Agency in ArchaeologY

Edited by Marcia.Anne Dobres and John E. Robb

-1LLtr] ^v^v&H
1IjI n w - ' er.- I < r. \

-fil
r .O ,.i5 tra$va

London and New York

Part 1

Editors' introduction

Agency in archaeologY
or platitude? Paradigm
utd JohnE. Robb Marcia-Anne Dobres

The cat's pajamas or the Emperor's new clothes? theory' In processual Agency has become the buzzwordof contemporaryarchaeological vacuumleft by the theoretical the into fast encroaching u..llo.ology, the agencyconcept is of all kinds theorists circles, post-processual in models,while oii-,igt-r.t*.t systemic collapse themconstituted subjects relating feeling, and ur. .tr..rrr. to un,l.rrtund how acting, other Unlike control' direct or beyondtheirlull comprehension under circumsrances selves from spectrum, the across theorists by key concepts,some version of ^g.rr.y is endorsed possigenuine, not if is apparent, the The result ph..rorn..rology to evolutionaryecology. perhapssincethe 1960s.If popularity implies tility of a theJr"tlc"l consenslsunparalleled it is clear that agencyis a Good Thing' theoreticalsoundness, Most Yet, surprisingly,there has been little direct scrutiny of the concept of agency' to concept the to just hoc appe_als ad that: applicationsof agencytheory are archaeological citations by bolstered here, ,rrrk. ,".r1 of a iarticrla, prnble* or situation,The implication often incomprehensiblebut incontrovertibly high'brorv writings of of the "*biguo.rr, an,l Foucault,is that the idea of agencyin itself is inherently sound:it Bourdieu,Gidd"ns, there is little is only our useof the concept that needsto be worked out' The result is that useof the in their explicit about what "agency"actually means.Few authorsare consensus epistemolog' and 6f basicmethodological consideration term, nor has there been"sustained to the premodernpast'This absence so as ro make it applicableand appropriate ical issues is currently of a theoretical critique ud^to the slipperyimprecisionwith which,"agency" An concept' the invoking and its ubiquity masksdeepdivides among archaeologists usecl, common' our and theory especiallythorny issuehere is the relationshipbetween agency so little critical senseviervsof the world. Agency views havs spreadso rapidly and rvitl-r to get "beyond" bridge as a they have been used suspects examination that one someti-mes of agenc-y applications The flip side of common'sense rheory and do "real" archaeology. adds which "hand-waving" to dismissit as mere theory has been for s.r.n. nrch"-.ologists of ancient politics and culture' little to our understanding As things stand, then, agency in archaeologyis not a theoretically sophisticated li.,gr^ franca - an ambiguousplatitude meanilg everything and paradigrn,ut ,rth", " it is useless, .,nthiri'g.We regardthis as a problematicstateof affairs.If the agencyconcept theoretwhen the and discarded superficially ratl'rerthan ir"rvoked shouldte deconstructed and consideration deeper it deserves merit, it has if quarter. But another ical winclsshift to move' theoretical more extensive theoretical elaboration.ln the history of archaeology, been thosethat have past the vierv rve hclrv to contribution lasting a ments that have made of scrutiny,often emergingin a very different generations to mr.rltiple have been subiected

