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: 05/03/2010 09:39
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 modern, 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 postmodernism.
La teoria en la arqueologiade NorteAmericaestd caracterizadaen terminosde enfoquesy consideracionesmanifestadosenproblemdticasde 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 arqueologia de Norte America encaja en una categoria amplia que aquf se denomina como "procesual-plus."Entre los temasprincipales 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 enfoqueste6ricos para atendera unaproblemdticacomun.El enfasis en el organismoy la prdctica es un desarrolloimportante,aunquelas concepciones 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 orientacidn.La relativa escasez de argumentostedricos contribuyepositivamentea la diversidady al didlogo, pero tambienpuede
causar a la teorfa Norteamericanael recibiruna atencidn inadecuaday puede llevar desafortunadamentea malentenderel postmodernismo.
us to ignore many others;we do not see the world
as it reallyis (if suchvision is everscientificallypossible) but, rather,throughthe categoriesand labels
necessarilydefinedby our theories.
Focushereis ontheoryin NorthAmericanarchaeology, specifically, the archaeology of preColumbian North America (including northern
Mexico but excluding Mesoamerica)primarilyas
done by NorthAmericanarchaeologists(very few
non-North Americans do archaeology in North
America, althoughNorth Americansdo archaeology in many partsof the world).Theoryat a continental level is potentially overwhelming, but in
heory is, or shouldbe, a set of generalguiding principlesthat help us-as researchers
and as curioushumanbeings-make sense
of specific cases and of the world aroundus. Confrontedwith infinitestimuliandbits of information,
theory can help us focus on those bits that are particularlyimportant,understandtheir interrelationships, and transform that information into
knowledge.Theorygives us tools to identify,label,
andexplain.Thus,theory-as well as language,culture, and almost all human approaches to the
world-is at once enabling and constraining. In
orderto enlightenus aboutone realm,it encourages
T
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
mappingout this topic into an article-lengthtreatment,I foundmyselfgratefulforthegeographicconstraints.Although there is plenty of theory to go
around,today(intheearlytwenty-firstcentury)there
is much less explicit discussion of theoryin North
Americanarchaeologythanin archaeologydone by
scholarsin otherplaces,especiallyBritain.Throughoutthis article,I considerways in whichtheoryconstrains and enables North American archaeology,
and at the same time I explore the possibility that
moderationin theoreticalrhetoricitself is enabling.
I drawon theorypublishedin all venues,especially
since 1995, butin an effortto keep the list of references shorterthan the text, I emphasizeexamples
publishedin AmericanAntiquity.
My primarypurposeis to identify what I see as
the theoreticaldirectionsthathelp us makesense of
the archaeologyof NorthAmerica.Thus, I include
considerablediscussion of issues and approaches
that are not usually consideredto be "generaltheory"but which I believe representimportanttheoreticallyinformedprinciplesand underlyingideas.
reviewof theThis is in contrastto a straightforward
andarticles
several
recent
volumes
ory,providedby
Preucel
Jones
Preucel
1991;
2001;
2002;
(Hodder
and Hodder 1996; Schiffer2000; Yoffee and Sherratt1993). I focus on two realms.The firstis theory
that helps us understandwhat humans do, what
Schiffer (2000:1) broadly labels social theory
(though see Hodder 2002). The interpretationof
materialcultureis an importantcomponentof this
realm of theory,but I do not try to cover the broad
rangeof theory(sometimescalledmiddlerange)that
focuses specificallyon artifactsor the archaeological record;in this sense my directionis contraryto
that set forth by Binford (2001). The second and
shorterrealm involves general theoreticaldiscussions regardingepistemology.
Because this articleis intendedfor a special section in an issue of AmericanAntiquityto be distributed at the WorldArchaeologicalCongress, some
backgroundfor non-NorthAmericanistsis necessary:The firstpeople to occupy the Americaswere
anatomically moder humans, although the date
(probablybetween11,500and20,000 B.P.)andpath
of theirentryarevigorouslydebated(e.g.,Anderson
and Gillam2000; Fiedel 1999; Meltzeret al. 1997;
Straus2000). In the 1500s the first Europeansto
come to North America encountereda variety of
middle-rangesocieties but no states.Finally, most
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
archaeologistswho work on pre-ColumbianNorth
Americawere trainedin departmentsof anthropology,' which considerarchaeologyto be one of several subdisciplines (the others being physical
anthropology,linguistics,and socioculturalanthropology). I arguethat NorthAmericanarchaeology
is, overall,characterizedby considerabletolerance
of theoreticaldiversity,and it may be that some of
this open-mindednessstems fromthe broadanthropological trainingthatmost archaeologistsreceive.
Mapping the Theoretical Landscape
I divide the theoreticallandscapeof NorthAmerican archaeologyinto two mainparts.The firstcomprises three well-defined and self-identified
perspectives,fairlyclosely tied to a few individuals
and schools. The second, which I labelprocessualplus, incorporatesthe majorityof NorthAmerican
archaeologyand is more loosely defined.For other
theoreticalmaps (which identify more splits in the
category),see Hodder(2001),Knapp
processual-plus
Preucel
(1991, 1995), and Schiffer(2000).
(1996),
The threeself-identifiedperspectives,madeexplicit
in a series of recentarticlesin AmericanAntiquity
(Broughton and O'Connell 1999; O'Brien et al.
1998;Schiffer1996, 1999)are(1) evolutionaryecology; (2) behavioralarchaeology;and(3) Darwinian
archaeology,2also called evolutionaryarchaeology
or selectionism. Behavioral and Darwinian
approachesaremostlyappliedby U.S. scholars,and
leadingauthorsin bothschools (Neff 2001; Schiffer
et al. 2001) felt they were seriouslymisinterpreted
in a recentdiscussionby Loney (2000), who is atthe
Universityof Glasgow.Spencer(1987)differentiates
Darwinianfromprocessualapproachesto evolution,
the latterincludingaspectsof evolutionaryecology.
The ThreeSelf-IdentifiedPerspectives
Evolutionaryecology (also the nameof ajournal)is
"anevolutionaryscience concernedwith the differentialpersistenceof variabilityin behaviorovertime"
(Kelly 2000:64). A subset of evolutionaryecology
knownas humanbehavioralecology (HBE)involves
the applicationof evolutionaryecology to humans
andhumanbehavior;in partit representsan attempt
to addressJulianSteward's(1955) culturalecology
withrigorousevolutionarytheory(Winterhalder
and
Smith 2000:51). Most evolutionary ecology
approachesto archaeologyfit thisdefinitionof HBE,
butI retainthe termevolutionaryecologybecauseit
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
is usedby mostpractitioners.
Anthropologicalapplications of evolutionaryecology proceed by developing general models-derived from evolutionary
theory-that make predictionsabout behaviorsin
ecologicalcontextsandevaluatingthosemodelswith
ethnographicand sometimes archaeologicaldata
andSmith2000).Whileearlierarchae(Winterhalder
work
in this perspectivefocused on how
ological
humans cope with the environment(e.g., the diet
breadthmodel), recent applicationsalso consider
social issues, such as sharing and status (Boone
2000). Some evolutionaryecologists, particularly
those doing ethnographicwork,focus on notionsof
evolutionaryfitness and the relationshipbetween a
behaviorand its reproductiveconsequences (e.g.,
Hawkeset al. 1995). In contrast,most archaeological applicationsareless directlyconcernedwithbiologicalreproductionandinsteadfocus on issues such
as foraging strategies.Bamforth(2002) notes that
thereis sometimes only a weak link between such
food-relatedissues andevolution.
At least in NorthAmericanarchaeology,evolutionaryecology is most commonlyappliedto studies of hunter-gatherers or small-scale
often involvingdatafrom Califorhorticulturalists,
niaortheGreatBasin,whereforagingcontinuedinto
historictimes. For example,Kelly (2001) uses data
from the CarsonSink (Nevada)to evaluatemodels
regardingsettlementandresidentialmobility,anda
numberof studies focus on diet breadthand prey
choice (see summaryin Broughtonand O'Connell
1999:154-156). Examplesfromelsewherein North
Americainclude Shott's (1996a) applicationof the
diet breadthmodel to understandchanges in point
size in the Midwest(see also chaptersin Bartonand
Clark1997) andFitzhugh's(2001) workon riskand
inventionin the Gulf of Alaska.
Many archaeologistswho drawon evolutionary
ecology also seem open to othermodes of inquiry.
For example,althoughKelly (2000) is quitecritical
of Darwinianarchaeology,he suggestswaysin which
elements of evolutionaryecology and behavioral
archaeologycould be used in conjunctionwith Darwinian approaches,and he specifically draws on
behavioralinsightsintoperformancecharacteristics
to developanevolutionaryecologicalperspectiveon
stone tools. Barlow (2001), in researchon the relative advantagesof addingmaize to a foragingstrategy in the Southwest,alsoconsidersissues of gender.
And in a verydifferentexample,MacDonald(2001)
215
drawson kin selectiontheoryto discussgriefandthe
treatmentof young adultsin Hohokamburials,but
he explicitlysees his approachas complementaryto
Marxistandprocessualinterpretations.
Behavioral archaeology was first set forth by
Reid, Schiffer,andRathje(1975), althoughtodayit
is most closely associated with Michael Schiffer
(1995), his students,and others who have worked
withhim atthe Universityof Arizona(e.g., LaMotta
and Schiffer2001; Schifferand Skibo 1997; Skibo
et al. 1995; Walker2002; Zedenio1997). Behaviorism focuses on "the relationshipbetween human
behaviorsand materialculturein all times and all
places" (Schiffer 1999:166), thus it includes modernmaterialculturestudies(e.g., Schifferet al. 1994).
As the name implies, focus is on behavior-not on
moreabstractconceptssuchas culture-and theway
behaviorcreatedthe archaeologicalrecord.Behavioralarchaeologymaybe mostwell knownfordeveloping methodologies(e.g., the study of formation
processes [Schiffer 1987] and artifactlife histories
[Schiffer 1995:55-66]) that advanceour ability to
understandthearchaeologicalrecordandthusreconstructpast behavior.However,especially in recent
work, behavioral archaeologists have explicitly
turnedtheir attentiontoward explainingbehavior,
including issues such as meaning (Schiffer with
Miller1999),ritual(Walker2002;WalkerandLucero
2000), and complex societies (LaMottaand Schiffer 2001). For example, in developing theory to
explainartifactvariability,SchifferandSkibo(1997)
focus on factorsinfluencingthe behaviorof producers, includingeverythingfrom social processesand
negotiationsto the performancecharacteristicsof
the finishedartifact.
Schiffer (1999:167) emphasizes that neither
behavioral archaeology nor any other theoretical
approachis exclusively the best way to addressall
archaeologicalproblems.He has explicitly triedto
buildbridgesto otherapproachesin his organization
of conferencesandeditedvolumes(1996, 2000; see
also Skibo and Feinman 1999; Skibo et al. 1995).
Scholarsassociatedwith the behavioralperspective
also write aboutotherissues (e.g., Skibo and Schiffer 1995). Finally,althoughrelativelyfew individuals (primarilythose cited above) explicitly develop
or drawon behavioraltheory,many of the methodological and some of the theoretical insights of
behavioralarchaeologyhave been widely incorporatedintovariousarchaeologicalapproaches,includ-
216
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
ing concepts of technological strategies (Nelson
1991) and accumulationsresearch(Pauketat1989;
Shott 1996b;VarienandMills 1997).
Darwinianarchaeology,the most tightlydefined
perspective,is primarilyassociatedwithRobertDunnell, now retiredfromthe Universityof Washington
(Dunnell1980is akey earlystatement),his students,
andnow some of his students'students(e.g., Leonard
and Jones 1987; Leonardand Reed 1993; Neiman
1995; O'Brien and Lyman2000). Some studiesby
David Braun(e.g., 1983, 1990) and David Rindos
(e.g., 1989) arealso oftencited as examplesof Darwinianarchaeology,althoughbothscholarsseem to
have developed this perspectiveindependently.In
addition,HectorNeff (e.g., 1992,2000) worksin this
perspective,althoughhe did not studywithDunnell.
Although Neff, in his work with compositional
analysisandin a recent(2000) statement,contributes
to a diversityof approaches,it is my impressionthat
most scholarswho subscribeto Darwinianarchaeology use this approachprimarilyor even exclusively.They were less thanwelcomingof Schiffer's
attemptsatbridgebuilding(e.g., LymanandO'Brien
1998; O'Brienet al. 1998).
The goal of Darwinianarchaeologyis to bring
Darwinian theory to bear on the archaeological
recordand thus to replacegeneralconcepts of culturalevolutionwith a more rigorousand scientific
of evolution(arecentsummaryis prounderstanding
videdin Leonard2001). Focusis on the "replicative
success"of componentsofphenotypes,whatarchaeologists commonlycall traits.If the traitsare functionallyadvantageousandthusincreasereproductive
success, then they are subjectto positive selection.
In contrast,nonfunctional(stylistic) traitsare subject to processessuch as drift.Manyapplicationsof
Darwinianarchaeologyfocus on materialculture,
andsome arereviewedin the sectionon materialculture below. A different example is Leonard and
Reed's (1993) attemptto explainpatternsof aggregation in the Southwestin termsof the differential
success of strategiesof labororganization.
The sourcesof variationandprocessesof selection,as conceptualizedin Darwinianarchaeology,are
the causes of much debate,misunderstanding,and
criticism.Forexample,Bamforth(2002:442)argues
thatlinks betweenarchaeologicalpatternsandDarwinian processes are incorrect because selection
operates at an individuallevel but archaeological
observationsconcern remains of aggregate/group
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
processes. He goes on to suggest that Darwinian
archaeologydoes not applyevolutionarytheoryper
se, butinsteadusesevolutionas a metaphor(i.e.,traits
arelike genes). I believethatone reasonforthe vituperativenatureof many debates about Darwinian
archaeologyis a lack of flexibility.Whilemost other
theoreticalapproachestodayareregardedas tools or
perspectivesuseful for addressingcertainkinds of
issues, Darwinianarchaeologyis takenas more of
an all-or-nothingproposition;one eitheraccepts it
(believesin it?) or rejectsit.
The problemis compoundedby a lack of agreementregardingdefinitions,especiallyof widelyused
termssuch as style andfunction. Darwinianarchaeologists have arguedthat style and functioncannot
be distinguisheda priori but, rather,are identified
based on patternsof change over time, which indicate whethera traitis functionalandthus subjectto
selection (Dunnell 1978; Hurt and Rakita 2001).
Most non-Darwinianarchaeologistsseem to ignore
these definitions, and recent discussions consider
concepts that would be oxymoronicin Darwinian
terms, such as the function of style or the style of
technologies (Hegmon 1998). One exception is
recent(European)workby ShennanandWilkinson
(2001), who do not embracethe Darwinianarchaeology school butwho do explicitlyaddresssome of
its concepts. Specifically,they concludethat while
the idea of style as neutralwith regardto selection
is a useful heuristic,it does not accountfor actual
frequencydistributionsand, thus,thatthereis not a
radicaldifferencebetween functionaland stylistic
variation.Froma different(Darwinian)perspective,
Neff (2000) also seems to soften the line between
style andfunction.Specifically,he findssome common groundwith evolutionaryecology, concluding
thatselection need not necessarilyact throughbiological reproductionbut,rather,thatit can also be a
culturalprocess.Thesekindsof perspectivesaresuggestiveof anopeningof theoreticalborders,although
Darwinianarchaeologyremainsmuchmoreclosed
thanothertheoreticalapproaches.
Processual-Plus
A largemajorityof NorthAmericanarchaeologists
do not associate themselves with one of the three
approachesoutlinedabove. Many of these scholars
wouldprobablysay thatthey are"generallyprocessual"but also interestedin otherperspectives,and
some explicitlytryto combineprocessualandpost-
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
processualinsights(e.g., Duke 1995;Preucel1991).
While some might emphasizetheir postprocessual
leanings,theoreticalallegianceis not a majorissue.
I use the termprocessual-plusto referto this broad
arrayof approaches.My use of a single label is not
intendedto imply that there is one unified theory.
Rather,I use a single termbecause I believe thatit
is more useful to considercrosscuttingtrendsthan
to seek lines of difference.In general,I arguethat
manyconceptsfromthepostprocessualarchaeology
of the 1980s (as characterizedby Hodder[1991])includinginterestsinmeaning,agency,andgenderhave been incorporatedinto the processual(plus)
mainstream(a trend Brumfiel [1992] noticed and
encourageda decadeago). Preucel(1995) notesthat
common trendshave even been set forthin recent
revisions of well-established textbooks (Thomas
1989; Willey and Sabloff 1992). This is in contrast
to the situationin Europe,particularlyBritain,where
the processual/postprocessualseparationis much
greater. Recent postprocessual volumes (e.g.,
Thomas 2000; Tilley 1993; also the new journal
Social Archaeology)includesome NorthAmerican
authorsbut only one chapter(Gero 2000) on preColumbianNorthAmericanarchaeology.Inthissection I consider elements of the processual-plus
approachin general terms;my characterizationis
substantiatedbelow,as I considercurrentdirections
in more detail.
The New Archaeology of the 1960s and early
1970s advocated scientific (sometimes positivist)
approachesand the search for general laws (e.g.,
Binford 1964; Watsonet al. 1971). Although not
explicitlyrejected,these emphaseswere moderated
somewhat as the New Archaeology maturedinto
whatis now calledprocessualarchaeology(Redman
1991). Earlystatementsof postprocessualarchaeology (especially Hodder 1982, Hodder, ed. 1982;
ShanksandTilley 1987a,1987b)emphasizedapparently differentapproachesinvolving interpretation
andhistory.Althoughthe idea of (humanistic)interpretationwas/is controversial,the postprocessual
emphasison historycoincidedwitha processualturn
toward(or back to) the study of specific cases. For
example,Braun(1991) arguedthatquestionsabout
why MidwesternWoodlandpotterywas decorated
couldonlybe understoodin termsof thespecificlocal
and historicalsetting.More commonly,processualists focused on specificcases as examplesof andin
relation to the largercontext (e.g., Kintigh 1982;
217
Steponaitis 1981; see Trigger 1989a:368), an
approachthattoday is sharedacrossthe theoretical
spectrum.Generalprinciplesare not eschewed,but
no longermusta studyexplicitlyaddressgenerallaws
of culturalprocessesto be consideredimportantand
worthyof publicationin AmericanAntiquity.As is
elaboratedbelow, interestin specific cases fits well
withNativeAmericans'concernwiththeirtribalhistoriesas well as workon culturalaffiliation.
