thereis a greatdeal to praisein NorthAmeri-
thatthiskindof homogeneitywouldbe a good thing. canarchaeology,I fearthatit is notgettingtherecog-
Some degree of theoreticaldisunitycontributesto nitionit deservesoutsideof NorthAmerica,perhaps
dynamism(as has been arguedin manyrecentstate- becauseof a lack of attentionto generaltheory.It is
ments [e.g., Hodder 2001; Hutson 2001; Schiffer my hope thatthisreviewwill drawmoreattentionto
2000; Spencer1997]),andfocuson theoreticallyrel- recentdevelopmentsin NorthAmericanarchaeology,
evant issues-such as gender and agency-that especiallyregardingtheoreticallyrelevantissuesand
crosscutvarioustheoreticalperspectivescontributes applications.I also hope to prodNorthAmericanists
to thisdynamism.Optimistically,manyNorthAmer- to direct a little more focus towardgeneraltheory,
234 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
not to openthe floodgatesof argumentbut,rather,to Barker,Alex W.

1999 Digging throughMaterialSymbols. In MaterialSym-
becomeawareof theway theoryconditionstheman- bols: Cultureand Economy in Prehistory,edited by J. E.
ner in which we see the world. Robb, pp. 399-406. Center for ArchaeologicalInvestiga-
tions, OccasionalPaperNo. 26. SouthernIllinoisUniversity
Acknowledgments.I am grateful to a number of colleagues, Press,Carbondale.
includingAlex Barker,Bob Bolin, Keith Kintigh, Tim Kohler, Barkow,J. H., L. Cosmides,and J. Tooby(editors)
and Peggy Nelson, who acted as sounding boards and shared 1992 TheAdaptedMind: EvolutionaryPsychologyand the
Generationof Culture.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork.
references and ideas. The article was improved by helpful
Barlow,K. Renee
reviews by Tim Kohler,Bruce Trigger,Alison Wylie, and one 2001 PredictingMaize Agricultureamong the Fremont:An
anonymous reviewer. Ideas are better shared. Oralia Cabrera Economic Comparison of Farming and Foraging in the
Cort6stranslatedthe abstractinto Spanish. AmericanSouthwest.AmericanAntiquity67:65-88.
Barton,C. Michael,and GeoffreyA. Clark(editors)
References Cited 1997 Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and
Adams,E. Charles ArchaeologicalExplanation.ArchaeologicalPapersof the
AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation No. 7. American
1991 The Origins and Developmentof the Pueblo Katsina
Cult.Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson. AnthropologicalAssociation,Arlington,Virginia.
Basso, KeithH.
Aldenderfer,Mark 1996 WisdomSitsinPlaces: LandscapeandLanguageamong
1993 Ritual,Hierarchy,and Changein ForagingSocieties.
theWesternApache.Universityof NewMexico Press,Albu-
Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology12:1-40.
Ames, KennethM. querque.
1995 ChieflyPowerandHouseholdProductionon theNorth- Baudrillard,Jean
1983 SymbolicExchangeand Death. Sage, London.
west Coast. In Foundationsof Social Inequality,editedby
T. D. PriceandG. M. Feinman,pp. 155-187. PlenumPress, Benedict,Ruth
1934 Patternsof Culture.HoughtonMifflinCo., Boston.
New York.
Anawak,Jack Bentley,R. Alexander,andHerbertD. G. Maschner
2001 StylisticChangeas a Self-OrganizedCriticalPhenom-
1989 InuitPerceptionsof the Past. In WhoNeeds the Past?
enon: An ArchaeologicalStudy in Complexity.Journalof
IndigenousValuesand Archaeology,edited by R. Layton,
AnthropologicalArchaeology8:35-66.
pp. 45-50. Unwin Hyman,London.
Bernardini,Wesley
Anderson,David G. 2002 The Gatheringof the Clans:UnderstandingMigration
1994 TheSavannahRiverChiefdoms:PoliticalChangein the
intotheHopiArea,A.D.1275-1400. UnpublishedPh.D.dis-
Late PrehistoricSoutheast.Universityof AlabamaPress,
Tuscaloosa. sertation,Departmentof Anthropology,ArizonaStateUni-
1996 FluctuationsbetweenSimpleandComplexChiefdoms: versity,Tempe.
Best, Steven,andDouglas Kellner
Cyclingin the LatePrehistoricSoutheast.InPoliticalStruc- 1997 ThePostmodernTurn.GuilfordPress,New York.
ture and Change in the PrehistoricSoutheasternUnited
2001 ThePostmodernAdventure:Science, Technology,and
States,editedby J. F Scarry,pp. 231-252. UniversityPress CulturalStudiesat the ThirdMillennium.GuilfordPress,
of Florida,Gainesville.
New York.
Anderson,David G., andJ. ChristopherGillam
2000 PaleoindianColonizationoftheAmericas:Implications Billman,BrianR., PatriciaM. Lambert,and BanksL. Leonard
2000 Cannibalism,Warfare,andDroughtin the MesaVerde
from an Examinationof Physiography,Demography,and
ArtifactDistribution.AmericanAntiquity65:43-67. Region duringthe TwelfthCenturyA.D. AmericanAntiq-
uity65:145-178.
Anthony,D. W.
1990 Migrationin Archaeology.AmericanAnthropologist Binford,Lewis R.
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology.American Antiquity
92:895-914.
28:217-225.
Arnold,Bettina,and Nancy L. Wicker(editors) 1964 A Considerationof ArchaeologicalResearchDesign.
2001 Genderand theArchaeologyof Death.AltaMiraPress,
AmericanAntiquity28:217-225.
WalnutCreek,California.
1968 Post-PleistoceneAdaptations.In New Perspectivesin
Arnold,JeanneE.
1993 LaborandtheRise of ComplexHunter-Gatherers. Jour- Archaeology,editedby S. R. BinfordandL. R. Binford,pp.
313-341. Aldine, Chicago.
nal of AnthropologicalArchaeology12:75-119.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails:Hunter-Gatherer Set-
1995 TransportationInnovation and Social Complexity
tlementSystemsandArchaeologicalSite Formation.Amer-
among Maritime Hunter-GathererSocieties. American ican Antiquity45:4-20.
Anthropologist97:733-747. 1989 DebatingArchaeology.AcademicPress,New York.
2000 The Originsof Hierarchyandthe Natureof Hierarchi-
2001 WhereDo ResearchProblemsCome From?American
cal Structuresin PrehistoricCalifornia.In Hierarchiesin
Action:CuiBono,editedby M. W.Diehl, pp. 221-240. Cen- Antiquity66:669-678.
ter forArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo. Blanton,RichardE., GaryM. Feinman,StevenA. Kowalewski,
and PeterN. Peregrine
27. SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,Carbondale.
1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of
Arnold,PhilipJ., III, andBrianS. Wilkens MesoamericanCivilization.CurrentAnthropology 37:1-14.
2001 OntheVanPools'"Scientific"Postprocessualism. Amer-
ican Antiquity66:361-366. Blinman,Eric
1989 Potluckin the Protokiva:CeramicsandCeremonialism
Bamforth,Douglas B. in PuebloI Villages. In TheArchitectureof Social Integra-
2002 Evidenceand Metaphorin EvolutionaryArchaeology.
tion in PrehistoricPueblos, edited by M. HegmonandW.
AmericanAntiquity67:435-452.
D. Lipe, pp. 113-124. Occasional Papers No. 1. Crow clopedia of Modern Art from 1800 to the Present Day,
CanyonArchaeologicalCenter,Cortez,Colorado. edited by R. Huyghe, pp. 264-273. ExcaliburBooks, New
Blitz, JohnH. York.
1993 Big Pots for Big Shots:Feastingand Storagein a Mis- Castree,Noel, andBruce Braun(editors)
sissippianCommunity.AmericanAntiquity58:80-96. 2001 Social Nature: Theory,Practice and Politics. Black-
1999 Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion well, Oxford.
Process.AmericanAntiquity64:577-592. Charles,Douglas K., and JaneE. Buikstra
Boone, JamesL. 1983 Archaic Mortuary Sites in the Central Mississippi
2000 StatusSignaling,Social Power,and Lineage Survival. Drainage:Distribution,Structure,and BehavioralImplica-
In Hierarchiesin Action: CuiBono, editedby M. W. Diehl, tions. In ArchaicHunters and Gatherersin the American
pp. 84-110. CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations,Occa- Midwest, edited by J. A. Phillips and J. A. Brown, pp.
sionalPaperNo.27. SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,Car- 117-145. AcademicPress,New York.
bondale. Chilton,ElizabethS. (editor)
Bourdieu,Pierre 1999 MaterialMeanings: CriticalApproachesto the Inter-
1977 Outlineof a Theoryof Practice.Translatedby R. Nice. pretationof MaterialCulture.Universityof UtahPress,Salt
CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge. Lake City.
1990 TheLogic of Practice.StanfordUniversityPress,Stan- Clark,JohnE.
ford. 2000 Towardsa BetterExplanationof HereditaryInequality:
Boyd, R., and P. J. Richerson A Critical Assessment of Natural and Historic Human
1985 Cultureand the EvolutionaryProcess. Universityof Agents. InAgencyin Archaeology,editedby M. A. Dobres
ChicagoPress,Chicago. andJ. Robb,pp. 92-112. Routledge,London.
Brandt,ElizabethA. Claassen,Cheryl,andRosemaryJoyce (editors)
1994 Egalitarianism,Hierarchy,and Centralizationin the 1997 Womenin Prehistory:NorthAmericanandMesoamer-
Pueblos.In TheAncientSouthwesternCommunity:Models ica. Universityof PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia.
and Methodsfor the Studyof PrehistoricSocial Organiza- Clay,Brenda
tion, edited by W. H. Wills and R. D. Leonard,pp. 9-23. 1992 OtherTimes, OtherPlaces:Agency andthe Big Manin
Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque. CentralNew Ireland.Man 27:719-733.
Braun,David P. Cobb, CharlesR.
1983 Pots as Tools. In ArchaeologicalHammersand Theo- 1991 Social Reproductionandthe LongueDuree in the Pre-
ries, editedby A. S. Keene and J. A. Moore, pp. 107-134. historyof the MidcontinentalUnited States.In Processual
AcademicPress,New York. and PostprocessualArchaeologies:MultipleWaysof Know-
1990 Selection and Evolutionin Non-HierarchicalOrgani- ing the Past, edited by R. W. Preucel,pp. 168-182. Center
zation.In TheEvolutionof PoliticalSystems:Sociopolitics forArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 10.
in Small-ScaleSedentarySocieties,editedby S. Upham,pp. SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,Carbondale.
62-86. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge. 1993 ArchaeologicalApproachesto the PoliticalEconomy
1991 Why Decoratea Pot? MidwesternHouseholdPottery, of NonstratifiedSocieties.ArchaeologicalMethodandThe-
200 B.C.-A.D. 600. Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeol- ory 5:43-100.
ogy 10:360-397. 2000 From Quarryto Cornfield:The Political Economyof
Broughton,JackM., and JamesF O'Connell MississippianHoe Production.Universityof AlabamaPress,
1999 OnEvolutionaryEcology,SelectionistArchaeology, and Tuscaloosa.
BehavioralArchaeology.AmericanAntiquity64:153-165. Cobb, CharlesR., and PatrickH. Garrow
Brown,JamesA. 1996 WoodstockCultureandthe Questionof Mississippian
1997 The Archaeologyof Ancient Religion in the Eastern Emergence.AmericanAntiquity61:21-37.
Woodlands.AnnualReviewof Anthropology26:465-485. Conkey,MargaretW., and JoanM. Gero
Brumfiel,ElizabethM. 1997 Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in
1992 DistinguishedLecturein Archaeology:Breakingand Archaeology.AnnualReviewofAnthropology26:411437.
Enteringthe Ecosystem-Gender, Class, andFactionSteal Costin,CathyL.
the Show.AmericanAnthropologist94:551-567. 1991 CraftSpecialization:Issuesin Defining,Documenting,
1996 TheQualityof TributeCloth:The Place of Evidencein and Explainingthe Organizationof Production.Archaeo-
ArchaeologicalArgument.AmericanAntiquity 61:453-462. logical Methodand Theory3:1-56.
Buikstra,JaneE., and Douglas K. Charles Coudart,Anick
1999 Centeringthe Ancestors: Cemeteries, Mounds, and 1998 Archaeologyof FrenchWomenandFrenchWomenin
Sacred Landscapesof the Ancient North AmericanMid- Archaeology.InExcavatingWomen:A Historyof Womenin
continent.InArchaeologiesof Landscape,editedbyW.Ash- EuropeanArchaeology,editedby M. Dfaz-Andreuand M.
moreandA. B. Knapp,pp. 201-228. Blackwell Publishers, L. Stig S0rensen,pp. 61-85. Routledge,New York.
Malden,Massachusetts. Cowan,FrankL.
Byers,A. Martin 1999 MakingSense of Flake Scatters:LithicTechnological
1999 Intentionality,SymbolicPragmatics,andMaterialCul- Strategiesand Mobility.AmericanAntiquity64:593-607.
ture:RevisitingBinford'sView of the OldCopperComplex. Cowgill, GeorgeC.
AmericanAntiquity64:265-287. 2000 "Rationality" andContextsinAgencyTheory.InAgency
Cameron,CatherineM. (guest editor) in Archaeology,edited by M. A. Dobres and J. Robb, pp.
1995 Special Issue:Migrationand the Movementof South- 51-60. Routledge,London.
westernPeoples. Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology Croes,Dale R.
14(2). 1989 PrehistoricEthnicityon the NorthwestCoast of North
Cassou,Jean America:An Evaluationof Style in Basketryand Lithics.
1965 The Beginnings of Modern Art. In Larousse Ency- JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology8:101-130.
236 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.68, No. 2, 2003
Crown,PatriciaL. ple fromthe NorthernPlains.InArchaeology,Annalesand