Marcia-AnneDobresanJohnE. Robb

form than they began'Vithout searching critique, current interestin agencyis likely to do little more than peak,fade,and provide future historianswith a horizon markerfor archaeological works dating to the 1990s.If agencytheory really is to become useful in understandingancient peopleand their contribution to l"rg"-r."i" processes ofcultural changeif we are to avoid simply slappingagencyonto the pa"st like f..rh coat of paint - *. .iur, integrate theoretical discourse,archaeologicalpractice, "analytic methodologies,and concretecasestudies. The goal of this book is to createa dialogueamong archaeologists interested in agency, archaeologists critiquing it, and archaeologist, fo. *lL* the luri is still out. Rather than arguingfor a single view of agency, we have tried to collect as wide a variety of views as possible.Readerswill have still other views. The goal is, someday, ro do justice to our common interest:the worlds of the past. Where does "agency" come from? A brief historical overview Questionsabout personhood, volition, self-determination, and the nature of consciousness and reasoningcan be traced back to Greek phirosophy,especially Aristotle. They were central themes in the eighteenth-cenrury*iiti.g, r Locke, David Hume, Jean. lon" Rousseau, Adam Smith, and the nineteenth-c..,iurytheoristjohn Stuart Mrll, who Jacques together articulated the individual-centered philosophiesof free-*ill, choice, intention. ality, and the "purposefulactivity of thrifty individuals" that srill serveas the ideological basisof l7estern democracy. The very cornerstones of the socialsciences are built on the question of how social institutions and self-determination - structureand agency- drive socialreproduction (Archer 19BB). Durkheim's normativism and Parsons' functionalist and formalist theoriesdominated sociologicaldiscussions of agencyfor much of this cenrury.Parsons (1949), in particulaq stressed a utilihrian rationality underlying human decision-makingand emphasized _ perhapsover-emphasized - instirutions as pervasivetop-down constraintson individual choice (Giddens 19?9;Halperin 1994). By ihe 1960s, ttLisview wascodified in the notion of "methodologicalindividualism,"which wasan artempt to explain the causal relationship betweenmacroscale (constraining)institutionsand microscale individual decision-making (choice), basedon nomothetic principles of maximization, optimizarion, and practica'i rationality (seeClark, this volume).Thus, at about the sametime that archaeologists began embracingneo'evolutionarytheory and cultural ecology, many sociocultural and economic anthropologists were embracingmethodologicalindividualism,especiallyin the study of contemporarynon-capitalistsocialformations(Halperin I 994). It is really only in the last two decades that anthropologists have seriouslybegun to rethink these concepts. Recent agency theory stems in large measure from Garfinkelt pioneering work on ethnomethodology in the 1960s (Gankel 19g4), and from the writings of Giddens (1979, l9B4) and Bourdieu (1977). These foundational works were subsequently taken in a varieryof directionsby Archer (l9gB, 1995),Sztompka (1991, 7994a),Storper (1985)' Heritage (1982), cohen (r9gz), Bryant 1".y (iqqt), "r,d Kegan Gardiner (1995), among others. According to these theorists, ".,i and in conrrasr ro previousparadigms, social agentsare viewed not as omniscient,pracrical,and free-willed economizers, but rather as socially embedded,imperfect, oft"., impractical people. "rrd Agency theoristsalso talk of a much more interactive (or dialectic) relationshipbetween the srrucrures in which agentsexist and, paradoxically, which th"y .r.rt.. In largemeasure' this shift toward a more humanizedand dynamic picture of the nego.

AgerrcYin cnchaeologY 5 tiations taking place between individuals,communities,and institutionshas been enablecl by a focus .oi io *u.h on agencyand agents,as on practice (Ortner 1984;Trner 1994: practicetheory can be tracedback to trvo of Marx's the roots of contemporary 43 ). Incleed, most of-quotedpassages: they do men [sic] make rheir own history,but they do not make it just as they please, circumstances under but chosen by themselves, not make it under circumsrances given and transmittedfrom the past' directly encountered, ( M a r x 1 9 6 3 :1 5 f o r i g .1 8 6 9 ] ) their life, so they are. What they are, therefore,coincideswith As individualsexpress both with rvhat they produceand with how they produce. their pro<luction, (Marx and Engelst970:42) All of the core elementsof contemporarypracticetheory are here: r e r o r socieryis a plurality of individualswho exist only by virtue of the relationshipsthey createduring everydaymaterialproduction (prans) which highlights the processual humansp.uJu." teir cultural historiesthroughpraxis, nature of socialreproduction individual (or group) free-will and volition are explicitly disavowed,in part because peopledo not choosethe conditions within which they live thesestructuralconditions have a strong material basis institutional settingsand conditions constitute a material world that is made,experiand made meaningful)by those living in it enced,and perceivld (that is, symbolized later) (which prefigures agencytheoriesof embodiment,discussed gives time and history which conditions, society exlsts as the result of antecedent practicesconstituting particular the and prominent roles in shapingsocialformations them. practical a theory of knowledgeconcerningpeople's Marx's focuson praxiswas essentially experi' and material on production linked with the world, while his emphasis engagemenr 1982). (Dobres ]]lley in press; thought, and beliefs eniial activiry to sociery, theseelementsas Giddens (1979,l9B4) reconstituted In the late 19?0sand early 1980s, his "duality of Through part of his critique of the formalism long dominant in sociology. they live, which in srructure,"he aigued that people createthe conditions and structures is an of their actions'Structure-building largelyas a result of the unintendedconsequences never is that control their betweenactorsand forcesbeyond ongoing and recursiveprocess ,"^ily .pt"ted (cf...h", 1995; Sztompka 1994b). Parallel to these claims, Bourdieu, once a devour strucruralist (e.g., 19?3), began questioning how social practice shapes routinesof daily life, or habitus,within societyby concentratingon the taken.for-granted whicfr people create and become structured by institutions and beliefs beyond their or direct control (Bourdieu 1977)' awareness conscious Thus, by the early to mid-1980s,the question of practice and the dialectic of agency' anthropology(as in Moore 1986; srructurehacl moved ro the mainstreamof socio-cultural interestin the Sahlins 1981; Scott 1985; overview in Ortner 1984).This reconfigured philosophy interplay of actors and structureswas also being explored (independently)in

