Agency in ArchaeologY

Edited by Marcia.Anne Dobres

and John E. Robb

-1LLtr]
^v^v-

&H -fil

1IjI r a
n w - ' -
er.- I .O
< r. - ,.i5
\ tra$v-

London and New York

Part 1

Editors' introduction
1 Agency in archaeologY
Paradigmor platitude?

Marcia-Anne Dobresutd JohnE. Robb

The cat's pajamas or the Emperor's new clothes?

In processual
Agency has become the buzzwordof contemporaryarchaeologicaltheory'
fast encroaching into the theoretical vacuum left by the
u..llo.ology, the agencyconcept is
in post-processual circles, theorists of all kinds
collapseoii-,igt-r.t*.t systemicmodels,while
feeling, and relating subjects constituted them-
ur. .tr..rrr.ä to un,l.rrtund how acting,
beyondtheirlull comprehension or direct control' Unlike other
selvesunder circumsrances
by theorists across the spectrum, from
key concepts,some version of ^g.rr.y is endorsed
is the apparent, if not genuine, possi-
ph..rorn..rology to evolutionaryecology.The result
popularity implies
tility of a theJr"tlc"l consenslsunparalleledperhapssincethe 1960s.If
theoreticalsoundness,it is clear that agencyis a Good Thing'
Most
Yet, surprisingly,there has been little direct scrutiny of the concept of agency'
just that: ad hoc appe_als to the concept to
archaeologicalapplicationsof agencytheory are
here, bolstered by citations
,rrrk. ,".r1 of a iarticrla, prnble* or situation,The implication
of the often incomprehensiblebut incontrovertibly high'brorv writings of
"*biguo.rr, an,l Foucault,is that the idea of agencyin itself is inherently sound:it
Bourdieu,Gidd"ns,
there is little
is only our useof the concept that needsto be worked out' The result is that
explicit in their useof the
consensusabout what "agency"actually means.Few authorsare
consideration6f basicmethodological and epistemolog'
term, nor has there been"sustained
past'This absence
ical issuesso as ro make it applicableand appropriateto the premodern
which, "agency" is currently
of a theoretical critique udÄ^to the slipperyimprecisionwith
invoking the concept' An
usecl,and its ubiquity masksdeepdivides among archaeologists
theory and our common'
especiallythorny issuehere is the relationshipbetween agency
so little critical
senseviervsof the world. Agency views havs spreadso rapidly and rvitl-r
examination that one someti-mes suspectsthey have been used as a bridge to get "beyond"
applications of agenc-y
rheory and do "real" archaeology.The flip side of common'sense
"hand-waving" which adds
theory has been for s.r.n. nrch"-.ologiststo dismissit as mere
little to our understandingof ancient politics and culture'
As things stand, then, agency in archaeologyis not a theoretically sophisticated
paradigrn,üut ,rth", li.,gr^ franca - an ambiguousplatitude meanilg everything and
" is useless,it
.,nthiri'g.We regardthis as a problematicstateof affairs.If the agencyconcept
theoret-
shouldte deconstructedratl'rerthan ir"rvokedsuperficiallyand discardedwhen the
and
ical winclsshift to another quarter.But if it has merit, it deservesdeeperconsideration
move'
more extensive theoretical elaboration.ln the history of archaeology,theoretical
been thosethat
ments that have made a lastingcontribution to hclrvrvevierv the pasthave
a very different
have been subiectedto mr.rltiplegenerationsof scrutiny,often emergingin
 4 Marcia-AnneDobresanÄJohnE. Robb

form than they began'Vithout searchingcritique, current interest

in agencyis likely to do
little more than peak,fade,and provide future historianswith a horizon
markerfor archae-
ological works dating to the 1990s.If agencytheory really is to become
useful in under-
standingancient peopleand their contribution to l"rg"-r."i" processes
ofcultural change-
if we are to avoid simply slappingagencyonto the pa"stlike f..rh
coat of paint - *. .iur,
integrate theoretical discourse,archaeologicalpractice, "analytic
methodologies,and
concretecasestudies.
The goal of this book is to createa dialogueamong archaeologists interestedin agency,
archaeologists critiquing it, and archaeologist,fo. *lL* the
luri is still out. Rather than
arguingfor a single view of agency,we have tried to collect as wide
a variety of views as
possible.Readerswill have still other views. The goal is,
someday,ro do justice to our
common interest:the worlds of the past.

Where does "agency" come from? A brief historical overview

Questionsabout personhood,volition, self-determination,and the nature of consciousness

and reasoningcan be traced back to Greek phirosophy,especially
Aristotle. They were
central themes in the eighteenth-cenrury*iiti.g, är Locke,
lon" David Hume, Jean.
JacquesRousseau, Adam Smith, and the nineteenth-c..,iurytheoristjohn Stuart Mrll, who
together articulated the individual-centeredphilosophiesof free-*ill,
choice, intention.
ality, and the "purposefulactivity of thrifty individuals" that srill
serveas the ideological
basisof l7estern democracy.The very cornerstonesof the socialsciences
are built on the
question of how social institutions and self-determination-
structureand agency- drive
socialreproduction (Archer 19BB).
Durkheim's normativism and Parsons'functionalist and formalist
theoriesdominated
sociologicaldiscussionsof agencyfor much of this cenrury.Parsons(1949),
in particulaq
stresseda utilihrian rationality underlying human decision-making
and emphasized_
perhapsover-emphasized - instirutions as pervasivetop-down
constraintson individual
choice (Giddens 19?9;Halperin 1994). By ihe 1960s,ttLisview was
codified in the notion
of "methodologicalindividualism,"which wasan artempt to explain the
causalrelationship
betweenmacroscale(constraining)institutionsand microscaleindividual
decision-making
(choice), basedon nomothetic principles of
maximization, optimizarion, and practica'i
rationality (seeClark, this volume).Thus, at about the sametime
that archaeologists began
embracingneo'evolutionarytheory and cultural ecology,many sociocultural
and economic
anthropologistswere embracingmethodologicalindividualism,especially
in the study of
contemporarynon-capitalistsocialformations(Halperin I 994).
It is really only in the last two decadesthat anthropologistshave
seriouslybegun to
rethink these concepts. Recent agency theory stems in large measure
from Garfinkelt
pioneering work on ethnomethodology in the 1960s (GaÄnkel
19g4), and from the
writings of Giddens (1979, l9B4) and Bourdieu (1977). These foundational
works were
subsequently taken in a varieryof directionsby Archer (l9gB, 1995),Sztompka(1991,
7994a),Storper (1985)' Heritage (1982), cohen (r9gz), Bryant
1".y (iqqt),
Kegan Gardiner (1995), among others. According to these theorists, "r,d ".,i
and in conrrasr ro
previousparadigms,social agentsare viewed not as omniscient,pracrical,
and free-willed
economizers,but rather as socially embedded,imperfect, oft"., impractical people.
"rrd
Agency theoristsalso talk of a much more interactive (or dialectic) relationshipbetween
the srrucruresin which agentsexist and, paradoxically,which th"y
.r.rt..
In largemeasure'this shift toward a more humanizedand dynamic picture
of the nego.
 AgerrcYin cnchaeologY 5

tiations taking place between individuals,communities,and institutionshas been enablecl

by a focus .oi io *u.h on agencyand agents,as on practice (Ortner 1984;Türner 1994:
of Marx's
43 ). Incleed,the roots of contemporarypracticetheory can be tracedback to trvo
most of-quotedpassages:

men [sic] make rheir own history,but they do not make it just as they please,they do
not make it under circumsranceschosen by themselves,but under circumstances
directly encountered,given and transmittedfrom the past'
( M a r x 1 9 6 3 :1 5 f o r i g .1 8 6 9 ] )