Postprocessualarchaeologyrejectedsocial evolutionary typologies and conceptions of
cultures/societiesas entitieswith volition or needs.
Instead,emphasis was on individuals,agency, and
internalimpetusforchange.Similarly,manyprocessual archaeologists(e.g., Shennan 1993) identified
problemswithevolutionaryframeworks,thoughthey
more often revised thantotally rejectedtypologies
(e.g., Earle and Johnson1987). Todaymany North
Americanarchaeologists,from across the theoretical spectrum,incorporateconsiderationof individuals,social strategies,andinternalsocietaldynamics
intotheiraccountsof change(e.g., Byers 1999;Feinman et al. 2000; McGuireand Saitta 1996; Potter
2000a, 2000b; Trubitt2000; Vehik2002).
Postprocessual archaeology emphasized the
importanceof symbols and meaning.Whereasearlierprocessualarchaeologyhad(verygingerly)mentioned cognition and ideas (e.g., Binford's [1962]
conceptof "ideotechnic"artifacts),postprocessualists declaredthatmeaningis everywhere,in "trash"
andsubsistenceas well as in ritual.As Robbputsit:
"Thequestionis not whetherwe can find symbols
archaeologically,but whetherwe can find anything
culturalthat is not symbolic" (1998:331). Today,
symbolsandmeaningareeverywherein processual
(also behavioral[see Schifferwith Miller 1999]) as
well as postprocessualaccounts(forsomeoverviews,
see Brown1997;Robb1999;forrecentNorthAmerican examples,see Byers 1999; Gambleet al. 2001;
Ortman2000;VanNest et al. 2001;WhalenandMinnis 2001). In his recentreview, Robb (1998) even
identifiesa perspectivecharacteristicof processual
archaeology: the "symbols as tokens" approach,
which involves an emphasison the role of symbols
in communication.Thereis also muchrecentwork
(mostly by processualists) on the evolution of
humans'symbolic capacityand cognitivearchaeology (e.g.,LindlyandClark1990;RenfrewandScarre
1998;RenfrewandZubrow1994), primarilyfocusing on the Old World.
218
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Finally, postprocessualarchaeology embraced
criticalperspectives,in thatit consideredthe ways
thepresentinfluences(ordetermines)interpretations
of the past and how interpretationsbecome partof
the present.Recentworkfromacrossthe theoretical
gamutincludesat least moderatelycriticalperspectives, althoughoften withoutexplicit discussion of
criticaltheory.Forexample,althoughWatsonis wary
of aspectsof postprocessualism
(WatsonandFotiadis
has
demonstrated
how
of
her
work
she
in
some
1990),
in
domestication
of
archaeologists'interpretations
the easternUnited Statesreproducedan androcentricbias,includingassumptionsaboutwomenaspassive bearersof culture(WatsonandKennedy1991).
Researchon violence andwarfarealso oftenexplicitly considersthe socialmilieuof theresearcher(see
overviewin Otterbein2000) or the politicalramifications of the research,as has been broughtto the
fore by the debateaboutcannibalismin the Southwest (Billman et al. 2000; Dongoske et al. 2000;
Martin2000; TurnerandTurner1999).
Theoretical Directions, 1: Major Themes
In this and the following section I identifymany of
the majortheoreticaldirectionsin NorthAmerican
archaeology today. First I discuss five pervasive
issues, most of which have seen cumulativedevelopmentin the past two decades. Then, in the next
section, I characterizerecent trends in terms of
changingkey wordsandphrases.Conceptually,these
two sectionscoverthesamegeneralground;whether
issues areincludedin thefirstor seconddependspriin terms
marilyon whethertheycanbe characterized
of changingkey wordsor phrases.One of the issues
thatemerges,andthatI returnto in the finalsection,
is that focus on issues or concepts crosscutstheoreticalapproachesandthusleadsto positivedialogue
and dynamicsyntheses.
The Past Is Engendered
The archaeologyof genderis in many ways paradigmaticofprocessual-plusarchaeologyandthetheoreticalopennessthatcharacterizesmuch of North
Americanarchaeologytoday.Archaeologicalfocus
on genderdevelopedconcurrentlywith postprocessualismin the 1980s. Clearlyboth were partof the
same theoreticalcurrent;some see the archaeology
of genderas partof postprocessualarchaeology(e.g.,
Hodder1991), whereasotherssuggest thatit was a
separate approach that paralleled and perhaps
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
inspiredpostprocessualdirections(e.g.,Wylie1992).
Regardless of its initial relationship with postprocessualarchaeology,the long-neglectedstudyof
genderin archaeologybecameenormouslypopular
by the late 1980s; today it is almost mainstreamin
manytheoreticalperspectives,althoughtherearestill
skeptics and unduly harsh reviews. Much of this
work is done by Anglo-Saxonresearchersworking
in all partsof the world(see ConkeyandGero1997).
Feminist perspectivesand researchon gender are
much less popularin othercountriesand traditions
(Coudart1998).3
The very idea of an archaeologyof genderwas a
feministconcept,andmany of the firstapplications
hada criticaledge andfoundandrocentric
bias (e.g.,
WatsonandKennedy1991).Numerouspublications
have since engenderedthe North Americanpast,
focusingon womenandmorerecentlyon all genders
andon genderrelations.A few scholarshavelinked
the archaeologyof genderto new ways of knowing
thepast.Forexample,Spector(1991, 1993)explores
the powerof narrative"ethnography"
abouta decoratedawl anda girl'stransitionto womanhoodamong
theDakota.Morethanjust a story,Spector'saccount
is one a few examplesof a hermeneuticapproachin
NorthAmericanarchaeology(see reviewin Preucel
1995).A recentreviewby ConkeyandGero(1997)
emphasizestheimportanceof feministtheoryandthe
feministcritiqueof scienceforthepracticeof archaeology,includingissues of agencyin knowledgeproduction,theorganizationof researchprojects,andthe
acknowledgmentof ambiguity.
More commonly, recent researchon gender in
North American archaeology focuses on what
women (and sometimes men) did in the past, how
they were treated,and the implicationsfor gender
relations.Much of this work,which Preucel(1995)
classesas analyticalfeminism,is anexcellentexample of whatI meanby processual-plusarchaeology,
in thatit takeson postprocessualthemesbutattempts
to develop systematicmethodologiesand generalizableconclusions.It also includescontributionsby
behavioralarchaeology(Skibo and Schiffer 1995)
andevolutionaryecology (Barlow2001). Not all of
this literatureis feminist; nor does it necessarily
drawon feministtheory.4But as ourunderstanding
of gender in the past increases, it raises questions
relevantto feminist, gender,and social theory,and
thus it has the potentialto contributeto, as well as
draw from, this body of literature.For example,
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
Crown(2000) organizeda volumethatexploreshow
gender relations and the activities of women and
men changedover time in the Southwest.Although
the volume focuses on the archaeologyof gender,
theresultshaveimplications-regardingsuchissues
as perceptionsof women's labor as drudgeryor a
valued contributionto subsistenceand the relative
statusof elite women-relevant to feministandgeneral theory (Lamphere2000). Other recent work
thatengendersNorthAmericanprehistoryincludes
that by Arnold and Wicker (2001), Claassen and
Joyce (1997), CrownandFish (1996), Eastmanand
Rodning (2001), Munson (2000), and Spielmann
(1995).
Anotherlink betweengenderandarchaeological
theoryconcernsepistemologicalissues.Specifically,
Wylie(1992;see alsoBrumfiel1996)exploresissues
of politicallymotivatedresearch,concludingthatthe
archaeologicalrecordprovidesevidentialconstraints
that should allow archaeologiststo evaluate their
ideas (whatevertheir source) systematically.Furthermore,gender archaeologyhas ties to feminist
researchon genderpolitics andequityissues. Some
of this workfocuses specificallyon the treatmentof
womenarchaeologistsin termsof issues such as hiring, promotion,and fieldworkopportunities.There
is also a growingbody of studiesthatdemonstrates
how gender politics and sometimes outright discriminationaffectarchaeologicalpracticetodayand
historically and, thus, how politics influence our
knowledgeof thepast(e.g., Gero2000;Hutson2002;
Nelson et al. 1994; Parezo 1993;Wright1996).
In sum,the archaeologyof genderis an exemplar
of what I see as the positivedevelopmentsin North
Americanarchaeology,in thatit manifestsan openness anddynamismthatresultfromdialogueacross
theoreticallines. In its initial stages it was at least
partiallypostprocessual,butit also involvedprocessual scholars,and gender researchbecame partof
many theoreticalperspectives.Some of the more
postprocessual aspects of gender archaeology,
including a critical perspective and interests in
agency, pushed processual archaeology into new
realms. Conversely, processual concerns with
methodologicalrigorandgeneralconceptsmayhave
made postprocessualgenderresearchmore widely
applicableand acceptable.Such interfacesare the
essence of processual-plusarchaeology,which in
this sense includesaspectsof behavioralandevolutionaryecology.The archaeologyof genderincludes
219
an arrayof theoreticalapproaches-ranging from
postmodernnarrativesand overtly political statements to methodologicalstudiesand the searchfor
generallaws-that might seem antithetical.But the
common interestin an importantsubjectseems to
inspirea relativelack of antagonismandeven openmindedness.In this case at least, theoreticaldiversity contributesto dynamism.
Agency Is Everywhere
Archaeologists(myself included)arefond of citing
Bourdieu (especially 1977), Giddens (especially
1984), and Ortner(1984) regardingpractice and
agency.Thissocialtheoryhashadenormousexplicit
andimpliciteffectson NorthAmericanarchaeology,
as it inspiresconceptualizationsof a pastpopulated
by people(ratherthanculturesorsystems).However,
thispopularityhas also led to some conceptualproblems. One is an overemphasison agency, in isolation from structureand practice,although,as Clark
notes, thereis no separaterealmof "agencytheory"
(2000:97). A second is the assumed equation of
agentswithWestern"individuals"andlack of attention to the relationalaspects of personhood(Clay
1992; Gillespie2001; Strather 1981).
Althoughit has deep rootsin social theory,especially Marxism,the termagencywas broughtto the
fore recentlyby Giddens,who definesit as individuals' capabilityof doing things, regardlessof their
intent:"Agencyconcernsevents of which an individual is the perpetrator,in the sense that the individual could, at any phase in a given sequence of
conduct, have acted differently"(1984:9). Dobres
andRobb(2000:8-9) offera list of recentdefinitions,
as well as the useful encapsulationthatagencyis "a
socially significantquality of action."At least for
Giddens,agency is inextricablylinkedto structure,
andalthoughhe sees structureandagencyas having
a recursiverelationship,his emphasisis primarilyon
how structureis createdandperpetuated,theprocess
he calls structuration.Bourdieu (1977, 1990) and
Ortner(1984) emphasizepractice,whichOrtnerhas
arguedis almostanythingpeople do thathas political implications.Practiceis embeddedin structure,
and it is throughpracticethat agents reproduceor
transformstructure.However,discussionsof agency
sometimes forget this embeddedness(as Wiessner
[2002] notes) and equateagencywith the strategies
or intentionsof relativelyunconstrainedself-interestedindividuals.Practiceandagencyhaveto do with
220
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
similarly conceptualizedprocesses, but the terms
emphasizedifferentcomponentsof these processes.
Agencyis more "behindthe scenes,"in thatit has to
do withcapabilityandis sometimes(I thinkwrongly)
associated with motivation. In contrast,practice
refersdirectlyto whatpeople do. Focus on practice,
ratherthan agency, leads to a more dynamic and
humanizedpictureof people's activitiesand of the
relationsamongindividuals,institutions,and structure (Dobres and Robb 2000:4-5). The fact that
archaeologistsoften focus only on agency suggests
that the insights of practicetheory-especially the
recursiverelationshipsamongpractice,agency,and
structure-are sometimes overlooked, a theme I
assess below.
Explicit discussionsof agency in NorthAmerican archaeology are probably most common in
accounts of leadership and inequality. Pauketat
(1994) has arguedfor the importanceof elite-controlledideology and symbolismin the rise of Mississippianchiefdoms.However,in morerecentwork
(2000) he also considershow the practicesof commonersandemergentelite resultedin the construction of Mississippianmoundsandsocialhierarchies,
even if the end-a powerful chiefdom-was not
intendedby all agents.He emphasizesthatpractices
were based in the establishedstructurebut that, as
the scale changed, the structurewas transformed.
Thus,Pauketatspecificallydrawson practicetheory
(notjust agency)andattributeschangeto morethan
elite manipulations.In work that focuses on less
complex traditions,Cobb and Garrow(1996; Cobb
2000) drawon ideasof agencyandstructureto understandthe extent to which local developmentswere
and were not drawn into Mississippian politics.
Smith (1992a) drawson Giddensto arguethatMississippiancalendricaldevices can be understoodas
authoritativeresources and structuralprinciples.
Saitta(1994)-who uses Marxisttheoryandargues
that agency has been overemphasized-focuses on
understandingthe structuralcontextof class development and surplusextraction,including what he
calls communalextraction.Therole of nonelitesand
economic factors in Mississippian chiefdoms are
also emphasizedby Maxham(2000), Milner(1998),
andMuller(1997), thoughwithless explicitemphasis on agency or practicetheory.
Other researchinto the developmentof social
inequalitiesalso emphasizesthe actionsof leaders.
For example, Maschner'sevolutionaryperspective
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
views competitionand strivingfor statusas among
the driving forces that lead to the emergence of
ascribedinequalityon the NorthwestCoast (1991;
Maschnerand Patton 1996). A similarperspective
regarding aggrandizers is developed by Hayden
(1995). Kantner(1996) draws on an actor-based
model of political competitionto explaindevelopments associated with Chaco Canyon. Finally,
Arnold(2000; see also 1993, 1995) explicitly discusses agency in her considerationof the development of craft specializationand leadershipamong
Chumashchiefdomson theCaliforniacoast,andshe
views the developmentof hierarchicalrelationsas a
resultof opportunisticand costly reorganizationby
well-placedcanoe-owningleaders.The authorsof
these accountsseem to assumethatstrivingfor status or aggrandizementis universallya characteristic
of at least some membersof all societies.This is in
contrastto the agentsconceptualizedin practicetheory,who are much more constrainedby antecedent
culturalpractices(see discussionin Clark2000:97).
Discussionsof agencyarealso prevalentin studies of leadershipandsocialchangein the Southwest.
Schachner(2001) identifiescontextsin whichagents
were able to instigate social and especially ritual
change,but reversalof those changes suggeststhat
theleaderswerenotableto institutionalizethem.His
accountspecifically focuses on the recursiverelationshipbetweenagencyandstructure,in thatagents'
Giddensian rules and
practices-involving
resources-are derived from and may transform
structure.
Varien(1999) drawson Giddens'sconcept
to conceptualizehow agency(in the
of structuration
form of residentialmobility)was enabledand constrainedby the structure(i.e., the landtenuresystem)
and how the result (settlement on the landscape)
to thetransbecamepartof andeventuallycontributed
Incontrastto manyarchaeformationof thestructure.
ological applications of practice theory,Varien's
accountgives particularemphasisto structure.
Agencyis a componentof thecorporate/network
models of leadershipdeveloped by Blanton et al.
thepit(1996) andrecentlyappliedto understanding
house-to-pueblotransition(Feinmanet al.2000) and
otheraspectsof southwestern(Mills 2000) andMississippian(Trubitt2000) prehistory,althoughthese
applicationsdo not all explicitlydiscussagency.An
importantissue thatcouldbe exploredfromthisperspectiveconcernsagencyin differentkindsof leadership systems. That is, it is relatively easy for
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
Westernscholarsto conceptualizetheagencyof leaders-with individualpowerandsometimespersonal
glory and wealth-in networksystems (thoughsee
Gillespie 2001). However,agencyin corporatesystemsremainsundertheorized,
andSouthwestarchaeology (as well as Puebloethnography)would be an
excellent contextin which to develop such theory.
Archaeologistsexplicitly concernedwith practice, agency, and leadershipare not alone in populating the past with active people. Behavioral
archaeology,thoughdevelopedalonga differenttheoreticaltrajectory,similarlyinvolves focus on what
people do. Explicitlinks betweenbehavioraltheory
and the concept of agency are exploredby Walker
and Lucero (2000), who drawon concepts of artifact life historiesand agency to considerhow people manipulatedsocial andritualcontexts.
Interest in practice theory and agency is also
closely tiedto archaeologicalinterestin gender.The
the pastpopulatesit with
veryidea of "engendering"
than
faceless
blobs
agents(rather
[Tringham1991]);
engenderedagentsarediverseandhavevariousinterests, needs,capabilities,andstructuralopportunities
and constraints.Practice theory often sees direct
application in archaeological studies of gender
(DobresandRobb 2000:7), and it has links to feminist theory (Conkey and Gero 1997). In archaeological studiesof genderin NorthAmerica,practice
theory is generally more implicit than explicit,
althoughSassaman's(2000) accountof the origins
of potteryin the Southeastconceptualizeswomen's
andmen's activitiesin termsof agency.But regardless of terminology,manyaccountsof the contributions of prehistoricwomen-who plantedthe first
domesticcrops(WatsonandKennedy1991 [though
see Fritz1999]),who usedawls to workhides(Spector 1991, 1993), andwho organizedtheirlives so as
to fitin potteryproduction(CrownandWills 1995)are accountsof agency.
