Mark p, Leone University a t M aryland, College Park 415

s~':'bo Iic, Structu

ral, and
Critical Archaeology

Introduct' IOn

chaeology) C'
What i ymboli ar ch neology, slrucrural archaeology, and critical ar-
o they h),lVen [hat [heyare d'ff I erenr approaches 10 archaeology what
umform
d . are. And' given th at rhese rwo approaches do not compose
' a
[hem and movement
' ' w h at are we.L
currents and cross-currents between
rnarn (ream ar haeology'
a th arch aeo Iogy, uucrural
ology ymbolic ' archaeology, and critical archae-
of the' uire I eren! approaches to archaeological data, None
re ree qui d'ff
Iradl'll,m 151 completely defined as yet, None groWS directly out of either
all thre h ea 197) or the new archaeology (Clarke 1973) and yet
ona (L ch
(hem e ave drawn ignificant artention, The archaeologists involved in
assu appear to be involved in rhe same issues and operate bwith the same
8
Ke mpnon (Hodder 1981a, Spriggs 1984; Miller 19 :z. ; Moore and
thaI h 3, these approaches are being defined it is becoming dear 8
. ene 198 ) A
Pa I ey are not necessarily headed for similar analyses (Bender 19 5,
' 19 4, t IS, however clear ro anyone who reads the arc aeo-
nerson 8) I . h
me~QI
10 . I"iterature roday, rhat many archaeologistS are en
concerned
84 with
'
19;mn (Hodder 19 :z.a, 1983), ideology (Kristains 19 ; Paynter
g 8
r ,; Handsrnan "'" ,,'" ,,',), ,o"cr." (hl,dm" and6 R",",""
_~7, Glassie 197" Freidel 1981) and CogmtlOn (Deetz 19 7) In ica past
h
soo' eues, Ln order to
,,' approach such areas wroug the archaeolog I
," rd, id as, models and """I. hav .~ b"ro~d ,,' .,''''
rom ,Strll 1'lIr.lism,
c gnirive anthropology, symbolic analysis, and
~'~"m (B" udri "'" ,,", G,,,,hIII ,,'" God,lIa ,,", ,,,,, M,d
assoux r97~; Wallerstein 1976), ' '
Symbolic, structural, and crirical archaeology are chosen 10 thIS es-
 416 American Archaeology Past and Future Leone I Symbolic, Structural, and Critical Archaeology 417

say because their spokespersons are increasingly vocal and widely read, , af cu Iture, w hich sees people , as actors,
This is the recursive qua Irty
and because their differences are not as clear within the field as they ,
symbols as central to human existence, an d rnateri en al culture
. In context

should be. The point of this essay is not to address the origins of these ,. Its capacity . to order human life, d " I
as analogous to language In
approaches, whether they are mainly American or British, nor to identify
The second crucial issue be In sym b a liIC, struetura] 'h an ki
hi d cnnca
d f
schools of thought associated with universities or with particular schol- ' All proaches deny t e In 0
archaeology is an emphasis on mearung. ap . ith h
ars. The point is to identify the basic assumptions and to see how they t be assocIated Wit I e new
materialism which has over the years come a I' Wh' Julian
are expressed in the five illustrations discussed and quoted below. . b ' d from Les re rte,
archaeology. As materialism was In enre Vavd d a
' H . and A P vay a, an
Steward, reinterpreted through Marvin ,arns f" f determin-
, h I It became a arm a
Four Issues
host of other, largely Amencan, sc oars, , th I' ts and all
B ' . h cial an ropo ogis
ism that has been avoided by most pns so .' hi h has been re-
American symbolic anthropo Iogists.
' Th e m atenaltsm h
w IC
II's that which
These three initiatives in archaeology can be understood by reference to . . ) d .tical arc aeo ogy
iected by symbohc (Hodder 1985 an cn I' I t hnologl'cal and
four issues. The first one is the interactive or recursive quality of culture. . . ff 'from eCOogtcar, ec ,
IS seen as a hierarchy a actors going .' d to a vaguely de-
Rather than supposing that culture, including the rules, behavior, and ' .'
d emographlc considerations to SOCIa . I orgamzatlon, an
things produced, is borne by people in a fairly passive and unaware fash-
fined ideological or religious organization. I h last twenty years'
ion, the assumption is that people create, use, modify, and manipulate , 'I . archaeo ogy, t e h
In a concrete historica sense In d rive studies of t e
their symbolic capabilities, making and remaking the world they live in. rkably pro uc
progress has revolved aroun d th e rema d' I foods and the
This does not necessarily mean the capacity to dominate, control, or even , d lant an aruma , d
natural environment, domesticate P I ort reproduce, an
to change culture in directive or politically forceful ways. It is, however, , d to supp y, supp , k
tools, shelters, and techniques use I While sometimes ta -
an effon to see that, like language, its use shapes our lives, and our lives . d whole cu ture. h
control a population, socrety, an a li haeology rejectSt e rna-
would be shapeless without it. The major impact in archaeology of this ing potshots at these achievements, symbo ICarfc ily life, deliberate at-
viewpoint comes in regarding material culture as an instrument in cre- , . . . he context 0 dal f th hr
tenaltsm that Ignores meamng, r nd the whole world a ,oug ~
ating meaning and order in the world (Conkey 1982; Donley 1982; Kus tempts to manipulate social relanons, a r981) of ermcal ar
1982; Moore 1982; Parker Pearson 1982), and not solely as the reflec- On the other hand, the sources (Habermahs r~~:;s do not renounce a
tion of economics, social organization, or ideology. te from teO, . where
chaeology which are here separa that in any SOCiety
The importance of this point is well developed by John Barren wbo , h logy argues rh func-
materialist tradition. Such arc aeo 1 'tatl'on to expeer smoO I
attempts to adapt Giddens (1979, 1981, r982a, 1982b) to archaeology. . . fl' t or exp OJ , 'maJor par
there are contrad,cnons, con IC, I did is to mISSa
archaeo ogy, hural sysrem
tioning or adaptation as th e new h' rhe parr of a cu. fljer
One attempt to break with functionalism involves shifting the focus ' h mee anJS , ffi ,tlve con
of analysis from the consequences of human action to the intentions of the culture. Ideology IS t e , . ns and thus prevents a Ideology
and motivations of that action .... In the theory of structuratlOn, that hides or masks the contradlCBrlO 'rt and Silverman 1979)'h rent or
r' arne . any co e
Giddens employs an analytical frame of the "time-space contin- from occurring (Althusser r9 7 ' d' archaeology 10
b n define In
uum" within which the actions of knowledgeable human subjects has, until recently, never ee h oJogy? Is it
reproduce the institutional conditions of their own existence. Gid- . I ac ~w~ae ,
opera nona way. , d b these appro d here is cause,
dens means ... discursive knowledge (which) encompass[es] the How is culture conceive y, What inreracts an w 8..a' Tilley
practical knowledge of "how to go on" ... , it is knowledge whICh 'k language. . (MIller r9' f
IS drawn upon for, and reproduced in, human action. Here the sub- levels, a system, or II e b I' archaeologistS f r a pictUre a
m a IC f rence
Barrett (n.d.) an d t h e s,Y
0 ,
Jects draw upon their reflexive experience of an objective world, f levels in pre e b moment baSIS.
'd h notion 0 oment y . d 'Jy
whICh appears constituted as a meaningful cultural resource, and act r982, 1984) avOl t e 'terealityonam. 'ons) sbapmg al
otla
upon those same external conditions to reproduce and t!ansform people using symbols ro neg f symbolS (OppOSltl d Scbele (in press)
them, bequeathIng the results of that action as the condItIons for berent set 0 F eldel an
Structuralists see a co d beloW from r
future action [Barrett n.d.: 5- 9 J. life, but in the examples use
418 American Archaeology Past and Future Leone I Symbolic. Structural. and Critical Archaeology 419