As individualsexpresstheir life, so they are. What they are, therefore,coincideswith

their pro<luction,both with rvhat they produceand with how they produce.
(Marx and Engelst970:42)

All of the core elementsof contemporarypracticetheory are here:

r socieryis a plurality of individualswho exist only by virtue of the relationshipsthey

createduring everydaymaterialproduction (prans)
e humansp.uJu." tüeir cultural historiesthroughpraxis,which highlights the processual
nature of socialreproduction
r individual (or group) free-will and volition are explicitly disavowed,in part because
peopledo not choosethe conditions within which they live
o thesestructuralconditions have a strong material basis
r institutional settingsand conditions constitute a material world that is made,experi-
it
enced,and perceivld (that is, symbolizedand made meaningful)by those living in
(which prefiguresagencytheoriesof embodiment, discussed later)
. society exlsts as the result of antecedentconditions, which gives time and history
prominent roles in shapingsocialformationsand the particularpracticesconstituting
them.

practical
Marx's focuson praxiswas essentiallya theory of knowledgeconcerningpeople's
engagemenrwith the world, while his emphasison production linked material and experi'
eniial activiry to sociery,thought, and beliefs(Dobres in press;]]lley 1982).
In the late 19?0sand early 1980s,Giddens (1979,l9B4) reconstitutedtheseelementsas
part of his critique of the formalism long dominant in sociology.Through his "duality of
srructure,"he aigued that people createthe conditions and structuresin which they live,
largelyas a result of the unintendedconsequences of their actions'Structure-buildingis an
ongoing and recursiveprocessbetweenactorsand forcesbeyondtheir control that is never
,"^ily Ä.pt"ted (cf.Ä..h", 1995; Sztompka 1994b). Parallel to these claims, Bourdieu,
once a devour strucruralist (e.g., 19?3), began questioning how social practice shapes
societyby concentratingon the taken.for-grantedroutinesof daily life, or habitus,within
whicfr people create and become structured by institutions and beliefs beyond their
consciousawareness or direct control (Bourdieu 1977)'
Thus, by the early to mid-1980s,the question of practice and the dialectic of agency'
(as 1986;
srructurehacl moved ro the mainstreamof socio-culturalanthropology in Moore
interest in the
Sahlins 1981; Scott 1985; overview in Ortner 1984).This reconfigured
philosophy
interplay of actors and structureswas also being explored (independently)in
 6 Marcia-Anne DobresandJohn E. Robb

(e.g., Brand 1984; Tümer 1994), and feminist and gender

studies (overview in Kegan
Gardiner 1995; see also Gero, this volume). At the same time, the Annales
School was
rethinking the temporalrelationshipbetweenlarge-scale instirutionsantl srnall-scale
social
practices.Braudel's( 1980)tripartitedivision of time into long-term
srrucrures,
medium-term
cycles,and short-termeventsunderlinedtwo especiallyve*irrgquestions:first,
how do sftuc.
tures outlive the agentswho create,move through, and changetheml; and
second,how do
shorr-rermeventscontribute to longer-rermprocesses? (cf. Biniliff 1991;Knapp l99za).

Agency in archaeology: the theoretical landscape

The first self'proclaimedand epistemologicallyself.reflecrivetheorerical

revolution in
modem archaeologicaltheory was the New Archaeology,whosefounding
charter was laid
in 1962 with Binford's article "Archaeology as Anthropology." The New
Archaeologists
argued that archaeologyshould be basedexplicitly on anthropological
theory. By a.,tf,ro.
pological theory, they meant the social evoiutionism of Service,
Sahlins and Fried, often
combined with the concept of ecologicaladaptation.Culture wasconceptualized
as a self,
regulatingand intemally_integratedsysrem(eg. Clarke 196g).Signifi."r,lly,
a central tener
of their manifestowas that archaeologists should be ambitious,*irh ,h. developmentof
new theoretical questions,methodological techniques,and epistemological
safeguards,
virtually all aspectsof ancient social life could be investigated.
The New Archaeology'stheoreticalmanifestocould have led in many theoretical
direc-
tions, and it is a fascinatingquestionwhy some,suchasagency,becamethe roads
not taken.
For example,at the outsetof the New Archaeology,BiÄrd'(L962)
underlinedbehavioral
links between individual political procesr,symbols,and material culture,
and pointed out
that people "differentially parriciparein culture" (Binford 1965), while
RedÄan og?7)
suggestedthat it could be analytically useful to comprehend the "smallest
inreracrion
group" possibleand to understandhow "analyti.ul i.rdiuiduals"
contributed to larger-scale
social processessuch as craft specialization,the organizationof large.scale
distributive
networks, and the rise and fall of complex social formations. In reirospect,
theoretical
concerns that could have been linked to the question of agencywere, instead,
equated
with the devalued empirical searchfor the archaeologic^lJig.riur., of
individuals. For
better or worse' processualarchaeologistsmade "systeÄs"thei problem,
and agentswere
encasedin a "black box" of no analytic or explanarory imporiance (cf.
Brurifi el I99Z;
Hodder 1986;Tiigger 1989).Archaeologistswho did deal with the social
rolesof indi.
viduals, primarily in often very sophisticateddiscussionsof the
dynamics of chiefdoms
and early inequality, tended to assumepolitical actorsmotivat.d by
a uniform, common-
senseambition for power.
By the early 1980s,intellectualmovementsoursidethe disciplinehad begun
to influence
archaeologistswho were increasinglyfrustratedby the "facelessblobs" (Tiingham
1991)
peripheralizedin mainstream_ accountsof the past (see Cowgill 1993;Marquardt 1997.;
Peebles1992;Shanksand Tilley l98z). It *", "lso
an odd ,ni*,u.. of ,,post';proc.rru"l-
"*ong
ists (among them Marxists, structuralists,symbolists,and feminists)
ih", explicit
concem with agentsand agencybegan to coalesce.VariousMarxist ".,
agendas.-"rgj fo.
understandingthe historical relationshipbetween institutional srrucrures(economic
and
ideological'especially),sociopoliticalmovemenrs,conflicts among individuals
and groups,
and large'scaletransformations(as in Leone 1986; Miller rnd tiil.y t98+;
Spriggs19ti+;
lllley 1982)' Meanwhile, other researchers beganro rurn their attention ro srructuresand
symbols"in action" (e.g.variousessays in Hodder l9g2a, l9g2b), althouehexplicitlinks to
 AgencYin atchacologY 7