1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado PolychromePottery. Ethnohistory,edited by A. B. Knapp,pp. 99-111. Cam-
Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque. bridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge.
Crown,PatriciaL. (editor) 1995 WorkingthroughTheoreticalTensionsin Contemporary
2000 Womenand Men in thePrehispanicSouthwest.School Archaeology:A PracticalAttemptfrom SouthwesternCol-
of AmericanResearchPress,SantaFe. orado. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
Crown,PatriciaL., and SuzanneK. Fish 2:201-229.
1996 GenderandStatusin theHohokamPre-Classicto Clas- Dunham,GaryH.
sic Transition.AmericanAnthropologist98:803-817. 1999 MarkingTerritory, MakingTerritory: BurialMoundsin
Crown,PatriciaL., and BarbaraJ. Mills (editors) InteriorVirginia.In MaterialSymbols:Cultureand Econ-
1995 CeramicProductionin theAmericanSouthwest.Uni- omyin Prehistory,editedby J. E. Robb,pp. 112-134. Cen-
versityof ArizonaPress,Tucson. terforArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo.
Crown,PatriciaL., andW. H. Wills 26. SouthernIllinois UniversityPress,Carbondale.
1995 The Origins of SouthwesternContainers:Women's Dunnell, RobertC.
Time Allocation and Economic Intensification.Journalof 1978 Style andFunction:A FundamentalDichotomy.Amer-
AnthropologicalResearch51:173-186. ican Antiquity43:192-202.
Daniel, I. Randolph,Jr. 1980 EvolutionaryTheory and Archaeology.Advances in
2001 StoneRawMaterialAvailability andEarlyArchaicSet- ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory1:35-99.
tlementin the SoutheasternUnitedStates.AmericanAntiq- Durham,WilliamH.
uity 66:237-265. 1976 TheAdaptiveSignificanceof CultureBehavior.Human
Dawkins,Richard Ecology 4:89-121.
1976 TheSelfishGene. OxfordUniversityPress,New York. Earle,TimothyK.
Deetz, James 1990 Style and Iconographyas Legitimationin Complex
1968 The Inferenceof Residence and Descent Rules from Chiefdoms.In The Uses of Style in Archaeology,editedby
ArchaeologicalData. In New Perspectivesin Archaeology, M. Conkeyand C. Hastorf,pp. 73-81. CambridgeUniver-
editedby S. R. BinfordandL. R. Binford,pp.41-48. Aldine sity Press,Cambridge.
Press,Chicago. Earle,TimothyK. (editor)
Delcourt,PaulA., Hazel R. Delcourt,Decil R. Ison, WilliamE. 1991 Chiefdoms:Power,Economy,andIdeology.Cambridge
Sharp,and KristenJ. Gremillion UniversityPress,Cambridge.
1998 PrehistoricHumanUse ofFire,theEasternAgricultural Earle,TimothyK., andAllen W. Johnson
Complex, and AppalachianOak-ChestnutForests:Paleoe- 1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging
cology of Cliff PalacePond,Kentucky.AmericanAntiquity Groupto Agrarian State. StanfordUniversityPress, Stan-
63:263-278. ford.
Diehl, MichaelW. (editor) Eastman,JaneM., and ChristopherB. Rodning(editors)
2000 Hierarchiesin Action: CuiBono. Centerfor Archaeo- 2001 ArchaeologicalStudiesof Genderin the Southeastern
logical Investigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 27. Southern UnitedStates.UniversityPressof Florida,Gainesville.
Illinois UniversityPress,Carbondale. Echo-Hawk,RogerC.
Dobres,Marcia-Anne,and JohnE. Robb 2000 Ancient History in the New World:IntegratingOral
2000 Agency in Archaeology: Paradigmor Platitude?In Traditionsand the ArchaeologicalRecord in Deep Time.
AgencyinArchaeology,editedby M.A. DobresandJ.Robb, AmericanAntiquity65:267-290.
pp. 3-17. Routledge,London. Emerson,T. E.
Dongoske, KurtE., MarkAldenderfer,and KarenDoehner(edi- 1997 Cahokiaand the Archaeologyof Power.Universityof
tors) AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
2000 WorkingTogether:Native Americansand Archaeolo- Feinman,GaryM., KentG. Lightfoot,and SteadmanUpham
gists. Society forAmericanArchaeology,Washington,D.C. 2000 Political Hierarchiesand OrganizationalStrategiesin
Dongoske, KurtE., DebraL. Martin,andT. J. Ferguson the PuebloanSouthwest.AmericanAntiquity65:449-470.
2000 Critiqueof the Claimof Cannibalismat CowboyWash. Feinman,GaryM., and Jill Neitzel
AmericanAntiquity65:179-190. 1984 Too Many Types:An Overviewof SedentaryPrestate
Dongoske, KurtE., MichaelYeatts,RogerAnyon, andT. J. Fer- Societies in the Americas. Advances in Archaeological
guson Methodand Theory7:39-102.
1997 ArchaeologicalCulturesandCulturalAffiliation:Hopi Ferguson,T. J.
and Zuni Perspectivesin the AmericanSouthwest.Ameri- 1996a Historic ZuniArchitectureand Society:An Archaeo-
can Antiquity62:600-608. logicalApplicationof SpaceSyntax.AnthropologicalPapers
Duff, AndrewI. of the Universityof ArizonaNo. 60. Universityof Arizona
1996 CeramicMicro-Seriation:TypesorAttributes?Ameri- Press,Tucson.
can Antiquity61:89-101. 1996b Native Americansand the Practiceof Archaeology.
1998 Processes of Migrationin the Late PrehistoricSouth- AnnualReviewofAnthropology25:63-79.
west. In Migration and Reorganization:The Pueblo IV Fiedel, StuartJ.
Period in the AmericanSouthwest,edited by K. A. Spiel- 1999 OlderthanWeThought:Implicationsof CorrectedDates
mann,pp. 31-53. AnthropologicalResearchPapersNo. 52. for Paleoindians.AmericanAntiquity64:95-116.
ArizonaStateUniversityPress,Tempe. Fitzhugh,Ben
2002 WesternPuebloIdentities:RegionalInteraction,Migra- 2001 RiskandInventionin HumanTechnologicalEvolution.
tion,and Transformation. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tuc- Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology20:125-167.
son. Ford,RichardI.
Duke, Philip 1977 EvolutionaryEcology and the Evolution of Human
1992 Braudeland NorthAmericanArchaeology:An Exam- Ecosystems:A Case Studyfromthe MidwesternU.S.A. In
Explanationof PrehistoricChange,editedby J. N. Hill, pp. Hegmon,Michelle

