Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
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: 25/04/2009 10:29
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 organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
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.
214
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Michelle Hegmon]
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
216
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Michelle Hegmon]
217
218
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
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]
219
220
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Michelle Hegmon]
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
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]
223
224
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
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]
225
226
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Michelle Hegmon]
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
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]
229
of the sameprocessoperatingatdifferentlevels (Potter2000a). The idea of integrationhas not been discarded(Hollimon2001), butit is being appliedmore
selectively.
230
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
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]
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
Michelle Hegmon]
"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
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.
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]
235
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-
Michelle Hegmon]
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
Michelle Hegmon]
239
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
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]
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
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]
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.