obviousuntil later
structufation,habitus,anclthe dialectic of event and structurewele not
as a move toward agency'oriented ques'
(see\yobst 199?). What in hindsight can be seen
starting as early as the late 1970s (espe'
,io.r, *o, alsodevelopingthrough !..,d", research,
1997)' Still more
cially Fedigantqa6; Raip 19?7";Silverblatt 19BB;cf. Conkey and Gero
influenced by the Annales school
,....,r1y, n!".,.y h", b".r, explicitly taken up by scholars
(e.g.D , u k e t 9 9 t ; B i n t l i f f l 9 9 l ; K n a p p1 9 9 2 b ) '
was
The common ground among thesedisparateapproachesto "theorizingthe subject"
along with non'discur'
the claim that historical .ont.*t, of socialand material interaction'
within which
sive perceptionsof the world, servedas the proximate boundaryconditions
and being constrained
ancient p.opl" negotiaredtheir world, while simultaneouslycreating
by it. As Hodder summedit uP:

groupsto
since societiesare tnade up of individuals, and since individuals can form
or ideolo'
further rheir ends, lthen] directed,inrentional behavior of individual actors
gies can leaclto structural change.Indeed,societiesmight best be seen as non'static
negotiationsbetweena variety of changingand uncertainperspectives'
dder l9g7a: 6)

four distinct
Throughout the 1980sancl 1990s,interest in agencyintensifiedin at least
inquiry. The first concerned gender. Rescarchers interested in
areas of archaeological
and those
alcient gender dynamics (Conkey and Spector 1984; Silverblatt 1988)
gen<lerecl nature of archaeological practice (Gero 1983, 1985) began
.o......ä with the
to theorizing the subject and of tl're imperative to understand
calling for new approaches
and cultr'rre
such microscalecontributions to the macro'structuringof ancient cultures
standpoints and research questions among
change. Today, the diversity of theoretical
concernedwiih gender and agency in both theory and practice is striking
archaeologists
(Conkey and Gero 199?).AmoÄg these,f.*i.,irt challengesto mainstreamdiscourseabout
the body are leading ,o ,".oifigured interest in the embodiment of individual and
"
collectivesubjectivity(seeCero, this volume)'
part concefnsthe
A secondarea of debate in rvhich the question of agencyplayed a
significanceof material culture variation, a topic that was again.pursued in parallel among
several decades, debates about srylehad
,J"r"l conceptuallydistinct lines of resear.h.bu.r
increasingly complex variety of (possibly
finafty led archaeologiststo recognizethat an
patterns. Thus meanings were not only
endless)meaningscould be read into material
sensitive to an actor's social personae
context.dependÄt (Hodder 198?b),but necessarily
in Hegmon 1992). What began as a
and situatedness(e.g.carr and Neitzel 1995;overview
material culture patterning developed
concern with formal and functional variability in
and structuration
into a host of questionsabout socialcontextsand arenasof and fc-rraction
through whut iVobst (this volume) calls material culture "interferences."
culture via
Thlrd, a number of archaeologistsbegan connecting agencyand material
phenomenology and/or Giddens' structulation
orher theoreticalbridges,primarily through
theory. Barretr's O9g4 pircneeringFragments from Annquitl examined the phenomcnolog'
(1993,1996),
ical experien.e of -"g"lithic monuments, and parallel works by lllleY
(1994), and others have focused on the social
Tho^as (1991), Park.r"P"arsonand Richards
a constfucted environment' Clearly such
construction of the actor'ssubjectivitieswithin
Specifically, if structtrres and sociery
approachespose complex qu.riio.,, for archaeology.
if there is a continually negotiated
are always"i., pro."rr;' rather than fixeciand static,and
,,conversation';taking place betrveenhistorically constituted agents and the long'tenn
 8 Marcia-Anne Dobresand JohnE. Robb

structuresthey create and live within, then what does this suggestabout the causesand
consequencesof material culture patteming and variation (cf. in this volume !/obst,
Sassaman, chapman, sinclair, and shackel; also Dobres 1995,1999a,in press).
A fourth hotbed of agency.orientedexplanations has been in studies of emerging
inequaliry (e.g., Clark and Blake 1994; Price and Feinman 1995). In contrasr to-the
premisesofgender research(e.g.Silverblatt 1988),this line ofresearchhasfocusedon
how
the strategicpursuit ofprestigeor power can lead to large-scalesocialchange,for example,
how individual foragerscompeting for personal status through feasting *"y h"u.
"dopt"j
agriculturalpracticesto further their personalinterests(as in HaydenjqqS). Hallmarks of
this approach include an interest in long-term social chang., .*.*plifi"d perhaps in
Marcus and Flannery's (1996) theoretically understatedbui monumental svnthesl, of
Zapotec prehistory and a general assumption that actors are usually and fundamentallv
motivated by a desirefor power and prestige(seeclark, walker and Lucero,
Joyce,this
volume; Gero providesa critique).
Among other recent approachesexploring individual inrerestsand actions and their
contribution to long-term, large-scalesocial hansformationshave been optimal foraging
models,varietiesof game theory as well as Darwinian and evolutionaryecologymodelr. "

Some controversial issues

Probablythe most basic and contentious issuein recenr agencytheory is: what exactly is
agency?
Agency is a notoriously labile concept (Sewell 1992), but mosr agency theorisrs,
whatever their stripe, would subscribeto at least four generalprinciplessi*ila. to those
proposedby Marx (seepp. 6-8): the material conditions of social life, rhe simultaneouslv
constrainingand enabling influenceof social,symbolicand materialsffucturesand institu-
tions, habituation,and beliefs;the importanceof the motivationsand actionsof agents;and
the dialectic of srructure and agency. Most would probably also agree that ag:encyis a
socially significant quality of action rather than being synony*ou, *i,h, or reJucibl" to,
action itself.
This generalframework,however,bearsas tight a relationshipto actual agencyinter-
pretations as the Sermon on the Mount does to the differenr Christianities of warlike
Crusadersand pacifist Quakers.Täble 1.1 lists some of the interprerationsof agencyand
practicethat have been proposedin the last decadeor so.
Clearly theseviews are not mutually exclusive,and in a given situation agencymay be
construedin many of thesesenses. For example,let us imaginea Hopi *"n *"king a mask
for a kachina dance' In doing so, he is reproducingthe basic cosmologicalbeliefsof his
society,experiencing the effective performanceof a technical procedure,and validating the
ritual systemof Hopi societyand the social relationscreatedthrough it. Inasmuchas the
socialorganizationof ritual may have suppressed overt economicinequalltybetweenclans
while the competingperformanceof rolesmay have legitimateda disguisedior* of it (Leuy
1992),his ritual preparationmay have unwittingly perpetuateda hegemonicsituation;and
if he belongedto a poor clan, his contribution to reproducingHopi slcial relationsthrough
this ritual dance would have contradicted any discursive "or
of manifesting
".ii,io.r,
betteringhis own situation through suchperformance.He is alsopracticingand p..fo.Äi.rg
technological taskssuch as carving and painting, perhapswith some idÄtlty-ieinforcinl
discussionof how to do so with his peers.Indeed,by enactingthe physicalrequirementstä
make the mask, and through the thoughts he must hold in order to do it properly,he is also
 Agencl in archaeologY 9