Agency also underliesrecentarchaeologicalperspectivesregardingpeople'srelationswiththematerial world. For example, some of my work has
involvedconsiderationof Pueblo potterystyle as a
"social strategy"(Hegmon 1995). The use of food
in social strategiesandin powerrelationsis increasingly consideredin studiesof theMississippian(e.g.,
Welsh and Scarry1995) and the Southwest(Potter
2000a). A numberof studies of architecture(some
drawingon spacesyntaxtheory)now conceptualize
its constructionand use partlyin terms of practice
221
theory(e.g., Ferguson1996a).Finally,landscapesare
also sometimes viewed from the perspective of
agency and practice;for example, Sneadand Preucel consider processes of "'place making' which
involvesboththe 'domesticationof thephysical'and
the 'naturalizationof the social"' (1999:171).
A different perspective on agency is being
exploredby a smallnumberof archaeologistsusing
agent-basedmodeling. In these computermodels,
agents (not necessarilyconceptualizedas individuals)collect information,makedecisions,act,andcan
learnandchangeas a resultof theiractions(Kohler
2000). Althoughagent-basedmodelingis not about
agency per se, it does have theoreticalrelevance.
Specifically,at least some agent-basedmodels are
generative,in thatagents'actionscontributeto structure,which then sets the stage for furtheractions,a
process not unlike Giddens's structuration.
Agentbased models are currently being developed to
explorethe dynamicsof settlementin two partsof
the Southwest (Kohler,Kresl, et al. 2000; Rauch
2002).
In variousforms,agency is everywherein North
Americanarchaeologytoday.Many archaeologists
explicitlydiscusstheoreticalconceptsof agencyand
practice;others(especiallyin genderstudies)use the
conceptsmore implicitly.In reviewingsome of this
work,I haveconsideredconceptsof agencythatare
linked to practicetheory to be particularlypraiseworthy.Thisis becausethesestudieshelpus to understandthe ways thatagency-part of whatmakesus
human-is culturally constituted and thus is not
immutable. In general, different perspectives on
agencyseemto coexistwithlittlerancorbutalso with
regrettably little dialogue. That is, different
researchersor approachesutilize differentconcepts
or definitions of agency, but discussion (or even
acknowledgment)of those differencesis minimal.
Thus,the potentialfor theoreticaldynamismexists
in the variedapproachesto the same word or concept, butit has yet to be fully developed.
Forat least two reasons,NorthAmericanarchaeology has somethingspecial to offerto archaeological interestsin agency.First,becauseof therichness
of the recordand qualityof dating,thereare many
cases in which we can observe the details of practice, even cases where efforts to instigatechanges
seem to have failed (e.g., Schachner2001). Second,
because much of North American archaeologyis
about times and places in which institutionalized
222
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
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
accountsof meaningmay be less thansatisfyingto
very unlike our own.
those inclinedtowardinterpretativeapproaches,the
Is AnythingNot Symbolic?
generalandvagueequationof certainstylesormateAn 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 mean1999; Walker 2002; Zedeno 1997). Many North ing. For example,in discussingthe PlateauInteracAmericanistsview 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.
The role of history and historicalmeaningsin
lar. Rather,many would also agree that meaning
resides in the interactionbetweenpeople andmate- social processes is also receivingincreasingattenrialculture(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"deepened" the past in late prehistoricVirginia. Other
"symbolsas tesserae."
North Americanists'treatmentof symbols and accountsfocus on how past symbols andmeanings
meaningcan be consideredin termsof at least three weremanipulatedin emergingpoliticalprocessesgeneralrealms.The first,andprobablythe broadest, forexample,howpost-Chacoandevelopmentsincoris that meaning is now seen as intrinsic to many poratedsymboliclinks to Chaco (Fowlerand Stein
social andeconomicprocesses,sometimesas partof 1992; Kintighet al. 1996; Lekson 1999).
A second realmin which meaningand symbols
ritual behavioror religion. This is probablymost
in
varied
to
and
the
are
leadership
approaches
given considerableattentionis in interpretations
apparent
rise of politicalsystems.Forexample,followingear- of all kinds and scales of archaeologicalevidence,
lier workby Judge(1989), the spectaculardevelop- rangingfrom portablematerialcultureto architecment 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 examgrimagesinto the canyon(Renfrew2001; see sum- ple, the RameyIncisedpotterydiscussedabove,the
mary in Mills 2002). While enormous effort was ideology associatedwith southwesternSaladoPolydevotedtowardthe procurementand productionof chrome(Crown1994), and the metaphoricrootsof
goodsthatweremovedintoChacoCanyon,relatively Mesa Verdeceramic designs (Ortman2000). Prolittle material(otherthanrituallychargedturquoise) ductionof materialcultureis also sometimesunderstood in termsof the meaningof thatmaterial-for
moved out (Mills 2002).
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
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
spatialdistributionof architectureand settlements,
much more attentionhas focused recently on the
meaningof thatconstructionand the way in which
it createda culturallymeaningfullandscape.A number of scholarshave been profoundlyinfluencedby
Basso's (1996) accountof how places take on culturalmeanings,meaningsthatareexplicitlyused in
social interactions.Growingnumbersof studiesare
consideringthemeaningsof Chacoanstructuresand
the ways thattheyrelateto the landscape(e.g., Stein
and Lekson 1992). Zedefio (1997), in developing
behavioralprinciplesregardinglandscapes,incorporatesaspectsof meaningandtheconceptof place.
Inearlierwork,CharlesandBuikstra(1983) emphasized how MidwesternArchaicmortuarypractices
were a means of assertingland claims associated
with increasinglyintensivelanduse. More recently
(and focusing on a laterperiod),they considerhow
the constructionof mounds and tombs "re-created
the cosmos, vertically and horizontallydifferentiated,just as they provideda forumfor the negotiation of powerrelationsamongthe living"(Buikstra
and Charles1999:216).
A thirdrealmof focus on symbolsandmeanings
involves a revitalizedinterestin understandingprehistoric ideas and cosmologies, not just as partof
social processes but also for their own sake. This
trendis perhapsmost apparentin the easternUnited
States,wheredetailsof shamanisticpracticesandthe
variousformsof theMississippianSoutheasternCeremonial Complex are often the focus of research
(Brown 1997; Galloway 1984). The cosmological
significance of everything from iconography, to
to theplacementof moundson thelandarchitecture,
is
scape being exploredin variouscontexts,including theMimbresof the Southwest(Shafer1995) and
the Illinois Hopewell (Buikstraand Charles 1999).
Recentstudiesof rockartalso oftenfocus on understandingits meaning and content, as in Whitley's
(2000) work on the artof the shamanin California.
Archaeoastronomyresearch provides additional
examples.Manyof thesesubjectswerepursuedprior
to the postprocessualboom of the 1980s, and most
of this workis being done by researcherswho probably do not self-identifyas postprocessual.Nevertheless, growing interestand recent work in these
arenasdemonstrateopennessto at least some postprocessual ideas, in the spirit of processual-plus
archaeology.
In this subsection I have explicitly mentioned
223
only a small fractionof NorthAmericaniststudies
of symbols and meaning. Discussion of these topics, or at least acknowledgmentof theirimportance,
is everywhere.A few moreexamplesshouldhelp to
illustratethe breadthof this concern:Odess (1998)
emphasizesthe importanceof meaningin his study
of AlaskanDorset style and exchange;VanNest et
al. (2001) considerthe symbolic dimensionsof sod
blocks used in the constructionof Hopewell (Midwest U.S.) mounds;andWilson(1995) considersthe
symbolic importanceof tipi rings on the Plains.
Unfortunately,
althoughI see discussionsof symbols
andmeaningeverywherein NorthAmericanarchaeology, their theoreticalimpact is limited; Robb's
(1998) recent review of "symbolsin archaeology"
includesveryfew NorthAmericanexamples.Itmay
be thatNorthAmericanapproachesreceiveless attention because they are less extreme (i.e., not postmodem) andthusdo not appearto be "cutting-edge
theory."But whatNorthAmericadoes haveto offer
to the archaeologicalstudyof symbolsis a diversity
of approachesthat,in a processual-plussense, bring
a varietyof theoreticalperspectivesto bearon a common interest.
New Waysof ViewingMaterial Culture
Archaeologicalresearchhas obviouslyalwaysbeen
concerned with the materialremains of the past.
However,in recentyearsarchaeologistshavefocused
on understandingmaterialculture as a subject of
interestin its ownright,notsimplyas a kindorsource
of data(Chilton1999;NassaneyandJohnson2000).
This trendtakesmanyformsthattranscendtheoretical approaches(see Hodder2001:9), andinterestin
materialculturegoes far beyondarchaeology(e.g.,
the recently launchedJournal of Material Culture
Studies).
Behavioral archaeology is directly concerned
with the relationshipbetween humanbehaviorand
materialculture.In some cases (suchas the workon
artifact design summarized above [Schiffer and
Skibo 1997]) focus is on functional/technological
characteristics.Otherstudiesattemptto understand
trendsin materialculture(e.g., the lack of development of the electriccar)in termsof largersocioculturalcurrents(Schifferet al. 1994).Materialculture
is alsocentralto manyDarwinianapproaches:
specifically, the phenotype,which comprisesbehavioral
andmaterialtraitsandis subjectto Darwinianselection; and Darwinian archaeologists' attempts to
224
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
understandthe culturaland selectiveprocessesthat
affect the persistenceand transmissionof material
traits.Forexample,Braun(1983) explainsdecreasing wall thicknessin MidwesternWoodlandpottery
as a resultof directionalselectivepressurescaused
by subsistenceand demographicchanges (see also
Neff 1992:173-174). Neiman(1995) examineshow
variationin the style of IllinoisWoodland(i.e., pre200 B.C. to A.D. 800) cookingpotlips resultedfrom
drift and intergrouptransmission.Leonard(2001)
considers hypothesesregardingthe culturaltransmission of Casas Grandes ceramic traits (A.D.
1275-1400 in northernMexico).
Finally, focus on materialcultureis part of the
processual-plustrend.In a vastarrayof recentwork,
NorthAmericanists(andothers)areconsideringall
aspects of materialcultureand how they relate to
social, cultural, historical, and technological
processes.Much of this workis refreshinglyfree of
absolutiststatements.Technologyis understoodto
have social significance,bothin the sense thatsome
technologies are symbolically charged (following
Lechtman's[1977] concept of technologicalstyle)
and regardingthe linkage of technological styles
with social identity.Althoughin some cases technologicalstyles arethe resultof subconscioustraditions (what Sackett [1982] calls "isochrestic"
variation),these same styles are seen as taking on
particularsocial significancewhen the context of
theiruse changes,for example,as a resultof migration (Starket al. 1995;see reviewin Hegmon 1998).
Productionof materialcultureis not simply an economicprocessbutis also imbuedwith social significance. Theoretically,one of the most important
componentsof thisrenewedinterestin materialcultureis theconception-not unrelatedto practicetheory-of materialas a dynamicpart of culture(see
Skibo and Feinman1999). In some cases, material
cultureand its productionare explicitlyinterpreted
in termsof actors'social strategies,as in my analysis of Pueblo potterydesign style (Hegmon 1995),
Sassaman's(1995) discussionof potteryand innovationin the Southeast,Duke's(1992) discussionof
innovationand conservatismin stone tools in the
northernPlains, and Krause's(1995) discussionof
how easternmoundswere used in the manipulation
of social power.Assessmentsof the prestigegoods
model are also leading to insightsin these regards.
In many NorthAmericancases (i.e., nonstatesocieties), althoughexotic or labor-intensivegoods may
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
have been "prestigious"in some sense, theirdistributions suggest that they were more than simply
tokensof elite leadershipandmustbe understoodin
termsof theirroles in social andpoliticalstrategies
(Cobb 1993; Saitta1999).
WhosePast Is It?
Although Native Americans' involvement in the
archaeologyof theirancestorshasincreasedin recent
years (Anawak 1989; Dongoske et al., eds. 2000;
McGuire 1992a:829;Naranjo1995), most archaeology of pre-ColumbianNorthAmericais still done
by archaeologistsof Europeandescent.Realization
of this imbalancehas becomepoliticized,especially
withthepassageof theNativeAmericanGravesProtection and RepatriationAct (NAGPRA)of 1990.
Some of these issues arethe subjectof anotherarticle in this issue (see also Ferguson1996b). Here I
focus on how currenttheoryis relatedto these political developments,and I emphasize that the relationshipis complexandmulticausal.In manyways,
awarenessof "whoseancestorswe arestudying"has
made archaeologistsmorecriticallyawareof possible biases and the implications of archaeological
research,althoughformal criticaltheory (e.g., the
workof Habermas)is not oftenexplicitlydiscussed
regardingpre-ColumbianNorthAmericanarchaeology (butsee Leone and Preucel1992).
As Trigger(1980) madeclear,NewArchaeology,
in its searchforgenerallaws, oftentreatednativepeoples as objectsof researchorsourcesof data.He suggests that more concern with the history of native
peoples mighthelp move archaeologistsawayfrom
this detachedview. His suggestionwas appliedby
Duke (1995), whose emphasis on local historyin
southwesternColoradois closely linkedto the interin his fieldest of localUtepeople-who participated
work-in their own history and ancestors.History
hasreceivedmuchmorearchaeological(andgeneral
anthropological)attentionsince the 1980s.As I discussed above, the processual archaeology of the
1980s includedgrowinginterestin particularcases
in lieu of generallaws, and postprocessualarchaeology explicitlyemphasizedthe importanceof history.
Concernwith particularhistoriesis also linked
to the rekindlingof archeologicalinterest in how
people relateto the landscape,includingissues of
place, abandonment,and migration.Among other
points,recentstudiesof abandonmentnow empha-
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
size that residentialmoves should not be equated
with relinquishmentof ownershipandcertainlynot
with the disappearanceof a people (Nelson and
Schachner 2002:169). In some cases, this work
includes considerationof native oral histories (a
subject also of interest in the direct historical
approach in the mid-twentieth century) and the
developmentof new theory for incorporatingoral
historicalperspectivesalong with other sources of
data(Echo-Hawk2000; Whiteley2002; thoughsee
Mason 2000). Forexample,Bemardini(2002) uses
Hopi oraltraditionas a sourceof hypothesesregarding migrationprocesses thathe then assesses with
archaeologicaldata,andDongoskeet al. (1997) discuss how the Hopi (people) did not become Hopi
(the culturalidentity)until they joined togetherat
the Hopi villages (the place).
NAGPRAmandatesdeterminationof thecultural
affiliationof remainsand thus has directly spurred
NorthAmericanarchaeologiststo considerissues of
ethnicityandculturalidentity(Dongoskeet al. 1997)
at the same time that these issues were receiving
increasing attentionin anthropologicaland social
theory.Thisincludesworkon how socialboundaries
andethnicitiescanbe recognized(Croes1989;Jones
1997; Stark 1998); how archaeological style
zones/regions should be interpreted, from both
archaeological(Duff2002) andlinguistic(Shauland
Hill 1998) perspectives;andwhetherthe conceptof
ethnicity is applicable in many prestate contexts
(Shennan1989).All of these issues havetheoretical
relevance well beyond the boundaries of North
America.
Theoretical Directions, 2:
Changing Key Words
Terminologyis bothindicativeof andpartof theory.
Here I focus on terminology-key words and
phrases-as a way of characterizingrecentchanges
in NorthAmericanarchaeologicaltheory.I tryto go
beyondmerelylabelingconceptsas "in style"(e.g.,
bell bottoms[again])or "outof style"(everythingin
my closet). Rather,in manycases I arguethatwhat
were once widely used concepts(e.g., "evolution")
are now appliedmore narrowlybut also more precisely. Onetermthatappearsrepeatedlyis strategies
(organizational and leadership strategies, social
strategies,landuse andtechnologicalstrategies);in
all respectsit suggests that archaeologistsare conceiving of what people did in the past and thus
225
demonstratesthe pervasivenessof the concepts of
agency andpractice,discussedabove.
Evolutionof Culture- Diverse Trajectories
of Change
Evolutionwill probablyalwaysbe a partof anthropology,andarchaeologistswill alwaysbe concerned
with the long-termevolution of culture.However,
NorthAmericanarchaeologistshaverecentlymoved
awayfromdescribingparticularsequencesas examples of culturalevolutionandtowardotherconceptions of culturechange. This shift in terminology
goes far beyond mere semantics;it representsan
increasinglysophisticatedunderstandingof evolution as a theoreticalconceptand of what used to be
called archaeologicalcultures,which are no longer
conceptualizedas boundedentities assumedto be
units of evolution.Finally,this shift recognizesthat
manyculturalchangesareneitherunilinearnorunidirectional,anideawithprecursorsin workby Steward(1955) and Sahlins and Service (1960).
Amongtheideasandterminologythathavecome
to replaceculturalevolutionare "pathsto complexity"(see also Hayden[1995] on pathwaysto power)
and "cycling."One widely appliedexample of the
formeris basedon the distinctionbetweencorporate
modes of politicalaction
andnetwork/exclusionary
These
al.
are describedin more
et
1996).
(Blanton
detail below; here the point is that the switch from
corporateto networkstrategiesis notnecessarilyunidirectional-nor is one necessarilymore complex
than the other. The concept of cycling has been
appliedin variouscontextsin easternNorthAmerica. Cobb (1991) views the long-termdevelopment
of Late Archaic, Hopewell, and Mississippian
exchangesystems in termsof Braudel'sthree-level
cycle of historicalchange (structure,conjuncture,
and event). Focusing on the Mississippian,Anderson (1994, 1996)arguesthatcycling,specificallythe
rise andcollapseof complexchiefdoms,is an inherent propertyof chiefdoms. Although Anderson's
modelis notuniversallyaccepted(e.g., Scarry1999),
nonlineardevelopments-such as fission-fusiondo seem to characterizemany parts of the Mississippianworld(Blitz 1999).
Thereareexceptionsto my generalizationabout
theshiftawayfromconcernwiththeevolutionof culture.Forexample,Richersonet al. (2001) developa
generalexplanationfor the originsof agriculturein
the Holocene(the processesthey discuss areworld-
226
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
wide, buttheyincludesome NorthAmericancases).