153-184. Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque. 1989 SocialIntegrationandArchitecture. In TheArchitecture
Fowler,AndrewP., and JohnR. Stein of Social Integrationin PrehistoricPueblos, edited by M.
1992 The Anasazi GreatHouse in Space, Time, and Para- HegmonandW. D. Lipe, pp. 5-14. OccasionalPapersNo.
digm. In Anasazi Regional Organizationand the Chaco 1. CrowCanyonArchaeologicalCenter,Cortez,Colorado.
System,edited by D. E. Doyel, pp. 101-122. Anthropolog- 1995 The Social Dynamics of Pottery Style in the Early
ical PapersNo. 5. MaxwellMuseumof Anthropology, Albu- PuebloanSouthwest.OccasionalPapersNo. 5. CrowCanyon
querque. ArchaeologicalCenter,Cortez,Colorado.
Frankenstein,Susan,and MichaelRowlands 1998 Technology,Style, and Social Practices:Archaeologi-
1978 The InternalStructureand Regional Contextof Early cal Approaches.In TheArchaeologyof Social Boundaries,
IronAge Society in SouthwesternGermany.Bulletinof the edited by M. Stark,pp. 264-280. SmithsonianInstitution
Instituteof Archaeologyof London15:73-112. Press,Washington,D.C.
Freeman,L. G. Hegmon,Michelle, JamesR. Allison, HectorNeff, andMichael
1968 A TheoreticalFrameworkfor Interpreting Archaeolog- D. Glascock
ical Materials.In Man the Hunter,edited by R. B. Lee and 1997 Productionof SanJuanRedWarein theNorthernSouth-
I. DeVore,pp. 262-267. Aldine, Chicago. west: Insightsinto Regional Interactionin EarlyPuebloan
Friedman,Jonathan,and MichaelRowlands Prehistory.AmericanAntiquity62:449-463.
1977 Notes towardsanEpigeneticModel of the Evolutionof Hill, JamesN.
"Civilization."In TheEvolutionof Social Systems,editedby 1970 BrokenK Pueblo: PrehistoricSocial Organizationin
J. Friedmanand M. Rowlands,pp. 201-276. Duckworth, theAmericanSouthwest.AnthropologicalPapersof theUni-
London. versityof ArizonaNo. 18. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tuc-
Fritz,Gayle J. son.
1999 Gender and Early Cultivationof Gourds in Eastern Hockett,BryanScott
NorthAmerica.AmericanAntiquity64:417-429. 1998 SociopoliticalMeaningof FaunalRemainsfromBaker
Galloway,Patricia(editor) Village.AmericanAntiquity63:289-302.
1984 The SoutheasternCeremonialComplex:Artifactsand Hodder,Ian
Analysis: The Cottonlandia Conference. University of 1982 Symbolsin Action.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cam-
NebraskaPress,Lincoln. bridge.
Gamble,LynnH., PhillipL. Walker,and Glenn S. Russell 1991 Readingthe Past. 2nd ed. CambridgeUniversityPress,
2001 An IntegrativeApproachto MortuaryAnalysis:Social Cambridge.
and Symbolic Dimensions of ChumashBurial Practices. 2001 Introduction:A Review of ContemporaryTheoretical
AmericanAntiquity66:185-212. Debates in Archaeology.In ArchaeologicalTheoryToday,
Gero,JoanM. editedby I. Hodder,pp. 1-13. Polity Press,Cambridge.
2000 The Social World of PrehistoricFacts: Gender and 2002 TwoApproachestoanArchaeologyof the Social.Amer-
Powerin PaleoindianResearch.InInterpretive Archaeology: ican Anthropologist104:320-324.
A Reader,editedby J. Thomas,pp. 304-316. LeicesterUni- Hodder,Ian (editor)
versityPress,London. 1982 Symbolicand StructuralArchaeology.CambridgeUni-
Giddens,Anthony versityPress,Cambridge.
1984 The Constitutionof Society. Universityof California Hollimon,SandraE.
Press,Berkeley. 2001 Death, Gender,and the ChumashPeoples: Mourning
Gillespie, SusanD. Ceremonialismas anIntegrative Mechanism.InSocialMem-
2001 Personhood,Agency, and MortuaryRitual: A Case ory, Identity,and Death: AnthropologicalPerspectiveson
Study from the AncientMaya.Journalof Anthropological MortuaryRituals, edited by M. S. Chesson, pp. 41-55.
Archaeology20:73-112. AnthropologicalPapersof the AmericanAnthropological
Gumerman,George,andMurrayGell-Mann(editors) AssociationNo. 10.AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,
1994 UnderstandingComplexityin the Prehistoric South- Arlington,Virginia.
west. Santa Fe InstituteStudies in the Sciences of Com- Holtorf,Cornelius,and Hikan Karlsson(editors)
plexity, Proceedings Vol. 16. Addison-Wesley,Reading, 2000 PhilosophyandArchaeologicalPractice:Perspectives
Massachusetts. for the 21st Century.BricoleurPress,Goteborg,Sweden.
Harvey,David Howell, ToddL., and KeithW. Kintigh
1989 The Condition of Postmodernity.Oxford University 1996 ArchaeologicalIdentification of KinGroupsUsingMor-
Press,Oxford. tuaryand Biological Data:An Examplefromthe American
Hawkes,Kristen,Alan R. Rogers,andEricL. Charov Southwest.AmericanAntiquity61:537-554.
1995 The Male's Dilemma:IncreasedOffspringProduction Hurt,T. D., and G. F. M. Rakita(editors)
Is More Paternityto Steal.EvolutionaryEcology 9:1-16. 2001 Styleand Function:ConceptualIssues in Evolutionary
Hayden,Brian Archaeology.GreenwoodPress,Westport,Connecticut.
1995 Pathwaysto Power:Principlesfor CreatingSocioeco- Hutson,Scott R.
nomic Inequalities. In Foundationsof Social Inequality, 2001 SynergythroughDisunity,Science as Social Practice:
editedby T.D. PriceandG. M. Feinman,pp. 15-86. Plenum Commentson VanPooland VanPool.AmericanAntiquity
Press, New York. 66:349-360.
1998 Practicaland PrestigeTechnologies:The Evolutionof 2002 GenderedCitationPracticesin AmericanAntiquityand
MaterialSymbols. Journalof ArchaeologicalMethodand Other Archaeology Journals. American Antiquity
Theory5:1-55. 67:331-342.
Hayden,Brian,and Rich Schulting Jameson,Fredric
1997 The Plateau InteractionSphere and Late Prehistoric 1991 Postmodernism,or The CulturalLogic of Late Capi-
CulturalComplexity.AmericanAntiquity62:51-85. talism.Duke UniversityPress,Durham.
Jones,Andrew PuebloPopulationsin the Mesa VerdeRegion, U.S. South-