Table1.1 What is " agency"?circa 1980-90

princi-
The replication of unconsciouscognitive structures(as in Bourdieu's[1977: ?8] "generative
ples of regulatedimprovisations")'
(as in Gramsci's(1971)
The socialreproducrionof system-widepower relationsvia cultural actions
;; (t9'90) idea of the state
"ideological apparatus;"cf' Pauketat,
,a." of i,"gä.ony" and niifr"*.r'r
this volume).

or indirect individual or col-

Resistanceor challengeto system-widepower structuresthrough direct
lective action (cf. Chapman, Shackel,this volume)'
(as in Foucault (1994);
The constitution of individual subjectivity through diffusepower relations
cf. Leone 1995).
(cf. Coweill, this volume)'
The consritution of the individual as a psychologicalentity
(cf. Hodder,Johnson,this volume)'
The experienceof individual action in creatinga life story
(cf' Wobst' Sassaman'
The imposition of form on material via sociallysituatedcreativeactivity
Sinclair, this volurne).
(e'g' Barrett 1994;
A processof intersubjectiveengagementwith the.materialand socialworld
Doires in press;Thomas 1996;cf. Barrett, this volume)'

(Can and Neitzel 1995;

The creation of formal and socialdistinctionsthrough expressiveactivity
cf. Clark, Joyce,Walker and Lucero, this volume)'

and skill (e'g'

The successfuldeploymentof discursiveand non-discursivetechnologicalknowledge
Dobres 1995, 1999b,in press;cf. Sinclair, this volurne)'

(as.in modelsof actorsrationally

The strategiccarryingout of intentional plans for.purposivegoals
pursuingprestigeor power; cf. Cowgitl, ilark, Walker and Lucero' this volume)'

specificculturally con-
The strategiccaffylng out of an intentional plan in accordancervith a
(cf. volume), class(cf. Shackel' this volurne),or cosnos
srrucredidäa of persÄhood Johnson,this
(cf. Joyce,this volume)'

of overlappingsocial
becorninga cerrainkind of person,possiblyeven developinga number
critics
p.r*rl".lg"t most of theseare ,arely consciousgoals(cxcept rvhendedicatedsocial
arm rhemselueswith revolutionarypractical consciousness). His discursiveintentions may
or ambition to be a
be more immediate:to preparefo. a rituul that rvill confirm his claim
and prestige'to
ritual participant or leader,to gain, assertor reconfirm his socialauthority
an obligation
pro,o*. rhe inreresrsof his clan or ritual society'or to fulfill a debt or impose
on someoneelse,
differcnt construals
In this sirnplifiedexample,there seemslittle contradiction betu'een
agencyhas many
of agency,l.-i.rg us free if lve wish to adopt the "eclectic" vie\. that
sometimesidentified
simultaneouslyoperativequalities.But the rangeof activity outcomes
.o.rtr",li.t each other (for instance, when one choosesto expless
as"agency"often directly
through the very institutions that ultirnately recreateit)' In
one,sdissentrvith a situation
is the most relevant and
such cases,it is often difficult ,o .lioor. which aspectof agency
betrveendifferent
which can be "explainedarvay."In other instances,it is the contradiction
aspectsof agencythat may be the real dynamic we need to understand.
 10 Marcia-Anne Dobresand I ohnE . Robb

Basically,then, we can take one of two approachesto the problem

of understanding
agency.The "eclectic" strategyis to recogniz.ihut op"r",", in many waysat once,
and that, in a given situation, contradiction "g".,.y
its difierent dimensionsis far more
typical and interesting than concordance.In ".on!archaeologicalaccounts,accordingto this
view, what really mattersis which aspectsof agencyon. highlights,
or, betreryet, fiow one
grappleswith their ambiguitiesand contradictionswithout
reductionism(cf. Gero, this
volume)' However, this strategymay over-generalizethe useof
the term agencyso far that
it rendersit practically useless.How helpful is it to see agency
qu"iity, pro."rr,
consciousintention, an action, an unintendedconsequence, ", " "
and a descriptive categoryall"
at the same time? Moreover, though focusing on ambiguity
.ont.adi.tio1 ii oit.r,
compelling,the "eclectic"approachmay ultimately be moie of an ".rd
evasionrather than a real
resolurionof certain theoreticaldifficulties.
The second alternative is to define agencymore narrowly and clearry,perhaps
through
a restrictedworking definition relevant to the particularquestion
at hand. Hor.uer, *hät
shouldthis restricteddefinition be?What are rhe critical issuesto resolve?
And, by reiucing
the multiple, overlapping, and contradictory qualities of agency
down to a narrow
elemental few, do we risk losing whatever makesagencyuseful,
interesting, and relevant to
understandingreal socialsituations?
There are no easyanswersto thesequestions.Our goal in this volume
is not to force some
common ground (we leave the readerto decide if such even exists),
but to demonstratethe
need for clarity. Given the variety of agencydefinitions and app.oa.hes
now available,it is no
longer enough simply to invoke human actors and p"y hoÄ"g" to
Bourdieu and Giddens.
Archaeologistshave now to make a casenot only for why th. concepris usefi.rl,but also
why their particular approachis more appropriatethan others.- "gä"y
Among other difficult issuesraisedby the concept of agency,there
are five that compel
particular arrention: intentionality and social ..p.oductiJn;
,.a1.; temporality ,.rd ,oci"l
change;material culture; and the politics of archaeologicalpractices.

Int entimwlity and, so cial r eproductimr

Probably the biggestdivide among agency enthusiastsis between those

who sffessagency
as the intentional actions of agents and those who sffessits non.discu.siue
qu"liti.s.
Particularlyin studiesof political behavior and the development
of socialinequality,there
is a strong tradition of arguingthat the way individual actorsconsciouslypursue
whät they
want is a driving force in socialchange.In conrrast,other theorists(notably
McCall 1999)
contend that what actorswant or intend is often irrelevantto the
real socialconsequences
of their actions. McCall points out that the unintended consequences
of action are not
merely what happenswhen.an actor'splan goesawry but rather
include the unwitting
reproduction of all the social contexts within ruhi.h ih" actor's
intentions and strategiei
make sense,and that this is really their most important effect.
Severalother theoretical
watershedsparallel the intentional/unintentional distinction in
agency theory. For
instance,are an actor'smotives and behaviorsrational or part
of some cultural, gender-
specific,or other form of "palaeopsychology"lTo what ext..rt io th. symbols(such
as ideolo.
gies)manipulatedby actorsalsohelp constitutethem?(Robb
1998,iggg). tn.r. issuesare
exploredin this volume, particularlyin Cowgill'sexaminationof the
role of reason,ration-
ality, and psychologyin agency,in Joycet anJ Clark's discussionsof
agencyand the possible
motivationsof incipient elites,and in Pauketat'sargumentthat the
uriintentionaloutcomes
of agents'self-interestedactionsoften contribute to their own subordination.
 Agencl in archaeologY11