And Smith (1992b) considersthe developmentof
earlyagriculturein easternNorthAmericaas coevolution(see alsoRindos1984).Theseexceptionsmake
clearthattherehas not been an absoluterejectionof
the conceptof the evolutionof cultureperse. Rather,
the term evolutionis being appliedwith more discrimination,so thatevery changeor transformation
is no longerconsideredto be "evolutionary"
(see also
treatment
of
socioculhistorical
[1998b]
Trigger's
differentschools and
turalevolution).Furthermore,
Darwinian
archaeologyand
approaches-including
discussed
(as
here) as well as
evolutionaryecology
dualtransmissiontheory(BoydandRicherson1985),
evolutionarypsychology(e.g., Barkowet al. 1992),
andsociobiology(e.g.,Dawkins1976)-explore differentways evolution(in a Darwiniansense) might
be manifestedin or contributeto culturechange.
The Social Organization-- Organizational
Strategies
The phrase "social organization"is by no means
gone from the NorthAmericanliterature;nor am I
suggestingthatit shouldbe. Butwhatis mostlygone
is the focus on identifying, describing,and especially classifying the (static) social organizationof
a period or place. North Americanarchaeologists
have insteadmoved towardunderstandingvarious
aspects of social relations,includingkinship,leadership,labor,andexchange,in diverseanddynamic
ways, perspectivesthatoften bridgeprocessualand
postprocessualinterests(Schiffer2000:6, 9). These
interestsin strategiesand organizationaldynamics
haveprecursorsin theNewArchaeology(e.g., Deetz
1968;Freeman1968),buttheyhavebeenbroughtto
the fore more commonlyin recentyears.
Archaeologicalinterestin kinshiphas been moderate,at best (e.g., Howell andKintigh1996). However, a few recent studies that have addressedthe
topicconceptualizekinshipnotas a systemto be classifiedbut,rather,as an organizationalstrategy,a perspective consonantwith recent work in social and
kinshiptheory.For example,Jones (1996) sees the
rise of linealorganizationin Californiaas a response
to the need for women'sprocessinglabor;McGuire
(1992b) considersthe role of kinshipin the recruitment of much neededlaborin Hohokamirrigation
systems; and Peregrine (2001) views matrilocal
groupsas the basis of a corporatepolitical strategy
in Chaco Canyon. Some conceptions of ethnicity
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
(see the discussionin Jones 1997) similarlyview it,
at least in part, as an organizationalstrategythat
buildson culturaltraditionsand inheritance.
One example of the new emphasison organizational strategiesis the conceptionof two modes of
politicalorganization,corporateandnetwork(originally developedin Blantonet al. 1996 and applied
to North America in Feinman et al. 2001, Trubitt
2000, andnumerouschaptersin Mills 2000; see also
Hayden 1995 regarding leadership strategies).
Althoughthedifferencebetweensocial organization
andpolitical organizationmay seem to be splitting
hairs,the point is thatthe politicalmodes comprise
sets of leadershipstrategies that crosscut various
kinds of societies and may coexist in a given social
formation.Anotherimportantaspect of the corporate/networkdistinctionis that it directs attention
towardprocessesof leadershipratherthanassuming
that leadershipis somehow preestablishedby the
social structure;even when leadershipis institutionalized it is not passivelyperpetuated.
A relateddevelopmentis anincreasinginterestin
the dynamicsof power.Most NorthAmericanistsalthoughthey seem to be awareof Foucault'swork
and various conceptions of power (Wolf 1990)focus on how individualsor groups establish and
maintain"powerto" and "powerover."For example, Emerson (1997) defines an "architectureof
power"used by the elite to signify and extendtheir
control at and aroundthe Mississippiancenter of
Cahokia (see also Knight 1998; Lewis and Stout
1998).This architectureof powerconceptis applied
by WhalenandMinnis(2001) to assessthelevel and
scaleof influenceof CasasGrandesin northernMexico. Sebastian(1992)considershowleadersin Chaco
Canyon establishedand maintainedauthorityand
the complex relationshipof these processesto surplus production.
An importantcomponentof the shift away from
the study of "the social organization"is the disaggregationof its variouscomponents(see Mills2000).
Oneexampleis Saitta's(1997) Marxistargumentthat
developmentsat Chaco Canyon were the result of
the communal appropriationof labor,ratherthan
beingcontrolledby ritualspecialists,who hadpower
in differentrealms.Theconceptof "heterarchy"
similarly directs attentiontowardprocesses of leadershipratherthanorganizationaltypes,althoughit has
seen few applicationsto the nonstatesocieties of
NorthAmerica (one exception is Rautman1998).
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
227
Finally,chaptersin Diehl 2000 considerthe "costs Costin's emphasiswas on high degrees of specialand 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).
of mobilityis also
directedattentiontowardunderstandingandanalyzArchaeologists'understanding
multidimensional
social
in
relation
to
artifact
(see Rocek
organization, becomingincreasingly
style
ing
distincin
Binford's
on
favor
in
classifications
eschewed
(1980)
1996), partbuilding
typological
many
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 thosethatinvolveyear1996). Todaytypes, attributes,or both may be the roundresidencein one location-may practicesome
basisof analysis,dependingon the questionathand. kind of mobility.Relevantconceptsinclude"shortThis reconsiderationof artifacttypologies, in con- term sedentism"(Nelson and LeBlanc 1986) and
junctionwith recentdevelopmentsin social theory, householdresidentialmobilityin thecontextof comhas also moved archaeologistsaway fromthe typo- munitystability(Varien1999).
Although North Americanarchaeologistshave
logical classificationof socialformsorpracticesand
towardan emphasis on understandingthe relevant moved away from social typologies, all social catvariables.
egories have not been absolutelyrejected.In parA 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 precurtionarysequence.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 multicorporateandnetworkmodes),as well as alternative ple lines of archaeological,bioarchaeological,and
formsof leadership,suchas heterarchyandthecom- ethnographicevidence to arguefor the early exisof labor(discussedabove).This tence of a Chumashchiefdomin southernCaliformunalappropriation
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 potenand 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 dataparesdevelopmentsat 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 organizationalform.
dimensionsof complexity.
Researchon otherkinds of topics has similarly
ParticularisticExplanations-+
involveda shiftfromtypesto dimensions.The orga- Eschewing
and Diffusion
had long been Migration
nizationof production/specialization
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-
228
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
diffusionis notanexplanation-the resultwas a lack
of attentionto significantevents such as large-scale
populationmovements(seeAnthony1990).Perhaps
as partof a renewedprocessual-plusinterestin particularcases, archaeologistshave againturnedconsiderableattentiontowardthe movementof people
and apparentspreadof traits.
Numerousstudies have documentedprehistoric
in NorthAmerica.Furmigrationsandabandonments
thermore,ratherthanusing migrationsimply as an
explanation for change, much attention is now
thesocialprocessesof popfocusedon understanding
ulationmovementand resettlement(e.g., Cameron
1995; Duff 1998;M. Nelson 2000; Snow 1995). To
a lesserdegree,attentionis beingturnedtowardunderstandingwhatwe see archaeologicallyas the spread
of traits.A series of articlesin AmericanAntiquity
64(2) examinesthe spreadof point technologiesin
differentpartsof NorthAmerica,emphasizingprimarilytechnologicalfactors.In contrast,Sassaman
(1995) focuses on the social factorsinvolvedin the
spread(andrestrictionson thespread)of potterytechnology in the Southeast. Considering general
processesratherthan specifictechnologies,B. Nelson (2000)examinesthelong-distancereverberations
of the collapse of Teotihuacanandits impactin the
U.S. Southwest,morethan650 kmdistant.Andfrom
a different perspective,Darwinianarchaeologists
have focused on betterunderstandingthe diffusion
of style (e.g., Neiman1995;thoughsee Shennanand
Wilkinson2001).A stillmostlyneglectedtopicin this
realmis the spreadof symbolsandwhatappearto be
religiousideas.Examples,such as the Katchinareligion in the Southwestand the SoutheasternCeremonialComplexin the easternU.S., havebeen well
documented,but much workremainsto be done on
how andwhypeopleadoptednewreliunderstanding
gious practices(a few studiesthatbegin to probeat
these issues includeAdams 1991, Knight1984, and
WareandBlinman2000).
Adaptationas a Process -+ Land Use
Strategies/DifferentialPersistence
In earlierdecades,cultureswere sometimesconceptualizedas "adaptivesystems"(Binford1968) or as
meansof adaptation."
humans'"extrasomatic
Adaptation(a process)was somehowsomethingthathappenedto cultures(thoughthecomplexityof thisidea
haslongbeenrecognized[e.g.,Durham1976]).More
recently,archaeologistsworkingin varioustheoreti-
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
cal perspectiveshavemovedawayfromthisusageof
adaptation,althoughtheterm(asa noun)is stillsometimes used as a sort of shorthandfor "howhumans
lived on the landscape."From the processual-plus
perspective,a way of living on a landscapeis often
conceptualizedas a result of humanproblemsolving, a landuse or subsistencestrategy.Forexample,
in his investigationof the increaseduse of rocksheltersin easternNorthAmericain the earlyHolocene,
Walthall(1998:234,followingKellyandTodd1988)
theirmobilitystratearguesthatpeople"reorganized
as
shifted
toward
more
gies" they
exploitationof nonSmith
andMcNees(1999)
migratorygame.Similarly,
in
slab-lined
basins
interpret
Wyomingin termsof a
land
use
that
long-term
strategy involvedtheexploitation of stable, predictableresources.From a Darwinianperspective,the way thathumanslive on the
landscapeis aresultof evolutionaryprocesses,specificallythedifferentialpersistenceandselectionof successful traits.Larsonet al. (1996) arguethattactics
such as aggregationand exchangewere selectedfor
duringa favorableclimaticperiodandthatthesetacticsmadethesocietiesof northernArizona
andsouthern Utah particularlyvulnerableto later climatic
downturns.
Rituals as Integrative-* Rituals/Feastingas
Strategies, Contextsfor Social Action
Therehad been a tendencyfor archaeologists(particularlyworkingin the Southwest)to assume that
rituals,feasts,andothercommunaleventswerenecessarily integrative,in a Durkheimiansense (Hegmon 1989;Hill 1970;Longacre1970),despiteclassic
accounts to the contrary(e.g., Benedict's [1934]
descriptionof the Kwakiutl).Morerecentworkhas
recognized(again?)thatrituals,especiallyfeasting,
may also havebeencompetitive(Hayden1995) and
mayhaveprovidedimportantcontextsin whichleaders could enact social change (Aldenderfer1993).
Thisrecognitionhas led to focus on the contextand
content of ritual,particularlythe degree to which
access was public or restricted(e.g., Hockett1998;
Schachner2001), as well as detailedanalysesof food
and cooking remains (Blinman 1989; Blitz 1993;
Hockett 1998; Pauketatet al. 2002; Potter2000b),
to determineto what degree a ritualor feast might
have been controlledby leaders or was otherwise
competitive.One key conclusion of recentwork is
thatritualmay simultaneouslyintegrateanddifferentiateandthatcooperationandcompetitionareparts
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
229
archaeologiststo reconsiderconceptsof explanation
(anissue also beingexploredby philosophersof science [MorrisonandMorgan1999]).Thatis, in these
approachesto modeling, change is often an emergent 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 enhancedundermodels 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 increasinglycomKuehn 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 NorthAmericanarchaeWhereas models generallyposit fixed/linearrela- ologists.No longeris the (natural)environmentsimtionshipsamongvariablesandthuscanbe 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 developchange(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).
This increasinglycomplicatedunderstandingof
agent-basedmodels involvedynamicsandrelations
has several implications in North
Another
"environment"
rather
than
variables.
(related)
amongagents
comAmerican
in
the
versions
of
is
based
archaeologicaltheory.It is increasingly
many
perspective
evident
that
even the relatively small-scale prein
Lewin
Manson
reviews
1999;
plexity theory(see
societies
of NorthAmericahad a major
of
Columbian
of
some
versions
2001). Application
complexity
environment
world
be
on
the
social
to
the
(e.g., Kohler and
may
impact
theory
contemporary
Redman
in
it
natMatthews
Minnis
some
that
that
1988;
1985;
1999).And
argue
politicallyquestionable,
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 environand Yap 2000), and Bentley and Maschner(2001) mentalsubjectsincreasinglyis linkedto culturalcondrawon complexitytheoryto understandthe evolu- cepts of symbols and meaning.Some earlierwork
on domestication(e.g., Ford 1977) explored how
tion of stylistic changesin pottery.
The mathematicaland computationalcomplex- changesin humans'use of plantsinvolvedchanging
ity involvedin agent-basedmodelingandcomplex- culturalconcepts.Recenttheorizingregardinglandity theory suggests that neither will become scapestakesthisperspectiveeven further.As Knapp
mainstreamapplicationsin archaeology.Still, they andAshmoreput it, no longer are landscapes/enviare 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-
of the sameprocessoperatingatdifferentlevels (Potter2000a). The idea of integrationhas not been discarded(Hollimon2001), butit is being appliedmore
selectively.
230
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
enced,andcontextualizedby people"(1999:1).This rarystudiesthatformallytest hypotheses;for examtheoreticalperspectiveis givenpracticalapplication ple, Gamble et al. (2001) explicitly evaluatearguby the U.S. ForestService,which has recentlycon- mentsmade by two differentresearchers(regarding
sidered how landscapes (rather than arbitrarily the beginningof Chumashchiefdoms),andRicherdefineddistricts)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 whenspecifthe reach of archaeology,throughinterdisciplinary ically appropriateto the researchquestionsat hand.
Threeinterrelatedsets of epistemologicalissues
studiesandeffortsto use archaeological(especially
issues
have
receivedsome attentionin recentNorthAmerto
address
long-termdiachronic)perspectives
ican archaeology.The firsthas to do with the nature
of contemporaryrelevance.
of science and the extent to which variousarchaeEpistemology
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 processualarchaecussions 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
with the process of inquiry.Insteadof tryingto be
investigated.
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).
A second relatedissue derivesfrom criticaltheimplications(e.g., Hill 1970;LightfootandFeinman
of
1982). Recentapproachestendto takea less formal ory.To whatextentis ourapparentunderstanding
of
context
and
the
research
the
a
our
sociIt
is
still
common
for
past product
present
questions,
approach.
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 quesbe less important,andthe structureof investigation tions was partof the work of early postprocessualis 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-noquesnis (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-Marxof 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
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
A surge of interestsince around
"hyperrelativism."
1990 in the history of archaeologicalthought and
research seems to have been part of this understanding (Pinsky and Wylie 1995:viii; Trigger
1989a).
This moderateview is supportedby recentstatementsby Wylie (1992, 1996, 2000; see also Brumfiel 1996) aboutthe "evidentialconstraints"thatthe
archaeologicalrecordplaces on ourinterpretations.
While all data are dependenton some theory,the
pointis to evaluateone theorywith datathatareprimarilydependenton anothertheory.Multiplelines
of evidencegenerallyproducebetterevidentialconstraints,butWyliereasonablyarguesthatthereis no
single formulathat should be appliedin all cases.
Rather,focus should be on assessing the independence or interdependenceof various lines of evidence for a particularproblem.
Finally,heateddebateensued as a resultof Binford's (2001) criticismof the idea thatthe archaeological record should be used to evaluate
theories-derived from all sorts of perspectivesaboutthe natureof humanbehavior.By workingin
this perspective,researchersmerely focus on how
theirdata,an approachBinford
they can "interpret"
considersto be deplorable.Instead,he arguesthat
archaeology'ssubjectmattershouldbe the archaeological record;if archaeologistsproperlyfocus on
explainingthe archaeologicalrecord,theywill avoid
theproblemof databeingtheorydependent.Because
Binfordused recentwork by Odell as a foil for his
criticisms,Odell(2001) countered,arguingthatgood
researchproblemscanbe derivedfrommanysources
andthatthe key is reasonableandindependenttesting.Althoughthisexchangewas veryrecent,it is my
impressionthat it will not turn into a continuing
debate.Rather,dependingon the issue athand,most
archaeologistswill sometimes ask questionsabout
the natureof the archaeologicalrecord and sometimesuse thearchaeologicalrecordto evaluatelarger
issues.Bothkindsof questionsarepartof behavioral
archaeology(e.g., workon site formationprocesses
andon meaning).And althoughmost of the processual-pluswork I have reviewed here involves the
second kind of question (i.e., issues beyond the
archaeologicalrecord),manyof thesameresearchers
also ask the firstkindof question,whenappropriate.
For example,Pauketat(1989, 1994, 2000) investigatedthe accumulationof ceramicrefuse at Mississippian sites and used Mississippian remains to
231
investigatethenatureof chiefdoms.Similarly,Cowan
(1999) used lithic assemblagesto evaluatetheories
about technologicaland mobility strategies,but he
also devoted considerableattentionto explaining
aspectsof the archaeologicalrecord,specificallythe
relationshipbetweenreductionsequencesandflake
assemblages.
So What about General Theory?
By general theoryI meantheoryaboutthe natureof
the world andhow it can and shouldbe understood.
Generalsocial and culturaltheories(such as Marxandpostmodernism)cross disciism, structuralism,
and
increasinglyeven encompass both the
plines
sciences and the humanities.Withthe exceptionof
practicetheory(whichis more of a perspectivethan
a specific theory with an underlying norm [see
Cowgill 2000; Ortner1996:2]),thereis relativelylittle mentionof generalsocial theoryin NorthAmerican archaeologytoday.Therearesome exceptions,
especially at the postprocessualend of the processual-plusspectrum(e.g., Duke 1992;Dunham1999;
McGuire 1992; McGuire and Saitta 1996; Saitta
1994, 1995, 1997). In addition, evolutionary
approachesdrawon generalscientifictheories.Still,
discussion of general theory in North American
archaeologyis muchless commonthanit is in Britain
(e.g., Hodder 1991; Holtorf and Karlsson 2000;
Thomas2000; Tilley 1990).
This dearthof explicit discussiondoes not mean
thatNorthAmericanarchaeologyhas no theoretical
perspective but, rather,that it is often taken for
granted.My goal in this sectionis to brieflycharacterizeNorthAmericanarchaeologyin termsof recent
social theory,a discussionthatrequiressome backgroundand at least basic definitionsof the various
"posts."Althoughthe paragraphsthatfollow (modernism explainedin one paragraph,poststructuralism and postmodernism in two) may seem
elementaryto some,I amconvincedthattheyarenecessary. I have too often heard otherwise wellinformed scholars assume that postmodernismis
eithereverythingnew (ofteneverythingnew theydo
not like) or everythingcriticalof science.