2002 ArchaeologicalTheoryand ScientificPractice: Topics west. In Dynamicsin Humanand PrimateSocieties,edited
in ContemporaryArchaeology. CambridgeUniversityPress, by T. KohlerandG. Gumerman,pp. 145-205. OxfordUni-
Cambridge. versityPress,Oxford.
Jones, Sian Kohler,TimothyA., and MeredithH. Matthews
1997 TheArchaeologyof Ethnicity:ConstructingIdentities 1988 Long-TermAnasaziLandUse andForestReduction:A
in the Past and Present.Routledge,London. Case Studyfrom SouthwestColorado.AmericanAntiquity
Jones,TerryL. 53:537-564.
1996 Mortars,Pestles, and Division of Laborin Prehistoric Kohler,TimothyA., MatthewW. VanPelt, and LoreneY. L. Yap
California: A View from Big Sur. American Antiquity 2000 Reciprocityand Its Limits:Considerationfor a Study
61:243-264. of the PrehispanicPuebloWorld.In AlternativeLeadership
Judge,W. James Strategiesin thePrehispanicSouthwest,editedby B. J.Mills,
1989 ChacoCanyon-San JuanBasin.InDynamicsofSouth- pp. 180-206. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
west Prehistory,editedby L. S. CordellandG. Gumerman, Krause,RichardA.
pp. 209-261. SmithsonianInstitutionPress, Washington, 1995 GreatPlainsMoundBuilding:A PostprocessualView.
D.C. In BeyondSubsistence:Plains Archaeologyand the Post-
Kantner,John processual Critique,edited by P. Duke and M. C. Wilson,
1996 PoliticalCompetitionamongthe ChacoAnasaziof the pp. 129-142. Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
AmericanSouthwest.Journalof AnthropologicalArchae- Kuehn,StevenR.
ology 15:41-105. 1998 New EvidenceforLatePaleoindian-EarlyArchaic Sub-
Kelly, RobertL. sistence Behavior in the WesternGreatLakes. American
2000 Elementsof a BehavioralEcological Paradigmfor the Antiquity63:457-476.
Study of PrehistoricHunter-Gatherers. In Social Theoryin LaMotta,VincentM., and MichaelB. Schiffer
Archaeology,edited by M. B. Schiffer,pp. 63-78. Univer- 2001 BehavioralArchaeology:Towarda New Synthesis.In
sity of Utah Press, SaltLake City. Archaeological Theory Today,edited by I. Hodder, pp.
2001 ArchaeologicalSurveyand Excavationsin the Carson 14-64. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Desert and Stillwater Mountains,Nevada. University of Lamphere,Louise
Utah AnthropologicalPapersNo. 123. Universityof Utah 2000 GenderModels in the Southwest:A SocioculturalPer-
Press, Salt Lake City. spective.In Womenand Men in the PrehispanicSouthwest,
Kelly, RobertL., and LarryC. Todd edited by P. L. Crown, pp. 379-401. School of American
1988 Coming into the Country:Early PaleoindianHunting ResearchPress,SantaFe.
and Mobility.AmericanAntiquity53:231-244. Larson, Daniel O., Hector Neff, Donald A. Graybill, Joel
Kintigh,KeithW. Michaelsen,andElizabethAmbos
1982 Settlement,Subsistence,and Society in Late ZuniPre- 1996 Risk, Climactic Variability,and the Study of South-
history.AnthropologicalPapersof the Universityof Ari- westernPrehistory:An EvolutionaryPerspective.American
zona No. 44. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson. Antiquity61:217-242.
Kintigh,KeithW., ToddHowell, andAndrewI. Duff Lechtman,Heather
1996 Post-ChacoanSocial Integrationat the Hinkson Site, 1977 Style in Technology:Some EarlyThoughts.In Mater-
New Mexico. Kiva 61:257-274. ial Culture:Style,Organization,and Dynamicsof Technol-
Knapp,A. Bernard ogy,editedby H. LechtmanandR. S. Merrill,pp.3-20. West
1996 ArchaeologywithoutGravity:Postmodernismandthe Publishing,New York.
Past. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Lekson, StevenH.
3:127-158. 1999 TheChacoMeridian:Centersof PoliticalPowerin the
Knapp,A. Bernard,andWendyAshmore AncientSouthwest.AltaMiraPress,WalnutCreek,Califor-
1999 ArchaeologicalLandscapes:Constructed,Conceptual- nia.
ized, Ideational.In Archaeologiesof Landscape,editedby Leonard,RobertD.
W. Ashmoreand A. B. Knapp,pp. 1-30. Blackwell Pub- 2001 EvolutionaryArchaeology.In ArchaeologicalTheory
lishers,Malden,Massachusetts. Today,editedby I. Hodder,pp. 65-97. Polity Press,Cam-
Knight,VernonJames,Jr. bridge.
1984 Some Speculationson MississippianMonsters.In The Leonard,RobertD., and GeorgeT. Jones
SoutheasternCeremonialComplex:ArtifactsandAnalysis: 1987 Elements of an Inclusive Evolutionary Model for
The CottonlandiaConference,edited by P. Galloway,pp. Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
205-210. Universityof NebraskaPress,Lincoln. 6:199-219.
1998 Moundvilleas a DiagrammaticCeremonialCenter.In Leonard,RobertD., and Heidi E. Reed
Archaeologyof the MoundvilleChiefdom,edited by V. J. 1993 PopulationAggregationin the PrehistoricAmerican
KnightandV. P. Steponaitis,pp. 44-62. SmithsonianInsti- Southwest: A Selectionist Model. American Antiquity
tutionPress,Washington,D.C. 58:648-661.
Kohler,TimothyA. Leone, MarkP.,andRobertW. Preucel
2000 PuttingSocial Sciences TogetherAgain:An Introduc- 1992 Archaeologyin a DemocraticSociety:A CriticalThe-
tionto theVolume.InDynamicsinHumanandPrimateSoci- oryApproach.In QuandariesandQuests:VisionsofArchae-
eties, edited by T. Kohler and G. Gumerman,pp. 1-18. ology'sFuture,editedby L.Wandsnider,pp. 115-135. Center
OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford. forArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 20.
Kohler,TimothyA., JamesKresl,CarlaVanWest,EricCarr,and SouthernIllinois UniversityPress,Carbondale.
RichardH. Wilshusen Lewin, Roger
2000 Be ThereThen:A ModelingApproachto Settlement 1999 Complexity:Life at the Edge of Chaos. 2nd ed. Uni-
Determinantsand SpatialEfficiencyamongLateAncestral versityof ChicagoPress,Chicago.
Lewis, R. Barry,and CharlesStout(editors) Alabama:The Role of Commonersin the Creationof a