qgency of groups
Scole; inditi dual agency, rntltiple agencies,and the
!7e seethis, in part,
ls agencyexercise{only by individualsor can groupsexerciseagency?
but it alsoconjures up the specter of methodological
u, Ä irru. of phenomenologicalscale,
in Anglo-American archaeology has certainly been
individualism.The majority tradition
(whether analytical or real). This is most often seenin
to associateagencywith iniividuals
in which power is exercised,by those in command'
top-do.r,nrooä"k of political relations,
from a number of directions' For example, the post'
Cüallengesro rhis paradigm come
implies that agency and power work through indi-
moderndeconstructio.rof ih. individual
by them. In effect, society construcß a
viduals,rather than being co.opted and exercised
who pulls the trigger and why thcy think
situarion in which p"oplJ act; it i, lessrelevant
the inten-
they aredoing so.Other theorisß,however,have arguedthat agencyis.lessabout
a cultural process through which person-
tional exercisleof personal interestsand more about
negotiated and transformed' Thus' rather
hoocland a Senseof "groupness"afe constructed,
instead focus explicitly on the agency
than conflating agencyrvith individuals,should we
actorsand agency
ofsocial collectivities?Finally, is it enoughto talk vaguelyabout generic
(those "facelessblobs" ,gain), or do t. need to consider multiple styles or varieties-of
gender, age' race' class, or other
agencywithin a ,o.iety,1u.h as those associatedwith
culturally recognizedforms of subjecthood?
and Johnson
ln this 'ol,rir., Wobst asksus to considergroup.levelagency'while Hodder
different ways'
concentfate on indivicluals as real historical agents. ln substantially
paradox of overlapping but
Paukerat,Sassaman,Shackel,and Chapman all deal with the
how differently these case
contradicroryself. and group-levelagencies.What is striking is
In contrast,\Talker
studies*ork through th! probl"- of Äultiple phenomenologicalscales'
(ritual leaders)and its
and Lucero focus on the agency and effecls of one particular group
as a whole'
consciousattemptsto uppäp.iate the beliefsand practicesof the cctmmunity

Agency and social, change

in expla'
If agencyis important in understandingsocieryin the short run, it must be included
long time spans,but this poscs a number of controversial irnpli-
,ruä., of socialchangeover
is ttre question of which aspects of agency help shape
carions. Among rhe most diffi.ult
strategicactions? the unintended environmental and
long.term cnltu".alchange:intentional,
which might be imperceptible at any given moment
economlc .u.rr"qr..r.", of such actions,
of social
but rvhich accumulate irrevocably over generations?the unintended reproduction
Is long-term, group,le.,elagency simply individual agency at a larger
and cultural srrucrures?
phenomenological scales? Do different kinds of
scale,or does the gu*. .h"rl" at different
structure and agency, operate over different
causality,or does diff...rr, trln.,.. between
" in different kinds
,.^porul and sparialscales?ls rhe inrerplay of agencyand structuredifferent
emphasizing the conservatism of "traditional" soci-
of society (assuggestedby interpretations
modemity be applied to premodem societies, for
eties)?can an agencytheory developedfor
but why they appear to remain the same over
instance,to investigatenot why things change
can be usefuloutside
rh. u.ri-"gir,ably lJng periodsevident in mtrch of prehistory?lf agency
should contemporary agencytheory be
the arenain which tnä id"u wasdeveloped,then how
modifiedto dealwith issuesunique to archaeologyl
dealswith these
ln one way or another, practically every contributor in this volume
to the usefulness of agency in understanding socialtrans-
issues,and this in itself mny 'shackel
",,.r, gender'specific consumer choices helped to
formations. For example, askshow
 12 Marcia-Anne Dohes andJohnE. Robb

create a working'classconsciousness in the nineteenth century. Similarly, in the caseof

archaic hunter-gatherers,Sassamanexploresthe relationshipbetween gender ideologies,
marital rulesof residence,and divisionsof labor that, in this siuation, co-ntributed
to lJ.,g-
term and collective resistanceto social differentiation; he identifies, in other
*o.dr,
change towards sameness.More generally, Hodder, Barrett, and "
Johnson addressthe
question of how to write about microeventsand the real, meaningful
lives of past people
without falling prey to archaeologicalmeta-narratives.Gero doesthis as well,
tut takei a
radicallydifferent stance(which we discusslater).

Agency mtd moterial culture

Analyzing agency through archaeologicalremains posesundeniable challenges.

Most
anthropologistswould agreethat a ritual maskcould bearany or all of the motivations
and
meaningsproposedin the Hopi exampleabove.Many archaeologists, finding such a mask
(or its non'perishableparts) might balk ar proposing
mo.e tha.r couple o? the possible
interpretations,perhapsfavoring thosefelt to be the mostempirically "
demonstrable.\Uhat,
then, are the most appropriate ways to use artifacts to analyre in the pastl
Discussionsof agencyhave traditionally centeredon those"g".r.yarchaeologicalcaseswhere
we can discernor postulateindividualsdoing material things: making pol, holding
feasts,
burying the dead, and so forth. It has also b.Lr, ,,rgg.rt.d that understandinghow
a'rtifacts
were usedin expressingor defining an agent'sinterestis more important thÄ
determining
what the artifacts'practicalor symbolicfunctionsmay have been,how they wereproduced]
and by whom. But a counter'view,that to inquire into the dialectic of
uariability,
individualsand groups,and socialstructure.r""d not deteriorateinto a search ".tif".t
for the traces
of individuals,wasproposedmore than twenty yearsago (Redman 19??),and has
recently
been re'elaboratedfrom a numberof theorericalstandpoints(Dobres 1995,I999a, prerr;
in
Mithen 1990;shennan 1989). Individual- and group-6.ientedapproachesro agency^have
barely scratchedthe surfacein understandingÄe ways in which material culture repro.
duces,promotesand thwarts agency,
Theoristsalsodisputethe relationshipbetweenpeopleand materialculture, and
- theselines
of argument closely parallel those discussedabove unäer "intentionaliry." At one end
of the
theoretical spectrum'those who believe that agencyis about intentionaiiry alsotend to
argue
that the material world is createdand manipulatedby more or lessfreely acting individuals.
Hence material artifactsand pattems can be viewed as essentiallyinactive traces,residues,
or
correlatesof particular kinds of human activity and agency,At the other end of
the specrrum
are.theoristswho arguethat meaningsand values,historiesand biographies,even personhood
and agencycan be attributed to material things.Hence materialculiure must be viewed
asnot
only actively constructingthe world within which peopleacr, but alsothe peoplethemselves.
The studies in this volume pursue a range of anaiytic methodologiesfor understanding
agencyin the past' sinclair usesrechnical choineoplranireanalysisto iientifi, valuedqualitiel
in Solutreanknapping skill that would have madestone tool production a form
of self.expres.
sion' Chapman's innovative study of Neolithic and Copper Age burials interprets
them not
as a static' timelessassemblageof bodiesand grave goodsbut as a time.orderedseque.r..
nf
self'referentialstatements'Walker and Lucero reconstructdepositionalsequencesthat
relate
to the rirual actions of incipient leaders,By arguingthat artifactsare active "interferences,,
in
people'slives, Wobst asksus to reconsiderhow we think about material culture generally.
In
one way or another' then, the chapters in this volume follow suit in developin! ,.gr.".,t,
about the role and significanceof materialculture in agencystudies.
 AgencYin archaeologY 13