Modernism,a productof the Enlightenment,is
basedon thebeliefthattheworldis knowablethrough
reasonandthat"reasonadvancesknowledge;knowledge enablesscience;and science servesthe liberatory aims of society" (Peet 1998:194). Modernist
approaches-including Newtonian physics, Dar-
232
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
winian evolution, Freudian psychoanalysis, and
structuralism-seek understandingandexplanation
in terms of underlyingprinciples.Marxismis also
moder in its emphasison progress,thoughbecause
of its historicalanddialecticalapproaches,Marxism
is less positivist and less concernedwith universal
truthsthanmost othermodem approaches.Moder
art,such as Cubism,attemptedto "reducepainting
to a few basic principlesaccessibleonly to the intellect" (Cassou 1965:269).
The definitivenessand optimismof modernism
werechallengedearlyin thetwentiethcentury,intellectually by work on entropy,quantummechanics,
and relativitytheory and more generally by stark
realizationsof the destructivepotentialof science.
Physicists themselves began to declare that they
should"abandonall attemptsto constructperceptual
models,"renounced"theclassicalidealof causality,"
and argued that what they observe "is not nature
itself, but natureexposed to our method of questioning" (Best and Kellner 1997:214-215). Philosophically,these developmentsin the "hardest"of
sciences-physics-are representativeof postpositivismandsometimesseen as theprecursorsof postmodernism(Best and Kellner1997, 2001).
Sociallyandphilosophicallytheturntowardpostmodernismand poststructuralism
is often tracedto
the failureof the 1968 radicalupheavalsin France,
which led to interestin post-Marxistandpoststructuralistideas. "Truth"was no longer seen as liberatory. Rather,poststructuralphilosophers such as
Foucaultemphasizedthe link between power and
whatis representedas truth.Poststructuralism
(like
structuralism)is little concerned with the subject
(whichis seen as decentered)but,rather,focuses on
which
structuresandforces.Butunlikestructuralism,
focusedon revealinga singularunderlyingstructure
that explainsparticulars,poststructuralism
posits a
of
which
the
structures
fragmented
by
multiplicity
subjectis buffeted.Thereis little interest(or belief)
in agency or the abilityof actorsto intentionallyact
and affect the world.Some of Bourdieu'sworkcan
in particular,his oftbe classedas poststructuralism;
cited Outlineof a Theoryof Practice(1977) emphasizes how structures (i.e., habitus) come to be
embodiedthroughpractice,butagencyis seenas having little or no importance.
Poststructuralismoverlapsto some extent with
postmodernism,which is broaderandperhapseven
more difficultto define. In contrastto modernism,
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
which seeks to understandunderlyingandgeneralizable processes and is sometimes referredto as
"totalizing,"
postmodernism(as set forthby Lyotard
in ThePostmodernCondition[1984]) is concerned
with multiplesurficialrepresentations.Postmoder
knowledge also emphasizesdifferences,including
acknowledgmentandtoleranceof the incommensurable.Postmoder knowledgeis notjustthepurview
of expertsbut is a productof many little narratives
and peoples' practices and interactionsat a local
scale. The point is not thatnarrativesandrepresentationscan somehowbe decodedandstrippedaway
to reveala "true"underlyingrealitybut,rather,that
representationsare the reality (what Baudrillard
[1983] calls a hyperreality).The force of this hyperreality("true"or not)is seen in the (veryreal)power
of the media,such as images of "smart"weaponsin
the Gulf War.Many scholarsdistinguishbetween
postmodernism,as an approach,and analyses of
postmoder times fromMarxist(e.g., Harvey1989;
Jameson1991) and otherperspectives.
Manyof the theoreticalapproachesthatarerelatively new to NorthAmericanarchaeologyare definitely modern, not postmodern. These include
Marxism(thoughthereis some discussionof Marxism in the postmodern age [Saitta 1995]), structuralism,critical theory (especially following the
FrankfurtSchool), and,veryimportantly,Giddens's
work on agency and structuration. Feminist
approachesspanthe modern-postmodern
spectrum,
but feministshave found much to criticizein poststructuralandpostmoder theory(e.g., Mascia-Lees
et al. 1989). Thereare a few exceptions(e.g., Dunham [1999] explicitly drawson poststructuralconcepts), but the vast majority of North American
archaeology, even approaches classed as postprocessual,is not postmoder. Althoughsome postprocessualarchaeologists,again,especiallyin Britain
(e.g.,HoltorfandKarlsson2000;Tilley 1990;Turner
2001), are addressingpoststructuralismand postmodernism directly, postprocessual archaeology
shouldnot be equatedwith postmodernism(contra
Duke 1995:211;VanPooland VanPool1999). Perhaps ironically,some of the most computationally
complex approachesin NorthAmericanarchaeology-complexity theory and agent-basedmodeling-may be the closestto beingpostmoder in their
willingnessto probeindeterminacy.
Is "notpostmoder" equivalentto moder? In the
case of NorthAmericanarchaeology,the answeris,
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
"Yes,generally."Emphasison generalizableprinciespecially
ples andscientificreasoning(characteristic
of earlierprocessualismas well as evolutionaryecology andbehavioralandDarwinianarchaeologies)is
definitely modem. The processual-plusinterestin
specificcases as theyrelateto thelargercontextorin
comparativeperspectivesis alsogenerallymoder, in
thatit involvesa searchforunderlyingtruths.A modernistapproachis often takenfor granted,enabling
researchersto proceedwiththeirparticularstudies(in
thetraditionof normalscience)butalsodisablingtheir
abilityto imagineotherways of viewing the world,
becomesthe appelespeciallywhen"postmodernist"
lationfor new and oftenmisunderstoodapproaches,
issues I addressin the finalsection.
Conclusion
In this reviewI have groupedmost NorthAmerican
archaeologyintothreeself-identifiedschools-evolutionaryecology, behavioral,andDarwinian-and
a broadarraythatI label processual-plus.Combining all fourperspectives,thereis considerableuse of
variouskindsof evolutionarytheoryas well as practice theoryandthe conceptof agency.NorthAmerican archaeologistsalso are contributingto many
theoretically interestingissues, including gender,
symbols and meaning,new approachesto conceptualizing society and material culture, and
localnative histories. However,in contrastto the
New Archaeology of several decades ago, and in
contrastto some postprocessualwork in Britain,
North American archaeologytoday involves relativelylittlediscussionof generaltheoryandrelatively
few attemptsto build or contributeto such theory.
NorthAmericanarchaeologyis not atheoretical,but
most NorthAmericanarchaeologiststoday seem to
be more interestedin applications-and in exploring the archaeological record and its implications-thanin theoryalone (see also Barker1999).
I am not suggestingthatthereis a theoreticalrapprochement,suchthatmostNorthAmericanarchaeologists subscribeto the sametheory;nordo I think
thatthiskindof homogeneitywouldbe a good thing.
Some degree of theoreticaldisunitycontributesto
dynamism(as has been arguedin manyrecentstatements [e.g., Hodder 2001; Hutson 2001; Schiffer
2000; Spencer1997]),andfocuson theoreticallyrelevant issues-such as gender and agency-that
crosscutvarioustheoreticalperspectivescontributes
to thisdynamism.Optimistically,manyNorthAmer-
233
icanarchaeologistshavepushedtheirtheoreticalegos
to the side, are not excessively attachedto or dismissive of any particularapproach,and seem to be
open to multipleways of viewing the past (Preucel
1991;Trigger1989a:369).Insteadof theoreticalanimosity,thereis refreshingdialogue.
Lack of focus on general theory contributesto
open-mindedness,on the one hand, but at another
level this lack of focus can also disguise the importanceof theory.Theoryis omnipresent;it is how we
make sense of the world,even (or especially)if it is
not explicit. This is an issue particularlyregarding
modernismandpostmodernism:manyNorthAmerican archaeologistsseem to takea modem perspective for granted,as the only way of knowing the
world, and dismiss postmodernism (sometimes
assumedto be a synonym for "antiscience")out of
hand.The resultis thatpowerfulandrelevantideas
from postmodernismare not broughtto bear,even
when they might be particularlyrelevantto North
Americanissues. Examplesincludeperspectiveson
local knowledgeandincommensurability,
especially
with regardto Native Americanviews of the past,
and alternativeapproachesto causality,especially
with regardto new techniquesof modeling.
There are many developmentsin NorthAmerican archaeologythat are of broadrelevanceworldwide, at both theoretical and applied levels. For
example, the North American ethnographic and
archaeologicalrecordsprovidegreatdetail on various formsof social complexityin nonstatesocieties;
these includea varietyof chiefdoms(Mississippian
andon thewesterncoast)andalternativecomplicated
leadership strategiesin the Southwest. The great
detail and precise datingpossible in some partsof
NorthAmericahavefacilitatedcarefulinvestigations
of agencyandpractice,as well as genderissues.The
detailedrecordand links to ethnographyhave contributedto importantstudiesof symbols andmeanandthe
ing, in portablematerialculture,architecture,
environmentandlandscape.Thelist couldgo on, but
while thereis a greatdeal to praisein NorthAmericanarchaeology,I fearthatit is notgettingtherecognitionit deservesoutsideof NorthAmerica,perhaps
becauseof a lack of attentionto generaltheory.It is
my hope thatthisreviewwill drawmoreattentionto
recentdevelopmentsin NorthAmericanarchaeology,
especiallyregardingtheoreticallyrelevantissuesand
applications.I also hope to prodNorthAmericanists
to direct a little more focus towardgeneraltheory,
AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
234
not to openthe floodgatesof argumentbut,rather,to
becomeawareof theway theoryconditionsthemanner in which we see the world.
Acknowledgments.I am grateful to a number of colleagues,
includingAlex Barker,Bob Bolin, Keith Kintigh, Tim Kohler,
and Peggy Nelson, who acted as sounding boards and shared
references and ideas. The article was improved by helpful
reviews by Tim Kohler,Bruce Trigger,Alison Wylie, and one
anonymous reviewer. Ideas are better shared. Oralia Cabrera
Cort6stranslatedthe abstractinto Spanish.
References Cited
Adams,E. Charles
1991 The Origins and Developmentof the Pueblo Katsina
Cult.Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Aldenderfer,Mark
1993 Ritual,Hierarchy,and Changein ForagingSocieties.
Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology12:1-40.
Ames, KennethM.
1995 ChieflyPowerandHouseholdProductionon theNorthwest Coast. In Foundationsof Social Inequality,editedby
T. D. PriceandG. M. Feinman,pp. 155-187. PlenumPress,
New York.
Anawak,Jack
1989 InuitPerceptionsof the Past. In WhoNeeds the Past?
IndigenousValuesand Archaeology,edited by R. Layton,
pp. 45-50. Unwin Hyman,London.
Anderson,David G.
1994 TheSavannahRiverChiefdoms:PoliticalChangein the
Late PrehistoricSoutheast.Universityof AlabamaPress,
Tuscaloosa.
1996 FluctuationsbetweenSimpleandComplexChiefdoms:
Cyclingin the LatePrehistoricSoutheast.InPoliticalStructure and Change in the PrehistoricSoutheasternUnited
States,editedby J. F Scarry,pp. 231-252. UniversityPress
of Florida,Gainesville.
Anderson,David G., andJ. ChristopherGillam
2000 PaleoindianColonizationoftheAmericas:Implications
from an Examinationof Physiography,Demography,and
ArtifactDistribution.AmericanAntiquity65:43-67.
Anthony,D. W.
1990 Migrationin Archaeology.AmericanAnthropologist
92:895-914.
Arnold,Bettina,and Nancy L. Wicker(editors)
2001 Genderand theArchaeologyof Death.AltaMiraPress,
WalnutCreek,California.
Arnold,JeanneE.
1993 LaborandtheRise of ComplexHunter-Gatherers.
Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology12:75-119.
1995 TransportationInnovation and Social Complexity
among Maritime Hunter-GathererSocieties. American
Anthropologist97:733-747.
2000 The Originsof Hierarchyandthe Natureof Hierarchical Structuresin PrehistoricCalifornia.In Hierarchiesin
Action:CuiBono,editedby M. W.Diehl, pp. 221-240. Center forArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo.
27. SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,Carbondale.
Arnold,PhilipJ., III, andBrianS. Wilkens
2001 OntheVanPools'"Scientific"Postprocessualism.
American Antiquity66:361-366.
Bamforth,Douglas B.
2002 Evidenceand Metaphorin EvolutionaryArchaeology.
AmericanAntiquity67:435-452.
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
Barker,Alex W.
1999 Digging throughMaterialSymbols. In MaterialSymbols: Cultureand Economy in Prehistory,edited by J. E.
Robb, pp. 399-406. Center for ArchaeologicalInvestigations, OccasionalPaperNo. 26. SouthernIllinoisUniversity
Press,Carbondale.
Barkow,J. H., L. Cosmides,and J. Tooby(editors)
1992 TheAdaptedMind: EvolutionaryPsychologyand the
Generationof Culture.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork.
Barlow,K. Renee
2001 PredictingMaize Agricultureamong the Fremont:An
Economic Comparison of Farming and Foraging in the
AmericanSouthwest.AmericanAntiquity67:65-88.
Barton,C. Michael,and GeoffreyA. Clark(editors)
1997 Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and
ArchaeologicalExplanation.ArchaeologicalPapersof the
AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation No. 7. American
AnthropologicalAssociation,Arlington,Virginia.
Basso, KeithH.
1996 WisdomSitsinPlaces: LandscapeandLanguageamong
theWesternApache.Universityof NewMexico Press,Albuquerque.
Baudrillard,Jean
1983 SymbolicExchangeand Death. Sage, London.
Benedict,Ruth
1934 Patternsof Culture.HoughtonMifflinCo., Boston.
Bentley,R. Alexander,andHerbertD. G. Maschner
2001 StylisticChangeas a Self-OrganizedCriticalPhenomenon: An ArchaeologicalStudy in Complexity.Journalof
AnthropologicalArchaeology8:35-66.
Bernardini,Wesley
2002 The Gatheringof the Clans:UnderstandingMigration
intotheHopiArea,A.D.1275-1400. UnpublishedPh.D.dissertation,Departmentof Anthropology,ArizonaStateUniversity,Tempe.
Best, Steven,andDouglas Kellner
1997 ThePostmodernTurn.GuilfordPress,New York.
2001 ThePostmodernAdventure:Science, Technology,and
CulturalStudiesat the ThirdMillennium.GuilfordPress,
New York.
Billman,BrianR., PatriciaM. Lambert,and BanksL. Leonard
2000 Cannibalism,Warfare,andDroughtin the MesaVerde
Region duringthe TwelfthCenturyA.D. AmericanAntiquity65:145-178.
Binford,Lewis R.
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology.American Antiquity
28:217-225.
1964 A Considerationof ArchaeologicalResearchDesign.
AmericanAntiquity28:217-225.
1968 Post-PleistoceneAdaptations.In New Perspectivesin
Archaeology,editedby S. R. BinfordandL. R. Binford,pp.
313-341. Aldine, Chicago.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails:Hunter-Gatherer
SettlementSystemsandArchaeologicalSite Formation.American Antiquity45:4-20.
1989 DebatingArchaeology.AcademicPress,New York.
2001 WhereDo ResearchProblemsCome From?American
Antiquity66:669-678.
Blanton,RichardE., GaryM. Feinman,StevenA. Kowalewski,
and PeterN. Peregrine
1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of
MesoamericanCivilization.CurrentAnthropology
37:1-14.
Blinman,Eric
1989 Potluckin the Protokiva:CeramicsandCeremonialism
in PuebloI Villages. In TheArchitectureof Social Integration in PrehistoricPueblos, edited by M. HegmonandW.
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
D. Lipe, pp. 113-124. Occasional Papers No. 1. Crow
CanyonArchaeologicalCenter,Cortez,Colorado.
Blitz, JohnH.
1993 Big Pots for Big Shots:Feastingand Storagein a MississippianCommunity.AmericanAntiquity58:80-96.
1999 Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion
Process.AmericanAntiquity64:577-592.
Boone, JamesL.
2000 StatusSignaling,Social Power,and Lineage Survival.
In Hierarchiesin Action: CuiBono, editedby M. W. Diehl,
pp. 84-110. CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo.27. SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,Carbondale.
Bourdieu,Pierre
1977 Outlineof a Theoryof Practice.Translatedby R. Nice.
CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
1990 TheLogic of Practice.StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford.
Boyd, R., and P. J. Richerson
1985 Cultureand the EvolutionaryProcess. Universityof
ChicagoPress,Chicago.
Brandt,ElizabethA.
1994 Egalitarianism,Hierarchy,and Centralizationin the
Pueblos.In TheAncientSouthwesternCommunity:Models
and Methodsfor the Studyof PrehistoricSocial Organization, edited by W. H. Wills and R. D. Leonard,pp. 9-23.
Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
Braun,David P.
1983 Pots as Tools. In ArchaeologicalHammersand Theories, editedby A. S. Keene and J. A. Moore, pp. 107-134.
AcademicPress,New York.
1990 Selection and Evolutionin Non-HierarchicalOrganization.In TheEvolutionof PoliticalSystems:Sociopolitics
in Small-ScaleSedentarySocieties,editedby S. Upham,pp.
62-86. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
1991 Why Decoratea Pot? MidwesternHouseholdPottery,
200 B.C.-A.D. 600. Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology 10:360-397.
Broughton,JackM., and JamesF O'Connell
and
1999 OnEvolutionaryEcology,SelectionistArchaeology,
BehavioralArchaeology.AmericanAntiquity64:153-165.
Brown,JamesA.
1997 The Archaeologyof Ancient Religion in the Eastern
Woodlands.AnnualReviewof Anthropology26:465-485.
Brumfiel,ElizabethM.