and Deetz (1977; 1983) we can see they are not so concerned with how grant a culture-free status to the self-proclaimed self-watching abilities
the oppositions are affected by use. For their part, critical archaeologists of Western scientific logic. There are two points: an unaware science IS
do conceive of levels in the Marxist sense, but see ideology as powerful ,
Ignorant , own ell1ture. F urtherv
of Its since meth 0d I'S itself of cultural
er, si .
in maintaining society, its coherence, and its continuity: ideology is what origin, it may ultimately not be possible to create or depend on a SCience
reproduces society intact. f h past to produce any more t han
ate an aa strong i t rpretatlon. ThIS does
srronz me,
The third issue that helps to define both symbolic and critical ar- .
not Imply that all pasts are equa, I b ut It oes Imp Iy that any SCiencethat
it d ' ,
chaeology is a critique of the function of the past and scientific knowl- b e I',ieves , I".
itself to be active in tth e cross-cu Itura I traditions or,,' rn the law-
edge of it in society. Symbolic (Shanks and Tilley in press) and critical searching tradition,
di h
or in the tra inon t at regar
ds an examlOatlOn of ItS
, bii di
archaeology (Gero et al. 1983; Leone 198ra, 198Ib; Meltzer 1981) as- connection
,
with modern society as mere socia p
'1 hilosophy IS in 109
, '
sert the active role of the past in the society that is interested in it. Both , ,' f h I y' we and our insn-
Itself to the fundamental proposincn 0 ant ropo og " 1
approaches assert that the past, whether it be known through the sci- ' t outside of cu rure.
tutions are cultural creations, and we d 0 not exrs I I f m the
ences of the past, the vernacular media, myth, or through museums, is Critical archaeology has not dirvorced itse i If so cornp ere y ro ,
an active vehicle for communicating and composing meanings. Neither d the last twenty years m
emphasis on scientific method develope over s that the
position will allow archaeology to assert scientific neutrality, or its role , I»' h larly context mean
archaeology. The word "critica In any sc a , f h discipline and
as the objective producer of accurate knowledge about the past (Wylie . ' d d'scovenes 0 t e
relations between the assumptIons an I d b,'ect to exami-
1981,1985), or even as a socially irrelevant pursuit, Symbolic archaeol- hei , . I cern an are su
t err ties to modern life are a centra con , lly sub)'ects the
ogy asserts that since the past is a social creation, and that because it , h . tion automatIca
nanon (Habermas 1971). Sue examma, di line to questions
exists in most societies in endless variations, and further, that because di . f science or iSCIP
questions, methods, and Iscovenes a a di the questions, influ-
archaeology produces one of these variations, the priviliged status of ar- which ask how the scientist's surroundl".gs hlctate It or more usually,
chaelogy must be examined for its own good. Where does its right to . ith r t e resu S ,
ence the method, and predetermme ei e I irical studies do not
dominate come from? Why is the archaeological interpretation consid- . . . . N nethe ess, en 1 .'
their meaning and InterpretatIon, 0 t-nce or disclphne. The
ered the only correct one? , ' h
of a serene
t
hope for or cause the Impovens men k ictsrn nor a pointless rela-
Critical archaeology forcefully asserts with Marx that history is al- , is to produce
POint 'd
neither a e b'l'
i ,tatlng s eptlCIS
ways produced in the service of class interests (Bloch 1977; Gero 1983; tivism. , ' h symbolic archaeologists
Wobst 1983). Furthermore, it asserts that appeals to scientific objectivity , k d by Bntls H dd
The most prominent war one f Northwest Europe. 0 er
are likely to obfuscate discussion of the assumption of objectivity. Thus, is with different aspects of the BronzeAge 0 8 ) Shennan (1982), Kns-
an exploration of the political function of archaeology may produce both (I982b), Shanks and Tilley (1982) Till;y (~~v: t~ken a stratified sOCIery
a consciousness of the social function of archaeology as well as a set of tiansen (1984), and Parker Pearson (19 4) ccess to wealth, and asked
questions for archaeology to address that may be of greater social bene- " k d differences m a 'I es of the
I". whIch there were mar e t d The" ana ys
fit. Thus, while symbolic archaeology on the one hand is aware that the , 'd d and perpetua e . 'I soeiated
how was power JustIfie , use , t that the r"ua s as
Age sugg es f I to con-
past is a social construct and is just as dynamic a part of culture as lan- standard remains of the Bronze, sed by the power u, h'
guage, critical archaeology, on the other hand, sees history as ideology, d t nstls were u h lations Ip
with burials, barrows, an u e, f equality when t at re I e
and likely to be pernicious if ignored. Therefore, attention to archaeolo- I f h eXistence 0 h na yses ar
vince the less powerfu 0 t e b ' ssumptions in t ese a d but
gy's ideological status may produce important, archaeologically answer- , ' 'h' The asIC a or gOO s,
was actually dlmllllS mg, al access to power" ' i'Sa
able questions. b d on unequ d S atlficalion
that stratification was ase b ' tified or maske. tr , h I some
Fourth, from within symbolic archaeology has come a serious denial , 'd must e JUs tIOn IS I •
Is always tentative an , h' The second assump d obably
of the place of positivism in archaeological science (Hodder 1982a; d'ynamoc, not a sta bl e, relatIOns , Ip. 'I
ted with buna , ca,
n be use , pr
f he situation
MIller and Tilley 1984). Within critical archaeology the critique is less 'k h se assOCia h ' lice 0 t
material items, Ilet 0, II involved of t e JUS , society in-
severe in its implications and more hopeful of sustaining the tradition of . . nVloce a d continue
I". mu al contextS, to co , 1 conflict, an SO to
the later sixties and seventies. Symbolic archaeology is not willing to , potentia
and thus to neutra IIze
 420 American Archaeology Past and Future Leone I Symbolic, Structural, and Critical Archaeology 421