Marcia-Anne DobresandJohn E. Robb

(e.g., Brand 1984; Tmer 1994), and feminist and gender studies (overview in Kegan Gardiner 1995; see also Gero, this volume). At the same time, the Annales School was rethinking the temporalrelationshipbetweenlarge-scale instirutionsantl srnall-scale social practices. ( 1980)tripartitedivision of time into long-termsrrucrures, Braudel's medium-term cycles, and short-termeventsunderlinedtwo especially ve*irrgquestions: first, how do sftuc. tures outlive the agentswho create,move through, and changetheml; and second,how do shorr-rermeventscontribute to longer-rerm processes? (cf. Biniliff 1991;Knapp l99za). Agency in archaeology: the theoretical landscape The first self'proclaimedand epistemologically self.reflecrivetheorerical revolution in modem archaeological theory was the New Archaeology, whosefounding charter was laid in 1962 with Binford's article "Archaeology as Anthropology." The New Archaeologists argued that archaeologyshould be basedexplicitly on anthropological theory. By a.,tf,ro. pological theory, they meant the social evoiutionism of Service, Sahlins and Fried, often combined with the concept of ecologicaladaptation.Culture wasconceptualized as a self, regulatingand intemally_ integratedsysrem (eg. Clarke 196g).Signifi."r,lly, a central tener of their manifestowas that archaeologists should be ambitious,*irh ,h. developmentof new theoretical questions,methodological techniques,and epistemological safeguards, virtually all aspects of ancient social life could be investigated. The New Archaeology's theoreticalmanifestocould have led in many theoreticaldirections, and it is a fascinatingquestionwhy some,suchasagency, became the roadsnot taken. For example,at the outsetof the New Archaeology, Bird'(L962) underlinedbehavioral links between individual political procesr,symbols, and material culture, and pointed out that people "differentially parriciparein culture" (Binford 1965), while Redan og?7) suggested that it could be analytically useful to comprehend the "smallest inreracrion group" possibleand to understandhow "analyti.ul i.rdiuiduals" contributed to larger-scale social processes such as craft specialization,the organizationof large.scale distributive networks, and the rise and fall of complex social formations. In reirospect, theoretical concerns that could have been linked to the question of agencywere, instead, equated with the devalued empirical searchfor the archaeologic^lJig.riur., of individuals. For better or worse' processual archaeologists made "systes"thei problem, and agentswere encasedin a "black box" of no analytic or explanarory imporiance (cf. Brurifi el I99Z; Hodder 1986;Tiigger 1989).Archaeologists who did deal with the socialrolesof indi. viduals, primarily in often very sophisticateddiscussions of the dynamics of chiefdoms and early inequality, tended to assume political actorsmotivat.d by a uniform, commonsenseambition for power. By the early 1980s, intellectualmovements oursidethe disciplinehad begunto influence archaeologists who were increasinglyfrustratedby the "faceless blobs" (Tiingham 1991) peripheralized in mainstream_ accountsof the past (see Cowgill 1993;Marquardt 1997.; "lso Peebles1992;Shanksand Tilley l98z). It *", an odd ,ni*,u.. of ,,post';proc.rru"l"*ong ists (among them Marxists, structuralists,symbolists,and feminists) ih", explicit concem with agentsand agencybegan to coalesce. "., VariousMarxist agendas .-"rgj fo. understandingthe historical relationshipbetween institutional srrucrures (economicand ideological'especially), sociopoliticalmovemenrs, conflicts among individualsand groups, and large'scaletransformations (as in Leone 1986; Miller rnd tiil.y t98+; Spriggs19ti+; lllley 1982)' Meanwhile, other researchers beganro rurn their attention ro srructures and symbols "in action" (e.g.various essays in Hodder l9g2a, l9g2b), althouehexplicitlinks to