1998 MississippianTownsandSacredSpaces:Searchingfor MoundvilleI Landscape.AmericanAntiquity65:337-354.
an ArchitecturalGrammarUniversityof AlabamaPress, Meltzer,David J., Donald K. Grayson,GerardoArdila,Alex W.
Tuscaloosa. Barker,Dena F. Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes, Francisco
Lightfoot,KentG., and GaryM. Feinman Mena,LautaroNiniez, andDennis Stanford
1982 Social DifferentiationandLeadershipDevelopmentin 1997 Onthe PleistoceneAntiquityof MonteVerde,Southern
EarlyPithouseVillagesin theMogollonRegionof theAmer- Chile.AmericanAntiquity62:659-663.
ican Southwest.AmericanAntiquity47:64-86. Mills, BarbaraJ.
Lindly,J. M., and G. A. Clark 2002 RecentResearchon Chaco:ChangingViews on Econ-
1990 Symbolism and Modem Human Origins. Current omy,Ritual,andSociety.JournalofArchaeologicalResearch
Anthropology31:233-261. 10:65-117.
Loney,Helen L. Mills, BarbaraJ. (editor)
2000 Society and TechnologicalControl:A CriticalReview 2000 AlternativeLeadershipStrategies in the Prehispanic
of Models of TechnologicalChange in Ceramic Studies. Southwest.Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
AmericanAntiquity65:646-668. Milner,GeorgeR.
Longacre,WilliamA. 1998 TheCahokiaChiefdom:TheArchaeology of aMississip-
1970 Archaeologyas Anthropology:A Case Study.Anthro- pian Society.SmithsonianInstitution
Press,Washington,D.C.
pological Papersof the Universityof ArizonaNo. 17. Uni- Minnis, PaulE.
versityof ArizonaPress,Tucson. 1985 SocialAdaptationto FoodStress:A PrehistoricSouth-
Lovis, WilliamA., KathrynC. Egan-Bruhy,BeverleyA. Smith, westernExample.Universityof ChicagoPress,Chicago.
and G. WilliamMonaghan Minnis, PaulE., andWayneJ. Elisens (editors)
2001 WetlandsandEmergentHorticultural Economiesin the 2000 Biodiversityand NativeAmerica.Universityof Okla-
UpperGreatLakes:A New Perspectivefromthe SchultzSite. homa Press,Norman.
AmericanAntiquity66:615-632. Morrison,Margaret,and MaryS. Morgan(editors)
Lyman,R. Lee, and MichaelJ. O'Brien 1999 Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and
1998 The Goals of EvolutionaryArchaeology:Historyand Social Science.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Explanation.CurrentAnthropology39:615-562. Muller,Jon
Lyotard,J-F. 1997 MississippianPolitical Economy.Plenum,New York.
1984 The PostmodernCondition.Universityof Minnesota Munson,MaritK.
Press,Minneapolis. 2000 Sex, Gender,andStatus:HumanImagesfromthe Clas-
MacDonald,Douglas H. sic Mimbres.AmericanAntiquity65:127-144.
2001 GriefandBurialin the AmericanSouthwest:The Role Naranjo,Tessie
of MortuaryRit-
of EvolutionaryTheoryin the Interpretation 1995 Thoughtson Migrationby SantaClaraPueblo.Journal
ual.AmericanAntiquity66:704-714. of AnthropologicalArchaeology14:247-250.
McGuire,RandallH. Nassaney,MichaelS., and Eric S. Johnson(editors)
1992a Archaeology and the First Americans. American 2000 Interpretationsof NativeNorthAmericanLife:Mater-
Anthropologist94:816-836. ial Contributions to Ethnohistory. University Press of
1992b A MarxistArchaeology.AcademicPress,New York. Florida,Gainesville.
McGuire,RandallH., and Dean J. Saitta Neff, Hector
1996 AlthoughTheyHavePettyCaptains,They ObeyThem 1992 Ceramicsand Evolution.ArchaeologicalMethodand
Badly:TheDialecticsof PrehispanicWesternPuebloSocial Theory4:141-193.
Organization.AmericanAntiquity61:197-216. 2000 On EvolutionaryEcology and EvolutionaryArchaeol-
Manson,StevenM. ogy: Some Common Ground? Current Anthropology
2001 SimplifyingComplexity:A Reviewof ComplexityThe- 41:427-429.
ory. Geoforum32:405-414. 2001 We HaveMet the SelectionistandIt Is Us: Some Com-
Martin,DebraL. ments on Loney's "CriticalReview of Models of Techno-
2000 Reviewof Man Corn:Cannibalismand Violencein the logical Change in Ceramic Studies."AmericanAntiquity
PrehistoricAmericanSouthwest,by C. G. TurnerandJ. A. 66:726-728.
Turner.AmericanAntiquity65:199-201. Neiman,FraserD.
Maschner,H. D. G. 1995 Stylistic Variationin EvolutionaryPerspective:Infer-
1991 The Emergenceof CulturalComplexityon the North- ences from DecorativeDiversityand InterassemblageDis-
ern NorthwestCoast.Antiquity65:924-934. tancein IllinoisWoodlandCeramicAssemblages.American
Maschner,H. D. G., and J. Q. Patton Antiquity60:7-36.
1996 Kin Selection and the Origins of HereditarySocial Nelson, Ben A.
Inequality:A Case Study from the NorthernNorthwest 1995 Complexity,Hierarchy,and Scale:A ControlledCom-
Coast. In Darwinian Archaeologies, edited by H. D. G. parisonbetweenChacoCanyon,New Mexico, andLa Que-
Maschner,pp. 89-107. PlenumPress,New York. mada,Zacatecas.AmericanAntiquity60:597-618.
Mascia-Lees,FrancesE., PatriciaSharpe,and Colleen Ballerino 2000 Aggregation,Warfare,andthe Spreadof theMesoamer-
Cohen icanTradition.In TheArchaeologyof RegionalInteraction:
1989 The Postmoder Turnin Anthropology:Cautionsfrom Religion,Warfare, andExchangeacrosstheAmericanSouth-
a FeministPerspective.Signs 15(1):7-33. west andBeyond,editedby M. Hegmon,pp. 317-337. Uni-
Mason,RonaldJ. versityPressof Colorado,Boulder.
2000 Archaeology and Native American Oral Traditions. Nelson, Ben A., and StevenA. LeBlanc
AmericanAntiquity65:239-266. 1986 Short-TermSedentismin theAmericanSouthwest:The
Maxham,M. D. MimbresValleySalado.MaxwellMuseumof Anthropology
2000 Rural Communities in the Black WarriorValley, andUniversityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
240 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
Nelson, MargaretC. 66:36-46.