tact. This precis of the argument distills too much, however, to see the stable widely scattered, also hierarc , hiica I groups. The groupsh changed d b
difference between a symbolic and a critical interpretation. ' in and h Thus there a to e
and so did people's places In an among t em. d hi
Hodder's (I982b) argument shows cogently what he is after. In the . h 'changed an t ISwas
negotiation over place, which means t at meamng , This par-
Dutch Neolithic there are a series of well-known phases marked by dif- ' f matenal culture. ISpar
facilitated through the use a f many items a f it mphasis
ferent settlement, subsistence, and ceramic patterns. Early on, settle- , ki tant because 0 I Se
ticular illustration of Hodder s war ISimpor , I'ty of mate-
ments were nucleated, agriculture was intensive, and pottery was deco- , hasi the recursive qua I
On meaning and context, ltS emp asis, on I' dividuals not
rated in clearly bounded areas. Later, pottery decorations ale related to that peop e as In ,
rial culture, which in turn al Iows us to see " als which are
each other (Hodder 1982b:I6S). , buri d take part 10 ntu
as population aggregates, die, are unec, d I pottery vessels
The pottery designs of [phases] A to E has been described as incor- genuinely significant III t elf ives, m ake , use,', an hre y on d furthermore,
, " in th ' I'
fli wlthm t em, an
porating increasing numbers of contrasts and oppositions. Complex to help define their lives, reso Ive can rcts h haeological record.
communal burial and associated ritual are known throughout the hat rhi , ion
t at this is an mterpretanon a e e, of I ments of t e arc II part of Europe IS ,
early ... phases. But in phases F and G ... megaliths cease to be , rside of a sma
The validity of this interpretation au k mally separated as-
constructed. , .. The construction of tombs in the early [phases] ar- , , " bTt to ta e nor
gues for the presence of corporate groups and ... the use of com- Irrelevant; its strength hes 10 ItS a I I Y h lationships that pro-
, d ticulate t e re d
munal burial mounds and monuments ... symbolize local compet- peers of archaeological data, an to ar, itual settlement, an
, ' f b 'I bSlStence,nruai, di
ing groups and lineages in north and west Europe .... The tombs, duced them. Consideration 0 una, su fli cts and contra !C-
and an ideology related to ancestors, may have functioned not only . f h stresses, con 1 , .
their changes over time in terms ate nonal archaeologIsts,
to legitimate dominant groups, but also to legitimate their tradi- havi mong conven ,
tions is not at all normal be avior a ind h article. Hodder ISop-
tional rights tied to one place [Hodder 1982b:IJO], te
Also, there is obviously a hypot esis h'behm h ds the fabric of the past for °
[Given change to dispersed settlement, contradictions emerge be- posed to variable testing of the kind that s re nt Hodder's piece does
, ired I e in the prese, If
tween] dominant and subordinate groups to emphasize traditional, an accuracy that has Imute va u °
f racity; it ers an
ending
stable ties to ancestors, in the context of shorter term, expanding not offer a conclusion wit, h a sta t ed degree °
d d vechanged by orher archae-
settlement .... [Consequently] the decrease in identifiable contrasts , b expan e or , .. t proc<-
which is plausible, which can e b ing strict poSltlVlS
and categorical oppositions in the pottery forms and decoration of ld be done y USI
ologists just as easily as cou
the late [phases] could have acted to deny the earlier social distinc-
nons, and to emphasize connections and interrelationships. By ex- dures,
pressing a decreased concern with categorization and by drawing
less attention to the boundaries between these categories, a new pat-
tern of social and economic relationships could be set up [Hodder A Case of Structural Archaeology fi f dis-
1982b:IJI].
, e have the bene t 0
, 10 y as a topiC, w d continually. Irs
The material culture [burial, pots, axes] is organized into a complex In isolating symbohc archaeo gh ' being elaborate, d a on dIe
h I gy t at IS Slve ar
senes of categories and oppositions so that the associated activitieS Cussing a form of arc aeo a 'tegration of the mas I 1982' Kus
c~n playa part in drawing attention to and legitimating individ~al , ,,' lve an 10 I (Don ey ,
major contributions lOVO 'I thnoarchaeo ogy " of dIe new
nghts In a context in which there is increasing potential for the diS- lithiC tS ed' cnnque
Northwest European N eO ' n 1982) an ItS , 'n it is clear
ruptIOn of those rights" ... , On the North European plain .. , P k r Pearso mmano ,
groups mamp~lated burial, pottery and the symbols ... in order to 1982; Moore 1982; ar e I 'mportant, Upon eXa , Jared from dIe
maintain, traditional rights .... The new process of legitimization archaeology are also, obvJOuSy'hlevements cannot be ISO
I y'saci Igy
Iesolved the earlIer contradictions ... [as did the] symbolic distInC- that symbolic archaeo og ctural archaeo o· t conrempora-
mt. ive or steu overnen.. l~
tIOns In pottery and .. , the daily activities associated with .. , ItS progress made by cog I gy exists as a m k what 's Its re a
use" [Hodder 1982b:IJS, 176]. Since symbolic archaeo 0 't is reasonable t~ ~ t (Deetz 1977),
e
neously with structural analYfsetsh'el New England mm sg 7S) almec cos-
, Material culture was used by people in institutional settings to ne-
tionship to reconstrUCt'ons
I
a 'in ' ' (Glassle I
VirgHUa '
gotIate the change from stable, closely settled hierarchical groups to un- f folk housIng
the cognitive rules a
422 American Archaeology Past and Future
Leone I Symbolic, Structural, and CriticalArchaeology 423