1992 DistinguishedLecturein Archaeology:Breakingand
Enteringthe Ecosystem-Gender, Class, andFactionSteal
the Show.AmericanAnthropologist94:551-567.
1996 TheQualityof TributeCloth:The Place of Evidencein
61:453-462.
ArchaeologicalArgument.AmericanAntiquity
Buikstra,JaneE., and Douglas K. Charles
1999 Centeringthe Ancestors: Cemeteries, Mounds, and
Sacred Landscapesof the Ancient North AmericanMidcontinent.InArchaeologiesof Landscape,editedbyW.AshmoreandA. B. Knapp,pp. 201-228. Blackwell Publishers,
Malden,Massachusetts.
Byers,A. Martin
1999 Intentionality,SymbolicPragmatics,andMaterialCulture:RevisitingBinford'sView of the OldCopperComplex.
AmericanAntiquity64:265-287.
Cameron,CatherineM. (guest editor)
1995 Special Issue:Migrationand the Movementof SouthwesternPeoples. Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology
14(2).
Cassou,Jean
1965 The Beginnings of Modern Art. In Larousse Ency-
235
clopedia of Modern Art from 1800 to the Present Day,
edited by R. Huyghe, pp. 264-273. ExcaliburBooks, New
York.
Castree,Noel, andBruce Braun(editors)
2001 Social Nature: Theory,Practice and Politics. Blackwell, Oxford.
Charles,Douglas K., and JaneE. Buikstra
1983 Archaic Mortuary Sites in the Central Mississippi
Drainage:Distribution,Structure,and BehavioralImplications. In ArchaicHunters and Gatherersin the American
Midwest, edited by J. A. Phillips and J. A. Brown, pp.
117-145. AcademicPress,New York.
Chilton,ElizabethS. (editor)
1999 MaterialMeanings: CriticalApproachesto the Interpretationof MaterialCulture.Universityof UtahPress,Salt
Lake City.
Clark,JohnE.
2000 Towardsa BetterExplanationof HereditaryInequality:
A Critical Assessment of Natural and Historic Human
Agents. InAgencyin Archaeology,editedby M. A. Dobres
andJ. Robb,pp. 92-112. Routledge,London.
Claassen,Cheryl,andRosemaryJoyce (editors)
1997 Womenin Prehistory:NorthAmericanandMesoamerica. Universityof PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia.
Clay,Brenda
1992 OtherTimes, OtherPlaces:Agency andthe Big Manin
CentralNew Ireland.Man 27:719-733.
Cobb, CharlesR.
1991 Social Reproductionandthe LongueDuree in the Prehistoryof the MidcontinentalUnited States.In Processual
and PostprocessualArchaeologies:MultipleWaysof Knowing the Past, edited by R. W. Preucel,pp. 168-182. Center
forArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 10.
SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,Carbondale.
1993 ArchaeologicalApproachesto the PoliticalEconomy
of NonstratifiedSocieties.ArchaeologicalMethodandTheory 5:43-100.
2000 From Quarryto Cornfield:The Political Economyof
MississippianHoe Production.Universityof AlabamaPress,
Tuscaloosa.
Cobb, CharlesR., and PatrickH. Garrow
1996 WoodstockCultureandthe Questionof Mississippian
Emergence.AmericanAntiquity61:21-37.
Conkey,MargaretW., and JoanM. Gero
1997 Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in
Archaeology.AnnualReviewofAnthropology26:411437.
Costin,CathyL.
1991 CraftSpecialization:Issuesin Defining,Documenting,
and Explainingthe Organizationof Production.Archaeological Methodand Theory3:1-56.
Coudart,Anick
1998 Archaeologyof FrenchWomenandFrenchWomenin
Archaeology.InExcavatingWomen:A Historyof Womenin
EuropeanArchaeology,editedby M. Dfaz-Andreuand M.
L. Stig S0rensen,pp. 61-85. Routledge,New York.
Cowan,FrankL.
1999 MakingSense of Flake Scatters:LithicTechnological
Strategiesand Mobility.AmericanAntiquity64:593-607.
Cowgill, GeorgeC.
andContextsinAgencyTheory.InAgency
2000 "Rationality"
in Archaeology,edited by M. A. Dobres and J. Robb, pp.
51-60. Routledge,London.
Croes,Dale R.
1989 PrehistoricEthnicityon the NorthwestCoast of North
America:An Evaluationof Style in Basketryand Lithics.
JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology8:101-130.
236
AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
Crown,PatriciaL.
1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado PolychromePottery.
Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
Crown,PatriciaL. (editor)
2000 Womenand Men in thePrehispanicSouthwest.School
of AmericanResearchPress,SantaFe.
Crown,PatriciaL., and SuzanneK. Fish
1996 GenderandStatusin theHohokamPre-Classicto Classic Transition.AmericanAnthropologist98:803-817.
Crown,PatriciaL., and BarbaraJ. Mills (editors)
1995 CeramicProductionin theAmericanSouthwest.Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Crown,PatriciaL., andW. H. Wills
1995 The Origins of SouthwesternContainers:Women's
Time Allocation and Economic Intensification.Journalof
AnthropologicalResearch51:173-186.
Daniel, I. Randolph,Jr.
andEarlyArchaicSet2001 StoneRawMaterialAvailability
tlementin the SoutheasternUnitedStates.AmericanAntiquity 66:237-265.
Dawkins,Richard
1976 TheSelfishGene. OxfordUniversityPress,New York.
Deetz, James
1968 The Inferenceof Residence and Descent Rules from
ArchaeologicalData. In New Perspectivesin Archaeology,
editedby S. R. BinfordandL. R. Binford,pp.41-48. Aldine
Press,Chicago.
Delcourt,PaulA., Hazel R. Delcourt,Decil R. Ison, WilliamE.
Sharp,and KristenJ. Gremillion
1998 PrehistoricHumanUse ofFire,theEasternAgricultural
Complex, and AppalachianOak-ChestnutForests:Paleoecology of Cliff PalacePond,Kentucky.AmericanAntiquity
63:263-278.
Diehl, MichaelW. (editor)
2000 Hierarchiesin Action: CuiBono. Centerfor Archaeological Investigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 27. Southern
Illinois UniversityPress,Carbondale.
Dobres,Marcia-Anne,and JohnE. Robb
2000 Agency in Archaeology: Paradigmor Platitude?In
AgencyinArchaeology,editedby M.A. DobresandJ.Robb,
pp. 3-17. Routledge,London.
Dongoske, KurtE., MarkAldenderfer,and KarenDoehner(editors)
2000 WorkingTogether:Native Americansand Archaeologists. Society forAmericanArchaeology,Washington,D.C.
Dongoske, KurtE., DebraL. Martin,andT. J. Ferguson
2000 Critiqueof the Claimof Cannibalismat CowboyWash.
AmericanAntiquity65:179-190.
Dongoske, KurtE., MichaelYeatts,RogerAnyon, andT. J. Ferguson
1997 ArchaeologicalCulturesandCulturalAffiliation:Hopi
and Zuni Perspectivesin the AmericanSouthwest.American Antiquity62:600-608.
Duff, AndrewI.
1996 CeramicMicro-Seriation:TypesorAttributes?American Antiquity61:89-101.
1998 Processes of Migrationin the Late PrehistoricSouthwest. In Migration and Reorganization:The Pueblo IV
Period in the AmericanSouthwest,edited by K. A. Spielmann,pp. 31-53. AnthropologicalResearchPapersNo. 52.
ArizonaStateUniversityPress,Tempe.
2002 WesternPuebloIdentities:RegionalInteraction,Migration,and Transformation.
Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Duke, Philip
1992 Braudeland NorthAmericanArchaeology:An Exam-
[Vol.68, No. 2, 2003
ple fromthe NorthernPlains.InArchaeology,Annalesand
Ethnohistory,edited by A. B. Knapp,pp. 99-111. CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge.
1995 WorkingthroughTheoreticalTensionsin Contemporary
Archaeology:A PracticalAttemptfrom SouthwesternColorado. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
2:201-229.
Dunham,GaryH.
1999 MarkingTerritory,
BurialMoundsin
MakingTerritory:
InteriorVirginia.In MaterialSymbols:Cultureand Economyin Prehistory,editedby J. E. Robb,pp. 112-134. CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo.
26. SouthernIllinois UniversityPress,Carbondale.
Dunnell, RobertC.
1978 Style andFunction:A FundamentalDichotomy.American Antiquity43:192-202.
1980 EvolutionaryTheory and Archaeology.Advances in
ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory1:35-99.
Durham,WilliamH.
1976 TheAdaptiveSignificanceof CultureBehavior.Human
Ecology 4:89-121.
Earle,TimothyK.
1990 Style and Iconographyas Legitimationin Complex
Chiefdoms.In The Uses of Style in Archaeology,editedby
M. Conkeyand C. Hastorf,pp. 73-81. CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge.
Earle,TimothyK. (editor)
1991 Chiefdoms:Power,Economy,andIdeology.Cambridge
UniversityPress,Cambridge.
Earle,TimothyK., andAllen W. Johnson
1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging
Groupto Agrarian State. StanfordUniversityPress, Stanford.
Eastman,JaneM., and ChristopherB. Rodning(editors)
2001 ArchaeologicalStudiesof Genderin the Southeastern
UnitedStates.UniversityPressof Florida,Gainesville.
Echo-Hawk,RogerC.
2000 Ancient History in the New World:IntegratingOral
Traditionsand the ArchaeologicalRecord in Deep Time.
AmericanAntiquity65:267-290.
Emerson,T. E.
1997 Cahokiaand the Archaeologyof Power.Universityof
AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
Feinman,GaryM., KentG. Lightfoot,and SteadmanUpham
2000 Political Hierarchiesand OrganizationalStrategiesin
the PuebloanSouthwest.AmericanAntiquity65:449-470.
Feinman,GaryM., and Jill Neitzel
1984 Too Many Types:An Overviewof SedentaryPrestate
Societies in the Americas. Advances in Archaeological
Methodand Theory7:39-102.
Ferguson,T. J.
1996a Historic ZuniArchitectureand Society:An ArchaeologicalApplicationof SpaceSyntax.AnthropologicalPapers
of the Universityof ArizonaNo. 60. Universityof Arizona
Press,Tucson.
1996b Native Americansand the Practiceof Archaeology.
AnnualReviewofAnthropology25:63-79.
Fiedel, StuartJ.
1999 OlderthanWeThought:Implicationsof CorrectedDates
for Paleoindians.AmericanAntiquity64:95-116.
Fitzhugh,Ben
2001 RiskandInventionin HumanTechnologicalEvolution.
Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology20:125-167.
Ford,RichardI.
1977 EvolutionaryEcology and the Evolution of Human
Ecosystems:A Case Studyfromthe MidwesternU.S.A. In
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
Explanationof PrehistoricChange,editedby J. N. Hill, pp.
153-184. Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
Fowler,AndrewP., and JohnR. Stein
1992 The Anasazi GreatHouse in Space, Time, and Paradigm. In Anasazi Regional Organizationand the Chaco
System,edited by D. E. Doyel, pp. 101-122. AnthropologAlbuical PapersNo. 5. MaxwellMuseumof Anthropology,
querque.
Frankenstein,Susan,and MichaelRowlands
1978 The InternalStructureand Regional Contextof Early
IronAge Society in SouthwesternGermany.Bulletinof the
Instituteof Archaeologyof London15:73-112.
Freeman,L. G.
1968 A TheoreticalFrameworkfor Interpreting
Archaeological Materials.In Man the Hunter,edited by R. B. Lee and
I. DeVore,pp. 262-267. Aldine, Chicago.
Friedman,Jonathan,and MichaelRowlands
1977 Notes towardsanEpigeneticModel of the Evolutionof
"Civilization."
In TheEvolutionof Social Systems,editedby
J. Friedmanand M. Rowlands,pp. 201-276. Duckworth,
London.
Fritz,Gayle J.
1999 Gender and Early Cultivationof Gourds in Eastern
NorthAmerica.AmericanAntiquity64:417-429.
Galloway,Patricia(editor)
1984 The SoutheasternCeremonialComplex:Artifactsand
Analysis: The Cottonlandia Conference. University of
NebraskaPress,Lincoln.
Gamble,LynnH., PhillipL. Walker,and Glenn S. Russell
2001 An IntegrativeApproachto MortuaryAnalysis:Social
and Symbolic Dimensions of ChumashBurial Practices.
AmericanAntiquity66:185-212.
Gero,JoanM.
2000 The Social World of PrehistoricFacts: Gender and
Powerin PaleoindianResearch.InInterpretive
Archaeology:
A Reader,editedby J. Thomas,pp. 304-316. LeicesterUniversityPress,London.
Giddens,Anthony
1984 The Constitutionof Society. Universityof California
Press,Berkeley.
Gillespie, SusanD.
2001 Personhood,Agency, and MortuaryRitual: A Case
Study from the AncientMaya.Journalof Anthropological
Archaeology20:73-112.
Gumerman,George,andMurrayGell-Mann(editors)
1994 UnderstandingComplexityin the Prehistoric Southwest. Santa Fe InstituteStudies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings Vol. 16. Addison-Wesley,Reading,
Massachusetts.
Harvey,David
1989 The Condition of Postmodernity.Oxford University
Press,Oxford.
Hawkes,Kristen,Alan R. Rogers,andEricL. Charov
1995 The Male's Dilemma:IncreasedOffspringProduction
Is More Paternityto Steal.EvolutionaryEcology 9:1-16.
Hayden,Brian
1995 Pathwaysto Power:Principlesfor CreatingSocioeconomic Inequalities. In Foundationsof Social Inequality,
editedby T.D. PriceandG. M. Feinman,pp. 15-86. Plenum
Press, New York.
1998 Practicaland PrestigeTechnologies:The Evolutionof
MaterialSymbols. Journalof ArchaeologicalMethodand
Theory5:1-55.
Hayden,Brian,and Rich Schulting
1997 The Plateau InteractionSphere and Late Prehistoric
CulturalComplexity.AmericanAntiquity62:51-85.
237
Hegmon,Michelle
In TheArchitecture
1989 SocialIntegrationandArchitecture.
of Social Integrationin PrehistoricPueblos, edited by M.
HegmonandW. D. Lipe, pp. 5-14. OccasionalPapersNo.
1. CrowCanyonArchaeologicalCenter,Cortez,Colorado.
1995 The Social Dynamics of Pottery Style in the Early
PuebloanSouthwest.OccasionalPapersNo. 5. CrowCanyon
ArchaeologicalCenter,Cortez,Colorado.
1998 Technology,Style, and Social Practices:Archaeological Approaches.In TheArchaeologyof Social Boundaries,
edited by M. Stark,pp. 264-280. SmithsonianInstitution
Press,Washington,D.C.
Hegmon,Michelle, JamesR. Allison, HectorNeff, andMichael
D. Glascock
1997 Productionof SanJuanRedWarein theNorthernSouthwest: Insightsinto Regional Interactionin EarlyPuebloan
Prehistory.AmericanAntiquity62:449-463.
Hill, JamesN.
1970 BrokenK Pueblo: PrehistoricSocial Organizationin
theAmericanSouthwest.AnthropologicalPapersof theUniversityof ArizonaNo. 18. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Hockett,BryanScott
1998 SociopoliticalMeaningof FaunalRemainsfromBaker
Village.AmericanAntiquity63:289-302.
Hodder,Ian
1982 Symbolsin Action.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
1991 Readingthe Past. 2nd ed. CambridgeUniversityPress,
Cambridge.
2001 Introduction:A Review of ContemporaryTheoretical
Debates in Archaeology.In ArchaeologicalTheoryToday,
editedby I. Hodder,pp. 1-13. Polity Press,Cambridge.
2002 TwoApproachestoanArchaeologyof the Social.American Anthropologist104:320-324.
Hodder,Ian (editor)
1982 Symbolicand StructuralArchaeology.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Hollimon,SandraE.
2001 Death, Gender,and the ChumashPeoples: Mourning
Ceremonialismas anIntegrative
Mechanism.InSocialMemory, Identity,and Death: AnthropologicalPerspectiveson
MortuaryRituals, edited by M. S. Chesson, pp. 41-55.
AnthropologicalPapersof the AmericanAnthropological
AssociationNo. 10.AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,
Arlington,Virginia.
Holtorf,Cornelius,and Hikan Karlsson(editors)
2000 PhilosophyandArchaeologicalPractice:Perspectives
for the 21st Century.BricoleurPress,Goteborg,Sweden.
Howell, ToddL., and KeithW. Kintigh
1996 ArchaeologicalIdentification
of KinGroupsUsingMortuaryand Biological Data:An Examplefromthe American
Southwest.AmericanAntiquity61:537-554.
Hurt,T. D., and G. F. M. Rakita(editors)
2001 Styleand Function:ConceptualIssues in Evolutionary
Archaeology.GreenwoodPress,Westport,Connecticut.
Hutson,Scott R.
2001 SynergythroughDisunity,Science as Social Practice:
Commentson VanPooland VanPool.AmericanAntiquity
66:349-360.
2002 GenderedCitationPracticesin AmericanAntiquityand
Other Archaeology Journals. American Antiquity
67:331-342.
Jameson,Fredric
1991 Postmodernism,or The CulturalLogic of Late Capitalism.Duke UniversityPress,Durham.
238
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Jones,Andrew
2002 ArchaeologicalTheoryand ScientificPractice: Topics
in ContemporaryArchaeology.
CambridgeUniversityPress,
Cambridge.
Jones, Sian
1997 TheArchaeologyof Ethnicity:ConstructingIdentities
in the Past and Present.Routledge,London.
Jones,TerryL.
1996 Mortars,Pestles, and Division of Laborin Prehistoric
California: A View from Big Sur. American Antiquity
61:243-264.
Judge,W. James
1989 ChacoCanyon-San JuanBasin.InDynamicsofSouthwest Prehistory,editedby L. S. CordellandG. Gumerman,
pp. 209-261. SmithsonianInstitutionPress, Washington,
D.C.
Kantner,John
1996 PoliticalCompetitionamongthe ChacoAnasaziof the
AmericanSouthwest.Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology 15:41-105.
Kelly, RobertL.