1991 The Study of TechnologicalOrganization.Archaeo- Pinsky,Valerie,andAlison Wylie (editors)
logical Methodand Theory3:57-100. 1995 Critical Traditions in ContemporaryArchaeology:
2000 Abandonment:Conceptualization, Representation,and Essays in the Philosophy, History and Socio-Politics of
Social Change.In Social Theoryin Archaeology,editedby Archaeology.Reprint. University of New Mexico Press,
M. B. Schiffer,pp. 52-62. Universityof UtahPress,SaltLake Albuquerque(originalpublishedin 1989, CambridgeUni-
City. versityPress,Cambridge).
Nelson, MargaretC., SarahNelson, andAlison Wylie (editors) Plog, FredT.
1994 EquityIssuesfor Womenin Archaeology.Archaeolog- 1974 TheStudyof PrehistoricChange.AcademicPress,New
ical Papersof the AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation York.
No. 5. AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation, Arlington, Plog, Stephen
Virginia. 1980 StylisticVariationin PrehistoricCeramics.Cambridge
Nelson, MargaretC., and GregsonSchachner UniversityPress,Cambridge.
2002 UnderstandingAbandonmentsin the NorthAmerican 1995 EqualityandHierarchy:HolisticApproachesto Under-
Southwest.JournalofArchaeologicalResearch10:167-206. standingSocialDynamicsin thePuebloSouthwest.InFoun-
O'Brien,MichaelJ., and R. Lee Lyman dationsof Social Inequality,editedby T. D. PriceandG. M.
2000 Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Feinman,pp. 189-205. PlenumPress,New York.
Approach.PlenumPress,New York. Potter,JamesM.
O'Brien,MichaelJ., R. Lee Lyman,andRobertD. Leonard 2000a Pots, Parties,and Politics:CommunalFeastingin the
1998 Basic Incompatibilities between Evolutionary and AmericanSouthwest.AmericanAntiquity65:471-492.
BehavioralArchaeology.AmericanAntiquity63:485-498. 2000b Ritual, Power, and Social Differentiationin Small-
Odell, GeorgeH. Scale Societies. In Hierarchiesin Action:CuiBono, edited
2001 Research Problems R Us. American Antiquity by M. W. Diehl, pp. 294-316. Centerfor Archaeological
66:679-685. Investigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 27. SouthernIllinois
Odess, Daniel UniversityPress,Carbondale.
1998 The Archaeologyof Interaction:Views from Artifact Preucel,RobertW.
Style and MaterialExchangein Dorset Society. American 1995 The PostprocessualCondition.JournalofArchaeolog-
Antiquity63:417-437. ical Research3:147-175.
Ortman,Scott G. Preucel,RobertW. (editor)
2000 ConceptualMetaphorin the ArchaeologicalRecord: 1991 Processualand PostprocessualArchaeologies:Multi-
Methods and an Example from the American Southwest. ple Waysof Knowingthe Past. Centerfor Archaeological
AmericanAntiquity65:613-645. Investigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 10. SouthernIllinois
Ortner,SherryB. UniversityPress,Carbondale.
1984 TheoryinAnthropologysincethe Sixties. Comparative Preucel,RobertW., and Ian Hodder(editors)
Studiesin Societyand History26:126-166. 1996 ContemporaryArchaeologyin Theory:A ReaderBlack-
1996 Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Culture. well, Oxford.
Beacon Press,Boston. Rauch,Jonathan
Otterbein,KeithF 2002 Seeing around Corners. The Atlantic Monthly
2000 A History of Researchon Warfarein Anthropology. 289(4):35-48.
AmericanAnthropologist101:794-805. Rautman,Alison E.
Parezo,Nancy J. (editor) 1998 HierarchyandHeterarchyin the AmericanSouthwest:
1993 Hidden Scholars: WomenAnthropologists and the A Commenton McGuire and Saitta.AmericanAntiquity
Native American Southwest. University of New Mexico 63:325-333.
Press,Albuquerque. Redman,CharlesL.
Pauketat,TimothyR. 1991 In Defense of the 70s-The Adolescence of New
1989 MonitoringMississippianHomesteadOccupationSpan Archaeology.AmericanAnthropologist93:295-307.
and Economy Using CeramicRefuse.AmericanAntiquity 1999 HumanImpactonAncientEnvironments. Universityof
54:288-310. ArizonaPress,Tucson.
1994 TheAscent of Chiefs:Cahokiaand MississippianPol- Reid, J. Jefferson,MichaelB. Schiffer,andWilliamL. Rathje
itics in NativeNorthAmerica.Universityof AlabamaPress, 1975 BehavioralArchaeology: Four Strategies.American
Tuscaloosa. Anthropologist77:836-848.
2000 The Tragedyof the Commoners.InAgency in Archae- Renfrew,Colin
ology, edited by M. A. Dobres and J. Robb, pp. 113-129. 1978 Trajectory,Discontinuity, and Morphogenesis:The
Routledge,London. Implicationsof CatastropheTheoryforArchaeology.Amer-
Pauketat,TimothyR., and ThomasE. Emerson ican Antiquity43:203-222.
1991 The Ideology of Authorityand the Power of the Pot. 2001 Productionand Consumptionin a SacredEconomy:
AmericanAnthropologist93:919-941. The MaterialCorrelatesof High DevotionalExpressionat
Pauketat,TimothyR., LucretiaS. Kelly, Gayle J. Fritz,Neal H. Chaco Canyon.AmericanAntiquity66:14-25.
Lopinot,Scott Elias, andEve Hargrave Renfrew,Colin, and ChristopherScarre(editors)
2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early 1998 Cognitionand Material Culture:TheArchaeologyof
Cahokia.AmericanAntiquity67:257-279. SymbolicStorage.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Peet, Richard Renfrew,Colin, andEzraB. W. Zubrow(editors)
1998 Modem GeographicalThought.Blackwell, Oxford. 1994 TheAncientMind:Elementsof CognitiveArchaeology.
Peregrine,PeterN. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
2001 Matrilocality,CorporateStrategy,andtheOrganization Richerson,PeterJ., RobertBoyd, andRobertL. Bettinger
of Productionin the ChacoanWorld.AmericanAntiquity 2001 WasAgricultureImpossibleduringthe Pleistocenebut
MandatoryduringtheHolocene?A ClimateChangeHypoth- tionaryEcologies. AmericanAntiquity61:643-662.

esis. AmericanAntiquity66:387-411. 1999 BehavioralArchaeology:Some Clarifications.Ameri-
Rindos,David can Antiquity64:166-168.
1984 TheOriginsofAgriculture.AcademicPress,NewYork. Schiffer,MichaelBrian(editor)
1989 UndirectedVariationandthe DarwinianExplanationof 2000 SocialTheoryinArchaeology.Universityof UtahPress,
CultureChange.ArchaeologicalMethodandTheory1:1-45. Salt Lake City.
Robb,JohnE. Schiffer,MichaelBrian,T. C. Butts,and K. K. Grimm
1998 TheArchaeologyof Symbols.AnnualReview ofAnthro- 1994 TakingCharge:The Electric Automobilein America.
pology 27:329-346. SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Robb,JohnE. (editor) Schiffer,MichaelBrian,with AndreaR. Miller
1999 MaterialSymbols:Cultureand Economyin Prehistory. 1999 A BehavioralTheoryof Meaning.In Potteryand Peo-
CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaper ple: A Dynamic Interaction,edited by J. M. Skibo and G.
No. 26. SouthernIllinois UniversityPress,Carbondale. M. Feinman,pp. 199-217. Universityof Utah Press, Salt
Rocek, ThomasR. Lake City.
1996 SedentismandMobilityin the Southwest.In Interpret- Schiffer,MichaelBrian,andJamesM. Skibo
ing SouthwesternDiversity: Underlying Principles and 1997 TheExplanationof ArtifactVariability.AmericanAntiq-
OverarchingPatterns,editedby P.R. Fish andJ. J. Reid,pp. uity62:27-50.
9-22. AnthropologicalResearch Papers No. 48. Arizona Schiffer,MichaelBrian,JamesM. Skibo,JanetL. Griffitts,Kacy
StateUniversityPress,Tempe. L. Hollenback,andWilliamA. Longacre
Sackett,JamesR. 2001 BehavioralArchaeologyandthe Studyof Technology.
1982 Approachesto Style in LithicArchaeology.Journalof AmericanAntiquity66:729-738.
AnthropologicalArchaeology1:59-112. Sebastian,Lynne
Sahlins,MarshallD., andElmanR. Service (editors) 1992 TheChacoAnasazi:SociopoliticalEvolutionin thePre-
1960 Evolutionand Culture.Universityof MichiganPress, historicSouthwest.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Ann Arbor. Service,ElmanR.
Saitta,Dean J. 1971 PrimitiveSocial Organization:An EvolutionaryPer-
1994 Agency,Class,andArchaeologicalInterpretation. Jour- spective.2nd ed. RandomHouse, New York.
nal of AnthropologicalArchaeology13:201-227. Shafer,HarryJ.
1995 Marxism and Archaeology.In Marxismin the Post- 1995 Architectureand Symbolism in TransitionalPueblo
moder Age: Confrontingthe New WorldOrder,edited by Developmentin theMimbresValley,SW New Mexico.Jour-
A. Callari,S. Cullenberg,and C. Biewener,pp. 385-393. nal of FieldArchaeology22:23-47.
Guilford,New York. Shanks,Michael,and ChristopherTilley
1997 Power,Labor,andthe Dynamicsof Changein Chacoan 1987a ReconstructingArchaeology: Theoryand Practice.
PoliticalEconomy.AmericanAntiquity62:7-26. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
1999 Prestige,Agency, and Changein Middle-RangeSoci- 1987b Social TheoryandArchaeology.Polity Press,Oxford.
eties. In Material Symbols:Cultureand Economyin Pre- Shaul,David Leedom, andJaneH. Hill
history, edited by J. E. Robb, pp. 135-149. Center for 1998 Tepimans,Yumans,and Other Hohokam.American
Archaeological Investigations,Occasional PaperNo. 26. Antiquity63:375-396.
SouthernIllinois UniversityPress,Carbondale. Shennan,StephenJ.
Sassaman,KennethE. 1989 Introduction:ArchaeologicalApproachesto Cultural
1995 The Social Contradictionsof Traditionaland Innova- Identity.InArchaeologicalApproachesto CulturalIdentity,
tive Cooking Technologies in the PrehistoricAmerican editedby S. J. Shennan,pp. 1-32. Unwin Hyman,London.
Southeast.In The Emergenceof Pottery:Technologyand 1993 AfterSocialEvolution:ANewArchaeologicalAgenda?
InnovationinAncientSocieties,editedby W. K. Barnettand In ArchaeologicalTheory:WhoSets the Agenda,editedby
J. W. Hoopes, pp. 223-240. SmithsonianInstitutionPress, N. YoffeeandA. Sherratt,pp. 53-59. CambridgeUniversity
Washington,D.C. Press,Cambridge.
2000 Agents of Changein Hunter-Gatherer Technology.In Shennan,StephenJ., andJ. R. Wilkinson
AgencyinArchaeology,editedby M.A. DobresandJ. Robb, 2001 CeramicStyle Changeand NeutralEvolution:A Case
pp. 148-168. Routledge,London. Study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity
Scarry,JohnF. 66:577-594.
1999 Elite Identitiesin ApalacheeProvince:The Construc- Shott,MichaelJ.
tionof IdentityandCulturalChangein aMississippianPolity. 1996a Innovationand Selectionin Prehistory:A Case Study
In MaterialSymbols:Cultureand Economyin Prehistory, from the American Bottom. In Stone Tools: Theoretical
editedby J. E. Robb,pp. 342-361. Centerfor Archaeolog- Insightsinto HumanPrehistory,edited by G. H. Odell, pp.
ical Investigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 26. SouthernIlli- 279-309. PlenumPress,New York.
nois UniversityPress,Carbondale. 1996b MortalPots: On Use Life andVessel Size in the For-
Schachner,Gregson mation of Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity
2001 Ritual Controland Transformationin Middle Range 61:463-482.
Societies:An ExamplefromtheAmericanSouthwest.Jour- Skibo,JamesM., and GaryM. Feinman(editors)
nal of AnthropologicalArchaeology20:168-194. 1999 Potteryand People:A DynamicInteraction.University
Schiffer,MichaelBrian of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity.
1987 FormationProcessesoftheArchaeologicalRecord. Uni- Skibo,JamesM., and MichaelBrianSchiffer
versityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque. 1995 The Clay CookingPot:An Exampleof Women'sTech-
1995 BehavioralArchaeology: FirstPrinciples.Universityof nology. In ExpandingArchaeology,edited by J. M. Skibo,
Utah Press, Salt LakeCity. W. H. Walker,andA. E. Nielsen, pp. 80-91. Universityof
1996 Some Relationshipsbetween Behavioraland Evolu- Utah Press,Salt Lake City.
Skibo, JamesM., WilliamH. Walker,andA. E. Nielsen (editors) Steward,JulianH.