AgencYin atchacologY 7 obviousuntil later structufation,habitus,anclthe dialectic of event and structurewele not ques' agency'oriented toward move as a (see\yobst 199?). What in hindsight can be seen (espe' 1970s late the as early as starting ,io.r, *o, alsodevelopingthrough !..,d", research, cf. Conkey and Gero 1997)' Still more Silverblatt 19BB; cially Fedigantqa6; Raip 19?7"; influencedby the Annales school ,....,r1y, n!".,.y h", b".r, explicitly taken up by scholars (e.g.D , u k e t 9 9 t ; B i n t l i f f l 9 9 l ; K n a p p1 9 9 2 b ) ' to "theorizingthe subject"was approaches The common ground among thesedisparate with non'discur' the claim that historical .ont.*t, of socialand material interaction' along within which conditions sive perceptionsof the world, servedas the proximate boundary constrained being and creating ancient p.opl" negotiaredtheir world, while simultaneously by it. As Hodder summedit uP: groupsto since societiesare tnade up of individuals, and since individuals can form ideolo' or further rheir ends, lthen] directed,inrentional behavior of individual actors non'static as might best be seen gies can leaclto structural change.Indeed,societies perspectives' uncertain and changing of variety a between negotiations dder l9g7a: 6) four distinct Throughout the 1980sancl 1990s,interest in agencyintensifiedin at least in interested gender. Rescarchers concerned first The inquiry. areas of archaeological and those alcient gender dynamics (Conkey and Spector 1984; Silverblatt 1988) began (Gero 1985) 1983, practice archaeological of nature gen<lerecl with the .o...... understand to imperative tl're of and subject the to theorizing calling for new approaches and cultr'rre such microscalecontributions to the macro'structuringof ancient cultures questions among research and standpoints change. Today, the diversity of theoretical striking is practice and theory in both agency gender and concernedwiih archaeologists about discourse to mainstream (Conkey and Gero 199?).Amog these,f.*i.,irt challenges and of individual embodiment the in interest ,".oifigured the body are leading ,o " (seeCero, this volume)' collectivesubjectivity part concefnsthe A secondarea of debate in rvhich the question of agencyplayed a in parallel among again.pursued was that of material culture variation, a topic significance about srylehad debates decades, several ,J"r"l conceptuallydistinct lines of resear.h.bu.r of (possibly variety complex increasingly to recognizethat an finafty led archaeologists not only were meanings Thus patterns. endless)meaningscould be read into material personae social actor's an to sensitive context.dependt (Hodder 198?b),but necessarily as a began What 1992). in Hegmon (e.g.carr and Neitzel 1995;overview and situatedness developed patterning culture material concern with formal and functional variability in action and structuration of and fc-rr about socialcontextsand arenas into a host of questions "interferences." culture through whut iVobst (this volume) calls material began connecting agencyand material culture via Thlrd, a number of archaeologists and/or Giddens'structulation primarily through phenomenology orher theoreticalbridges, the phenomcnolog' examined Annquitl from theory. Barretr's O9g4 pircneeringFragments (1993,1996), lllleY by works parallel ical experien.e of -"g"lithic monuments, and on the social focused (1994), have others and and Richards Tho^as (1991), Park.r"P"arson Clearly such environment' a constfucted construction of the actor'ssubjectivitieswithin and sociery structtrres if Specifically, pose complex qu.riio.,, for archaeology. approaches negotiated continually is a if there are always"i., pro."rr;' rather than fixeciand static,and long'tenn the ,,conversation'; and agents taking place betrveenhistorically constituted