2000 Elementsof a BehavioralEcological Paradigmfor the
In Social Theoryin
Study of PrehistoricHunter-Gatherers.
Archaeology,edited by M. B. Schiffer,pp. 63-78. University of Utah Press, SaltLake City.
2001 ArchaeologicalSurveyand Excavationsin the Carson
Desert and Stillwater Mountains,Nevada. University of
Utah AnthropologicalPapersNo. 123. Universityof Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Kelly, RobertL., and LarryC. Todd
1988 Coming into the Country:Early PaleoindianHunting
and Mobility.AmericanAntiquity53:231-244.
Kintigh,KeithW.
1982 Settlement,Subsistence,and Society in Late ZuniPrehistory.AnthropologicalPapersof the Universityof Arizona No. 44. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Kintigh,KeithW., ToddHowell, andAndrewI. Duff
1996 Post-ChacoanSocial Integrationat the Hinkson Site,
New Mexico. Kiva 61:257-274.
Knapp,A. Bernard
1996 ArchaeologywithoutGravity:Postmodernismandthe
Past. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
3:127-158.
Knapp,A. Bernard,andWendyAshmore
1999 ArchaeologicalLandscapes:Constructed,Conceptualized, Ideational.In Archaeologiesof Landscape,editedby
W. Ashmoreand A. B. Knapp,pp. 1-30. Blackwell Publishers,Malden,Massachusetts.
Knight,VernonJames,Jr.
1984 Some Speculationson MississippianMonsters.In The
SoutheasternCeremonialComplex:ArtifactsandAnalysis:
The CottonlandiaConference,edited by P. Galloway,pp.
205-210. Universityof NebraskaPress,Lincoln.
1998 Moundvilleas a DiagrammaticCeremonialCenter.In
Archaeologyof the MoundvilleChiefdom,edited by V. J.
KnightandV. P. Steponaitis,pp. 44-62. SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Kohler,TimothyA.
2000 PuttingSocial Sciences TogetherAgain:An Introductionto theVolume.InDynamicsinHumanandPrimateSocieties, edited by T. Kohler and G. Gumerman,pp. 1-18.
OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.
Kohler,TimothyA., JamesKresl,CarlaVanWest,EricCarr,and
RichardH. Wilshusen
2000 Be ThereThen:A ModelingApproachto Settlement
Determinantsand SpatialEfficiencyamongLateAncestral
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
PuebloPopulationsin the Mesa VerdeRegion, U.S. Southwest. In Dynamicsin Humanand PrimateSocieties,edited
by T. KohlerandG. Gumerman,pp. 145-205. OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.
Kohler,TimothyA., and MeredithH. Matthews
1988 Long-TermAnasaziLandUse andForestReduction:A
Case Studyfrom SouthwestColorado.AmericanAntiquity
53:537-564.
Kohler,TimothyA., MatthewW. VanPelt, and LoreneY. L. Yap
2000 Reciprocityand Its Limits:Considerationfor a Study
of the PrehispanicPuebloWorld.In AlternativeLeadership
Strategiesin thePrehispanicSouthwest,editedby B. J.Mills,
pp. 180-206. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Krause,RichardA.
1995 GreatPlainsMoundBuilding:A PostprocessualView.
In BeyondSubsistence:Plains Archaeologyand the Postprocessual Critique,edited by P. Duke and M. C. Wilson,
pp. 129-142. Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
Kuehn,StevenR.
1998 New EvidenceforLatePaleoindian-EarlyArchaic
Subsistence Behavior in the WesternGreatLakes. American
Antiquity63:457-476.
LaMotta,VincentM., and MichaelB. Schiffer
2001 BehavioralArchaeology:Towarda New Synthesis.In
Archaeological Theory Today,edited by I. Hodder, pp.
14-64. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Lamphere,Louise
2000 GenderModels in the Southwest:A SocioculturalPerspective.In Womenand Men in the PrehispanicSouthwest,
edited by P. L. Crown, pp. 379-401. School of American
ResearchPress,SantaFe.
Larson, Daniel O., Hector Neff, Donald A. Graybill, Joel
Michaelsen,andElizabethAmbos
1996 Risk, Climactic Variability,and the Study of SouthwesternPrehistory:An EvolutionaryPerspective.American
Antiquity61:217-242.
Lechtman,Heather
1977 Style in Technology:Some EarlyThoughts.In Material Culture:Style,Organization,and Dynamicsof Technology,editedby H. LechtmanandR. S. Merrill,pp.3-20. West
Publishing,New York.
Lekson, StevenH.
1999 TheChacoMeridian:Centersof PoliticalPowerin the
AncientSouthwest.AltaMiraPress,WalnutCreek,California.
Leonard,RobertD.
2001 EvolutionaryArchaeology.In ArchaeologicalTheory
Today,editedby I. Hodder,pp. 65-97. Polity Press,Cambridge.
Leonard,RobertD., and GeorgeT. Jones
1987 Elements of an Inclusive Evolutionary Model for
Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
6:199-219.
Leonard,RobertD., and Heidi E. Reed
1993 PopulationAggregationin the PrehistoricAmerican
Southwest: A Selectionist Model. American Antiquity
58:648-661.
Leone, MarkP.,andRobertW. Preucel
1992 Archaeologyin a DemocraticSociety:A CriticalTheoryApproach.In QuandariesandQuests:VisionsofArchaeology'sFuture,editedby L.Wandsnider,
pp. 115-135. Center
forArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 20.
SouthernIllinois UniversityPress,Carbondale.
Lewin, Roger
1999 Complexity:Life at the Edge of Chaos. 2nd ed. Universityof ChicagoPress,Chicago.
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
Lewis, R. Barry,and CharlesStout(editors)
1998 MississippianTownsandSacredSpaces:Searchingfor
an ArchitecturalGrammarUniversityof AlabamaPress,
Tuscaloosa.
Lightfoot,KentG., and GaryM. Feinman
1982 Social DifferentiationandLeadershipDevelopmentin
EarlyPithouseVillagesin theMogollonRegionof theAmerican Southwest.AmericanAntiquity47:64-86.
Lindly,J. M., and G. A. Clark
1990 Symbolism and Modem Human Origins. Current
Anthropology31:233-261.
Loney,Helen L.
2000 Society and TechnologicalControl:A CriticalReview
of Models of TechnologicalChange in Ceramic Studies.
AmericanAntiquity65:646-668.
Longacre,WilliamA.
1970 Archaeologyas Anthropology:A Case Study.Anthropological Papersof the Universityof ArizonaNo. 17. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Lovis, WilliamA., KathrynC. Egan-Bruhy,BeverleyA. Smith,
and G. WilliamMonaghan
Economiesin the
2001 WetlandsandEmergentHorticultural
UpperGreatLakes:A New Perspectivefromthe SchultzSite.
AmericanAntiquity66:615-632.
Lyman,R. Lee, and MichaelJ. O'Brien
1998 The Goals of EvolutionaryArchaeology:Historyand
Explanation.CurrentAnthropology39:615-562.
Lyotard,J-F.
1984 The PostmodernCondition.Universityof Minnesota
Press,Minneapolis.
MacDonald,Douglas H.
2001 GriefandBurialin the AmericanSouthwest:The Role
of MortuaryRitof EvolutionaryTheoryin the Interpretation
ual.AmericanAntiquity66:704-714.
McGuire,RandallH.
1992a Archaeology and the First Americans. American
Anthropologist94:816-836.
1992b A MarxistArchaeology.AcademicPress,New York.
McGuire,RandallH., and Dean J. Saitta
1996 AlthoughTheyHavePettyCaptains,They ObeyThem
Badly:TheDialecticsof PrehispanicWesternPuebloSocial
Organization.AmericanAntiquity61:197-216.
Manson,StevenM.
2001 SimplifyingComplexity:A Reviewof ComplexityTheory. Geoforum32:405-414.
Martin,DebraL.
2000 Reviewof Man Corn:Cannibalismand Violencein the
PrehistoricAmericanSouthwest,by C. G. TurnerandJ. A.
Turner.AmericanAntiquity65:199-201.
Maschner,H. D. G.
1991 The Emergenceof CulturalComplexityon the Northern NorthwestCoast.Antiquity65:924-934.
Maschner,H. D. G., and J. Q. Patton
1996 Kin Selection and the Origins of HereditarySocial
Inequality:A Case Study from the NorthernNorthwest
Coast. In Darwinian Archaeologies, edited by H. D. G.
Maschner,pp. 89-107. PlenumPress,New York.
Mascia-Lees,FrancesE., PatriciaSharpe,and Colleen Ballerino
Cohen
1989 The Postmoder Turnin Anthropology:Cautionsfrom
a FeministPerspective.Signs 15(1):7-33.
Mason,RonaldJ.
2000 Archaeology and Native American Oral Traditions.
AmericanAntiquity65:239-266.
Maxham,M. D.
2000 Rural Communities in the Black WarriorValley,
239
Alabama:The Role of Commonersin the Creationof a
MoundvilleI Landscape.AmericanAntiquity65:337-354.
Meltzer,David J., Donald K. Grayson,GerardoArdila,Alex W.
Barker,Dena F. Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes, Francisco
Mena,LautaroNiniez, andDennis Stanford
1997 Onthe PleistoceneAntiquityof MonteVerde,Southern
Chile.AmericanAntiquity62:659-663.
Mills, BarbaraJ.
2002 RecentResearchon Chaco:ChangingViews on Economy,Ritual,andSociety.JournalofArchaeologicalResearch
10:65-117.
Mills, BarbaraJ. (editor)
2000 AlternativeLeadershipStrategies in the Prehispanic
Southwest.Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Milner,GeorgeR.
1998 TheCahokiaChiefdom:TheArchaeology
of aMississipD.C.
Press,Washington,
pian Society.SmithsonianInstitution
Minnis, PaulE.
1985 SocialAdaptationto FoodStress:A PrehistoricSouthwesternExample.Universityof ChicagoPress,Chicago.
Minnis, PaulE., andWayneJ. Elisens (editors)
2000 Biodiversityand NativeAmerica.Universityof Oklahoma Press,Norman.
Morrison,Margaret,and MaryS. Morgan(editors)
1999 Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and
Social Science.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Muller,Jon
1997 MississippianPolitical Economy.Plenum,New York.
Munson,MaritK.
2000 Sex, Gender,andStatus:HumanImagesfromthe Classic Mimbres.AmericanAntiquity65:127-144.
Naranjo,Tessie
1995 Thoughtson Migrationby SantaClaraPueblo.Journal
of AnthropologicalArchaeology14:247-250.
Nassaney,MichaelS., and Eric S. Johnson(editors)
2000 Interpretationsof NativeNorthAmericanLife:Material Contributions to Ethnohistory. University Press of
Florida,Gainesville.
Neff, Hector
1992 Ceramicsand Evolution.ArchaeologicalMethodand
Theory4:141-193.
2000 On EvolutionaryEcology and EvolutionaryArchaeology: Some Common Ground? Current Anthropology
41:427-429.
2001 We HaveMet the SelectionistandIt Is Us: Some Comments on Loney's "CriticalReview of Models of Technological Change in Ceramic Studies."AmericanAntiquity
66:726-728.
Neiman,FraserD.
1995 Stylistic Variationin EvolutionaryPerspective:Inferences from DecorativeDiversityand InterassemblageDistancein IllinoisWoodlandCeramicAssemblages.American
Antiquity60:7-36.
Nelson, Ben A.
1995 Complexity,Hierarchy,and Scale:A ControlledComparisonbetweenChacoCanyon,New Mexico, andLa Quemada,Zacatecas.AmericanAntiquity60:597-618.
2000 Aggregation,Warfare,andthe Spreadof theMesoamericanTradition.In TheArchaeologyof RegionalInteraction:
andExchangeacrosstheAmericanSouthReligion,Warfare,
west andBeyond,editedby M. Hegmon,pp. 317-337. UniversityPressof Colorado,Boulder.
Nelson, Ben A., and StevenA. LeBlanc
1986 Short-TermSedentismin theAmericanSouthwest:The
MimbresValleySalado.MaxwellMuseumof Anthropology
andUniversityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
240
AMERICANANTIQUITY
Nelson, MargaretC.
1991 The Study of TechnologicalOrganization.Archaeological Methodand Theory3:57-100.
2000 Abandonment:Conceptualization,
and
Representation,
Social Change.In Social Theoryin Archaeology,editedby
M. B. Schiffer,pp. 52-62. Universityof UtahPress,SaltLake
City.
Nelson, MargaretC., SarahNelson, andAlison Wylie (editors)
1994 EquityIssuesfor Womenin Archaeology.Archaeological Papersof the AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation
No. 5. AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation, Arlington,
Virginia.
Nelson, MargaretC., and GregsonSchachner
2002 UnderstandingAbandonmentsin the NorthAmerican
Southwest.JournalofArchaeologicalResearch10:167-206.
O'Brien,MichaelJ., and R. Lee Lyman
2000 Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic
Approach.PlenumPress,New York.
O'Brien,MichaelJ., R. Lee Lyman,andRobertD. Leonard
1998 Basic Incompatibilities between Evolutionary and
BehavioralArchaeology.AmericanAntiquity63:485-498.
Odell, GeorgeH.
2001 Research Problems R Us. American Antiquity
66:679-685.
Odess, Daniel
1998 The Archaeologyof Interaction:Views from Artifact
Style and MaterialExchangein Dorset Society. American
Antiquity63:417-437.
Ortman,Scott G.
2000 ConceptualMetaphorin the ArchaeologicalRecord:
Methods and an Example from the American Southwest.
AmericanAntiquity65:613-645.
Ortner,SherryB.
1984 TheoryinAnthropologysincethe Sixties. Comparative
Studiesin Societyand History26:126-166.
1996 Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Culture.
Beacon Press,Boston.
Otterbein,KeithF
2000 A History of Researchon Warfarein Anthropology.
AmericanAnthropologist101:794-805.
Parezo,Nancy J. (editor)
1993 Hidden Scholars: WomenAnthropologists and the
Native American Southwest. University of New Mexico
Press,Albuquerque.
Pauketat,TimothyR.
1989 MonitoringMississippianHomesteadOccupationSpan
and Economy Using CeramicRefuse.AmericanAntiquity
54:288-310.
1994 TheAscent of Chiefs:Cahokiaand MississippianPolitics in NativeNorthAmerica.Universityof AlabamaPress,
Tuscaloosa.
2000 The Tragedyof the Commoners.InAgency in Archaeology, edited by M. A. Dobres and J. Robb, pp. 113-129.
Routledge,London.
Pauketat,TimothyR., and ThomasE. Emerson
1991 The Ideology of Authorityand the Power of the Pot.
AmericanAnthropologist93:919-941.
Pauketat,TimothyR., LucretiaS. Kelly, Gayle J. Fritz,Neal H.
Lopinot,Scott Elias, andEve Hargrave
2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early
Cahokia.AmericanAntiquity67:257-279.
Peet, Richard
1998 Modem GeographicalThought.Blackwell, Oxford.
Peregrine,PeterN.
2001 Matrilocality,CorporateStrategy,andtheOrganization
of Productionin the ChacoanWorld.AmericanAntiquity
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
66:36-46.
Pinsky,Valerie,andAlison Wylie (editors)
1995 Critical Traditions in ContemporaryArchaeology:
Essays in the Philosophy, History and Socio-Politics of
Archaeology.Reprint. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque(originalpublishedin 1989, CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge).
Plog, FredT.
1974 TheStudyof PrehistoricChange.AcademicPress,New
York.
Plog, Stephen
1980 StylisticVariationin PrehistoricCeramics.Cambridge
UniversityPress,Cambridge.
1995 EqualityandHierarchy:HolisticApproachesto UnderstandingSocialDynamicsin thePuebloSouthwest.InFoundationsof Social Inequality,editedby T. D. PriceandG. M.
Feinman,pp. 189-205. PlenumPress,New York.
Potter,JamesM.
2000a Pots, Parties,and Politics:CommunalFeastingin the
AmericanSouthwest.AmericanAntiquity65:471-492.
2000b Ritual, Power, and Social Differentiationin SmallScale Societies. In Hierarchiesin Action:CuiBono, edited
by M. W. Diehl, pp. 294-316. Centerfor Archaeological
Investigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 27. SouthernIllinois
UniversityPress,Carbondale.
Preucel,RobertW.
1995 The PostprocessualCondition.JournalofArchaeological Research3:147-175.
Preucel,RobertW. (editor)
1991 Processualand PostprocessualArchaeologies:Multiple Waysof Knowingthe Past. Centerfor Archaeological
Investigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 10. SouthernIllinois
UniversityPress,Carbondale.
Preucel,RobertW., and Ian Hodder(editors)
1996 ContemporaryArchaeologyin
Theory:A ReaderBlackwell, Oxford.
Rauch,Jonathan
2002 Seeing around Corners. The Atlantic Monthly
289(4):35-48.
Rautman,Alison E.
1998 HierarchyandHeterarchyin the AmericanSouthwest:
A Commenton McGuire and Saitta.AmericanAntiquity
63:325-333.
Redman,CharlesL.
1991 In Defense of the 70s-The Adolescence of New
Archaeology.AmericanAnthropologist93:295-307.
1999 HumanImpactonAncientEnvironments.
Universityof
ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Reid, J. Jefferson,MichaelB. Schiffer,andWilliamL. Rathje
1975 BehavioralArchaeology: Four Strategies.American
Anthropologist77:836-848.
Renfrew,Colin
1978 Trajectory,Discontinuity, and Morphogenesis:The
Implicationsof CatastropheTheoryforArchaeology.American Antiquity43:203-222.
2001 Productionand Consumptionin a SacredEconomy:
The MaterialCorrelatesof High DevotionalExpressionat
Chaco Canyon.AmericanAntiquity66:14-25.
Renfrew,Colin, and ChristopherScarre(editors)
1998 Cognitionand Material Culture:TheArchaeologyof
SymbolicStorage.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Renfrew,Colin, andEzraB. W. Zubrow(editors)
1994 TheAncientMind:Elementsof CognitiveArchaeology.
CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Richerson,PeterJ., RobertBoyd, andRobertL. Bettinger
2001 WasAgricultureImpossibleduringthe Pleistocenebut
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
MandatoryduringtheHolocene?A ClimateChangeHypothesis. AmericanAntiquity66:387-411.