mology (Furst 1968), or Maya cosmology (Freidel 1981)? A number of the form of public monuments, Exactly the opposite is true ~~:~~
American archaeologists have been concerned with symbolic, or in a Par- Classic penod. The legitimation of individual rulers through g ,
sonian framework, cultural issues for some time. For many, indeed most, ogy and supernatural charter and in public space Withpublic partJc-
' , 0 f
culture is a level of meaning or thought that includes values, cosmology, tpatton seems to have b een t hee ori
pnme rna tiIV ation for the
"
erecnon
' db'
public art in the Classic period. Those [later] rulers legltlmlzfF t;lf
patterns held unawares, or structures composed of oppositions. Such a
positions by claiming identity as the gods of the cosmogram rei e
reality exists alongside and is independent of social organization. Culture
and Schele in press: 1.7-1.9], " s in the con-
facilitates social reality. Further, these archaeologists do not find cause This innovation in the Late Pre-claSSICperiod occur , '
for change or stability in anyone level of reality, but rather reinforcement d " n of Maya society m
text of a rapid and profoun reorgamzallo, d table
, b legitimate an accep
hetween them. Most would agree with the recursive quality of material which a heretofore de facto eIire ecomes I anded access to
culture, but as an afterthought not as a basic operation to start with. For to the general populace. The result is a great y ef~assive centers
labor and goods celebrated in the construcncn 0
these archaeologists, it is culture or symbols that are recursive with
[Freidel and Schele in press: 3I J.
changes in politics, settlement expansion, dynastic or governmental shift,
. osition ... to reverse str~te-
or subsistence. Structural and cognitive scholars also would find a recur- , . , the Lowland Maya were not map owth and other indige-
sive relationship between archaeological constructions and the society of gies of production and trade, populatlOd' grcreasedsocial complex-
the archaeologists inevitable. Except for Kehoe (1984a, 1984b) none
seems to have pursued it yet as a research strategy. All these archaeolo-
nous factors reinforcing the trend toW
d
s in ic social conditions, an
ity and inequality. In the face of these ynam untenable and finally
' b e mcreasmg Yl I' '
ideal of social equa Iity ecam del of reality which made e insm
gists favor interpretation over the testing of precisely arranged variables,
underwent transformation to a rna 'I It was the explOSivere-
hypothesis fashion, as suggested by an approach from positivism. , The sOCIaresu d
both rational and necessary, I laces celebrating the new or er
When one reads Deetz, Glassie, Freidel, Furst, Hall, or some of the lease of energy invested m centra p
others, there is a horde of data, and tremendous emphasis on an idea of [Freidel and Schele in press:36]. ith t blishing the power of the
complex dimensions to fit all the archaeological pieces together. Such [Freidel and Schele finish off Wit es a ffectivelydescribed,]As
authors attempt to produce a whole that either corrects a previous error symbols whose political use they h:::J t7e:us] provide a potent '~d
metaphor the twin ancestors [Sun I' ages communities, a
of archaeological fragmentation or because it replaces overly simple ex-
planations of social change.
, d'
age for lateral bloo lies
between me, f h same
h cycle, As twins are a ~l d
peoples adhering to the same myr f the same ancestrY,an. 00:
d
David Freidel's work on Maya cosmology is a useful example. He womb and blood, so all Maya are a lues and their kinship ,sanc
has been working for years on Maya iconographic images and, along Brotherhood lends itself tode~:~ll~~~~;: ranked, and]~:r~~~t~:d
with Linda Schele (Freidel and Schele in press), has tried to understand tions. [In the ClaSSICpeno Ytcosmic model, with rring that
, id I (ally corree By asse I
their meaning and textual place in terms of the changes in Maya society mg proVI es a ce es I .' d setting sun, . ". 'the hier-
, b the nsmg an 'gIVen m
Evening Star a ave th birth of the rwins, as , ioleof rank-
from the Preclassic to Classic to Posrclassic, or for about a thousand
time had passed between he Maya displayed thet"-dClPandSchele
years (roughly 1.00 B.C.-A.D. 800). Freidel and Schele begin by using oglyphic texts at Palenque" t nd concept. , , . [ rei e
changes in iconography to trace changes in the meaning of the symbols ' m
ing, of inequa IIty, 'theIr Icon a
that are associated with political power. in press: 37], , raphy is not
showing the Iconog crur-
The Late Pre-classic symbolic model was based on the passage of
The mass of data on the e~:e;~:sented, the clear used ;:;poses at
Venus as Morning and Evening Star with the rising and setting of included in the excerpts, Were Id be unmistakable. Fred'Me a'rhese
. '(ons wou L Ian aya;
the sun, . , . They developed an amazingly effective cosmogram .. , alism to highlight OpPOSII 1 rion among the ow, 'th neither
!tural revo u mng WI
which the commulllty could verify by simply observing the sky. As a social as well as a cu s mutually suppa 'd n invasion
'multaneo u , d depen 0
the model was expa~ded and adapted .. , two processes of change are independent b ut Sl, h t there is nO nee to Thus along
stand out, The hlstoncal identities of Late Pre-classic rulers have not ' SIStSt a h changes, ,
causing the other. H e III which to base t e h' k'ng order into
been found rec,orded in public space, suggesting that personal and ' bance on Ie [ JO I
or environmenta I d Istur , Freidel seespeop
hlstoncalldenmy of rulers did not require permanent verification JO , haeologrstS,
with the symbo IICarc
 424 American Archaeology Past and Future Leone / Symbolic. Structural. and Critical Archaeology 425