practice
dgency urd the political context of archaeological
Agency is a political concept.As a generalway of ulderstandinghow peopleact in society,
shouldor
ir äurt d.riu. in parr from our viewi on how we think peoplein our own society
peculiarly insidious tools for populating the past with
do act. Agency rheoriescan thus be
,,actors"rvhosesituatedexperiencesand activities do little more than recreatethoseof the
of
theorist (see Brumfiel, this uol.rme)' If we are not careful, an unconsideredversion
antl indeed naturalize,the political forms of relations and
agencycan be usedto reproc{uce,
been
däminations within which we now live. For this reason,current agencytheory has
it is problematically androcentric and essentialist in its very
challengeclon rhe groundsthat
(cf. Gero, this volume). To date, most postulated actors of the past are middle-
.o..*p,io.,
in truth, some archaeologicalreconstructionsof agencyseemto deal exclu'
"g",{ "dultr; to
si".,elywith adult male heads of households,leaving the majority of society relegated
invisible, passivenon-agenthood.
anthro-
Oth"r iiuses can be i1ore s.,btle.Bender (1991: 258) points out that in current
pology and archaeology,"the emphasis on the autonomy of the individual and on indi'
vidual agency mirrors contemporary westeln politics." Agency of strategic
_accounts
of
comperi;n in the pasroften unrvittingly reflect the essentiallymiddle-classexperiences
they are neither inherently privi-
most academicsacting as agentsin social arenaswhere
legednor categc,rically.1.tti..1privileges,but where they are clearly rewardedfor competi'
tiie perfcrrmarrce. These (anclother) possiblebiasesare not limited to one strain of agency
theory, irowever.Many recent post-processual studies,for instat'rce,have envisionedindi-
by
viduais needing ro construct tl-reir own identities by forging links to landscapes,
so on. But the perva'
performing,ituälr, by adopting ettrnicities,by enacting genders,and
slue .reedto construct ,.,i ..uffi.,r, Lrersot'ral identity is a prevailing theme of post'modern
culture, and archaeologicalwork focusingon it may, tl-rerefore, reflect our understandings
of our own societymore than they do any Particularpast era'
Thus, a paftic;larly controversialquestionfor potential agencytheoristsis how agency
theory in aicl-raeology can be usedfor purposesother than legitimizingmodern socialrela-
tio.,, by uncritically projecting them back in time. In decidedcontrastto all other contrib-
outside
utors in this volume, Ge.o drarusher inspirationfrom explicitly politicizedsources
activists, and
anthropology an{ archaeology:feminist political economists,third-rvorld
gender and. race
culture critics whose explicit agenclasare to show how contemporary
ideologiesinfluence the global economic realities of women and other disenfranchised
g.orrpr.Gero points out hä* such ideologicalinfluencesfeed into the political economyof
ä.u,I"*i. kncirvleclge, but she leavesit to the readerto considerfor thernselveshorv such
arguments to bJ applied as correcrivesto the biasedinterpretive framer'vorksarchaeolo'
".. that lve may be able to use
giJts-ay employ.This is an irnportant argument,for it suggests
theory not only to u.rd..rtu.rd the past, but also to trace out and correct at least
"g".r.y (Gero 1985)'
,o-" of the more insidiouspolitical effectsof contemporarypractice

Conclusions
agency
Agency studiesin archaeologyare beginning to passthe "add actorsand stir" stage;
ald productively in much the same way that
.,o* ,-r".d, to be probler,-ruiir"dcrirically
gentler studies*"i" the first rush to identify women in the archaeologicai record'
"ft., earlier:
3oro. k.y theoreticalissueswe believewarrantsustainedconsiderationarediscussed
issuesof definition, intentionality,scale,temporality, rnaterialculture, and Ptolitics'One
 14 Marcia-Anne DobresandJohn E. Robb

real litmus test for the successof this endeavorwill be how we

answerthe question,does
thinking about agencychange the way we do archaeology,
not mereryin htw ,u" äig o,
survey'but also in how we understandartifacts,sites,ani'landscapes
within our r"pr"r..r.
tations of the pastl
We also need to acknowledgethe hard-learnedlessonof
history: that archaeologyhas
been colonizedby too many theoreticalempiresoriginaringin
disciplineswith standpoints
and agendasvery different from our own. Rather than being .o.r,..r,
to borrow co.rc.pts of
agencywholesale,we need to addresshow contemporary agency
theory should b" -oäifi.d
to fit archaeologicalresearchinterests,archaeological'scäle,
of inqulry, and the unique
qualities of archaeologicaldata. We should alro .eturn to
, ."rdin"'l lessonof early New
Archaeology: archaeologydoesnot have to be the intellectual poor
cousin of anthropology,
gratefullyand uncritically acceptinghand-me'downconceprs
änd theories.Archaeologists
often study societies'practices,and processes of social .ü".rg. u.,kno*n in the modern
world, and we have a uniquely long temporal vision. Mor"äu.r,
we deal with material
culture far more serio:rslyand innovatiu.iy th"., do most
social scientists,and material
culture is clearly central to creatingagentsand expressingagency.
Studiesof the long.term,
studiesof societiesdifferent-from the presenr, ,tuäi"l recognizingthe centrility oi
".rd
material culture are sorely lacking in contemporary agencytheory tl.,u, ar.h".oloical
conceptshave somethingimportant ro saybeyondou. Ä. iisciplinäry
wa[s.