Marcia-Anne Dobresand JohnE. Robb

structuresthey create and live within, then what does this suggest about the causes and consequences of material culture patteming and variation (cf. in this volume !/obst, Sassaman, chapman, sinclair, and shackel; also Dobres 1995,1999a,in press). A fourth hotbed of agency.orientedexplanations has been in studies of emerging inequaliry (e.g., Clark and Blake 1994; Price and Feinman 1995). In contrasr to-the premises (e.g.Silverblatt 1988),this line ofresearchhasfocused ofgender research on how the strategicpursuit ofprestigeor power can lead to large-scale socialchange,for example, how individual foragerscompeting for personal status through feasting *"y h"u. "dopt"j agriculturalpracticesto further their personalinterests(as in HaydenjqqS). Hallmarks of this approach include an interest in long-term social chang., .*.*plifi"d perhaps in Marcus and Flannery's (1996) theoretically understatedbui monumental svnthesl, of Zapotec prehistory and a general assumption that actors are usually and fundamentallv motivated by a desirefor power and prestige(seeclark, walker and Lucero, Joyce,this volume; Gero providesa critique). Among other recent approaches exploring individual inrerestsand actions and their contribution to long-term, large-scale social hansformationshave been optimal foraging models,varietiesof game theory as well as Darwinian and evolutionaryecologymodelr. " Some controversial issues Probablythe most basic and contentious issuein recenr agencytheory is: what exactly is agency? Agency is a notoriously labile concept (Sewell 1992), but mosr agency theorisrs, whatever their stripe, would subscribe to at least four generalprinciplessi*ila. to those proposedby Marx (seepp. 6-8): the material conditions of social life, rhe simultaneouslv constrainingand enabling influenceof social,symbolicand materialsffuctures and institutions, habituation,and beliefs; the importanceof the motivationsand actionsof agents; and the dialectic of srructure and agency. Most would probably also agree that ag:encyis a socially significant quality of action rather than being synony*ou, *i,h, or reJucibl" to, action itself. This generalframework,however,bearsas tight a relationshipto actual agencyinterpretations as the Sermon on the Mount does to the differenr Christianities of warlike Crusaders and pacifist Quakers.Tble 1.1 lists some of the interprerations of agencyand practicethat have been proposedin the last decadeor so. Clearly theseviews are not mutually exclusive,and in a given situation agencymay be construedin many of thesesenses. For example,let us imaginea Hopi *"n *"king a mask for a kachina dance' In doing so, he is reproducingthe basic cosmological beliefsof his society,experiencing the effective performanceof a technical procedure,and validating the ritual systemof Hopi societyand the social relationscreatedthrough it. Inasmuchas the socialorganizationof ritual may have suppressed overt economicinequalltybetweenclans while the competingperformance of rolesmay have legitimateda disguised ior* of it (Leuy 1992),his ritual preparationmay have unwittingly perpetuated a hegemonicsituation;and if he belongedto a poor clan, his contribution to reproducing Hopi slcial relationsthrough "or this ritual dance would have contradicted any discursive of manifesting ".ii,io.r, betteringhis own situation through suchperformance. He is alsopracticingand p..fo.i.rg technological taskssuch as carving and painting, perhapswith some idtlty-ieinforcinl discussion of how to do so with his peers.Indeed,by enactingthe physicalrequirements t make the mask, and through the thoughts he must hold in order to do it properly,he is also

Agencl in archaeologY 9
circa 1980-90 Table1.1 What is " agency"? (as in Bourdieu's [1977: ?8] "generativeprincicognitive structures The replication of unconscious ples of regulatedimprovisations")' power relationsvia cultural actions (as in Gramsci's(1971) The socialreproducrionof system-wide cf' Pauketat, ;; (t9'90) idea of the "ideologicalstate apparatus;" ,a." of i,"g.ony" and niifr"*.r'r volume). this through direct or indirect individual or colpower structures or challengeto system-wide Resistance lective action (cf. Chapman, Shackel,this volume)' (as in Foucault (1994); The constitution of individual subjectivity through diffusepower relations cf. Leone 1995). entity (cf. Coweill, this volume)' The consritution of the individual as a psychological (cf. Hodder,Johnson,this volume)' The experienceof individual action in creatinga life story (cf' Wobst' Sassaman' The imposition of form on material via sociallysituatedcreativeactivity Sinclair, this volurne). with the.materialand socialworld (e'g' Barrett 1994; engagement of intersubjective A process Thomas 1996;cf. Barrett, this volume)' Doires in press; activity (Can and Neitzel 1995; The creation of formal and socialdistinctionsthrough expressive volume)' this Lucero, and Walker Clark, cf. Joyce, technologicalknowledgeand skill (e'g' and non-discursive deploymentof discursive The successful volurne)' this cf. Sinclair, Dobres 1995, 1999b,in press; goals(as.in modelsof actorsrationally The strategiccarryingout of intentional plans for.purposive this volume)' Lucero' and Walker ilark, Cowgitl, power; cf. or prestige pursuing rvith a specificculturally conThe strategiccaffylng out of an intentional plan in accordance (cf. Shackel' this volurne),or cosnos class (cf. volume), Johnson,this srrucredida of pershood (cf. Joyce,this volume)'