their world through the use of central, powerful, and pliahle symbols. , h mbolic archaeologists. Deetz is
of the two points they share With t e sy, ) that finds expres-
These symhols initiate behavior and rationalize it as well. " ' f thought (ItS power
occupied with the consistency 0 , itted t huilding a case
In Freidel and Schele's treatment of material culture is the under- , I' He IS commnte 0
sion in a vast array of matena Items. f f ctionally unrelated
standing that material objects are recursive or forming. Friedel can be , kid d erse ranges a un
strong enough to lin arge an IV h' logic that takes a
and is more clear than Hodder, Shanks, Tilley or Sheenan about how , " , his approac , uSing
Items. He IS willing to attempt t I'" other cultural do-
ritual life and shrines and temple structures shaped people's lives. He can , , d fi ds rep icanon In
be, since ethnohistoric texts exist to give a good idea of what Mayan
culturally specific opposition an n, I ientific than Hodder,
D t IS no ess soen
cosmology was and what its manifestations were. No such help is avail-
mains as evidence of accuracy. ee z d wi h defining tests, but
, H 'I
Freidel or Levi-Strauss. e IS ess concerne Wit h a part of science ,
able from the Neolithic of Northwest Europe. We have long had the , , I' hich is just as muc
quite concerned With genera ity, w
evidence from linguistics, semiotics, and from structural and symbolic
anthropology that cultural materials form; they are active ingredients in as measurement. , h bolic archaeologists, are
Deetz, Glassie, and Freidel, unlike t e sym Insofar as Deetz and
thought and behavior. Nonetheless, when the material record was de- " f their questIOns.
fined as reflective of all aspects of behavior, the recursive quality of cul-
unconcerned with the ongins a , I e they are concerne d
,h I Amencan cu tur ,
Glassie are concerned Wit ear Y cerned with systemanc
ture, including material culture, tended to be ignored or considered sec- , d B t they are not can ,, f d in
ond, when at all. with American society to ay. u f the opposItIons oun
examination of researc h categone, ' s the locus
, a 'h
etation which t ey c reate '
, f ' f the rnterpr 'tterns
the data, or the SOCial uncuon a irh hy the Amencan pa
Indeed there IS , no parncu ' Iar concern Witd w is or is not, t h eIT ' product,
Cognitive ArchaeologV
, ib d or why to ay I , 0) to say
they so cogently descri e cease, . GI ssie (1975:189-19 I'
Deetz begins, hIS ' ana I'YSIS b Y USing'I a onomic po liri nca I and
, re 1-
"Ignored" may be a better way to characterize how theory within the (, h SOCia, ec ' I ngnew
that in Anglo-America w h en tel adapted.", deve cpr de
new archaeology handled material culture, and, indeed, culture as a
gious conditions
h d peop e if t they rna ,
... c ange ., thi s they did, the aru acts d " (Deerz
whole. Even so, Binford's early and central move of defining material
modes of thought, and [then] the t tak place in their min s
culture as being shaped by all levels of culture, and thus of reflecting all h had ra en
manifested the changes t at , in the
its components is an essential step in allowing Freidel to take Preclassic
81 lo-Amenca I
cylinders and Classic pyramids and postulate a cosmogram. True, the 19 :14). I d and throughout Ang int ar which
, " ' New Eng an , 'I 'the pOI
method Freidel employs is structuralist and its assumptions about what In Virginia, 10 '''individualism signa 5 This importanr
material culture encodes may simply coincide with the new archaeolo- late r Bth and 19th centunes'd' '[Glassie 1975:190J. , This shift
mun ity res I hOUSIng,
gy's. They may be independent, but they are not contradictory. Yet, the the face-to-face com d hanges in vernacu ar d' 'dualism is re-
statement IS 'b ase d on observe c , tion to IoneIy 10 Ivl )
recursive quality of the items is clearly seen by the symbolic and struc- alorgamza tz198r:I3'
from corporate commun rl'al world" (Dee
tural archaeologists, and it is not employed by materialist archaeologists. f the mate , be ran-
The Contrast in Freidel's position with Deetz (1977) and Glassie fleeted in many aspects a 'ctures [appearmgkito chim-
, intenSIve stru for shnn ng d
(1975), who are quite concerned with thought, is important because the The shift from extenSIve to red] that accounts behind of ells a~,
d
latter do not explore the impact of symbolically constituted behavior dam vs. symmetrically or e roofs, and tucking nl in similar ~rc J-
hack on the symbolic structure. Both Deetz and Glassie, one an archae- neys lowering ceIlIngs and New England not a f~hared seaung alt
, " ppears 10 . arance 0 . persona.,
ologist and the Other a folklorist, are concerned with reconstructing the sheds in VirgInia a I in the dlSappe f the very 1m f am
rule~ or cognitive patterns behind expressions of folk material culture. tectural hchadg~te~~:I:, s;nd ,the ap~~hr~;~r:founfdlh'~~:~~~~Si~dY
meals, s are 'llow deSIgn, w bs both 0 w' art of hJm
TheIr method is structuralist and they take the recursive qua.lity of ma- private urn and WI h' heads and cheru b' ortraying a P in rhe
tenal
S' CUlture more as a given , than as a topic for detailed description. both the earlider dda~1 ~o the communl~~pl~!e complex f'd:inanrly
mce Deetz employs Glassie, and uses archaeological data from New related the In IVI ;; b Simple forms 'cs to those pre
or her as it passe y~lticolored cerami
England 10 the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, he is a useful illustranon
rapid change from m
 426 American Archaeology Past and Future Leone I Symbolic, Structural, and Critical Archaeology 427