1995 ExpandingArchaeology. Universityof UtahPress,Salt 1955 Theoryof CultureChange:TheMethodologyof Multi-
Lake City. linear Evolution.Universityof Illinois Press,Urbana.
Smith,BruceD. Strather, Marilyn
1992a MississippianElites andSolarAlignments:A Reflec- 1981 Self-Interestand the Social Good: Some Implications
tion of ManagerialNecessity, or Leversof Social Inequal- of Hagen GenderImagery.In Sexual Meanings:The Cul-
ity. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequalityand the tural Constructionof Genderand Sexuality,editedby S. B.
Native Elites of SoutheasternNorthAmerica,edited by A. Ortnerand H. Whitehead,pp. 166-191. CambridgeUni-
W. Barkerand T. R. Pauketat,pp. 11-30. Archaeological versityPress,Cambridge.
Papersof the AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation No. Straus,LawrenceGuy
3. AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,Arlington,Vir- 2000 SolutreanSettlementof NorthAmerica?A Review of
ginia. Reality.AmericanAntiquity65:219-226.
1992b Riversof Change:Essayson EarlyAgriculture in East- Thomas,David Hurst
ern North America. SmithsonianInstitutionPress, Wash- 1989 Archaeology.2nded. Holt, RinehartandWinston,New
ington,D.C. York.
Smith,CraigS., andLanceM. McNees Thomas,Julian(editor)
1999 Facilities and Hunter-Gatherer Long-TermLand Use 2000 InterpretiveArchaeology:A Reader LeicesterUniver-
Patterns:An ExamplefromSouthwestWyoming.American sity Press,London.
Antiquity64:117-136. Tilley,Christopher(editor)
Snead,JamesE., andRobertW. Preucel 1990 ReadingMaterialCulture.Basil Blackwell,Oxford.
1999 The Ideology of Settlement:Ancestral Keres Land- 1993 InterpretiveArchaeology. BergPublishers,Providence,
scapes in the NorthernRio Grande.In Archaeologies of Rhode Island.
Landscape,edited by W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp,pp. Trigger,Bruce G.
169-197. Blackwell Publishers,Malden,Massachusetts. 1980 Archaeologyand the Image of the AmericanIndian.
Snow,Dean R. AmericanAntiquity45:662-676.
1995 Migrationin Prehistory:The NorthernIroquoianCase. 1989a A HistoryofArchaeologicalThought.CambridgeUni-
AmericanAntiquity60:59-79. versityPress,Cambridge.
Spector,JanetD. 1989b Hyperrelativism,Responsibility,and the Social Sci-
1991 What This Awl Means:Towarda FeministArchaeol- ences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology
ogy. In EngenderingArchaeology:Womenand Prehistory, 26:776-797.
editedby J.M. GeroandM.W.Conkey,pp. 388-406. Black- 1998a Archaeology and Epistemology: Dialoguing across
well, Oxford. the DarwinianChasm.AmericanJournal of Archaeology
1993 WhatThisAwlMeans:FeministArchaeologyat a Wah- 102:1-34.
peton Dakota Village.MinnesotaHistoricalSociety Press, 1998b Sociocultural Evolution. Blackwell Publishers,
St. Paul. Malden,Massachusetts.
Spencer,CharlesS. Tringham,RuthE.
1997 EvolutionaryApproachesin Archaeology.Journal of 1991 HouseholdswithFaces:TheChallengeof Genderin Pre-
ArchaeologicalResearch5:209-265. historicArchitecturalRemains. In EngenderingArchaeol-
Spielmann,KatherineA. ogy: WomenandPrehistory,editedby J. M. GeroandM. W.
1998 Ritual Craft Specialists in Small-Scale Societies. In Conkey,pp. 93-131. Blackwell, Oxford.
Craftand Social Identity,edited by C. L. Costin and R. P. Trubitt,MaryBeth D.
Wright,pp. 153-159. ArchaeologicalPapersof the Ameri- 2000 MoundBuildingandPrestigeGoodsExchange:Chang-
can AnthropologicalAssociationNo. 8. AmericanAnthro- ing Strategiesin theCahokiaChiefdom.AmericanAntiquity
pologicalAssociation,Arlington,Virginia. 65:669-690.
2002 Feasting,CraftSpecialization,andthe RitualMode of Turner,BryanS.
Productionin Small-ScaleSocieties. AmericanAnthropol- 2001 On the Conceptof Axial Space: Orientalismand the
ogist 104:195-207. Originary.Journalof Social Archaeology1:62-74.
Spielmann,KatherineA. (guest editor) Turner,ChristyG., andJacquelineA. Turner
1995 SpecialIssue:TheArchaeologyof GenderintheAmer- 1999 ManCorn:Cannibalismand Violencein thePrehistoric
ican Southwest.JournalofAnthropologicalResearch51(2). AmericanSouthwest.Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake
Stark,MiriamT. (editor) City.
1998 The Archaeologyof Social Boundaries. Smithsonian van derLeeuw, Sander,and CharlesL. Redman
InstitutionPress,Washington,D.C. 2002 Placing Archaeology at the Centerof Socio-Natural
Stark,MiriamT., JefferyJ. Clark,and MarkD. Elson Studies.AmericanAntiquity67:597-606.
1995 CausesandConsequencesof Migrationin the 13thCen- Van Nest, Julieann,Douglas K. Charles,JaneE. Buikstra,and
turyTontoBasin. Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology David L. Asch
14:212-246. 2001 Sod Blocks in Illinois Hopewell Mounds.American
Stein, JohnR., and StevenH. Lekson Antiquity66:633-650.
1992 AnasaziRitualLandscapes.InAnasaziRegionalOrga- VanPool,ChristineS., andToddL. VanPool
nizationand the ChacoSystem,editedby D. E. Doyel, pp. 1999 The ScientificNatureof Postprocessualism. American
87-100. AnthropologicalPapersNo. 5. Maxwell Museum Antiquity64:333-353.
of Anthropology,Albuquerque. Varien,MarkD.
Steponaitis,Vincas P. 1999 Sedentismand Mobilityin a Social Landscape:Mesa
1981 Ceramics,Chronology,and CommunityPatterns:An Verdeand Beyond.Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
ArchaeologicalStudyat Moundville.AcademicPress,New Varien,MarkD., andBarbaraJ. Mills
York. 1997 AccumulationsResearch:Problemsand Prospectsfor
EstimatingSite OccupationSpan.Journalof Archaeologi- New Questions.AmericanAnthropologist92:586-596.