even developinga numberof overlappingsocial becorninga cerrainkind of person,possibly socialcritics goals(cxcept rvhendedicated most of theseare ,arely conscious p.r*rl".lg"t intentions may His discursive with revolutionarypractical consciousness). arm rhemselues or ambition to be a be more immediate:to preparefo. a rituul that rvill confirm his claim or reconfirm his socialauthority and prestige'to ritual participant or leader,to gain, assert of his clan or ritual society'or to fulfill a debt or imposean obligation pro,o*. rhe inreresrs on someoneelse, little contradiction betu'eendiffercnt construals In this sirnplifiedexample,there seems agencyhas many of agency,l.-i.rg us free if lve wish to adopt the "eclectic" vie\. that identified sometimes operativequalities.But the rangeof activity outcomes simultaneously expless to chooses (for one when instance, other each .o.rtr",li.t as"agency"often directly it)' In recreate ultirnately that institutions very the through one,sdissentrvith a situation and it is often difficult ,o .lioor. which aspectof agencyis the most relevant such cases, different it is the contradictionbetrveen In other instances, which can be "explainedarvay." understand. to need we dynamic real of agencythat may be the aspects

10

Marcia-Anne Dobresand I ohnE . Robb

Basically,then, we can take one of two approaches to the problem of understanding agency. The "eclectic" strategyis to recogniz.ihut op"r",", in many waysat once, "g".,.y and that, in a given situation, contradiction its difierent dimensionsis far more typical and interesting than concordance.In ".on! archaeological accounts,accordingto this view, what really mattersis which aspects of agencyon. highlights,or, betreryet, fiow one grappleswith their ambiguitiesand contradictionswithout reductionism(cf. Gero, this volume)' However, this strategymay over-generalize the useof the term agencyso far that it rendersit practically useless. How helpful is it to see agency qu"iity, pro."rr, ", " consciousintention, an action, an unintendedconsequence, " " and a descriptive category all at the same time? Moreover, though focusing on ambiguity .ont.adi.tio1 ii oit.r, ".rd compelling,the "eclectic"approachmay ultimately be moie of an evasionrather than a real resolurionof certain theoreticaldifficulties. The second alternative is to define agencymore narrowly and clearry,perhaps through a restrictedworking definition relevant to the particularquestion at hand. Hor.uer, *ht shouldthis restricteddefinition be?What are rhe critical issues to resolve? And, by reiucing the multiple, overlapping, and contradictory qualities of agency down to a narrow elemental few, do we risk losing whatever makesagencyuseful, interesting, and relevant to understanding real socialsituations? There are no easyanswers to thesequestions. Our goal in this volume is not to force some common ground (we leave the readerto decide if such even exists), but to demonstratethe need for clarity. Given the variety of agencydefinitions and app.oa.hes now available,it is no longer enough simply to invoke human actors and p"y ho"g" to Bourdieu and Giddens. Archaeologists have now to make a casenot only for why th. concepris usefi.rl, but also "g"y why their particular approachis more appropriatethan others.Among other difficult issues raisedby the concept of agency,there are five that compel particular arrention: intentionality and social ..p.oductiJn; ,.a1.; temporality ,.rd ,oci"l change;material culture; and the politics of archaeological practices. Int entimwlity and, so cial r eproductimr Probably the biggestdivide among agency enthusiastsis between those who sffessagency as the intentional actions of agents and those who sffessits non.discu.siue qu"liti.s. Particularlyin studiesof political behavior and the development of socialinequality,there is a strong tradition of arguingthat the way individual actorsconsciously pursuewht they want is a driving force in socialchange.In conrrast,other theorists(notably McCall 1999) contend that what actorswant or intend is often irrelevantto the real socialconsequences of their actions. McCall points out that the unintended consequences of action are not merely what happenswhen.an actor'splan goesawry but rather include the unwitting reproduction of all the social contexts within ruhi.h ih" actor's intentions and strategiei make sense,and that this is really their most important effect. Severalother theoretical watershedsparallel the intentional/unintentional distinction in agency theory. For instance,are an actor'smotives and behaviorsrational or part of some cultural, genderspecific,or other form of "palaeopsychology"l To what ext..rt io th. symbols(such as ideolo. gies)manipulatedby actorsalsohelp constitutethem?(Robb 1998,iggg). tn.r. issues are exploredin this volume, particularlyin Cowgill'sexaminationof the role of reason, rationality, and psychologyin agency,in Joycet anJ Clark's discussions of agencyand the possible motivationsof incipient elites,and in Pauketat's argumentthat the uriintentionaloutcomes of agents'self-interested actionsoften contribute to their own subordination.