white and blue. In foodways, complex pottages and stews give way , ' own society. Just as myths
to discrete foodstuffs, served separate one from another. Like ceram- ogy may have some active Impact on our , ti n in the
h gh mical prognostlca 10
ics, gravestones, earlier made from slates, schists, and sandstones in about ancestors are verified t rou astrono, d ere used to
a range of colors-blue, red, green, black and buff-also become 8 d i h Classic Maya an w
Bronze Age (Thorpe 19 I) an in t e th ' econstructions of
uniformly white, carved from low grade local marbles. The disap- , follow at our r
support local power structures, It may , I d t have a social
pearance of borders on louvres, doors and windows in houses is , if d h h archaeclogica a a,
the past, which are ven e t roug I ' f ancient societies.
paralleled by the reduction in size and complexity of borders on , h are postu a nng or
gravestones, and at least a change in the average width and decora- function analogous to t e ones we I d ob,'ective science.
than a neutra an , d)
tive elaboration of the marleys (edges) of plates and saucers toward Archaeology thus, may b e more hi' nship just mentlone '
,I 1 re t e re ano
less framed, more open forms. And the shift to symmetry reflected How does an archaeo ogrst exp a I' n is known either
in central hall houses-tripartite and severely symmetrical-in all I ) 5 h an exp oraoo
And what will we know as a resu t. uc" I I is depending on the
of the Anglo-American world is paralleled by the emergence of a ' or cnuca ana yst , f
as phenomenological sel fore flecnon, firsr i that knowledge a
symmetrical relationship between the individual and his or her ma- , b hind the rst IS d
assumptions used. The assumption e h ategories and metho s
terial culture, utensils, foodstuffs, and burial pits [Deetz 1983:33]. , t e d throug I c Thus ethnograp hiIC,
another culture is always consntu
h cholar's ell ture. , ._
To arrive at the synthesis of the profound conceptual changes that that can never be freed from t e s 'I s contingent. ThIS pro
, I k wledge ISa way or
occurred in America during the r Srh century and that peaked before and, logically, archaeological. no, ' h 'f the distant orher cann
duces the skeptical posmon .. w hiic h ImplIes r at!. is always gOIng 'be to
1800, Deetz used oppositions employed by Glassie to describe Middle
h ff rt at knoWIng ,' d does
Virginia folk housing, and applied them to ceramics, foodways, mortu- be known independently, tee a Marxist pOSItIon an
ary remains, and music. The oppositions are intellect/emotion, private/ questionable. "I
A cnnca ana I'ysts stems fromh a ethnographIC'chaeo- or ar
, .. 1king the at er, 'I b sed and
public, artificial/natural substance, scattered/clustered, extensivelinten- not deny the POSSibIlIty a nOW II knowledge IS c ass- a ,
logical. Rather, the posmon arg
, . ues that a
5 ience is a po inca
I . lIy contIn-
. L
sive, complex/simple, framed/open, and nonsymmetry/symmetry. All
these fall under Levi-Strauss' larger opposition order/chaos or culture! histories are compose d for c Iss a purposes.
, ' c tal its own CUlrure , whIC"
nature. . ' ' h t SCIence IS par liti I and ecc-
gem enterprise. It IS not Just t a h it is subject to po Itlca 1 rhe
' obvIOUS
IS . , ant h ropo Ia gy, but t at ims leads to k nowle dge 0Ii d
with
Deetz has taken an interpretation, whicb one could call legitimately
' ' of those at
a hypothesis, and tried it on data from New England, where he showed nomic aims. An exammatlon 01 the quesno, ns , met 0 s,.
, d of the sources his argument IS
it has a strong ability to fit wide ranges of vernacular material culture. political uses of SCIence, an d Stemming from t I , allow
, 'pro uces. ch ologlSrs ro
As the idea assumes generality, both in domains covered and in space, it and results which the science b I' nd critical ar ae. 'rL which
becomes less particularistic but does not lose its ability to include local the unwillingness a f b at h sy m a Ie ah degrees a f cert alUry WI "
. ., to assert t e
Context. Deetz's current work in the historical archaeology of South Af- an unreflective pOSitiVISm (197 I) and
rica will provide a place to extend the idea. Once done outside of the its methods relate the past. d the work of Haber~as vere doubts
I base on I' n SUCli se
American Context, Deetz will, or may, face the worldwide impact of an Critical archaeo ogy~ , bolic a£chaeo ogy [ d tanding pasts
t Jam sym " h un ers f
organizational form for everyday life that stems from England and HoI- Lukacs (1971), d oes no I concern IS Wll the pasts 0
, hast rs Whar are d
land, or from the colonial process. Dealing with our direct ancestors about understandmg t e P h' tical concerns. h Third Wor! ,
ItS t eore blacks t e
leads, naturally enough, to the tie to ourselves, which is one of rhe central that are more relevant to h' ory' women, ,
ISsues in archaeology. 'daISt·
those who have been deme f'd ology? 'cal reading rhan
'h st a I e h rneneun 'ry
workers? What [S tepa more from er Ie deep prehlSro
Two initial efforts that stern made to disentangd 19 4) iIIustrare
Critical Atchaeology 8
,. I' have been d Lan aU k aItd
from crmcal ana ySlS d 5chrire 1977 an I b sis of our war
lrom myth. They (Perper an d 'th the cultura a
As soon as any archaeologist assumes the recursive quality of culture and d b ncerne WI b
why we shaul e co I ment can e.
the actIve quality of material culture, it follows logically that archaeol· ' entang e
what the results a 1 d IS
 428 American Archaeology Past and Future Leone / Symbolic, Structural, and CriticalArchaeology 429

These [myths] allow us to see the hunting model for what it is: a d . . ns This is especially
as a series of critical mom~nts an .tranSIll? .. , their emphasis on
mixture of biological facts and evolutionary concepts entangled in
true of Darwinian narratives, which, owrg to formation through
the constricting threads of western myth [the Genesis stories of eat-
natural selection, are often cast in t~rms ~ tra:e~ nor are they tran-
ing of the tree of knowledge, and eating meat after the f1oodJ. It is
struggle. Events are not inherently clmes, t;~n t~ other evenrs in a
these mythic notions that distinguish the visions of human evolution sitions, they acquire such value on y 10 re a I
... from those of modern ecologists and evolutionists for whom
series [Landau 1984:267]. . ] is that history can be ex-
human behavior is not dominated by irrevocable actions, but is [A third part of the narratrve structure Selectingevents and
above all, a matter of constant adaptation, flexibility, and plastic- . into a sequence. I'
plained by arrangmg events 'derations of causa uy
ity.... The most plausible ecological strategy would have been to , . 11 . valves consi f
arrangIng them sequentia y 10 be answered separately rom
avoid depending on only one foodstuff and to adapt a flexible,
... ; what happens next often cannot ed and how it all turns our.
mixed diet. In truth, there need have been no single act, no primal the questions of how and why It happen . oke specificlaws to
trigger, no expulsion from Eden to set off an irreversible series of Thus although scientific explananons may ,mnvust be di,tinguished
evolutionary changes. We need not have been shot into existence by , h explanatIOns .I d .
account for events ... ,suc d si I by the sequenna or enng
one major dietary change [Perper and Schrire 1977:458J.
J
from explanatory effects produce SImp termine whether scientific
of events. In other words, the task ISto ellaws are actually a func-
[The myth entangled point of view,] that hunting transformed the . I b ed on natura
explanations apparent y as[L d 1984:267]'
ancestral primate into man is found in the seminal essay by Wash- tion of narrative procedures an au .
burn and Avis.... [They argue that] a combination of tool-using twa changes are apparent 10
and meat-eating were therefore key factors in producing man .... In turning to critical archaeology now (Wylie in press). The
Ardr~y finally says explicitly what Washburn, Campbell, and others the analyses produced WI 10 a re
'tho flexive context t and interpretatIons
'of
only Imply. He lays bare the essence of hunting for the anthropolo- in b
first is that the relarionship etwe
en the presen
d ornic one. And, secon •
d it
gist, by statmg unequivocally that it lies at the center of human be- r ti al an econ d h eolog-
havior today and that its effects were not only powerful but irrever- the past is assumed to be a po I IC , d r intecprete arc a
. be dlScovere a . that the
sible.
. In his terms, we hunted because we were human , but more ISalso assumed that a past can " d impact of that ne so
unportanr, We are human because we hunted. The hunting model is . h ongms an 'd
ically that can comment on t e f hi tory is illum,"ate .
the counterpart of [the GenesisJ myth .... [Perper and Schrire ideological and c1ass-centere d n arure a d IS i the research 0f Handsman
1977:454J· II 'II strate 10 I of western
The two steps are we I u hi rical archaeo ogy d
ki on the 1510 rk Canaan an
(1980, 1981, 1982) war 109 . f modem towns I e f cr 18th
In a more technically exhaustive analysis, Landau (1983; . . h a senes a k [ike per e
Connecticut. He begms WIt ard appearance 100 I 10 Norman
1984:262-268) shows that
Litchfield which from theIr ourw h t of stereotypes fro
, 'II rig t au es
century New England VI age~d traditional calendar see; I~ceappeared
accounts of human evolution usually feature four important epi-
Rockwell, Grandma Moses, a '11 ge as a complex SOCiaPry of the dis-
sodes: terrestriality,. bipedalism, encephalization, or the develop-
ment of the bram, mteUigence, and language: and civilization, the The New England urba~ ~ aan increase in the diS:arlppearance of
emergence of technology, morals, and society. . .. [The order of around 1800 and "is marke y villages, as well as t e a 1:5)' The
y I98
these epISodes J may vary between paleoanthropological accounts tribution of wealth wlthm rnlan I'alization" (Hands mane made up of
. na spec . Ian dscap
[but] they tend to faU into a common narrative structure [which] commercial and pro fesslO 1 d an earher h !here were
can also describe traditional literary forms such as the folktale or 'll e rep ace oad were
classic New England VI ag 'de places in the rId villagedefinedas
hero myth (Landau 1984:266-267].
scattered farms with a few hW' was the New Eng ahnh accompanied ~t
. [One part of the structure which produces the uniform narrative] Why t en ss w IC sn-
'I.that hIStory can be seen as a meaningful totality. Behind this lies nucleated s,ettlements.,
agrarian and use d to
hide reI
h 'ndustrial proce d
. ued) Why is ted
«h mo ern
system... can
before" (Han sm
d an
t e Idea that scattered events of the past can be linked with the pre-
sent In an overall continuous series ... ; a sequence of events ... and why has that use contmlf f;om what appeare
orgaOlzed mto an intelligible story with a beginning a middle, and ate Itse 's (lot a
tuted so as to segreg America'Spast'
an end [Landau 1984:267J. ' ) th "modem
1981:16). ds to argue at
[A second part of narrative structure] is that history can be seen Handsman procee
�----------~--------
430 American Archaeology Past and Future Leone / Symbolic, Structural, and Critical Archaeology 431

more simplified version of itself but an entirely different [noncapitalisr]

earlier agrarian era which va Iue d im d epen d en ce , equality , and family.
'II By
world Thus the history of the village of Canaan is capable of being of the museum VI
extension it may also be the case t h at many d ages,
'
written to reveal the structural discontinuities and then to explore , di
historic houses living farms, me ia presenta, tions of the past, an VIrtu-
'de-
the missing pieces" (Handsman I98I:I8). To do so Handsman has iso- d hi or
ally all popular
'
isr y in, this country
uses of archaeology an
are I
h nvironments
lated the classes of artifacts that show the processes of industrially based " k i to examme sue e
ologica!. A critical archaeo Iogrst s tas IS h hi h political and
urbanization. These processes are explored because they are the origins , I and s ow w IC
that have an archaeologica component h F thermore such a
of daily life today and because they sustain exploitation and are hidden , , h eated tern. ur
cconorruc factors 10 the present ave cr , ised 'thin the setting
behind an ideology that says the processes have existed since colonial e disguise
study should show how those f actors ar
WI
times. ally not well
, Ii 'cal factors are usu
from the past. Such economic or po 1tI th 'to give them a his-
These industrial processes are recoverable archaeologically in a tav- 'II mate em, IS
understood in the present an d to I urn ied do He has esrab-
ern midden (I750-I850) by reasoning that d has trte to .
tory through archaeology as Han s~an h h archaeology, which
, ,
lished the switch to an 10 ustrra
industri 1 existence th roug f settlement pattern
during the first century of its use, when the center village of Canaan , h dt denybyt euseo . '
was an existence the society a 0 f the contradICtIOn
did not exist between I750 and 1850, the everyday lives of the in- , ' I essary because 0 .,'
habitants of the Lawrence Farmstead [the earlier use of the tavern] and architecture. The denia was nec I' f substantial dispanty 10
between the ideal of equa Irry an
, d the rea rty 0
Ide of shifting arm y
f I
did not differ from one year to the next. The range of activities
. I vents know e g Th
which took place, the equipment and facilities which were used dur- wealth and power. That d erua pre , d ropetty holdings, ese
ing these activities, and the deposited activities from them will tend relations, gender definition, wage relanon s, an ~ologist, in turn contrib-
to be homogeneous from one analytical unit to the next. l h
factors, when given a hiistory b Y a cnnca 'I" arc a producing hiisrones that
Once the process of settlement growth, socia-economic differen- "J
tiation, and commercial and professional specialization begin, this ute to an awareness of the ro Ief 0 capIta Ism The m point 10 , a cnnca ar-

principle of redundancy will disappear, to be replaced by everyday disguise but do not educate (Lukacs t9 7')'to create a consciousness of
d
lives which are variable and non-redundant from one moment to the chaeology is to undersran d rh e past 10 or er
next. The associated archaeological record of everyday life at the , , mbolic archae-
modern society, , central one 10 sy bl-
tavern [a later use of the farmstead] should become more individu- iousness IS a
The question a f consclOU tion stems rom the pro em f
f
ated ... whether specific [archaeological] units are compared to one haeol y The ques f the range 0
ology and in critical arc aeo og . d r Awareness 0 d f
another or to units '" of the earlier period [Handsman ent an pas. 'h past an 0
1981:13-14J. atic relationship between pres nt on interpreting r e f rhe ppro-
'II ftheprese blmo e a
possibilities for in uence a k apparent the pro e I d Hodder

Handsman (1981:14) reasons that undifferentiated deposits of ce-

the recursiveness of history, tn a
, es to this problem has e ulturally
. . SensJllVlty II asts are c
ramics, bottle glass, window glass, nails and construction hardware rep- pnatlOn of the past. h position that a p d b cause it waS
6) to t e 'rete e
1985:I- ,
2
resent a homogeneous way of life, and that a greater degree of dispersion (1984:2.5-32, e accurately mterp 'ce that pro-
f h m IS mar he praetJ
represents greater differentiation. And indeed "the earlier midden dis- constituted. If one 0 t e s methodology, then t d and that such a
plays a coarse-grained structure while the later midden, rellective of a derived from more ngoro~en as culturally constitute This is a paradOX-
duces rigor must also be s b basis for authofllY. th peoples and
period of urbanization, is characterized by a fine-grained ... individu- be a oguS 'hat 0 er d
ated ... highly differentiated ... deposit" (Handsman 1981:13-14). basis for accuracy may 'lly to Suggestmg t the other han ,
ical situation which leads loglca 'tical archaeology, on f domination
A critical archaeologist has taken a living environment, in this case , . n pastS. n c 'h h,story 0 I
classes develop thelt ow e' to wnte t e f archaeo ogy
the well-known New England village, and has shown that it was con- d'fficult cours . . I de the use 0
presents an equally I b d finition mC u
structed to be and remains a mask. That makes it ideology in the Marxist
and resistance, which must Y e I nd critical archae-
sense. The center villages so commonly assumed to be unaltered since the
I8th c t ' d d . , I' trUcrura, a I .. that
, en ury are on ee 19th century representations created by an In- Itself. . that symbo 1C,s . the new archaeo 0b'
There is no question developments m
dustnahzong elite to ground itself and its large variation in wealth in an re are two
ologists feel t h at t h e
 432 American Archaeology Past and Future
Leone / Symbolic, Structural, and Critical Archaeology 433

are unfortunate. One is that it has become so rational it is dehumanized, "

the past. This celebration gives present rea I"ity ad'depth it may not irabl
have,
and, as a result, it has diminished its ability to situate itself in its own I' ' the future an mevira y
society and has thus left archaeology vulnerable to a political critique. and acts to perpetuate current re anons into d d w: 11know culture
By "rational" is meant concern with the degree of certainty over conclu- must preclude challenges from those so exclu e b ~ a to know this
th t t IS our usmess
sions, a concern which has tended in the 1970S and 1980S to restrict works this way, but we a Iso k now a I bl greater choice as
' , , iousness
actively. And III the active consciousn is presuma Y
conclusions to subsistence, numbers of people, and numbers of things,
to whether simple duplication is our fate.
and away from social relations, symbolic relations, and the role of hu-
mans and of tradition. Much of the best of archaeology has become not
only mechanical but almost devoid of cultural context.
Acknowledgments
The unintended consequence of such heavy emphasis on a strict
epistemology has been a deepening of the chasm between archaeology the author at the
read byehaeoJogyand su b_
, the same tit' 1e as t hi15 'one was 'A
An essay With
and its own society. There has been no concern within the materialist
' for Amenean r
tradition in archaeology with how society shapes its own past. This is 1985 Denver meetings of the Sociery faders for comment.
t a number 0 re . d
true too for more traditional Marxist archaeologists in Europe and sequently sent out by the aut h or a h k which enunCIate
h
The comments indicated that t e app
roac ra en, h
t the best approac .
America. When Trigger (1984a; 1984b) pointed out obvious misuses of
d embers, was no , _
the past, he also implied that there is no dominant conceptual apparatus schools of thought by p J ace an m stressing basic assump
That essay was abandone d an t d he current one
within any kind of archaeology on which archaeologists can formulate a
response to his descriptions. There is nothing in materialist theory that tions was adopted. dsrnan and Robert W. Paynt~r
would tell us what to do in the face of the scandalous passivity toward I am very grateful to Russell G. Han, tion in both essays, DaVId
id and orgalllZ a
Our Own society which characterizes archaeology today. for major suggestions over leas fidenee to rnake th e needed
J. Meltzer provided t h e free dam and can ,
Thus, we can understand Hodder's assertion (1984) that hands are
to be kept off other people's pasts, for our own epistemologies are so h '
choices that led to bot pIeces. d observations were wnrtenC to
deadening. An analysis of the role of epistemology is the basis for the Thoughtful, important OpllllOnA]' B Kehoe, Daniel . I er, , ar-
" s an M'JI

claim by critical archaeologists that teaching is political action. These me by Barbara Bender, Ian Hodder'd t:d~n R. Willey.conversat1o;~
two assumptions are behind an attempt to reach the public with an mel Schrire Christopher Tilley, an GO. e and Alison wyhe were I
, d II H Mc uire,
understanding of how a past is constructed, and of the history of the with Arthur S. Keene, Ran a . d by John
central economic relations of modern society. The utter irrelevance of portanr sources of orientation. ished material has beengrante
. , to qu ate unpubhs id A Frelide.1
Permission
mast of historical archaeology today is taken to stand as witness to the
power of capitalism to disguise its Own history. Consequently, excava- C. Barrett, James F. Deetz, a nd Davl .

tions have been opened to the public in several places in the United States
on the East Coast (Leone 1983; Potter and Leone in press) and in An-
zona, not JUStto satisfy public curiosity, or to justify spending public Literature Cited , d PhilosoPhy,
money on archaeology, but explicitly to show that the past is not dug up; . atuses- In Lenin an186 Monthly
we think up and with the past. Such an ideological quality is the baSIS Althusser, Lows Id ologiealState APp;r wster,pages
1971 Ideology and \ Frenchby Ben re
"7- '
for understanding that the past can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, translated from t e k
including some that are quite manipulative. Review Press, New Yor . , ress Ann Arbor,
, G Silverman, . of MirhlganP ,
The idea of awareness invites professionals or practicioners to ask Barnett, Steve and M~r~n.,yday Life, UmvelSlty Man-
themselves to see that in celebrating fifty years of the SAA, the celebra- I979 Ideology an u oeialArrha,ology,
tion has to consist of decisions derived from current social practices. hodologyforS f GlasgoW,
Barrett, John C. f D' course' A Mer J UniversIty0
These are then used, largely unintentionally, to shape the celebration of n . d . The Field 0 rtmeo
IS
t
of Archaeoogr,
uscnpt, Depa