Rindos,David
1984 TheOriginsofAgriculture.AcademicPress,NewYork.
1989 UndirectedVariationandthe DarwinianExplanationof
CultureChange.ArchaeologicalMethodandTheory1:1-45.
Robb,JohnE.
1998 TheArchaeologyof Symbols.AnnualReview
ofAnthropology 27:329-346.
Robb,JohnE. (editor)
1999 MaterialSymbols:Cultureand Economyin Prehistory.
CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations,OccasionalPaper
No. 26. SouthernIllinois UniversityPress,Carbondale.
Rocek, ThomasR.
1996 SedentismandMobilityin the Southwest.In Interpreting SouthwesternDiversity: Underlying Principles and
OverarchingPatterns,editedby P.R. Fish andJ. J. Reid,pp.
9-22. AnthropologicalResearch Papers No. 48. Arizona
StateUniversityPress,Tempe.
Sackett,JamesR.
1982 Approachesto Style in LithicArchaeology.Journalof
AnthropologicalArchaeology1:59-112.
Sahlins,MarshallD., andElmanR. Service (editors)
1960 Evolutionand Culture.Universityof MichiganPress,
Ann Arbor.
Saitta,Dean J.
Jour1994 Agency,Class,andArchaeologicalInterpretation.
nal of AnthropologicalArchaeology13:201-227.
1995 Marxism and Archaeology.In Marxismin the Postmoder Age: Confrontingthe New WorldOrder,edited by
A. Callari,S. Cullenberg,and C. Biewener,pp. 385-393.
Guilford,New York.
1997 Power,Labor,andthe Dynamicsof Changein Chacoan
PoliticalEconomy.AmericanAntiquity62:7-26.
1999 Prestige,Agency, and Changein Middle-RangeSocieties. In Material Symbols:Cultureand Economyin Prehistory, edited by J. E. Robb, pp. 135-149. Center for
Archaeological Investigations,Occasional PaperNo. 26.
SouthernIllinois UniversityPress,Carbondale.
Sassaman,KennethE.
1995 The Social Contradictionsof Traditionaland Innovative Cooking Technologies in the PrehistoricAmerican
Southeast.In The Emergenceof Pottery:Technologyand
InnovationinAncientSocieties,editedby W. K. Barnettand
J. W. Hoopes, pp. 223-240. SmithsonianInstitutionPress,
Washington,D.C.
2000 Agents of Changein Hunter-Gatherer
Technology.In
AgencyinArchaeology,editedby M.A. DobresandJ. Robb,
pp. 148-168. Routledge,London.
Scarry,JohnF.
1999 Elite Identitiesin ApalacheeProvince:The Constructionof IdentityandCulturalChangein aMississippianPolity.
In MaterialSymbols:Cultureand Economyin Prehistory,
editedby J. E. Robb,pp. 342-361. Centerfor Archaeological Investigations,OccasionalPaperNo. 26. SouthernIllinois UniversityPress,Carbondale.
Schachner,Gregson
2001 Ritual Controland Transformationin Middle Range
Societies:An ExamplefromtheAmericanSouthwest.Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology20:168-194.
Schiffer,MichaelBrian
Uni1987 FormationProcessesoftheArchaeologicalRecord.
versityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
1995 BehavioralArchaeology:
FirstPrinciples.Universityof
Utah Press, Salt LakeCity.
1996 Some Relationshipsbetween Behavioraland Evolu-
241
tionaryEcologies. AmericanAntiquity61:643-662.
1999 BehavioralArchaeology:Some Clarifications.American Antiquity64:166-168.
Schiffer,MichaelBrian(editor)
2000 SocialTheoryinArchaeology.Universityof UtahPress,
Salt Lake City.
Schiffer,MichaelBrian,T. C. Butts,and K. K. Grimm
1994 TakingCharge:The Electric Automobilein America.
SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Schiffer,MichaelBrian,with AndreaR. Miller
1999 A BehavioralTheoryof Meaning.In Potteryand People: A Dynamic Interaction,edited by J. M. Skibo and G.
M. Feinman,pp. 199-217. Universityof Utah Press, Salt
Lake City.
Schiffer,MichaelBrian,andJamesM. Skibo
1997 TheExplanationof ArtifactVariability.
AmericanAntiquity62:27-50.
Schiffer,MichaelBrian,JamesM. Skibo,JanetL. Griffitts,Kacy
L. Hollenback,andWilliamA. Longacre
2001 BehavioralArchaeologyandthe Studyof Technology.
AmericanAntiquity66:729-738.
Sebastian,Lynne
1992 TheChacoAnasazi:SociopoliticalEvolutionin thePrehistoricSouthwest.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Service,ElmanR.
1971 PrimitiveSocial Organization:An EvolutionaryPerspective.2nd ed. RandomHouse, New York.
Shafer,HarryJ.
1995 Architectureand Symbolism in TransitionalPueblo
Developmentin theMimbresValley,SW New Mexico.Journal of FieldArchaeology22:23-47.
Shanks,Michael,and ChristopherTilley
1987a ReconstructingArchaeology: Theoryand Practice.
CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
1987b Social TheoryandArchaeology.Polity Press,Oxford.
Shaul,David Leedom, andJaneH. Hill
1998 Tepimans,Yumans,and Other Hohokam.American
Antiquity63:375-396.
Shennan,StephenJ.
1989 Introduction:ArchaeologicalApproachesto Cultural
Identity.InArchaeologicalApproachesto CulturalIdentity,
editedby S. J. Shennan,pp. 1-32. Unwin Hyman,London.
1993 AfterSocialEvolution:ANewArchaeologicalAgenda?
In ArchaeologicalTheory:WhoSets the Agenda,editedby
N. YoffeeandA. Sherratt,pp. 53-59. CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge.
Shennan,StephenJ., andJ. R. Wilkinson
2001 CeramicStyle Changeand NeutralEvolution:A Case
Study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity
66:577-594.
Shott,MichaelJ.
1996a Innovationand Selectionin Prehistory:A Case Study
from the American Bottom. In Stone Tools: Theoretical
Insightsinto HumanPrehistory,edited by G. H. Odell, pp.
279-309. PlenumPress,New York.
1996b MortalPots: On Use Life andVessel Size in the Formation of Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity
61:463-482.
Skibo,JamesM., and GaryM. Feinman(editors)
1999 Potteryand People:A DynamicInteraction.University
of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity.
Skibo,JamesM., and MichaelBrianSchiffer
1995 The Clay CookingPot:An Exampleof Women'sTechnology. In ExpandingArchaeology,edited by J. M. Skibo,
W. H. Walker,andA. E. Nielsen, pp. 80-91. Universityof
Utah Press,Salt Lake City.
242
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Skibo, JamesM., WilliamH. Walker,andA. E. Nielsen (editors)
1995 ExpandingArchaeology.
Universityof UtahPress,Salt
Lake City.
Smith,BruceD.
1992a MississippianElites andSolarAlignments:A Reflection of ManagerialNecessity, or Leversof Social Inequality. In Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequalityand the
Native Elites of SoutheasternNorthAmerica,edited by A.
W. Barkerand T. R. Pauketat,pp. 11-30. Archaeological
Papersof the AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation No.
3. AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,Arlington,Virginia.
in East1992b Riversof Change:Essayson EarlyAgriculture
ern North America. SmithsonianInstitutionPress, Washington,D.C.
Smith,CraigS., andLanceM. McNees
1999 Facilities and Hunter-Gatherer
Long-TermLand Use
Patterns:An ExamplefromSouthwestWyoming.American
Antiquity64:117-136.
Snead,JamesE., andRobertW. Preucel
1999 The Ideology of Settlement:Ancestral Keres Landscapes in the NorthernRio Grande.In Archaeologies of
Landscape,edited by W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp,pp.
169-197. Blackwell Publishers,Malden,Massachusetts.
Snow,Dean R.
1995 Migrationin Prehistory:The NorthernIroquoianCase.
AmericanAntiquity60:59-79.
Spector,JanetD.
1991 What This Awl Means:Towarda FeministArchaeology. In EngenderingArchaeology:Womenand Prehistory,
editedby J.M. GeroandM.W.Conkey,pp. 388-406. Blackwell, Oxford.
1993 WhatThisAwlMeans:FeministArchaeologyat a Wahpeton Dakota Village.MinnesotaHistoricalSociety Press,
St. Paul.
Spencer,CharlesS.
1997 EvolutionaryApproachesin Archaeology.Journal of
ArchaeologicalResearch5:209-265.
Spielmann,KatherineA.
1998 Ritual Craft Specialists in Small-Scale Societies. In
Craftand Social Identity,edited by C. L. Costin and R. P.
Wright,pp. 153-159. ArchaeologicalPapersof the American AnthropologicalAssociationNo. 8. AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,Arlington,Virginia.
2002 Feasting,CraftSpecialization,andthe RitualMode of
Productionin Small-ScaleSocieties. AmericanAnthropologist 104:195-207.
Spielmann,KatherineA. (guest editor)
1995 SpecialIssue:TheArchaeologyof GenderintheAmerican Southwest.JournalofAnthropologicalResearch51(2).
Stark,MiriamT. (editor)
1998 The Archaeologyof Social Boundaries. Smithsonian
InstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Stark,MiriamT., JefferyJ. Clark,and MarkD. Elson
1995 CausesandConsequencesof Migrationin the 13thCenturyTontoBasin. Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology
14:212-246.
Stein, JohnR., and StevenH. Lekson
1992 AnasaziRitualLandscapes.InAnasaziRegionalOrganizationand the ChacoSystem,editedby D. E. Doyel, pp.
87-100. AnthropologicalPapersNo. 5. Maxwell Museum
of Anthropology,Albuquerque.
Steponaitis,Vincas P.
1981 Ceramics,Chronology,and CommunityPatterns:An
ArchaeologicalStudyat Moundville.AcademicPress,New
York.
[Vol. 68, No. 2, 2003
Steward,JulianH.
1955 Theoryof CultureChange:TheMethodologyof Multilinear Evolution.Universityof Illinois Press,Urbana.
Strather, Marilyn
1981 Self-Interestand the Social Good: Some Implications
of Hagen GenderImagery.In Sexual Meanings:The Cultural Constructionof Genderand Sexuality,editedby S. B.
Ortnerand H. Whitehead,pp. 166-191. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Straus,LawrenceGuy
2000 SolutreanSettlementof NorthAmerica?A Review of
Reality.AmericanAntiquity65:219-226.
Thomas,David Hurst
1989 Archaeology.2nded. Holt, RinehartandWinston,New
York.
Thomas,Julian(editor)
2000 InterpretiveArchaeology:A Reader LeicesterUniversity Press,London.
Tilley,Christopher(editor)
1990 ReadingMaterialCulture.Basil Blackwell,Oxford.
1993 InterpretiveArchaeology.
BergPublishers,Providence,
Rhode Island.
Trigger,Bruce G.
1980 Archaeologyand the Image of the AmericanIndian.
AmericanAntiquity45:662-676.
1989a A HistoryofArchaeologicalThought.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
1989b Hyperrelativism,Responsibility,and the Social Sciences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology
26:776-797.
1998a Archaeology and Epistemology: Dialoguing across
the DarwinianChasm.AmericanJournal of Archaeology
102:1-34.
1998b Sociocultural Evolution. Blackwell Publishers,
Malden,Massachusetts.
Tringham,RuthE.
1991 HouseholdswithFaces:TheChallengeof Genderin PrehistoricArchitecturalRemains. In EngenderingArchaeology: WomenandPrehistory,editedby J. M. GeroandM. W.
Conkey,pp. 93-131. Blackwell, Oxford.
Trubitt,MaryBeth D.
2000 MoundBuildingandPrestigeGoodsExchange:Changing Strategiesin theCahokiaChiefdom.AmericanAntiquity
65:669-690.
Turner,BryanS.
2001 On the Conceptof Axial Space: Orientalismand the
Originary.Journalof Social Archaeology1:62-74.
Turner,ChristyG., andJacquelineA. Turner
1999 ManCorn:Cannibalismand Violencein thePrehistoric
AmericanSouthwest.Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
van derLeeuw, Sander,and CharlesL. Redman
2002 Placing Archaeology at the Centerof Socio-Natural
Studies.AmericanAntiquity67:597-606.
Van Nest, Julieann,Douglas K. Charles,JaneE. Buikstra,and
David L. Asch
2001 Sod Blocks in Illinois Hopewell Mounds.American
Antiquity66:633-650.
VanPool,ChristineS., andToddL. VanPool
1999 The ScientificNatureof Postprocessualism.
American
Antiquity64:333-353.
Varien,MarkD.
1999 Sedentismand Mobilityin a Social Landscape:Mesa
Verdeand Beyond.Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Varien,MarkD., andBarbaraJ. Mills
1997 AccumulationsResearch:Problemsand Prospectsfor
Michelle Hegmon]
ISSUES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
243
New Questions.AmericanAnthropologist92:586-596.
EstimatingSite OccupationSpan.Journalof Archaeological Methodand Theory4:141-191.
Wright,Rita P. (editor)
1996 Genderand Archaeology.Universityof Pennsylvania
Vehik,SusanC.
2002 Conflict,Trade,andPoliticalDevelopmenton theSouthPress, Philadelphia.
ern Plains.AmericanAntiquity67:37-64.
Wylie,Alison
1992 The Interplayof Evidential Constraintsand Political
Walker,WilliamH.
Interests:RecentArchaeologicalResearchon Gender.Amer2002 Stratigraphyand PracticalReason. AmericanAnthroican Antiquity57:15-35.
pologist 104:159-177.
1996 The Constitutionof ArchaeologicalEvidence:Gender
Walker,WilliamH., andLisa J. Lucero
PoliticsandScience.InTheDisunityof Science:Boundaries,
2000 TheDepositionalHistoryof RitualandPower.InAgency
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.
2000 Questionsof Evidence,Legitimacy,andthe (Dis)Unity
Walthall,JohnA.
of Science. AmericanAntiquity65:227-237.
1998 Rocksheltersand Hunter-Gatherer
Adaptationto the
Pleistocene/Holocene Transition. American Antiquity Yoffee, Norman
1993 Too Many Chiefs? (or, Safe Texts for the '90s). In
63:223-238.
Ware,JohnA., andEric Blinman
ArchaeologicalTheory:WhoSets theAgenda?editedby N.
Yoffee and S. Sherratt,pp. 60-78. CambridgeUniversity
2000 Cultural Collapse and Reorganization: Origin and
Press,Cambridge.
Spreadof Pueblo RitualSodalities.In TheArchaeologyof
Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare,and Exchange Yoffee, Norman,andAndrewSherratt(editors)
1993 ArchaeologicalTheory:WhoSets the Agenda? Camacross the AmericanSouthwestand Beyond,edited by M.
bridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Hegmon,pp. 381-410. UniversityPressof Colorado,Boulder.
Zedeiio,MariaNieves
1997 Landscapes,LandUse, andthe Historyof TerritoryForWatson,PattyJo, andMichaelFotiadis
mation:An Examplefromthe PuebloanSouthwest.Journal
1990 TheRazor'sEdge:Symbolic-StructuralistArchaeology
and the Expansionof ArchaeologicalInference.American
of ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory4:67-103.
Zimmerer,KarlS.
Anthropologist92:613-629.
1994 Human Geography and the "New Ecology": The
Watson,PattyJo, and MaryC. Kennedy
1991 The Developmentof Horticulturein the EasternWoodProspectand Promiseof Integration.Annalsof theAssociation of AmericanGeographers84:108-125.
lands of North America:Women's Role. In Engendering
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
Prominent
1.
exceptions include Boston University,
1971 Explanationin Archaeology:An ExplicitlyScientific
Stanford,Simon Fraser,and the Universityof Calgary.
Approach.ColumbiaUniversityPress,New York.
2. Manypractitionersof this approachpreferthe appellation
Welsh, PaulD., and C. MargaretScarry
in Foodwaysin theMoundville evolutionaryarchaeology,but this usage resultsin terminologi1995 Status-RelatedVariation
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 evoluChihuahua,Mexico.AmericanAntiquity66:651-668.
focusedon the Darwinianschool, promptarchaeologies
tionary
Whiteley,PeterM.
2002 ArchaeologyandOralTradition:The ScientificImpor- ing a commentby Broughtonand O'Connell(1998), who noted
that there are other kinds of evolutionaryapproaches.For purtance of Dialogue.AmericanAntiquity67:405-416.
poses of comparativediscussion,Darwinianarchaeologyseems
Whitley,David S.
2000 TheArt of the Shaman:RockArt of California.Uni- to be the best term, though not all approachesthat draw on
Darwiniantheory(e.g., BartonandClark1997) subscribeto this
versityof Utah Press,Salt Lake City.
Wiessner,Polly
approach.
2002 TheVinesof Complexity:EgalitarianStructuresandthe
3. Genderstudies,includingthe archaeologyof gender,simof Inequalityamongthe Enga. Current
Institutionalization
involve focus on issues relating to sex and gender.While
ply
Anthropology43:233-269.
some may believe thatinterestin genderis inherentlyfeminist,
and
A.
Sabloff
Gordon
R.,
Jeremy
Willey,
1992 A Historyof AmericanArchaeology.3rd ed. Freeman, I believe thatit is possiblefor researchthatinvolvesgenderto be
apoliticalor even sexist, for example, when women are considNew York.
eredonly in termsof theirrelationalroles as wives andmothers.
Wilson, MichaelC.
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
Bruce,andEricAlden Smith
Winterhalder,
them and make use of theirinherentgifts and talents.
2000 Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral
4. I agree with Preucel'sgrouping,though not necessarily
at
Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology
Ecology
his label, for some of what he calls "analyticalfeminism"
9:51-72.
involvesfairlyapoliticalstudyof genderand,therefore,does not
Wolf, Eric R.
1990 DistinguishedLecture:Facing Power-Old Insights, fit my definitionof feminism.