Agencl in archaeologY11 qgency of groups Scole; inditi dual agency, rntltiple agencies,and the !7e seethis, in part, agency? ls agencyexercise{only by individualsor can groupsexercise of methodological specter the up it conjures also but scale, u, irru. of phenomenological certainly been has archaeology in Anglo-American individualism.The majority tradition often seenin most is This real). or (whether analytical agencywith iniividuals to associate command' in those power is exercised,by which in top-do.r,nroo"k of political relations, the post' example, For of directions' number a from Callengesro rhis paradigm come indiwork through power and agency that implies of ih. individual moderndeconstructio.r a construc society effect, In by them. viduals,rather than being co.opted and exercised think thcy why and trigger pulls the who situarion in which p"oplJ act; it i, lessrelevant about the intenthat agencyis.less they aredoing so.Other theoris,however,have argued which personthrough process a cultural of personal interestsand more about tional exercisle Thus' rather transformed' and negotiated afe constructed, of "groupness" hoocland a Sense the agency on explicitly focus instead than conflating agencyrvith individuals,should we agency and actors generic about Finally, is it enoughto talk vaguely ofsocial collectivities? of varietiesor styles multiple (those "faceless blobs" ,gain), or do t. need to consider other or class, race' age' gender, with agencywithin a ,o.iety,1u.h as those associated forms of subjecthood? culturally recognized while Hodder and Johnson ln this 'ol,rir., Wobst asksus to considergroup.levelagency' different ways' concentfate on indivicluals as real historical agents. ln substantially but overlapping paradox of Shackel,and Chapman all deal with the Paukerat,Sassaman, case these differently how What is striking is contradicroryself. and group-levelagencies. In contrast,\Talker scales' *ork through th! probl"- of ultiple phenomenological studies (ritual leaders)and its and Lucero focus on the agency and effecls of one particular group whole' attemptsto uppp.iate the beliefsand practicesof the cctmmunityas a conscious Agency and social, change in expla' If agencyis important in understandingsocieryin the short run, it must be included irnplicontroversial of poscs a number this but spans, time long ,ru., of socialchangeover shape help agency of aspects which of question ttre is carions. Among rhe most diffi.ult and environmental unintended the actions? strategic long.term cnltu".alchange:intentional, given moment any at imperceptible be might which economlc .u.rr"qr..r.", of such actions, the unintended reproduction of social but rvhich accumulate irrevocably over generations? simply individual agencyat a larger agency group,le.,el Is long-term, and cultural srrucrures? Do different kinds of scales? phenomenological scale,or does the gu*. .h"rl" at different over different operate agency, and structure causality,or does diff...rr, trln.,.. between " kinds different in different structure and agency of ls rhe inrerplay ,.^porul and sparialscales? sociof "traditional" conservatism the emphasizing by interpretations of society (assuggested for societies, premodem to applied be modemity eties)?can an agencytheory developedfor over same the remain to appear they why but instance,to investigatenot why things change can be usefuloutside rh. u.ri-"gir,ably lJng periodsevident in mtrch of prehistory?lf agency agencytheory be contemporary should the arenain which tn id"u wasdeveloped,then how unique to archaeologyl modifiedto dealwith issues dealswith these ln one way or another, practically every contributor in this volume socialtransin understanding agency of to the usefulness and this in itself mny issues, 'shackel ",,.r, helped to choices consumer gender'specific askshow formations. For example,