cal Methodand Theory4:141-191. Wright,Rita P. (editor)
Vehik,SusanC. 1996 Genderand Archaeology.Universityof Pennsylvania
2002 Conflict,Trade,andPoliticalDevelopmenton theSouth- Press, Philadelphia.
ern Plains.AmericanAntiquity67:37-64. Wylie,Alison
Walker,WilliamH. 1992 The Interplayof Evidential Constraintsand Political
2002 Stratigraphyand PracticalReason. AmericanAnthro- Interests:RecentArchaeologicalResearchon Gender.Amer-
pologist 104:159-177. ican Antiquity57:15-35.
Walker,WilliamH., andLisa J. Lucero 1996 The Constitutionof ArchaeologicalEvidence:Gender
2000 TheDepositionalHistoryof RitualandPower.InAgency PoliticsandScience.InTheDisunityof Science:Boundaries,
in Archaeology,edited by M. A. Dobres and J. Robb, pp. Contexts,and Power,editedby P. GalisonandD. J. Stump,
131-147. Routledge,London. pp. 311-343. StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford.
Walthall,JohnA. 2000 Questionsof Evidence,Legitimacy,andthe (Dis)Unity
1998 Rocksheltersand Hunter-Gatherer Adaptationto the of Science. AmericanAntiquity65:227-237.
Pleistocene/Holocene Transition. American Antiquity Yoffee, Norman
63:223-238. 1993 Too Many Chiefs? (or, Safe Texts for the '90s). In
Ware,JohnA., andEric Blinman ArchaeologicalTheory:WhoSets theAgenda?editedby N.
2000 Cultural Collapse and Reorganization: Origin and Yoffee and S. Sherratt,pp. 60-78. CambridgeUniversity
Spreadof Pueblo RitualSodalities.In TheArchaeologyof Press,Cambridge.
Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare,and Exchange Yoffee, Norman,andAndrewSherratt(editors)
across the AmericanSouthwestand Beyond,edited by M. 1993 ArchaeologicalTheory:WhoSets the Agenda? Cam-
Hegmon,pp. 381-410. UniversityPressof Colorado,Boul- bridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
der. Zedeiio,MariaNieves
Watson,PattyJo, andMichaelFotiadis 1997 Landscapes,LandUse, andthe Historyof TerritoryFor-
1990 TheRazor'sEdge:Symbolic-StructuralistArchaeology mation:An Examplefromthe PuebloanSouthwest.Journal
and the Expansionof ArchaeologicalInference.American of ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory4:67-103.
Anthropologist92:613-629. Zimmerer,KarlS.
Watson,PattyJo, and MaryC. Kennedy 1994 Human Geography and the "New Ecology": The
1991 The Developmentof Horticulturein the EasternWood- Prospectand Promiseof Integration.Annalsof theAssoci-
lands of North America:Women's Role. In Engendering ation of AmericanGeographers84:108-125.
Archaeology:Womenand Prehistory,edited by J. M. Gero
and M. W. Conkey,pp. 255-275. Blackwell,Oxford. Notes
Watson,PattyJo, StevenA. LeBlanc, and CharlesL. Redman
1971 Explanationin Archaeology:An ExplicitlyScientific 1. Prominent exceptions include Boston University,
Approach.ColumbiaUniversityPress,New York. Stanford,Simon Fraser,and the Universityof Calgary.
Welsh, PaulD., and C. MargaretScarry 2. Manypractitionersof this approachpreferthe appellation
1995 Status-RelatedVariation in Foodwaysin theMoundville evolutionaryarchaeology,but this usage resultsin terminologi-
Chiefdom.AmericanAntiquity60:397-419. cal confusion, as it is often unclear whether evolutionary
Whalen,MichaelE., andPaulE. Minnis includes evolutionaryecology. For example, Schiffer's (1996)
2001 ArchitectureandAuthorityin the CasasGrandesArea, discussion of the
relationshipbetween behavioraland evolu-
Chihuahua,Mexico.AmericanAntiquity66:651-668. focusedon the Darwinianschool, prompt-
tionary archaeologies
Whiteley,PeterM.
2002 ArchaeologyandOralTradition:The ScientificImpor- ing a commentby Broughtonand O'Connell(1998), who noted
tance of Dialogue.AmericanAntiquity67:405-416. that there are other kinds of evolutionaryapproaches.For pur-
Whitley,David S. poses of comparativediscussion,Darwinianarchaeologyseems
2000 TheArt of the Shaman:RockArt of California.Uni- to be the best term, though not all approachesthat draw on
versityof Utah Press,Salt Lake City. Darwiniantheory(e.g., BartonandClark1997) subscribeto this
Wiessner,Polly approach.
2002 TheVinesof Complexity:EgalitarianStructuresandthe 3. Genderstudies,includingthe archaeologyof gender,sim-
Institutionalizationof Inequalityamongthe Enga. Current involve focus on issues relating to sex and gender.While
ply
Anthropology43:233-269. some may believe thatinterestin genderis inherentlyfeminist,
Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff
1992 A Historyof AmericanArchaeology.3rd ed. Freeman, I believe thatit is possiblefor researchthatinvolvesgenderto be
New York. apoliticalor even sexist, for example, when women are consid-
Wilson, MichaelC. eredonly in termsof theirrelationalroles as wives andmothers.
1995 The Household as a PortableMnemonic Landscape: In contrast,feminism is political and antisexist.As I define it,
ArchaeologicalImplicationsfor Plains Stone Circle Sites. feminismis the belief thatone shouldact to improvethe lives of
In Beyond Subsistence:Plains Archaeologyand the Post- women and to increasethe chances that people (of all genders
processual Critique,edited by P. Duke and M. C. Wilson, and ages) not only can meet theirbasic needs but also will have
pp. 169-192. Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa. the opportunityfor self-actualization,to createlives that satisfy
Winterhalder, Bruce,andEricAlden Smith them and make use of theirinherentgifts and talents.
2000 Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral
at 4. I agree with Preucel'sgrouping,though not necessarily
Ecology Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology
9:51-72. his label, for some of what he calls "analyticalfeminism"
Wolf, Eric R. involvesfairlyapoliticalstudyof genderand,therefore,does not
1990 DistinguishedLecture:Facing Power-Old Insights, fit my definitionof feminism.

Hegmon

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hegmon

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Society for American Archaeology

SETTING THEORETICAL EGOS ASIDE:

La teoria en la arqueologiade NorteAmericaestd caracterizadaen terminosde enfoquesy consideracionesmanifestadosenprob-

Michelle Hegmon * Departmentof Anthropology,Arizona State University,Tempe,AZ 85287-2402

AmericanAntiquity,68(2), 2003, pp. 213-243

mappingout this topic into an article-lengthtreat- archaeologistswho work on pre-ColumbianNorth

is usedby mostpractitioners. Anthropologicalappli- drawson kin selectiontheoryto discussgriefandthe

processualinsights(e.g., Duke 1995;Preucel1991). Steponaitis 1981; see Trigger 1989a:368), an

Finally, postprocessualarchaeology embraced inspiredpostprocessualdirections(e.g.,Wylie1992).

Crown(2000) organizeda volumethatexploreshow an arrayof theoreticalapproaches-ranging from

Westernscholarsto conceptualizetheagencyof lead- theory(e.g., Ferguson1996a).Finally,landscapesare

spatialdistributionof architectureand settlements, only a small fractionof NorthAmericaniststudies

understandthe culturaland selectiveprocessesthat have been "prestigious"in some sense, theirdistri-

diffusionis notanexplanation-the resultwas a lack cal perspectiveshavemovedawayfromthisusageof

of the sameprocessoperatingatdifferentlevels (Pot- archaeologiststo reconsiderconceptsof explanation

enced,andcontextualizedby people"(1999:1).This rarystudiesthatformallytest hypotheses;for exam-

"hyperrelativism." A surge of interestsince around investigatethenatureof chiefdoms.Similarly,Cowan

winian evolution, Freudian psychoanalysis, and which seeks to understandunderlyingandgeneral-

"Yes,generally."Emphasison generalizableprinci- icanarchaeologistshavepushedtheirtheoreticalegos

not to openthe floodgatesof argumentbut,rather,to Barker,Alex W.

Crown,PatriciaL. ple fromthe NorthernPlains.InArchaeology,Annalesand

Explanationof PrehistoricChange,editedby J. N. Hill, pp. Hegmon,Michelle

Jones,Andrew PuebloPopulationsin the Mesa VerdeRegion, U.S. South-

Lewis, R. Barry,and CharlesStout(editors) Alabama:The Role of Commonersin the Creationof a

Nelson, MargaretC. 66:36-46.

MandatoryduringtheHolocene?A ClimateChangeHypoth- tionaryEcologies. AmericanAntiquity61:643-662.

Skibo, JamesM., WilliamH. Walker,andA. E. Nielsen (editors) Steward,JulianH.

EstimatingSite OccupationSpan.Journalof Archaeologi- New Questions.AmericanAnthropologist92:586-596.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi