Thissecondeditionfirstpublished2010©2010BlackwellPublishingLtdexceptforeditorialmaterialandorganization

©RobertW.PreucelandStephenA.MrozowskiEditionhistory:BlackwellPublishersLtd(1e,1996)

BlackwellPublishingwasacquiredbyJohnWiley&SonsinFebruary2007.Blackwell’spublishingprogramhasbeenmergedwithWiley’sglobalScientific,Technical,andMedicalbusinesstoformWiley-

Blackwell.RegisteredOffice

JohnWiley&SonsLtd,TheAtrium,SouthernGate,Chichester,WestSussex,PO198SQ,UnitedKingdom

EditorialOffices350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148-5020,USA9600GarsingtonRoad,Oxford,OX42DQ,UK

TheAtrium,SouthernGate,Chichester,WestSussex,PO198SQ,UKFordetailsofourglobaleditorialoffices,forcustomerservices,andforinformationabouthowtoapply

forpermissiontoreusethecopyrightmaterialinthisbookpleaseseeourwebsiteatwww.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

TherightsofRobertW.PreucelandStephenA.MrozowskitobeidentifiedastheauthorsoftheeditorialmaterialinthisworkhavebeenassertedinaccordancewiththeUKCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct

1988.Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,or

transmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,exceptaspermittedbytheUKCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988,withoutthepriorpermissionof

thepublisher.Wileyalsopublishesitsbooksinavarietyofelectronicformats.Somecontentthatappearsinprintmay

notbeavailableinelectronicbooks.Designationsusedbycompaniestodistinguishtheirproductsareoftenclaimedastrademarks.Allbrandnamesandproductnamesusedinthisbookaretradenames,servicemarks,trademarksorregisteredtrademarksoftheirrespectiveowners.Thepublisherisnotassociatedwithanyproductorvendor

mentionedinthisbook.Thispublicationisdesignedtoprovideaccurateandauthoritativeinformationinregardtothesubjectmattercovered.Itissoldontheunderstandingthatthepublisherisnotengagedin

renderingprofessionalservices.Ifprofessionaladviceorotherexpertassistanceisrequired,theservicesofacompetentprofessionalshouldbesought.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataContemporaryarchaeologyintheory:thenewpragmatism/[editedby]RobertW.Preuceland

StephenA.Mrozowski.–2nded.

p.cm.

http://www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell

Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.

ISBN978-1-4051-5832-9(hardcover:alk.paper)–ISBN978-1-4051-5853-4(pbk.:alk.paper)1.Archaeology.I.Preucel,RobertW.II.Mrozowski,StephenA.

CC173.C662010

930.1–dc222009054212

ForLeslieandAmmie

ContentsListofTablesandFigures

ListofContributors

Preface

Acknowledgments

PartITheNewPragmatism

PartIILandscapes,Spaces,andNatures

1TheTemporalityoftheLandscape

TimIngoldPrologueLandscapeTemporalityTemporalizingtheLandscapeEpilogueReferences

2IdentifyingAncientSacredLandscapesinAustralia:FromPhysicaltoSocial

PaulS.C.Ta¸conIntroductionSacredLandscapes,SacredSitesDreamingTracksTheOldestSurvivingRockArtLandscapes,Art,andMeaning

References

3LandscapesofPunishmentandResistance:AFemaleConvictSettlementinTasmania,Australia

EleanorConlinCasellaIntroductionTheAdministrationofFemaleConvictsinVanDiemen’sLandTheRossFemaleFactoryDoingTrade:ALandscapeofResistanceSubversion:TheConvictLandscapeConclusionReferences

4Amazonia:TheHistoricalEcologyofaDomesticatedLandscape

ClarkL.EricksonIntroductionBiodiversityHistoricalEcologyTheNewEcologyLandscapesAmazonia:WildernessorCulturalLandscape?Amazonia:ACounterfeitParadiseorAnthropogenicCornucopia?NativeAmazonianPeople:WithorAgainstNature?AmazonianPeople:AdaptationtoorCreationofEnvironments?ElementsofaDomesticatedLandscapeConclusions:LessonsfromthePast?References

PartIIIAgency,Meaning,andPractice

5PracticeandHistoryinArchaeology:AnEmergingParadigm

TimothyR.PauketatNeo-Darwinism,CognitiveProcessualism,andAgencyTheoryShellTemper,Cahokia,andHistoricalProcessesTowardaNewParadigmNotesReferences

6Technology’sLinksandChaˆınes:TheProcessualUnfoldingofTechniqueandTechnician

Marcia-AnneDobresTheChaîneOpératoireandWhat’sHiddeninBlackBoxesTheDialecticsofGenderandTechnologyPolitics,Identity,andTechnologyintheCommunalModeofProductionThePoliticsofSocialAgencyinPrehistoricTechnology:TwoArchaeologicalExamplesDiscussionNotesReferences

7StructureandPracticeintheArchaicSoutheast

KennethE.SassamanAssertionsofIdentityShellMoundArchaicMoundComplexesintheLowerMississippiValleyCoastalShellRingsCircularVillagePlazaComplexesGenesisofthe“Powerless”

DiscussionandConclusionReferences

8DailyPracticeandMaterialCultureinPluralisticSocialSettings:AnArchaeologicalStudyofCultureChangeandPersistencefromFortRoss,California

KentG.Lightfoot,AntoinetteMartinez,andAnnM.SchiffStudyofCultureChangeandPersistenceDailyPracticesandMaterialCultureInterethnicHouseholdsatFortRossArchaeologicalStudyofSocialIdentitiesatFortRossDailyPracticesofInterethnicHouseholdsSummaryConclusionReferences

PartIVSexuality,Embodiment,andPersonhood

9GoodScience,BadScience,orScienceasUsual?FeministCritiquesofScience

AlisonWylieIntroductionWhatisFeminism?SoWhyAre(Some)FeministsConcernedaboutScience?EquityIssuesinScienceImplicationsforScience:ContentCritiquesConclusionsNotesReferences

10OnPersonhood:AnAnthropologicalPerspectivefromAfrica

JohnL.ComaroffandJeanComaroffProlegomenonPersonhoodandSocietyintheInteriorsofSouthAfricaConclusion:TheDialecticsofEncounterNotesReferences

11GirlingtheGirlandBoyingtheBoy:TheProductionofAdulthoodinAncientMesoamerica

RosemaryA.JoyceIntroductionAztecSourcesandTheirLimitsTheExistentialStatusofAztecChildrenMakingAztecAdultsBodilyDisciplineandtheAchievementofAdultStatusDiscussionReferences

12DomesticatingImperialism:SexualPoliticsandtheArchaeologyofEmpire

BarbaraL.VossTheHouseholdinArchaeologiesofEmpireIntermarriageandCulturalBrokersSexualitybeyondtheHouseholdCaseStudy:ElPresidiodeSanFranciscoConclusionReferences

PartVRace,Class,andEthnicity

13ThePoliticsofEthnicityinPrehistoricKorea

SarahM.NelsonITheSiberianConnectionIITheChineseConnectionIIITheJapaneseConnectionIVConclusionReferences

14HistoricalCategoriesandthePraxisofIdentity:TheInterpretationofEthnicityinHistoricalArchaeology

SiaˆnJonesTheProblem:TheInterplayofTextandMaterialCultureintheInterpretationofEthnicGroupsHistoricalArchaeology:‘Handservant’ofHistoryorObjectiveScience?ATheoreticalApproachtoEthnicityPracticeandRepresentationConclusionsReferences

15BeyondRacism:SomeOpinionsaboutRacialismandAmericanArchaeology

RogerEcho-HawkandLarryJ.ZimmermanADialogueonRaceandAmericanArchaeologyTheQuagmireofRaceTheEpicBattlegroundsofRaceRaceIsDead;LongLiveRace?

Notes

16AClassAllItsOwn:ExplorationsofClassFormationandConflict

LouAnnWurstIntroductionClassasaThing:VariousApproachesClassasaFormation:TheRhetoricofSocialRelationsClassasRelationsinHistoricalArchaeologyTheOneofClassReferences

PartVIMateriality,Memory,andHistoricalSilence

17MoneyIsNoObject:Materiality,Desire,andModernityinanIndonesianSociety

WebbKeaneMeaningandtheMotionofThingsAmbiguousAttachmentsEnterMoneyTheValueofRenunciationAlienationProductionTheStateofDesireNotesReferences

18RememberingwhileForgetting:DepositionalPracticesandSocialMemoryatChaco

BarbaraJ.Mills

ForgettingasPartofMemoryWorkDepositionalPracticesandSocialMemoryatChacoDedicatingandDressingtheHouseTheMemorializationofPeopleandPlacesRememberingwhileForgettinginthePuebloWorldNotesReferences

19PublicMemoryandtheSearchforPowerinAmericanHistoricalArchaeology

PaulA.ShackelAnExclusionaryPastCaseStudy:TheRemakingoftheRobertGouldShawMemorialCommemorationandtheMakingofaPatrioticPastCaseStudy:TheCivilWarCentennialandtheBattleatManassasNostalgiaandtheLegitimationofAmericanHeritageCaseStudy:TheHeywardShepherdMemorialConclusionReferences

20Re-RepresentingAfricanPaststhroughHistoricalArchaeology

PeterR.SchmidtandJonathanR.WalzInclusiveorExclusiveHistoricalArchaeologies?AddressingQuestionsthatCountReflectionsandConclusionsNotesReferences

PartVIIColonialism,Empire,andNationalism

21ArchaeologyandNationalisminSpain

MargaritaD´ıaz-AndreuISpanishNationalismandArchacologyIICatalanNationalismandArchaeologyIIIBasqueNationalismandArchaeologyIVGalicianNationalismandArchaeologyVConclusionsNotesReferences

22EchoesofEmpire:VijayanagaraandHistoricalMemory,VijayanagaraasHistoricalMemory

CarlaM.SinopoliIntroductionVijayanagaraandHistoricalMemoryVijayanagaraasMemoryConclusionsReferences

23ConjuringMesopotamia:ImaginativeGeographyandaWorldPast

ZainabBahraniIntroductionSpaceandDespoticTimeNameandBeingTimeoftheDespotsTheExtraterrestrialOrientNotesReferences

24ConfrontingColonialism:TheMahicanandSchaghticokePeoplesandUs

RussellG.HandsmanandTrudieLambRichmond“AndWe’reGoingtoGetOurBiblesBack”“AftertheChuh-ko-thuk,orWhitePeople,SettledAmongstThem”IlluminatingtheHiddenHistoriesofHomelands“AccordingtoOurLawandCustom”“That’swhyitMeanssoMuchtobeaPartofSchaghticoke”NotesReferences

PartVIIIHeritage,Patrimony,andSocialJustice

25TheGlobalizationofArchaeologyandHeritage

ADiscussionwithArjunAppaduraiNoteReferences

26SitesofViolence:Terrorism,Tourism,andHeritageintheArchaeologicalPresent

LynnMeskellHeritageandModernityinEthicalContextTouringPlacesandtheSpacesofResistanceDeadSubjectsandLivingCommunitiesTourismandTerrorismontheWestBankPerformingAncientEgyptConclusionsReferences

27AnEthicalEpistemologyofPubliclyEngagedBioculturalResearch

MichaelL.BlakeyCriticalTheoryPublicEngagementMultipleDataSetsDiasporicScopeFinalCommentReferences

28CulturesofContact,CulturesofConflict?IdentityConstruction,ColonialistDiscourse,andtheEthicsofArchaeologicalPracticeinNorthernIreland

AudreyHorningIntroductionBackgroundIrelandasPostcolonial?Education,Memory,andMultipleHistoriesTowardsEthicalEngagementinUncomfortableHistoriesPostcolonialismandthePresentationofHeritageintheRepublicofIrelandHeritageasSocialActioninNorthernIrelandConclusionReferences

PartIXMedia,Museums,andPublics

29NoSenseoftheStruggle:CreatingaContextforSurvivanceattheNMAI

SonyaAtalay

TheNMAI’sMissionAgencyandVictimizationGunsandBiblesContextforSurvivancePublicAudiencesNotes

30ThePastasCommodity:ArchaeologicalImagesinModernAdvertising

LaurenE.TalalayIntroductionTheOriginsofAdvertisingAdvertising,SocialIdentityandVisualCommunicationAdvertisingandtheIdentitiesofAncientCulturePastandPresentinArchaeoadvertsSomeImplicationsofModernAdvertisingforArchaeologyConclusionNoteReferences

31ThePastasPassionandPlay:C¸atalho¨yu¨kasaSiteofConflictintheConstructionofMultiplePasts

IanHodderIntroductionTheArchaeologicalDiscourseTheGlobalandtheLocalAReflexiveMomentConclusionReferences

32CopyrightingthePast?EmergingIntellectualPropertyRightsIssuesinArchaeology

GeorgeP.NicholasandKellyP.BannisterTheProductsofArchaeologicalResearchandTheirProtectionArchaeologicalResearchProductsasCulturalandIntellectualPropertyAppropriationandCommodificationofthePastWhoOwnstheFuture?NotesReferences

Index

ListofTablesandFigures

Tables3.1 RossFactoryArchaeologyProject

3.2 Distributionandfrequencyofbuttonassemblage

3.3 Distributionofillicit objects

18.1 ContentsofnichesinChetroKetlGreatKivaII

18.2 RitualdepositsinChacoangreatkivas

18.3 ObjectsfromKivaQ(greatkiva)atPuebloBonito

18.4 Ritualdepositsingreatkivas

18.5 Contentsofofferingsinpilasters,KivaC(greatkiva),PueblodelArroyo

Figures1.1 TheHarvesters(1565)byPieterBruegeltheElder

2.1 Cupule,Jinmium,NorthernTerritory

2.2 MapofAustraliashowingplacesmentionedinthetext

2.3 RainbowValley,centralAustralia

2.4 Waterfall,KakaduNationalPark

2.5 GeologicalfeaturesaidtomarkthespotwhereaRainbowSerpentturnedtostone,nearMannRiver

2.6 MeredithWilsonrecordsrockpaintingsatasitethathasmagnificentpanoramicviews

2.7 Tiwiburialgrounds

2.8 ThompsonYulidjirripaintingYingarna,themostpowerfulRainbowSerpent,inherhumanfemaleform

2.9 ThemainJinmium,N.T.,cupulepanels

2.10 Rockpaintingsite,KakaduNationalPark

3.1 SitesurfaceplanoftheRossFemaleFactory,VanDiemen’sLand

4.1 SavannamanagementusingfireintheBolivianAmazon.Bauresin1999

4.2 Amazonianhouse,clearing,workareas,andhousegarden.Fatimain2006

4.3 TheAmazoniansettlementandadjacentlandscapeofgardens,fields,agroforestry,roads,paths,orchards,garbagemiddens,andforestregrowthatvariousstages

4.4 Forestislandinthesavanna,MachupoRiver,in2006

4.5 Pre-Columbianringditchsite

4.6 Anoctagon-shapedringditchsiteintheBolivianAmazon

4.7 Pre-Columbianraisedfields,canals,andcausewaysintheBolivianAmazon

4.8 Fourpre-ColumbiancausewaysandcanalsconnectingforestislandsintheBolivianAmazon

4.9 Anetworkofpre-ColumbianfishweirsintheBolivianAmazon

4.10 Pre-Columbiandomesticatedlandscapeofsettlements,mounds,forestislands,raisedfields,causeways,canals,andagroforestry

4.11 Pre-Columbianraisedfieldsunderforest

7.1 ExamplesoftypicalDaltonpointsandoversizedDaltonandSloanpointsfromtheSloansiteinArkansas

7.2 ExamplesofSouthernOvateandNotchedSouthernOvatebannerstones,includingseveralpreforms,thelargestfromStallingsIsland

7.3 TopographicmapsofthethreeknownArchaicmoundcomplexesandasketchmapofonesuspectedArchaicmoundcomplex(Insley)innortheastLouisiana,withinsetmapshowinglocationsofmoundcomplexesinrelationtoPovertyPoint

7.4 PlandrawingsofLateArchaiccoastalshellringsandrelatedsitesinthesoutheasternUnitedStates

7.5 TopographicmapoftheFigIslandshell-ringcomplex,CharlestonCounty,SouthCarolina

7.6 Planschematicofthe1929blockexcavationofStallingsIsland,showinglocationsofpit features,burials,andprojecteddomesticstructuresarrayedincircularfashionaroundacentralplaza

8.1 SpatialLayoutofFortRoss,includingtheRossStockade,theRussianVillage,theNativeCalifornianNeighborhood,theRossCemetery,andtheNativeAlaskanNeighborhood

8.2 TheNativeAlaskanVillageSiteandFortRossBeachsite,illustratingsurfacefeaturesandexcavatedstructures(EastCentralPit feature,SouthPitfeature,andBathhouse)

8.3 ExcavationplanandprofileoftheEastCentralBoneBedandEastCentralPit feature

8.4 ExcavationplanandprofileoftheSouthBoneBed,SouthPitfeature,AbaloneDump,rockrubble,andredwoodfenceline

12.1 AltaCaliforniapresidiodistricts

12.2 Spanish-colonialsettlementsintheSanFranciscoBayregion

12.3 SchematicdiagramshowingrelationshipbetweenElPresidiodeSanFrancisco’searlierquadrangle(ca.1792)andthelaterquadrangleexpansion(ca.1815)

13.1 NortheastAsiaandtheKoreanpeninsula

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_003.xhtml#tab3-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_003.xhtml#tab3-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_003.xhtml#tab3-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_018.xhtml#tab18-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_018.xhtml#tab18-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_018.xhtml#tab18-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_018.xhtml#tab18-4http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_018.xhtml#tab18-5http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_001.xhtml#fig1-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_002.xhtml#fig2-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_002.xhtml#fig2-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_002.xhtml#fig2-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_002.xhtml#fig2-4http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_002.xhtml#fig2-5http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_002.xhtml#fig2-6http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_002.xhtml#fig2-7http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_002.xhtml#fig2-8http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_002.xhtml#fig2-9http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_002.xhtml#fig2-10http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_003.xhtml#fig3-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_004.xhtml#fig4-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_004.xhtml#fig4-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_004.xhtml#fig4-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_004.xhtml#fig4-4http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_004.xhtml#fig4-5http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_004.xhtml#fig4-6http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_004.xhtml#fig4-7http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_004.xhtml#fig4-8http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_004.xhtml#fig4-9http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_004.xhtml#fig4-10http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_004.xhtml#fig4-11http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_007.xhtml#fig7-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_007.xhtml#fig7-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_007.xhtml#fig7-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_007.xhtml#fig7-4http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_007.xhtml#fig7-5http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_007.xhtml#fig7-6http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_008.xhtml#fig8-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_008.xhtml#fig8-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_008.xhtml#fig8-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_008.xhtml#fig8-4http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_012.xhtml#fig12-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_012.xhtml#fig12-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_012.xhtml#fig12-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_013.xhtml#fig13-1

18.1 ChacoCanyonsites

18.2 GreatKivaII(belowGreatKivaI),ChetroKetl

18.3 Contentsofwallniches,GreatKivaII

18.4 ContentsofnicheinKivaQ,agreatkivaatPuebloBonito

18.5 WoodensticksfromRoom32,PuebloBonito

18.6 CacheofcylinderjarsinRoom28,PuebloBonito

20.1 MapofsitesassociatedwithCwezioraltraditions:RugomoraMahe(Katuruka)inTanzania;BigoandMubende[Hill]inUganda

20.2 MapofAfrica:countriesdiscussedinthetextareshaded

22.1 Vijayanagaraurbancoreandkeylocationsintheregion’ssacredgeography

22.2 TheRamachandratemple

22.3 HanumansculptureinVijayanagarametropolitanregion

22.4 Sixteenth-centurytemplegopuram (Kalahasti,TamilNadu)

22.5 Vijayanagaracourtlyarchitecture:PavilionintheRoyalCenter

24.1 SomeofthetraditionalNativeAmericanhomelandsalongtheupperHousatonicRiver

24.2 Earlynineteenth-centurywood-splintbasketsmadebyJacobMauwee,Schaghticoke,andMollyHatchet,aPaugussett fromfarthersouthontheHousatonicRiver

24.3 EuniceMauwee,Schaghticoke(1756–1860)

26.1 TheLuxorarea,showingthelocationofthe1997attack

26.2 AncientagriculturalenactmentfromthePharaonicVillage,Cairo

26.3 TourguidewithtouristsandperformeratthePharaonicVillage,Cairo

28.1 DesertedVillage,Slievemore,AchillIsland,Co.Mayo

28.2 Loyalist graffiti(UlsterVolunteerForce,aparamilitaryorganization)onagatehousedoorlintelofthe17th-centuryCastleCaulfield,Co.Tyrone

28.3 RagtreeandholywellatDungivenPrioryandBawn,Co.Derry/Londonderry

29.1 GunsdisplayintheOurPeoplesgallery

29.2 Showingt-shirts,“HomelandSecurity:FightingTerrorismsince1492”

29.3 ReligioncaseintheOurPeoplesgallery

30.1 Palmolive–ColgatePalmolivead(1910)

30.2 JohnnieWalkerandSonad(1985)

32.1 Reconstructedpit house,SecwepemcMuseumandHeritagePark,Kamloops,B.C.

32.2 Exampleofstylizedpit houseusedasthelogooftheSecwepemcMuseum,Kamloops,B.C.

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_018.xhtml#fig18-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_018.xhtml#fig18-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_018.xhtml#fig18-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_018.xhtml#fig18-4http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_018.xhtml#fig18-5http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_018.xhtml#fig18-6http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_020.xhtml#fig20-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_020.xhtml#fig20-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_022.xhtml#fig22-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_022.xhtml#fig22-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_022.xhtml#fig22-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_022.xhtml#fig22-4http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_022.xhtml#fig22-5http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_024.xhtml#fig24-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_024.xhtml#fig24-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_024.xhtml#fig24-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_026.xhtml#fig26-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_026.xhtml#fig26-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_026.xhtml#fig26-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_028.xhtml#fig28-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_028.xhtml#fig28-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_028.xhtml#fig28-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_029.xhtml#fig29-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_029.xhtml#fig29-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_029.xhtml#fig29-3http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_030.xhtml#fig30-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_030.xhtml#fig30-2http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_032.xhtml#fig32-1http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/artifact/bmxlYmtfXzExMDIwMDNfX0FO0/EK/abbbdf80-6b90-4556-a3fc-442a4f6cb914@sessionmgr105/0/NL$1102003$EPUB/4238/c7d32733/OEBPS/9781405158329_032.xhtml#fig32-2

ListofContributors

ArjunAppaduraiisGoddardProfessorofMedia,Culture,andCommunicationatNewYorkUniversity,NYSonyaAtalayisanAssistantProfessorofAnthropologyatIndianaUniversity,Bloomington,INZainabBahraniistheEdithPoradaProfessorofAncientNearEasternArtandArchaeologyatColumbiaUniversity,NewYorkKellyP.Bannister isAssistantProfessor in theSchool ofEnvironmentalStudies at theUniversityofVictoria,BCMichaelL.Blakey isProfessorofAnthropologyandAmericanStudiesat theCollegeofWilliamandMary,Williamsburg,VAEleanorConlinCasella isLecturer in theSchoolofArts,Histories,andCulturesat theUniversityofManchester,UKJeanComaroffisBernardE.andEllenC.SunnyDistinguishedServiceProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofChicago,ILJohnL.ComaroffisHaroldH.SwiftDistinguishedServiceProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofChicago,ILMargaritaDíaz-AndreuisaReaderintheDepartmentofArchaeologyatDurhamUniversity,UKMarcia-AnneDobresisAdjunctFacultyinAnthropologyattheUniversityofMaineatOrono,MERogerEcho-Hawkisahistorian,writer,andcomposerbasedinLongmont,COClarkL.EricksonisAssociateProfessorofAnthropologyandAssociateCuratorofSouthAmericaatthe University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Russell G. Handsman is Project Consulant at theMashantucketPequotMuseumandResearchCenter,Mashantucket,CTIanHodderistheDunlevieFamilyProfessorofAnthropologyatStanfordUniversity,PaloAlto,CAAudrey Horning is a Reader in Historical Archaeology in the School of Archaeology and AncientHistoryattheUniversityofLeicester,UKTimIngoldisProfessorofSocialAnthropologyattheUniversityofAberdeen,UKSiân Jones is Senior Lecturer in the School of Arts, Histories and Cultures at the University ofManchester,UKRosemaryA.JoyceisProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CAWebbKeaneisProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor,MITrudie Lamb Richmond is Director of Public Programs at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum andResearchCenter,Mashantucket,CTKentG.LightfootProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CAAntoinetteMartinezisAssistantProfessorofAnthropology,CaliforniaStateUniversity,Chico,CALynnMeskellisProfessorofAnthropologyatStanfordUniversity,PaloAlto,CABarbaraJ.MillsisDirectoroftheSchoolofAnthropologyandProfessorofAmericanIndianStudiesattheUniversityofArizonaandCuratorofArchaeologyattheArizonaStateMuseum,Tucson,AZSarahM.NelsonisProfessorEmeritusofAnthropologyattheUniversityofDenver,COGeorge P. Nicholas is Associate Professor of Archaeology and Anthropology at Simon FraserUniversity,Burnaby,BC

TimothyR.PauketatisProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofIllinois,Urbana-Champaign,ILKennethE.SassamanisAssociateProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,FLAnn M. Schiff is a retired member of the Archaeological Research Facility, Department ofAnthropology,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CAPeterR.SchmidtisProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,FLPaulA.ShackelisDirectoroftheCenterforHeritageResourceStudiesandProfessorofAnthropologyattheUniversityofMaryland,CollegePark,MDCarlaM.Sinopoli is Professor ofAnthropology andDirector of theMuseumofAnthropology at theUniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor,MIPaul S. C. Tac¸on is Professor of Anthropology and Archaeology in the School of Arts at GriffithUniversity,Queensland,AustraliaLaurenE.Talalay isCurator ofEducation at theKelseyMuseumat theUniversity ofMichigan,AnnArbor,MIBarbaraL.VossisAssociateProfessorofAnthropologyatStanfordUniversity,PaloAlto,CAJonathanR.WalzisaLecturerintheHonorsProgramattheUniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,FLLouAnn Wurst is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Western Michigan atKalamazoo,MIAlisonWylieisProfessorofPhilosophyattheUniversityofWashington,Seattle,WALarry J. Zimmerman is Professor ofAnthropology andMuseumStudies at IndianaUniversity-PurdueUniversityIndianapolis,IN

PrefaceIfeditedbooksarecollaborativeprojects,editedReadersareevenmoreso.ThroughouttheprocessoforganizingandwritingthisReader,wehaveexploredourowndeeplyheldcommitmentsandchallengedeachother tobroadenourhorizons.Givenourbackgrounds inprehistoricandhistoricalarchaeologies,we were particularly intrigued by the idea of breaking down these categories and exploring theimplications of deep time and the search for a deeper history. In addition,we both have considerableexperience working with Native American communities and are strong advocates of indigenousarchaeologies.Wearebothcommitted to increasing thenumbersofNativeAmericanarchaeologistsaswellastransformingourprofessioninwaysthatacknowledgetherightsandinterestsofNativeAmericanpeoples. Inmanyways, our collaboration has been and continues to be a transformative process.Wewouldberemiss,however,ifwedidn’tthankthepersonwhobroughtustogether,namelyCraigCipolla.CraigwasaMastersstudentwithSteveat theUniversityofMassachusettsatBostonandiscurrentlyadoctoral candidatewithBob at theUniversity of Pennsylvania.Craig’s interest and enthusiasm for allthingstheoreticalhelpedtosparkdiscussionsbetweenusthatledtoourcollaborationonthisbook.Weareespeciallygratefultotheindividualauthorswhohaveagreedtoallowtheirpublicationstobe

reprinted in our book. They have been extremely supportive and generous without any knowledge ofexactlyhowwewouldrepresenttheirwork.Wehavechosentousetheirwritingstoprovideacontextforexploringthearticulationofdifferenttheoriesandtheirreal-worldapplicationsandconsequences.But,intheend,thesechaptersmuststandontheirown.TheywerenotproducedforthisReader,butratherfordifferent contexts – a specific book, a given journal article, a particular interview.Wehave extractedthem for our purposes and used them to make specific points about what we are calling “the newpragmatism,”theincreasingprofessionalcommitmenttothepracticeofsociallyrelevantarchaeology.Butbecauseoftheirpreexistence,theyretaintheabilityto“talkback”andactivelyresisttheinterpretationsweoffer.Thisqualitycanbeunderstoodastheirpartialobjectivity.WethankRosalieRoberstonatWiley-Blackwellforherstrongcommitmenttothisproject.Rosaliehas

beenextremelypatient,andalwaysunderstandingwithseveralunavoidabledelays.WethankJuliaKirkfor skillfully steering us through the various stages of the production process. Finally,we thank JustinDyer,ourcopy-editor,forhissuperbattentiontodetail.Eachofushashadadeepinterestintheoreticalquestionsduringthecourseofourcareers.Throughout

thatjourneywehavebeeninfluencedbyourpeers,ourstudents,andourmentors.Eachofushasincurredspecialdebtswewouldliketoacknowledge.BobwouldliketothankAsifAgha,HermanAgoyo,WoodyAguilar,WendyAshmore,OferBar-Yosef,AlexBauer,AlexisBoutin,K.

C. Chang, Christopher Chippindale, Craig Cipolla, Meg Conkey, Linda Cordell, Ann Dapice, TerryDeacon,HaroldDibble,TimEarle,RogerEcho-Hawk,ClarkErickson,T.J.Ferguson,KathyFine-Dare,RichardFord,JohnFritz,YosefGarfinkle,PamelaGeller,JoanGero,ChrisGosden,RichardGrounds,SuzanHarjo, JulieHendon,MichaelHerzfeld, JimHill, IanHodder,Mark Johnson,MatthewJohnson,Rosemary Joyce, Sergei Kan, Webb Keane, Mark Leone, Richard Leventhal, Matt Liebmann, RandyMcGuire,DesiréeMartinez,RandyMason,FrankMatero,LynnMeskell,BarbaraMills,KojiMizoguchi,Melissa Murphy, Simon Ortiz, Tom Patterson, Tim Pauketat, Robert Paynter, Steve Pendery, BerniePerley,ColinRenfrew,UzmaRizvi,DiegoRomero,MateoRomero,DavidRudner,JeremySabloff,DeanSaitta, Bob Schuyler, Rus Sheptak, Tad Shurr, Michael Silverstein, Daniel Smail, Monica Smith,LaurajaneSmith, JamesSnead,EdwardSoja,MatthewSpriggs,MirandaStockett, JosephSuina,GregUrban,JoeWatkins,MikeWilcox,GordonWilley,LucyWilliams,AlisonWylie,andLarryZimmerman.Steve wishes to thank Ping-Ann Addo, Susan Alcock, Douglas Armstrong, Christa Baranek, Mary

Beaudry,WilliamBeeman,DouglasBolender,JoanneBowen,KathleenBragdon,MarleyBrown,EleanorCasella,CraigCipolla,MegConkey,ChristopherDeCorse, JimDeetz, JamesDelle,AmyDenOuden,RogerEcho-Hawk,ArturoEscobar,MariaFranklin,JackGary,RaeGould,RichardGould,MartinHall,DavidHarvey, Kat Hayes, IanHodder, AudreyHorning, DanHicks,Matthew Johnson,Martin Jones,Rosemary Joyce, Kenneth Kvamme, David Landon, Heather Law, Henri Lefebvre,Mark Leone, KentLightfoot,LynnMeskell,BarbaraLittle,KevinMcBride,ThomasMcGovern,RandyMcGuire,RichardMcNeish,JoseMartinez-Reyes,ChristopherMatthews,KathleenMorrison,DanielMouer,PaulMullins,MichaelNassaney,CharlesOrser,MarilynPalmer,GisliPalsson,TomPatterson,TimPauketat,RobertPaynter,GuidoPezzarossi,VirginiaPopper,ColonRenfrew,KrystaRyzewski,DeanSaitta,KenSassman,PeterSchmidt,BobSchuyler,PaulShackel,StephenSilliman,TheresaSingleton,JamesSnead,EdwardSoja,JohnSteinberg,ChristopherTilley,HeatherTrigg,BruceTrigger,DianaWall,JoeWatkins,MichaelWay,LaurieWilkie,ChristopherWitmore,LouAnnWurst,andJudithZeitlin.Asourworkon thisbookhasunfolded, the individualswehave turned tomostoften foradviceand

feedbackwereourspouses.LeslieAtikandAnneLangMrozowskihaveprovided invaluableeditorialinputaswellasforthrightcritiquesthathavebeeninstrumentalinmaintainingtheproject’smomentumanddirection. As a small measure of our appreciation for their enthusiastic encouragement and unfailingsupport,wededicatethisbooktothem.

Acknowledgments

The editors and publisher gratefully acknowledge the permission granted to reproduce the copyrightmaterialinthisbook:Chapter1:TimIngold,“TheTemporalityoftheLandscape,”pp.152–74fromWorldArchaeology25:2

(1993).ReprintedwithpermissionofTaylor&FrancisGroupandtheauthor.Chapter2:PaulS.C.Ta¸on,“IdentifyingAncientSacredLandscapes inAustralia:FromPhysical to

Social,” pp. 33–57 from Archaeologies of Landscapes: Contemporary Perspectives, ed. WendyAshmore andA.BernardKnapp (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999). Reprintedwith permission ofBlackwellPublishers.Chapter 3: Eleanor Conlin Casella, “Landscapes of Punishment and Resistance: A Female Convict

SettlementinTasmania,Australia,”pp.103–30fromContestedLandscapesofMovementandExile,ed.BarbaraBenderandMargotWiner(Oxford:BergPublishers,2001).ReprintedwithpermissionofBergPublishersOxfordviaACBlack.Chapter4:ClarkL.Erickson,“Amazonia:TheHistoricalEcologyofaDomesticatedLandscape,”pp.

157–83 inTheHandbookofSouthAmericanArchaeology, ed.HelaineSilvermanandWilliam Isbell(NewYork:Springer,2008).ReprintedwithpermissionofSpringer.Chapter5:TimothyR.Pauketat,“PracticeandHistory inArchaeology:AnEmergingParadigm,”pp.

73–98fromAnthropologicalTheory1(2001).ReprintedwithpermissionofSage.Chapter 6: Marcia-Anne Dobres, “Technology’s Links and Chaînes: The Processual Unfolding of

Technique andTechnician,” pp. 124–45 fromMarcia-AnneDobres andChristopherR.Hoffman (eds)TheSocialDynamicsofTechnology:Practice,Politics,andWorldviews(Washington,DC:SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1999). Copyright © Marcia-Anne Dobres, 1999. Reprinted with permission of theauthor.Chapter7:KennethE.Sassaman,“StructureandPracticeintheArchaicSoutheast,”pp.79–107from

TimothyR.PauketatandDianaDiPaoloLoren(eds)NorthAmericanArchaeology (Oxford:BlackwellPublishers,2005).Reprintedwithpermission.Chapter8:KentG.Lightfoot,AntoinetteMartinez, andAnnM.Schiff, “DailyPracticeandMaterial

CultureinPluralisticSocialSettings:AnArchaeologicalStudyofCultureChangeandPersistencefromFortRoss,California,”pp.199–222fromAmericanAntiquity63:2(1998).ReprintedwithpermissionoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeologyandtheauthor.Chapter9:AlisonWylie, “GoodScience,BadScience, or Science asUsual?FeministCritiques of

Science,”pp.29–55fromLoriD.Hager(ed.)WomeninHumanEvolution(London:Routledge,1997).ReprintedwithpermissionofTaylor&FrancisBooksUK.Chapter10:JohnL.ComaroffandJeanComaroff,“OnPersonhood:AnAnthropologicalPerspective

fromAfrica,”pp.267–83fromSocialIdentities7:2(2001).Reprintedwithpermissionofthepublisher(TaylorandFrancisGrouphttp://www.informaworld.com).Chapter11:RosemaryJoyce“Girling theGirlandBoying theBoy:TheProductionofAdulthood in

AncientMesoamerica,”pp.473–83fromWorldArchaeology31(2000).Reprintedwithpermissionofthepublisher(TaylorandFrancisGrouphttp://www.informaworld.com).Chapter 12: Barbara L. Voss, “Domesticating Imperialism: Sexual Politics and the Archaeology of

Empire,” pp. 191–203 fromAmericanAnthropologist 110:2 (2008).Reprintedwith permission of the

http://www.informaworld.com/http://www.informaworld.com/

AmericanAnthropologicalAssociationandtheauthor.Chapter13:SarahM.Nelson,“ThePoliticsofEthnicityinPrehistoricKorea,”pp.218–31fromPhilip

L.KohlandClareFawcett (eds)Nationalism,Politics,and thePracticeofArchaeology (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995).ReprintedwithpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress and theauthor.Chapter 14: Siân Jones, “Historical Categories and the Praxis of Identity: The Interpretation of

Ethnicity inHistoricalArchaeology,”pp.219–32 fromPedroPauloA.Funari,MartinHall, andSiaânJones (eds)Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge (London: Routledge, 1999). Reprintedwithpermission.Chapter 15: Roger Echo-Hawk and Larry J. Zimmerman, “Beyond Race: Some Opinions about

RacialismandAmericanArchaeology,”pp.461–85fromTheAmericanIndianQuarterly30:3–4(2006).ReprintedwithpermissionoftheUniversityofNebraskaPress.Chapter16:LouAnnWurst,“AClassAllItsOwn:ExplorationsofClassFormationandConflict,”pp.

190–206 from Martin Hall and Stephen Silliman (eds) Historical Archaeology (Oxford: BlackwellPublishers,2006).Reprintedwithpermission.Chapter17:WebbKeane,“MoneyIsNoObject:Materiality,Desire,andModernityinanIndonesian

Society,” pp. 65–90 from FredMyers (ed.) The Empire of Things: Regimes of Value and MaterialCulture(SantaFe:SchoolofAmericanResearchPress,2001).ReprintedwithpermissionofSARPress.Chapter 18: Barbara Mills, “Remembering while Forgetting: Depositional Practices and Social

Memory at Chaco,” pp. 81–108 from Barbara J. Mills and William Walker (eds) Memory Work:ArchaeologiesofMaterialPractices (SantaFe:SchoolofAmericanResearchPress,2008).ReprintedwithpermissionofSARPress.Chapter 19: Paul A. Shackel, “Public Memory and the Search for Power in American Historical

Archaeology,”pp.655–70 fromAmericanAnthropologist 103:3 (2001).Reprintedwith permission oftheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociationandtheauthor.Chapter20:PeterR.SchmidtandJonathanR.Walz,“Re-RepresentingAfricanPaststhroughHistorical

Archaeology’’,pp.53–70 fromAmericanAntiquity 72:1 (2007).Copyright©2007by theSociety forAmerican Archaeology. Reprinted with permission of the Society for American Archaeology and theauthors.Chapter21:MargaritaDı´az-Andreu,“ArchaeologyandNationalisminSpain,”pp.39–56fromPhilip

L.KohlandClareFawcett (eds)Nationalism,Politics,and thePracticeofArchaeology (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995).ReprintedwithpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.Chapter 22: Carla M. Sinopoli, “Echoes of Empire: Vijayanagara and Historical Memory,

Vijayanagara as Historical Memory,” pp. 17–33 in Ruth M. Van Dyke and Susan E. Alcock (eds)ArchaeologiesofMemory(Oxford:Blackwell,2003).Reprintedwithpermission.Chapter23:ZainabBahrani,“ConjuringMesopotamia:ImaginativeGeographyandaWorldPast,”pp.

159–74 fromLynnMeskell (ed.)Archaeology under Fire:Nationalism, Politics andHeritage in theEastern Mediterranean and Middle East (London: Routledge, 1998). Reprinted with permission ofTaylorandFrancis(UK)Books.Chapter 24: Russell G. Handsman and Trudie Lamb Richmond, “Confronting Colonialism: The

MahicanandSchaghticokePeoplesandUs,”pp.87–118fromPeterR.SchmidtandThomasC.Patterson(eds)MakingAlternativeHistories:ThePracticeofArchaeologyandHistoryinNon-WesternSettings(SantaFe:SchoolofAmericanResearchPress,1995).ReprintedwithpermissionofSARPress.Chapter25:ArjunAppadurai, “TheGlobalization ofArchaeology andHeritage:ADiscussionwith

ArjunAppadurai,”pp.35–49fromJournalofSocialArchaeology1(2002).ReprintedwithpermissionofSage.Chapter26:LynnMeskell,“SitesofViolence:Terrorism,Tourism,andHeritageintheArchaeological

Present,” pp. 123–46 fromLynnMeskell andPeterPels (eds)EmbeddingEthics (OxfSevalord: Berg,2005).ReprintedwithpermissionofBergPublishersc/oACBlack.Chapter27:MichaelL.Blakey,“AnEthicalEpistemologyofPubliclyEngagedBioculturalResearch,”

pp. 17–28 from Junko Habu, Clare Fawcett, and John M. Matsunaga (eds) Evaluating MultipleNarratives: BeyondNationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies (NewYork: Springer, 2008).Reprintedwithpermission.Chapter 28: Audrey Horning, “Cultures of Contact, Cultures of Conflict? Identity Construction,

ColonialistDiscourse,andtheEthicsofArchaeologicalPracticeinNorthernIreland,”pp.107–33fromStanfordJournalofArchaeology5(2007).Copyright©AudreyHorning2007.Reprintedwiththekindpermissionoftheauthor.Chapter29:SonyaAtalay,“NoSenseoftheStruggle:CreatingaContextforSurvivanceattheNMAI,”

pp. 597–618 from TheAmerican Indian Quarterly 30:3–4 (2006). Reprinted with permission of theUniversityofNebraskaPress.Chapter30:LaurenTalalay,“ThePastasCommodity:ArchaeologicalImagesinModernAdvertising,”

pp.205–216fromPublicArchaeology3(2004).ReprintedwithpermissionofManeyPublishing.Chapter 31: Ian Hodder, “The Past as Passion and Play: Çatalhöyük as a Site of Conflict in the

Construction of Multiple Pasts,” pp. 124–39 from Lynn Meskell (ed.) Archaeology under Fire:Nationalism,PoliticsandHeritageintheEasternMediterraneanandMiddleEast(London:Routledge,1998).ReprintedwithpermissionofTaylorandFrancisUK.Chapter32:GeorgeP.NicholasandKellyP.Bannister,“CopyrightingthePast?EmergingIntellectual

PropertyRightsIssuesinArchaeology,”pp.327–50fromCurrentAnthropology45:3(2004).ReprintedwithpermissionoftheUniversityofChicagoPress.

PartI

TheNewPragmatismNEWEDITIONSOFTEXTBOOKSORREADERSaregenerallyoftwokinds.Typically,theystayclosetothestructure of the first edition and add in newmaterial to acknowledge theways inwhich the field haschangedsinceitsoriginalpublicationdate.Lessfrequentlydotheyrepresentacompleterewriteoranewengagementwiththefield.ThissecondeditionofContemporaryArchaeologyinTheoryisofthislatterkindand,indeed,itiswhywehavechosentoaddthesubtitleTheNewPragmatism.The first edition, edited byRobert Preucel, anAmericanSouthwesternist, and IanHodder, aBritish

prehistorian,wasanattempt to review the landscapeofarchaeological theorycirca1995(PreucelandHodder 1996). We began by acknowledging the challenges and risks of the project. Readers are adistinctive publication genre. They bind together a group of essays written by diverse scholars fordifferentpurposesintoasinglevolumewheretheircommonthreadsarehighlightedbytheeditors.Thereis a sense of authority and completeness about them that is excitingwhen they first comeout, but thatquicklyfadeswithpassageoftime.Becauseeachreaderbringshisorherownexperienceandknowledgetobearintheprocessofreading,wewishedourReadertobefluidandopentomultipleinterpretations.Wewereawarethatourintroductoryessaysandouressayselectionscouldbeperceivedasanattempttoestablishacanon,eventhoughthiswascertainlynotourintention.We thendiscussedpossiblewaysoforganizing theReader toemphasize thepoint thatorganizational

decisionsarenotneutralandtheyhaveaneffectuponinterpretation.Someofthepossibleorganizationalstructures we reviewed included dividing the book by historical periods (antiquarianism, culture-historicalarchaeology,processualarchaeology,postprocessualarchaeology),bytypesofsocieties(band,tribe,chief-dom,state),orbysubjectandnationalorigin(Paleolithicarchaeology,Romanarchaeology,Chinese archaeology). We then raised the question of whether it was possible to develop anorganizational schema thatdoesnot suffer fromanevolutionaryor imperialist bias.Weconcluded thatwhile there canbenodefinitive accountof theory in archaeology, there cannonethelessbeproductiveengagements that are forged through a process of discourse and dialogue. This perspective requires acommitment toamoredemocraticarchaeologywhereallviewsandpositionalitieshave theright tobeincluded in thediscourse (which is, of course, not the same thing as saying that all views are equallyvalid). This is the basis for doing applied anthropology as well as a socially committed or actionarchaeology.Thissecondedition,editedbyPreucelandStephenMrozowski,anAmericanhistoricalarchaeologist,

adoptsasomewhatdifferentapproach.Itisnotsomuchareviewofthefieldasitisaninvestigationofaparticular movement or spirit in the human sciences. We have called this investigation the “newpragmatism.”Thisspiritdoesnotrefertothedominanceofanyonetheory,butrathertothemoreexplicitintegrationofarchaeologyanditssocialcontextinwaysthatservecontemporaryneeds.Whileitistruethatarchaeologyhasalwayshadasocialpurpose,itisbecomingclearthatarchaeologyandthesocialareinextricablyintertwined.Itisnolongerpossibletoholdthatarchaeologyisanobjectivesciencefirstanda social practice second. Archaeology is irreducibly both at the same time. Archaeologists areincreasinglyaskingthefollowingquestions:Howcanarchaeologybettercontributetobroaderdialoguesconcerningthemyriadsocialchallengeshumanityfacesatthispointinitshistory?Whatisarchaeology’s

role in the development of social theory?What are the practical consequences of holding a particulartheory?Doesarchaeologymatter?Inthepast15years,therehasbeenagrowingemphasisonthesocialandaninterestmoregenerallyin

establishing the relevance of social sciences to the modern world. In philosophy, this has meant thereemergenceofpragmatismandtheimportanceitplacesonself-referentialknowledgeanditspracticalapplicationtocontemporarysocialissues(Baert2005).Inarchaeology,thisisperhapsexemplifiedbytheemergence of postprocessual archaeologies and the gradual incorporation of questions of identity,meaning, agency, and practice alongside those of system, process, and structure. This development, ofcourse,shouldnotbeinterpretedtomeanthatprocessorstructurehasbeensuperseded.Thesocialmustalways be positionedwithin a longterm trajectory and linked to the cognitive.Rather, itmeans that interms of the doing of archaeology, there are increasinglymore studies deploying social categories inpursuitofapastthatholdsrelevanceintoday’sworld.Itisnolongerpossibletojustifyarchaeologyonsomeabstractterms;rather,theethicsofarchaeologynowrequirethatwejoindiverseinterestgroupsinthe common project of understanding the multiple meanings of the past for the present. The obviousquestiontoaskiswhyisthishappeningnow?ThisReaderisanattempttointerrogatethisquestionfromseveraldifferent,butinterrelated,directions.

DisciplinaryAnxietiesAllfieldsanddisciplinesundergoperiodicreevaluationswhentheytakestockoftheircurrentsituationandchartpossiblecoursesforthefuture.Thisisahealthythingsinceknowledgegrowsandinterestsshift.Inanthropologicalarchaeology,onesuchreevaluationtookplaceinthe1960sandearly1970sandturnedonthedegreetowhichpositivismwasanappropriateepistemologyforthescientificinvestigationofpastcultures and societies (Fritz and Plog 1970; Watson et al. 1971; Flannery 1973, Renfrew 1982).Ironically,thisreevaluationcamepreciselyatthemomentthatphilosophersofscienceweremovingawayfrompositivismandadvocatingalternativeapproaches,someofwhichcametobecalledpostpositivism(Rorty1979,1982;Wylie1981,2002).This“epistemicdelay” is typicalof thosesocialsciences, likearchaeology,thathaveattemptedtoemulatethephysicalsciences.Thereisnowagrowingsensethattherearemultiplelegitimatewaysofknowingtheworld.Indeed,sciencestudiesscholarshaveconcludedthat,as importantas it is, sciencecannotbeclaimedonphilosophicalgrounds tobeaprivilegedenterprise(LatourandWoolgar1979;Pickering1995;Barnesetal.1996;KnorrCetina1999).Rather,scienceisbutone among many ways of knowing, each of which serves particular social purposes. This is not astatementinfavorofrelativism,sinceallformsofknowledgeacquisitionaremanifestlynotequivalent.Itsimplymeans thatknowledgeclaimsmustbecontinually justifiedagainstoneanother indiscourseanddialogue.Thisconclusioniscentraltoapragmaticarchaeology.In the 1960s, Lewis Binford and his students at the University of Chicago introduced an explicitly

scientific approach to explaining the past known as the “new archaeology.” What was new was theplacementof theorybuilding,particularlysystems theory,ecological theory,andevolutionary theory,atthe core of the archaeological agenda (Binford 1962; Flannery 1972). The ultimate goal was forarchaeologytotakeitsplacealongotherempirical,lawgeneratingsciencesandapplyitselftoexplainingthepastasapredictabletrajectory.Thisnewfocuscontrastedwiththeparticularisticnatureofstandardtraditionalorculture-historicalarchaeologyandhadtheadvantageofdirectlylinkingarchaeologytoothernewly reformulated sciences, such as evolutionary ecology, sociology, and human geography. DavidClarke(1968)atCambridgeUniversityofferedasomewhatdifferent,butlargelycongruent,versionofthenewarchaeologythatemphasizedquantitativeandanalyticmethodsborrowedfrommanyofthesesame

sciences.Enthusiasmamongarchaeologistswashighandsomeeventoutedthismovementasa“paradigmshift” in theKuhniansense (Kuhn1962)because itwasperceivedasmarkinga radicalbreakwith theapproachesandmethodsofculture-historicalarchaeology(Sterud1973).Theexcitementofthenewarchaeology,however,wasshort-livedandinternalcritiquesquicklycameto

the surface. Although occasionally forgotten, these early critiques would, in some instances, presagechanges that would shape the field as a whole. One area of dispute was the nature of scientificexplanation.JohnFritzandFredPlog(1970)promotedthehypothetico-deductivemethodasdevisedbyHempel andOppenheim (1948) in their classic account of the logic of scientific explanation. Patty JoWatson,StevenLeBlanc,andCharlesRedman(1971)observedthatthismethodwouldbringarchaeologyin linewithother sciences.ColinRenfrew(1982),however,questioned theappropriatenessofa strictallegiance topositivism, andMerrilee andWesleySalmonproposed the statistical-relevancemodel inplaceofthecovering-lawmodel(SalmonandSalmon1979;Salmon1982).A second topic of debate was the integrity of the archaeological record and the impact of “site

formation processes.” Michael Schiffer (1976) critiqued the new archaeologists who had naivelyassumed that the archaeological record was a “fossil record” of past behavior. He introduced adiscussionof post-depositional processes, pointingout that theyoften introducedpatternsof their ownwhich “distorted” the record. A proper explanation of a given problem must thus proceed first byidentifyingnaturalandculturaltransformsandthenfactoringthemouttorevealtheunderlyingbehaviorofinterest.Binford(1980)quicklytookissuewithSchiffer,arguingthatheassumedthe“Pompeiipremise,”namelytheexistenceofsomerealpastwaitingtobediscovered.ForBinford, therecord is thenormalconsequence of the operation of dynamic living systems and is generated continuously. This importantinsightchallengedthestandardoppositionofpastandpresentandforeshadowedthedialecticalargumentsbypostprocessualists(ShanksandTilley1987a,1987b).SchifferandhisUniversityofArizonacolleagues,J.JeffersonReidandWilliamRathje,respondedto

this intellectual fragmentation by offering “behavioral archaeology” to unify the field into a coherentprogram(Reidetal.1975;Schiffer1995).Thebasicpremiseofbehavioralarchaeologyisthebeliefthatthepropergoal of archaeology is the studyof the relationsbetweenpeople andmaterial culture at alltimesandplaces.Theunificationofarchaeologywastobeaccomplishedthroughtheintegrationoffourdistinctresearchstrategies(Reidetal.1975).Strategy1wasdevotedtousingmaterialcultureproducedinthepasttoanswerspecificquestionsaboutpasthumanbehavior.Strategy2focusedoncontemporarymaterialculturetoderivelawsofhumanbehaviorusefulforexplainingthepast.Strategy3wastheuseofpast material culture to generate laws of human behavior. Strategy 4 was the use of present materialculture to explain present human behavior. According to this framework, Strategies 2 and 3were thenomotheticor law-generating strategies andStrategies1 and4were the idiographicor lawusingones.This approach, with some modifications, is still influential today (Schiffer 1995, 1999; Skibo andSchiffer2008).Yetanotherdebateturnedontheproperroleofanalogy(seeWylie1985).Binford(1967)arguedthat

analogywastobeusednotforexplanation,butratherfortheconstructionofhypothesesaboutthepastthatcouldthenbetestedagainstthearchaeologicalrecord.Explanationwasthusatwo-stepprocessinvolvinghypothesisgenerationandhypothesistesting.Leftunresolved,however,wasthestoppingpoint,thestageoftestingatwhichananalogymightbeconsideredvalidated.Inthelate1970s,RichardGouldofferedapessimisticviewontheuseofanalogy.Hefeltthatarchaeologycouldneverhopetoaddressmorethana“limitedandratherunimportantpartofthestoryofthehumanspecies”becauseofitsrelianceonmaterialculture(Gould1980:3).ForGould(1980),symbolicbehavior,themostimportantandinterestingaspectsof human behavior, could only be understood in contemporary human societies. This meant that

ethnographycouldonlybeusednegativelytoidentifyanomalies,theso-called“spoilerapproach.”PattyJoWatson(1982),ontheotherhand,tookthemorepositiveviewthatthearchaeologicalrecordcouldbeusedtoconfrontscientifichypotheses.Binford(1985)critiquedGould,claimingthatheignoredtheroleof theory,specificallyhowitprovidesacontext for interpretation.Gould(1985) respondedbyarguingthattheoryalonewasnotsufficientandthatempiricalresearchwasessentialforthebuildingofmiddle-rangetheory,ofwhathecalledoperationaltheory(Gould1990).Thisdebateisparticularlyinterestinginthatitcontainselementsofasocialconstructivistposition.Whilearguingforgreaterobjectivity,Binfordexplicitly acknowledged that our theories and assumptions fundamentally conditionwhatwe accept asfact.What underlay processual archaeology, and its variants, was the view that archaeology could be

divorced from its socialcontext.Onedoesarchaeology firstand thenattends to its socialcontextsandconsequences.Theimplicationhereisthatthedoingofarchaeologycanbeseparatedofffromitssocialusesandthatonlytheformerwastruearchaeology.Someprescientarchaeologistsdidchallengeaspectsof this view and raised issues of relevance.As JohnFritz andFredPlog (1970:411–412) put it, “Wesuspect thatunlessarchaeologists findways tomake their research increasingly relevant to themodernworld, themodernworldwill find itself increasinglycapableofgettingalongwithoutarchaeologists.”Theirjustificationforthisstatementwasthatarchaeologyislargelyfundedbythepublicintheformoffederalgrants andprograms.Fritz (1973) laterdrewattention tohowarchaeologyhad thepotential tohelpprovideadeeperunderstandingofpoorlyassimilated technologicalchange,uncheckedpopulationgrowth, environmentalmismanagement, and social disintegration. Similarly, Richard Ford (1973) heldthatascientificarchaeologyhadthepotentialtopromoteauniversalhumanism.Inthe1980s,“postprocessualism”emergedasanewandforcefulcritiqueofprocessualarchaeology.

Ian Hodder and his students at Cambridge University were the main leaders of this movement.Significantly,Hodder,astudentofDavidClarke,wasanearlyadvocateofthenewarchaeology,andwasparticularly interested in the spatial organizationof humanbehavior (Hodder andOrton1976;Hodder1978).And likeBinford,Hodder took up ethnoarchaeology to study the relationship betweenmaterialculturepatterningandbehavior.However,unlikeBinford,hedrewtheconclusionthatsocialboundarieswere dynamic and fluid, always in the process of negotiation (Hodder 1979, 1982c). He interpretedmaterial culture as actively constituting social action and not merely passively reflecting it. ThisperspectivedrewsupportfromtheworkofhistoricalarchaeologistsworkinginbothNorthAmericaandAfricawhostressedthatthemeaningattachedtomaterialculturecouldonlybeunderstoodbyexaminingmaterial practices in their cultural-historical contexts (see Hodder 1982c:229). In 1984, Hodderintroduced the term“postprocessual” todescribeanarchaeology that takesgreateraccountofmeaning,theindividual,culture,andhistory(Hodder1984).Helaterextendedthetermtoencompassavarietyofalternatives to processualism, including neo-Marxist, indigenous, and feminist perspectives (Hodder1986). Christopher Tilley (1989a:185) has heralded this development and not the rise of the newarchaeologyasthetrueparadigmshiftinarchaeologicaltheory.Atthesametime,agroupofscholarsinspiredbyMarxistapproachesdevelopedtheirowncritiquesof

processual archaeology. Some of these individuals identifiedwith classical historicalmaterialism andargued that class relations were the driving force for culture change (Spriggs 1984; Gilman 1989;McGuire andPaynter 1991;Muller 1997).Othersweremore interested inAlthusser andFoucault andissues of ideology and power (Leone 1982, 1984;Miller and Tilley 1984; Shanks and Tilley 1987a,1987b).DespitetheircommonMarxistlineage,thesetwodirectionswerenotentirelycongruent.Indeed,theclassicalMarxistspossessedcertainaffinitieswithprocessualistsandtheneo-Marxistssharedmanyinterestswithpostprocessualists.ThereweretensionsbetweentheadvocatesofMarxistandneo-Marxist

perspectives, and these tended to be expressed over notions of agency, class, structure, andmeaning.Bruce Trigger (1985), for example, critiqued the neo-Marxists forwhat he saw as tendencies towardrelativism(seealsoPatterson1989).Themainareaofoverlap,however,wasthecommonbelief inanemancipatory archaeology, the idea that archaeology has a transformative role to play in the modernworld.Perhapsthemostimportantdevelopmentofthisperiodwasthearchaeologyofgender.MargaretConkey

andJanetSpectorpublishedthefirstwidelyreadfeministpieceinAnglo-Americanarchaeologyin1984.Theirreviewarticlewasessentiallyacalltoarms,anattempttointroducegenderasalegitimatetopicofarchaeological research and to draw attention to the status inequalities of women in the profession(ConkeyandSpector1984).ContemporaneouswiththiswasJoanGero’s(1983,1985)workonhowourWesternideologicalconstructionofwomanhoodaffectstheresearchandfundingopportunitiesofwomenin archaeology and the sciences.Her results pointed to clear discrepancies in the fundingofmale andfemale scholars by theNational Science Foundation. In 1988,Gero andConkey (1991) organized theWedgeConference at theWedgePlantation inGeorgetown,SouthCarolina, as the first group effort toexploredifferentapproachestowomenandproductioninprehistory.Theyinvitedarangeofwomenandmen,someofwhomhadneverbeforeconsideredtheimplicationsoffeminismandgenderinarchaeology.As an example of the fresh insights that this new approach could bring, Patty JoWatson revisited theorigins of agriculture in North America and exposed the logical contradictions between its standardpresentationastheresultofmalebiasandthegeneralacceptancethatwomenweregatherers(WatsonandKennedy 1991). A year later, the archaeology of gender was the theme of the annual ChacmoolConference in Calgary, drawing a large number of participants (Walde and Willows 1991). Thisconferencehelpedlegitimizegenderasaresearchtopicandunitedvariousstrandsoffeministtheory.Processualarchaeologyhasnowdiversifiedbroadlyinresponsetobothinternalandexternalcritiques.

Agoodexampleof this is“cognitiveprocessualarchaeology,”anapproachcloselyassociatedwiththework of Colin Renfrew at Cambridge University. Renfrew (1994a:5) has characterized cognitivearchaeologyingeneraltermsasthestudyofthe“speciallyhumanabilitytoconstructandusesymbols”inorder to understand how cognitive processes operated in specific contexts. It draws frompalaeoanthropology,animalethology,evolutionarypsychology,artificial intelligence,neuroscience, andcognitive science. While there is, as yet, no clear theoretical consensus, it is heuristically useful todifferentiate “evolutionary studies” from “cognitive processual studies.” The former encompasses theoriginsandevolutionofhumancognitiveabilities,particularlyconsciousness, language, and toolusing(Mellars1991;Wynn1991;deBeauneetal.2009).The latteraddresses the identificationofcognitiveprocessesofpastmodernpeoplesand their relationships togeneralcognitiveprinciples (FlanneryandMarcus 1993; Zubrow 1994). What unites these approaches, then, is their refutation of the standardprocessualistthesisthatthemindisepiphenomenalandtheirmethodologicalcommitmenttosomeformofpositivism.Genderstudieshavealsoproliferated,andexhibitaconsiderablerangeofdiversityfromempiricalto

idealist, from positivist to hermeneutic. These studies indicate the evolution of feminist thinking fromdichotomousmodelsofsexandgender toaconcernformultivalent issuesof identity,embodiment,andsubjectivity. Here the work of Judith Butler (1990, 1993) and her ideas of performativity have beenparticularlyimportant(PerryandJoyce2001).Thecategoriesofsexandsexualityhavebeeninterrogatedandretheorized(Meskell1999;Joyce2000a,2000b;SchmidtandVoss2000;WilkieandHayes2006).Womenhavebeenplacedatthecenterofnewmodelsofhumanevolution(Zihlman1989;Hagar1997).Special symposia and sessions at professionalmeetings are routinely devoted to such topics as equityissues, career development, and historical struggles (see Siefert 1991; Claassen 1992; Claassen and

Joyce 1994;Nelson et al. 1994;Geller and Stockett 2006). Special committees andworkgroups havebeen established within the professional associations. There is now a journal devoted to women inarchaeology (Kvinner inArchaeologi) and a handbook on gender in archaeology (Nelson 2006). Thisinterestinfeminismandgenderresearchisnowfirmlyestablishedattheinternationallevel,mostnotablyinEngland (Braithwaite 1982;Moore 1986, 1988, 2007;Gibbs 1987;Gilchrist 1994, 1999),Norway(Dommasnes1992;Dommasnes et al. 1998;Englestad1991,2004), andAustralia (duCros andSmith1993).Evolutionaryapproacheshavealsodiversified.Oneofthese,knownas“selectionism”or“Darwinian

archaeology,” is associated with Robert Dunnell (1980, 1989) and his students at the University ofWashington.TheyhaveofferedthecontroversialviewthatculturechangecanbemodeledinDarwinianterms. More specifically, they claim that natural selection is responsible for functional variation incultural traits. Neutral or stylistic traits are those traits that are conditioned only by the processes ofcultural transmission.RobertLeonard andGeorge Jones (1987)have expandedDunnell’s approachbyintroducing the notion of “replicative fitness.” For them, there is an important distinction to bemadebetween individuals, who have differential reproductive success, and the traits of those individuals,which have only replicative success. Each trait can thus be considered to have its own fitness value,whichmayormaynotaffect the fitnessof thebearerof that trait.MichaelO’BrienandR.LeeLyman(2000, 2002) have developed this approach even further, arguing that artifacts are to be treatedanalyticallyasphenotypicmanifestationsofculturaltraitsandthattheirdifferentialreplicativefitnessisprobabilistic, not deterministic. Thus whether or not a human population evolves along with them iscontextuallyspecific.However,otherscholarshaveofferedsharpcritiquesofselectionism,arguingthatitbetraysamisunderstandingoftheroleofphenotypicvariationand,inparticular,behavioralvariationintheevolutionaryprocess(BooneandSmith1998;Preucel1999;Bamforth2002;Gabora2006).Perhaps the most exciting area of evolutionary research is the evolution of mind. Several major

syntheseshavenowbeenpublishedbyarchaeologistsorbyscholarsstronglyinfluencedbyarchaeology.MerlinDonald(1991)hasproposedthethesisthatsymbolicthoughtemergedfromapre-symbolicformthrough thegradualembeddingofnewrepresentationalsystems.Hewrites that“the functional locusof‘consciousness’ can shift, depending on the representational system currently in command” (Donald1991:369).TerrenceDeacon (1997) takesashis startingpoint theproblemof reference.Heholds thatreference is fundamentallyhierarchical innature:more complex formsarebuilt up fromsimplerones.More specifically, symbolic referencedependsupon indexical reference,which, in turn, dependsuponiconicreference.Thismeansthatinordertounderstandsymbolicreferenceoneneedstostartwithiconsandworkupwardstoindexesandthensymbols.StevenMithen(1994,1996)hasproposedthat thekeyeventintheevolutionofthemodernmindistheshiftfromspecializedintelligenceto“cognitivefluidity”during theMiddle/Upper Paleolithic transition. As with Donald, he adopts a modified version of thedevelopmentalmodelasitisusedincurrentpsychology.Hethenintroducestheanalogyofacathedralasameansofunderstandingthearchitectureofmind.Henotesthatjustasitisimpossibletoseparateouttheinfluencesofthearchitecturalplanandthebuildingenvironmentonthecathedral,so,too,itisimpossibletoseparateouttheeffectsofgenesandthedevelopmentalenvironmentinthemind(Mithen1996:66).Animportantrecentdevelopmentistheriseof“postcolonialarchaeologies.”Postcolonialismrefersto

thecritiqueoftheWesterncanonbysuchpreeminentscholarsasFrantzFanon(1963,1965),EdwardSaid(1978),Gayatri Spivak (1988), andHomiBhabha (1994), among others. This critique has highlightedissuesofrepresentationinthefieldsofhistoryandliterarycriticismandemphasizedpowerdifferentialsbetweencolonistsandthecolonized,particularlyinthecontextofAfrica,theCaribbean,Palestine,andIndia. In archaeology, this critique is associatedwith the rise of postprocessual archaeologies, which

singledoutthecolonialoriginsofarchaeologyandtheunacknowledgedbiasesunderlyingitspracticeinnon-Western contexts (Gosden 2001; Shepherd 2002a). As Hodder (1986:157) puts it, “Westernarchaeologists working in non-industrialized societies, particularly in the post-colonial era, becameincreasinglyconfrontedwiththeideathatthepaststheywerereconstructingwere‘Western’andwithanarticulate rejection of those pasts as being politically and ideologicallymotivated.” The relationshipsbetweenpostcolonial theoryandarchaeologyarecomplexandnuancedand linked to indigenous rightsmovements worldwide (Dean and Levi 2003). Matthew Liebmann (2008:4) advocates postcolonialtheoryonthegroundsthatithasthepotentialtocontributetoarchaeologyinthreeways:(1)interpretively,in the investigation of past cases of colonization and colonialism; (2) historically, in the study ofarchaeology’s role in the construction and deconstruction of colonial discourses; and (3)methodologically,asanaidtothedecolonizationofthefieldaspartofethicalpractice.Related to postcolonialism is the international movement championing indigenous knowledge and

decolonizingmethodologiesthathascometobecalled“indigenousarchaeology”(NicholasandAndrews1997; Watkins 2001; Smith and Wobst 2005; Atalay 2006; Silliman 2008). These indigenousarchaeologiesrepresenttheinterestsofdifferentindigenouscommunitiesandtheirmultiplearticulationswitharchaeology.TheyarenowbeginningtobeexpressedinNewZealand,Australia,Africa,Bolivia,Canada, and theUnited States. Indigenous archaeologies are thus relatively new developments on thearchaeological landscape and parallel the growing national and international acknowledgment ofindigenousrights.Becauseoftheirnewness,theyarestillintheprocessofestablishingtheiragendasandpriorities. Perhaps themost widely cited definition is due to George Nicholas and Thomas Andrews(1997:3),whostatethatindigenousarchaeologyisarchaeologyconducted“with,for,andbyIndigenouspeoples.” Indigenous archaeology is more than indigenous people learning the methods of WesternarchaeologyorWesternarchaeologistscollaboratingwithindigenouscommunities.ItraisesfundamentalquestionsaboutWesternwaysofknowingandoffersradicallydifferentontologiesgroundedinindigenousconceptionsofspace,time,andsocialbeing(seeCajete1999,2004).The theory debates, so prominent in the 1980s, have now become muted by the debates over

archaeology’s disciplinary status. These debates are revisiting the distinctively American thesis thatarchaeology is a form of anthropology, as Phil Phillips (1955:246) andRobert Braidwood (1959:79)originallyargued.Theyareintimatelyrelatedtothecurrentcritiquesofthe“four-fieldapproach,”whichwasanapproachthatwasfirstoutlinedin1904byFranzBoas,whoproposedthatthedisciplineproperlyembraced “the biological history ofmankind in all its varieties; linguistics applied to peoplewithoutwritten language; the ethnology of peoplewithout historic records; and prehistoric archeology” (Boas1904:35).Inthedecadesthatfollowed,anthropologybecameinstitutionalizedwiththeestablishmentofanationalanthropologicalorganizationandthecreationofanthropologydepartmentsatmajoruniversities.Althoughfewscholarswereeverfluentinallfourfields,anthropologistsnonethelessregardedtheirfieldas a holistic scientific enterprise, and argued for its place among other disciplines and its role inintellectuallifeandpublicdiscourse(Stocking1995).In some ways, anthropology has been a victim of its own success. Its steady growth has led to

considerable subdisciplinary specialization and the attendant disputes and rivalries. In 1995, GeorgeStockingobserved that theAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation consistedof 15 subsidiary societies(includingtheethnological,humanistic,linguistic,medical,psychological,urban,visual,LatinAmericanandEuropean, aswell as consciousnessandwork).Therewere tenassociations (includingAfricanist,Black,feminist,politicalandlegal,seniorandstudent),aswellasseveralregionalassociationsandonedevoted to the practice of anthropology. There are three “councils” (education, museum, nutrition).Finally,thereweretwosections(biologyandarchaeology).Inaddition,thecirculationoftheAmerican

Anthropologist, the official journal of the association, had declined from over 11,000 subscribers tofewer than 8,000 and was taken by less than half of the membership (Stocking 1995). Someanthropologistsregardthissituationasindicatingthe“fragmentation”ofthefieldandhavepointedtotheincreasingdifficultythatscholarshaveintalkingacrosstheirsubdisciplinaryspecializations.Contributing to thisanxiety is the lossofcontrolover thecultureconcept.Once theprouddomainof

anthropology, it has been appropriated in differentways by cultural studies,women’s studies,AfricanAmericanstudies,NativeAmericanstudies,amongmanyothers.Scholarsineconomics,politicalscience,andsociologyarefocusingonglobalization,transnationalism,diaspora,andsoon.Inaddition,thereisagrowinggapbetween anthropologists studyinghumanevolution and those favoring applied approachesaddressing the interests and needs of contemporary communities. Related to this latter focus is a newethically based concern with the relationship between anthropologists and the people whomanthropologists study. Some see the idea of an “informant” as a holdover from a colonialist-eraanthropology. Informantsmust nowbe acknowledged as “co-producers of knowledge” (Mills 1995:7).These critiques have causedmany scholars to questionwhether anthropology is now too dispersed tomeet the needs of the discipline, to educate key audiences within and beyond the academy, to attract“diverse voices to the discipline, to foster the use of anthropological knowledge in the public policyprocess”(Cornman1995:6).Theiconoclasticnatureof thecurrentcritiqueiscapturedbythetitleof therecentbookUnwrapping

the Sacred Bundle: Reflections on the Disciplining of Anthropology (Segal and Yanagisako 2005).DanielSegalandSylviaYanagisako(2005),itseditors,areskepticaloftheunitarygoalsforanthropologyandholdthatadvocatesofthefour-fieldapproachseektoestablishanormativescienceintheKuhniansensewhichclosesdownthepossibilityofcriticaldialogueacrossdifferentknowledgedomains.JamesClifford(2005)takesthisargumentevenfurther,suggestingthatthedisciplineshouldbe“disestablished”on thegrounds that its object of study (primitive societies),method (fieldwork), interpretiveparadigm(culture),andtelos(Man)haveallbeensubjectedtocritiquesothattheirarticulationisnolongerself-evident.This argumentmustperhapsbe takenwith agrainof salt sinceClifford is not amemberof aDepartment of Anthropology, but rather a member of the History of Consciousness Department at theUniversityofCaliforniaatSantaCruz.MichaelSilverstein(2005)seesablurringofidentitybetweenthesubfields such that some are losing their distinctive status. He suggests that linguistic anthropology is“socioculturalanthropologywithatwist,thetheoreticalaswellasinstrumental(via‘discourse’or‘thediscursive’) worrying of our same basic data, semiosis in various orders of contextualization”(Silverstein2005:119).As theonlyarchaeologist inSegalandYanagisako’svolume,Hodder (2005)posesa seriesof sharp

questionsaboutthecurrentstatusofanthropologicalarchaeology.Heasks,“Whyarethereonlyfourfieldsin anthropology?” and, “Isarchaeology better served outside of anthropology?”He favors a discourseconsistingofindependentdisciplines,eachwithitsownexpertiseandquestions,comingtothetableasequals. This questioning was given dramatic expression in 1998 when Hodder’s own department atStanfordUniversitysplitintwo,creatingaDepartmentofAnthropologicalScienceandaDepartmentofCulturalandSocialAnthropology.Manyscholarsdrewattentiontothefact that thissplit tookplaceonepistemological lines (positivism and postpositivism) and not subdisciplinary ones (archaeology,linguistic anthropology, cultural anthropology, biological anthropology). For example, there werearchaeologistsineachofthenewdepartments.However,itisequallytruethatthisreorganizationwastheresult of personality disputes. Similar disputes have also led to the creation of a Department ofAnthropology and a Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. Somewhatironically, the impact of the Stanford situation has recently diffused. Owing to budgetary reasons, the

universityreunitedthedepartmentin2007.Some of Hodder’s concerns were raised previously at professional conferences. In 2000, Susan

Gillespie and Deborah Nichols organized a session at the Society for American Archaeology (SAA)meetings entitled “Archaeology isAnthropology” (Gillespie andNichols 2003). Thiswas followed ayear laterbyDouglasPrice’s sessionat theSAAmeetingson the topicofanautonomousarchaeology,separatefromanthropology(Wiseman2001,2002).ThissessionmotivatedresponsesfromRobertKelly(2002) and Susan Lees (2002) in defense of anthropological archaeology. Also in 2001, JosephSchuldenrein and Susan Gillespie organized a session at the American Anthropological Associationmeetings entitled “Teaching Archaeology at the Dawn of the Millenium: Is Anthropology ReallyNecessary?”Atthesamemeeting,WilliamLongacregavethedistinguishedArchaeologyDivisionlectureentitled “Archaeology as Anthropology Revisited.” Longacre (1964), of course, was one of the earlyadvocatesofanthropologicalarchaeology,andplayedakeyroleintheestablishmentofprocessualism.These critiques of and arguments for anthropological archaeology are certainly very useful. They

challengeourunderlyingassumptionsandoffernewwaysofthinkingaboutarchaeology.However,uptothispoint theyhavebeendisciplinocentric, in the sense that theyhavebeenmore aboutpreserving theintegrity of archaeology as a profession (either within anthropology or apart from it) than aboutconsideringthesocialconsequencesofthedebatesfordiversecommunitiesandinterestgroups.Largelyabsentfromthesediscussionshasbeenanyacknowledgmentthattheyalsohaverealconsequencesforthepublic. For example, T. J. Ferguson (2003) has made a compelling case for an anthropologicalarchaeologybaseduponthepremisethatitsfocusonlanguage,culture,thebody,andmaterialculturebestservesthecontemporaryinterestsofNativepeoples.Ifwearetoretainthe“sacredbundle”metaphor,thenwemightacknowledgethatsuchbundlesarenot

static; they are always renewed through ritual practice serving a specific social need. When sacredbundlesareopened,ritualspecialistsexaminetheircontentsandrepairorreplaceoldobjectswithnewonesasappropriate.Thereisnoreasonthatwecannotacknowledgeourfour“sacredarrows”whilewesimultaneously seek to transcend them by developing new alliances and collaborations that crosscuttraditionalfieldsanddisciplinesandincorporatedifferentpublics.Thispragmaticspiritcanbeseeninhistoricalarchaeology,atheoreticallyrobustpartofanthropology.Infact,webelieveanargumentcanbemadethat,insomerespects,historicalarchaeology,asitiscurrentlyconstituted,presentsahealthymodelforcontemporaryarchaeology.

HistoricalArchaeologyinTheoryThecaseofhistoricalarchaeologypresentssomeintriguingparallelswithanddeparturesfromthefieldof archaeology as awhole.Although its earliest practitionerswere formulating agendas in the 1930s,historicalarchaeologydidnotemergeasasubdisciplineofanthropologicalarchaeologyuntil theearly1960s (see South 1994; South andDeagan 2002). After an initial period of identity anxiety in whichquestions circulated concerningwhether it should be history or anthropology, orwhether it should beseparatefromorapartofthelargerenterpriseofarchaeologicalresearch,thefieldenteredarelativelybland period of “normal science” in the later 1960s and early 1970s.Our use of the term “bland” todescribe this period is purposeful because much of the work in the field revolved around technicaldiscussions of identifying material culture and the issue of reconciling text and material evidence. Incontrast to these rather quotidian pursuits, some historical archaeologists chose instead to exploretheoreticalavenuesthatpresagedwhatwouldlateremergeaspostprocessualarchaeology.One of the more noteworthy theoretical divides that characterized the early years of historical

archaeologyrevolvedaroundthedifferencesbetweentheprocessualagendaofStanleySouth(1977)andthestructuralistapproachofJamesDeetz(1977).Deetzacknowledgedtheinspirationforhisforayintostructuralism as coming from the work of folklorist and architectural historian Henry Glassie (1969,1972, 1975; see Deetz 1972, 1977, 1993). Although there is little doubt that this was true, it beliesDeetz’s(1965,1967)ownworkwiththeideaofmaterialcultureaslanguageandhisearlycontributiontowhatwould eventually be termed the linguistic turn in archaeology. These theoretical fault lineswereplayedoutintheplenaryofthe1979meetingsoftheSocietyforHistoricalArchaeologyinasessionaptlycalled “Star Wars.” In one of the more memorable comments, William Kelso noted that South’squantitativeapproachseemed toprovide theperfect setofmethods toachievewhatDeetzsought inhisownwork, a better understandingof the ideational changes that accompanied thegrowthofmodernity,althoughnooneusedtheterminthesession.Deetz’s work inspired Peter Schmidt (1978), who was developing a similar approach in Tanzania.

Using structural analysis to interrogate localoral histories,Schmidtwas able to linkoral testimony toearly iron-smelting technologies thatcouldbe tracedbackmore than2,500years.Thisallowedhim toexpandthescopeandusefulnessof thiskindofanalysiswhileexploringchangeandcontinuity in localhistoriographies.Schmidtalsodrewfromtheworkof theEnglishAfricanistMerrickPosnansky(1966,1969).Posnansky(1959,1968)subsequentlyinfluencedthegrowthofhistoricalarchaeologyacrossthecontinent(seePosnanskyandDeCorse1986;DeCorse1987,1989,2001a,2001b;ReidandLane2004a,2004b; Schmidt 2006). These studies by Deetz, Glassie, and Schmidt, as well as others by LelandFerguson(1977)andMarkLeone(1977),wereacknowledgedbyHodder (1982c:229)asamodel thathad already been successfully applied to the study of the past. This seldom-examined link betweenstructuralismandpostprocessualismisjustoneofseveralexamplesofhistoricalarchaeologyanticipatingchangesthatwouldinfluencethefieldofarchaeologyasawhole.Anothernoteworthyexampleis theearlyworkofCharlesFairbanksinthefieldofAfricanAmerican

archaeology.Asearlyas1958,Fairbanks took thecourageousstepofarguing thatarchaeologyhad thepotentialtoaddressissuesofidentitypoliticsastheywerebeingplayedoutovertheissueofcivilrightsintheAmericanSouth.Atatimewhenthecivilrightsmovementwasinitsformativestages,Fairbanks(1958) put forth the provocative idea that archaeology could help retrieve a forgotten history. Hisanthropologicaltrainingresultedinaprogramofresearchthatstronglyshapedthedirectionofhistoricalarchaeology in its formative years (South andDeagan 2002). Fairbanks (Fairbanks andAscher 1971;Fairbanks1984)inspiredanentiregenerationofstudentswhoestablishedwhatistodaythearchaeologyoftheAfricandiaspora(e.g.Ferguson1977,1991,1992;Otto1984;Singleton1985,1999,2006).ThisresearchalsobenefitedfromtheAfricanistperspectivebroughttothetopicbyPosnansky(1999)andhisstudentsworking both inAfrica (Kelly 1997, 2004;DeCorse 1999) and in theCaribbean (Armstrong1985,1990,1999,2003;Agorsah1994;ArmstrongandKelly2000).Byfocusingontheforgingofnewidentities in colonial contexts, Fairbanks also inspired other students, most notably Kathleen Deagan(1973,1974,1983,1995),toexaminethegrowthofcreoleculturesinthesoutheasternUnitedStatesandtheCaribbean.Insodoing,Fairbanksandhisstudentshavecontributedimportanttheoreticalperspectivessurroundingthemannerinwhichcolonialismandslaveryshapedthegrowthofcreoleculturalpractices.ThisnotionofcreolizedculturalpracticeswouldsubsequentlyinformresearchinothercolonialcontextsinwhichthelivesofEuropeans,NativeAmericans,andAfricanAmericansbecameintertwined(Deagan2003;Lightfoot2003;Trigg2005;HayesandMrozowski2007).A third and perhaps most visible example of historical archaeology’s contribution to contemporary

theoreticaldiscourseisitsfocusonthegrowthofcapitalismanditslinkstocolonialism,globalization,and modernity. The studies by Mark Leone and Robert Paynter were particularly influential. In his

seminal 1982 article “Some Opinions About Recovering Mind,” Leone acknowledges the theoreticalsophisticationof the structuralist approach employedbyboth JamesDeetz inNewEngland andHenryGlassie in Virginia, but ques