Bibliography
Althusser,L. 1990.ForMarx.Verso,London.
Archer,M' S' 1988'Culure and Agency:ThePlaceof Culunein Social
Thenry.Cambridge University
Press,CambridgeUK.
- 1995. Realur Social Theory: The MorphogeneticApproach.cambridge university press,
Cambridge UK,
Barrett,,J. Fragmentsfrom Antiquity:An Archaeology
of SociarLife
9: ?91 in Binin, 2900-1200nc.
tllackwell, Uxtord.
Bender,B' 1993' "Cognitive Archaeology and Cultural Materialism."
C mnbridgeArchaeologicalJoumal
3(2):25740.
Binford,L. R. 1962."ArcheologyasAnthropology."AmeicanAntiquity
zg(z): zr7-25.
'AÄerrcan
- 1965'"ArcheologicalSystematics and the Studyof Cultur. P..or." Annquity3I(Z):
203-10.
Bintliff'i' 1991."TheContributionof an Annaliste/Structural HistoryApproachto Archaeology," in
The AnnalesSchool and Archaeology,ed.J. Bintliff, pp. 1-33.t-.i."r,". ü.riu"rsity press,London.
u"T1,i:"1P. 1973."The BerberHouse,"in RulesandMianings,ed. M. Douglas, pp.98*r 10.penguin,
DatUmore.
- 1977' outline of aTheory of Pracace,ftans. R. Nice. Cambridge
Universiry press,Cambridge UK,
Brand, M. 1984- lntendingmd, Acring: Toward a NaturaliTed
erion Theo$.-'MIT p..rr, cambridge
Mass.
Bra'del, E 1980. "Hisrory and the social Sciences:The Longue
Dwöe," in on Hdsrory,pp. 25_54.
University of Chicago press,Chicaeo.
Brumfiel, E. M. l99Z'" DistinguishedLe.tur. in Archaeology:
Breakingand Entering the Ecosysrem:
Gender, class, and Faction steal the Show" American Anthropolaglst
94(3): 55147 .
u","i:f. and D. Jarv (eds) 1991. Giddens'Theu'y of Structtnatioi' e"catic'i
Äppreciarion.Routledge,
LOnOOn.
Carr, C' and J' E. Neitzel (eds) 1995. Style, SocieryanÄ Person:
Archaeolagical
and Ethnological
Perspectiues. Plenum, New york.
Clark' J' E' and M' Blake 1994."The Powerof Prestige:Competitive
Generosityand the Emergence
 AgencY in archaeologY 15

Deuelopnentin
of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica," in FactirmalCompetitionand Political
and w. Fox, pp. 17-30. cambridge university Press,
rhe Neru world, ed. E. M. Brumfiel J.
CambridgeUK.
Clarke, D. 1968. Analyrical Archaeology.Methuen, London'
ed. A' Giddensand
cohen, l. 1987."strucruration Theo{ anclSocial Praxis,"in socialTheorl Today,
J. H. Turner, pp. 2?3-308. Stanford University Stanford'
Press,
Conkey,M.\7.andJ.M.Gero1997'"ProgrammetoPractice:GenderandFeminismin
Archaeology." Annual Reo'iewof Anthropolagy76: 411-37 '
Gender." Aduancesht
conkey, N{. v. a.,d J. D. spector 1984. "Archaeology and the study of
Archaeolo$calMethod andTheory 7: 1-38'
New Archaeology'"
Corvgill, C. i. f SSf . "DistinguisheäLecture in Archtreology:BeyondCriticizing
Ameican Anthropologrst9 5 (3) 255 | -7 3.
Agency of Technical
Dobres, M-A. 1995. "Gender and Prehistoric Technology: on the social
Strategies."lVmli ArchaeologJ Z7(l\: 75-49 '
Mattered," in
- lgiga,,,Of paradigmso.,d W"y, of Seeing: Artifact Variability As If People
of Matenal Cul"twe,
rc the InterpTetanon ed' E' Chilton, pp'
Material Meanings; Critical Approaches
?-23. University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City'
- ,,Technology's Links and Chaine.stThe Processual Unfolding of Tächnique and
1999b.
Vieurs,ed' M'A'
Technician," in The Social Dyrcmics of Technology:Practice,Polirics,mÄWorll
D'C'
Dobresand C, R. Hoffman, pp.17446. SmithsonianInstitution Press,Washington,
Archaeolog.Blackwell,
- in press.Tächnologyond So.fu Agency: OutliningaPracnceFrameworkfor
Oxford.
University
Duke, p. 1991.PoinrsinTjme: SrrucrrrreandEuentinal-ateNorthernPlainsHundngSocietl
of Colorado Press,Niwot.
',The of
Fedigan,L. 1986. Changing Role of \7omen in Models of Human Evolution." Anntnl Review
AnthroPology15: 75-66.
Foucault,M. 1994."Two Lectures,"inCtthurelPowerlHistorJ, ed' N' Dirks' G' Eley'and S' B' Ortner'
pp. 200-21. Princeton University Press,Princeton'
Gurfi.,k.l, H. 1984. Srudiesin Ethnonethodolo,y;-. Polity Press,Cambridge UK.
in The Socio-Politics
Gero, J. M. 1983."Gender Bias in Archaeology:A cross-culturat Perspective",
ecl. J. M. Gero, D. Lacey and M. Blakey, pp.51-?. Research Reports no.23,
of Archaeologl,
Universityof Massachusctts, Amhersr.
- ,iSocio.Politics and the Woman.at-l-lome ldeology." Ameican Antiqtitl 50 342-50'
1985.
Conwolicrion in Social
Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problemsin Social Theory: Acnon, Structure,anÄ
Anall'sis.University of CalifcrrniaPress,Berkeley'
California
- 1984. TheConstitutiono/Socierl:Outlineof aTheoryof StrucunationUniversityof
Press,Berkeley.
New York'
Gramsci,A. 19?1.Selecionsfrom thePrisonNotebooks.International Publishers,
PastanÄ Present.University of TäxasPress, Austin'
Halperin, R. H. 1994.Cuhural Economies
Power: Principles for creating Socioeconomic Inequalities," in
ttuy.l..,, B. 1995. "PathwaysTo
'Foundations
of sociallneqnnlity,ed.T, D. Price and G. Feinrnan,pp. 15-86. Plenum,Nerv York'
71t 517-36'
Hegmon, M. IggZ."Archaeolc.,gicalResearchon Style." Annual Retrietuof.Anthropologl
Today,ed. A. Giddens and J. H. Turner,pp'
H"iitog., J. 198?,"Ethnomethodology,"in SocialTheory
224-72. StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford'
Press,CambridgeUK'
Hodder, l. (e<1.)1982a.Symbolicand StntcuuaLArclveologl.CambridgeUniversiry
- (ed.) 1982b. Slmbols in Action; Erhnoarchaeological Srudiesof Mateial Cubure, Cambridge
University Press,CambridgeUK.
- 1986. ReutingThePast.CambridgeUniversity Press,CambridgeUK'
- (ed.) 1987a.Archaeology as Long-TermHisrory.CambridgeUniversity Press,CambridgeUK'
- (ed.) I9B7b.The,\rcWä"ton of ConterualMeanings.CambridgeUniversiry Press,CambridgeUK'
Agenrsr Genderanl AgencyinTheory andPractice'University
Kegan Gardiner, l. (ed.) 1995. Proc,oking
of Illinois Press,Urbana.
 16 Marcia-Anne Dobres andJohn E. Robb

Knapp, A'8. lggla. "Archaeology and Annales: Time, space, and change,"
in Archaeology,Anrwlzs,
and Ethnohixul, ed. A. B. Knapp, pp. 1-21. Cambridge University piess,Cambridge
üK.
- (ed.) 1997b. Archaeology,Aruules, andEthnahixml. Cambridge
University pres, CambridgeUK.
Leone, M. P. 1986' "symbolic, Structural, and Critical ArchaeoLgy," in AÄerican
Archaeotogypost
and Future: A Celebrationof the Societyfor Arneican Archocotog11935-1985,ed.
D. J. Melär, D.
D. Fowler and J. A. s.ablofl,pp. 415-38. Societyfor American Archaeology,washington,
D. c.
- 1995. "A Historical Archaeology of capitalism." Ameican AnrhropotagltgT: ?51-6g.
Levy, J. 1992' Orayui Reuisited:SociolSnatification in an "Egalitarian" Comminiry.
School of American
Research,Santa Fe.
Marcus,J. and K. V. Flannery lgg6.ZapotecCiuilization: HowlJrbanSociety Evolued.inMexicot
Oaxaca
Valley.Thames and Hudson, London.
Marquardt,W H. 1992."Dialectical Archaeology."ArchaeologkalMethodmÄTlwor14:
l0l-40.
Marx, K. 1963 [orig. 1869]. The EighteenthBramaire of Louß Binaparte.lntemational publishers,New
York.
Marx, K' and F. Engels1970 [orig. 1846].Tfu German ldeologl.lnternationalpublishers,
New york.
McCall' J' 1999."Structure, Agency, and the Locus of the So.i"l, Why Post-Stnrcural
Theory is Good
for Archaeology," inMaterial symbols:culuue andEcorunnyinpreiistory,ed.
J. E. Robb, pp. l6*2l,
-Carbondale,
for Archaeological lnvestigations,Southem Illinois Universiry
- ,Center 'öambridge IllinÄis.
Miller, D' and C. Tilley (eds) 1984. ldeobgy, Power,md Prehistory.
University press,
CambridgeUK.
Mithen, S. 1990. Thwghtful Foragus: A Srudyof PrehistaricDecisionMcking.
Cambridge University
Press,CambridgeUK.
Moore, H. L. 1986. space, Text, and Gender: An AnthropologicalStuÄyof the
Mmakwet of Ken1a.
CambridgeUniversity Press,CambrideeUK.
Ortner, S' B. 1984. "Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties." ComparatiueSrudies
in Societland
History 26( I ): 126-166.
Parker Pearson,M. and C. Richards (eds) 1994. Architecnueand,Order: Approaches
rc Socialspace,
Routledge,London.
Parsons,T. 1949 [orig. 1937]. The Strttctureof SocialAccion.Free Press
of Glencoe, New york.
Peebles,C' 1992. "Rooting Out Latent Behaviorism in Prehistory" in Representations
In Archaeology,
ed. J.-c. Gardin and c. Peebles,pp. 352-84. Indiana university press,Bloomington.
Price,T' D. and G. M. Feinman (eds) 1995.FounAadonsolsocial lruqualitl.plenum press,New york.
Rapp, R. R. 1977. "Gender and Class:An ArchaeologicalConsiderationof
KnowledgeConceming
the Origins of the Stare." DialecticalAnthopolagyZ:309_16.
Redman,C, 1977."The 'Analytical Individual' and PrehistoricStyle Variability,"
in The Indiuiduolin
Ptehistory:Satdiesof Varinbilityin ScyleinPrehistoricTechnologies,ed,Hill andJ.
J. Gunn, pp. {1-53.
Academic Press,New York.
Robb' J. E. 1998."The Archaeologyof symbols."Annuar Reuiewof Anthropology
27:32946.
- 1999. "Secret Agents: Culture, Economy, and Social Reproduction,,l in Mateial
Symbols:
Culmre andEccrnrnnyin Prehisrory,pp. 3-15. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Southern
Illinois Universiry,Carbondale,Illinois.
Sahlins, M. 1981' Historica| Metaphorsand Myrhical Realides: Suucturein the
Early Histnrl of the
Sandn,ichlsland,sKngdom. Universiry of Michigan press,Ann Arbor.
Scott, J' 1985. We@onsof theWeak: EnterydnyFormsof PeasanrResisrcnce. Yale University press,New
Haven.
Sewell W' H. Jr. 1992. "A Theory of Structure: Dualiry Agency, and Tiansformation.,,
American
JournalofSociology98(l): 1-29.
Shanks,M' and C' lilley 1987' Re-cmsrntctingArchaeotogy.Cambridge University Press,CambridgeUK.
Shennan,S. 1989."Cultural Tiansmissionand Culturai Change,"L wnort Näi
A CloserInok at the
Processof Innouation, ed, s. E. van der Leeuw and R. Tor.enc", pp.
33G46. unwin Hyman,
London.
silverblatt, I. 1988."\(/omen in Srares."Annua|Reviewof Anthropology 17:427-60.
 Agencl in archaeologY 17

Spriggs,M. (ed.) 1984.Marnsr Perspectiues in Archaeobgl. CambridgeUniversity Press,CambridgeUK.

Storp.t, M. 1985. "The Spatial and Temporal Constitution of Social Action: A Critical Readingof
G iddens. " Ent,ironment and Planning D : ty
Socie and Space3 : 407-Z 4,
Sztompka,P. 1991.Societyin Acdon. University of Chicago Press,Chicago'
Switzerland'
- i"a ) ß94a. Agencland structtne: ReoientingSooal Theory. Cordon and Breach,
- lgg4b. "Sociery as Social Becoming: Beyond Individualism and Collectivism," in Agencl and
Srrrrcrure: ReorienringSocialTheory,ed. P.Sztompka, pp. 251-82. Gordon and Breach, Switzerland.
Thomas,J. 1991. RethinkingrheNeolichic.cambridge university Press,cambridge uK.
- 1996. Time, Culture and Identity, Routledge, London.
Tilley, C. 198Z."Social Formarion,Social Structuresand Social Change," in SymbolicandStructural
Archaeology, ed. I. Hodder, pp. 26-38. CambridgeUniversity Press,CambridgeUK'
- 1993. InrerprewtiueArchaeologl.Berg, Oxford.
- 1996.An Erhnography o/ rheNeolichic.CambridgeUniversity Press,CambridgeUK.
Tiigger, B. 1989. A History of Archaeologlca)Thought. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge UK.
Tringham, R. E. 1991. "Households With Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric
Architectural Remains,"in Engendering Archaeology:.WomenandPrehistor1, ed. J. M. Gero and M.
'W.
Colrkey,pp. 93-131. Blackwell,Oxford.
Tumer, S. 1994. The Sociol Theory of Pracnces:Tradition, Tacit Knowledge,onÄ Presuppositions.
University of Chicago Press,Chicago'
'Appropriate Metrology' of Human Action in Archaeology,"in
Wobsr, H. M. 1997. "Towards an
Time, Proce.ss,and Snuctured Tiansfortnationin Archaeology,ed. S. E. van der Leeurv and J.
McGladc, pp. 426-48. Routledge,London.