12 Marcia-Anne Dohes andJohnE. Robb create a working'classconsciousness in the nineteenth century. Similarly, in the caseof archaic hunter-gatherers, Sassaman exploresthe relationshipbetween gender ideologies, marital rulesof residence, and divisionsof labor that, in this siuation, co-ntributed to lJ.,gterm and collective resistanceto social differentiation; he identifies, in other *o.dr, change towards sameness. " More generally, Hodder, Barrett, and Johnson addressthe question of how to write about microeventsand the real, meaningful lives of past people without falling prey to archaeological meta-narratives. Gero doesthis as well, tut takei a radicallydifferent stance(which we discuss later). Agency mtd moterial culture Analyzing agency through archaeologicalremains posesundeniable challenges. Most anthropologists would agreethat a ritual maskcould bearany or all of the motivationsand meaningsproposedin the Hopi exampleabove.Many archaeologists, finding such a mask (or its non'perishableparts) might balk ar proposing mo.e tha.r couple o? the possible " interpretations, perhaps favoring thosefelt to be the mostempirically demonstrable. \Uhat, then, are the most appropriate ways to use artifacts to analyre in the pastl "g".r.y Discussions of agencyhave traditionally centeredon those archaeological cases where we can discernor postulateindividualsdoing material things: making pol, holding feasts, burying the dead, and so forth. It has also b.Lr, ,,rgg.rt.d that understandinghow a'rtifacts were usedin expressing or defining an agent's interestis more important th determining what the artifacts'practicalor symbolicfunctionsmay have been,how they wereproduced] and by whom. But a counter'view,that to inquire into the dialectic of uariability, ".tif".t individualsand groups, and socialstructure.r""d not deteriorateinto a search for the traces of individuals,wasproposed more than twenty yearsago (Redman 19??),and has recently been re'elaborated from a numberof theorericalstandpoints (Dobres 1995,I999a,in prerr; Mithen 1990;shennan 1989). Individual- and group-6.iented approaches ro agency^have barely scratchedthe surfacein understandinge ways in which material culture repro. duces,promotesand thwarts agency, Theoristsalsodisputethe relationshipbetweenpeopleand materialculture, and theselines of argument closely parallel those discussed above uner "intentionaliry." At one end of the theoretical spectrum'those who believe that agencyis about intentionaiiry alsotend to argue that the material world is createdand manipulatedby more or lessfreely acting individuals. Hence material artifactsand pattems can be viewed as essentially inactive traces,residues, or correlatesof particular kinds of human activity and agency, At the other end of the specrrum are.theorists who arguethat meaningsand values,historiesand biographies, even personhood and agencycan be attributed to material things.Hence materialculiure must be viewed asnot only actively constructingthe world within which peopleacr, but alsothe peoplethemselves. The studies in this volume pursue a range of anaiytic methodologiesfor understanding agencyin the past' sinclair uses rechnical choineoplranireanalysis to iientifi, valuedqualitiel in Solutreanknapping skill that would have madestone tool production a form of self.expres. sion' Chapman's innovative study of Neolithic and Copper Age burials interprets them not as a static' timelessassemblage of bodiesand grave goodsbut as a time.orderedseque.r.. nf self'referentialstatements'Walker and Lucero reconstructdepositionalsequences that relate to the rirual actions of incipient leaders,By arguingthat artifactsare active "interferences,, in people'slives, Wobst asksus to reconsiderhow we think about material culture generally. In one way or another' then, the chapters in this volume follow suit in developin! ,.gr.".,t, about the role and significance of materialculture in agency studies.

in archaeologY 13 AgencY practice dgency urd the political context of archaeological Agency is a political concept.As a generalway of ulderstandinghow peopleact in society, shouldor ir urt d.riu. in parr from our viewi on how we think peoplein our own society past with the populating for tools insidious peculiarly do act. Agency rheoriescan thus be of the ,,actors" those recreate than more little do activities and rvhosesituatedexperiences of version unconsidered an not careful, are we If (see uol.rme)' Brumfiel, this theorist and relations of forms political the naturalize, indeed antl agencycan be usedto reproc{uce, been dminations within which we now live. For this reason,current agencytheory has very its in essentialist and androcentric problematically it is on rhe groundsthat challengecl middlepast are the of actors postulated most date, (cf. To Gero, this volume). .o..*p,io., of agencyseemto deal exclu' reconstructions in truth, some archaeological "dultr; "g",{ of society relegatedto majority the leaving households, with adult male heads of si".,ely non-agenthood. invisible, passive anthroOth"r iiuses can be i1ore s.,btle.Bender (1991: 258) points out that in current indi' on and individual the of autonomy the on "the emphasis pology and archaeology, strategic of Agency politics." westeln vidual agency mirrors contemporary _accounts of experiences middle-class comperi;n in the pasroften unrvittingly reflect the essentially priviinherently neither are they acting as agentsin social arenaswhere most academics .1.tti..1privileges,but where they are clearly rewardedfor competi' legednor categc,rically are not limited to one strain of agency biases These (anclother) possible tiie perfcrrmarrce. have envisionedindistudies,for instat'rce, theory, irowever.Many recent post-processual by links to landscapes, viduais needing ro construct tl-reir own identities by forging perva' the But on. so and performing,itulr, by adopting ettrnicities,by enacting genders, identity is a prevailing theme of post'modern slue .reedto construct ,.,i ..uffi.,r, Lrersot'ral reflect our understandings work focusingon it may, tl-rerefore, culture, and archaeological of our own societymore than they do any Particularpast era' Thus, a paftic;larly controversialquestionfor potential agencytheoristsis how agency other than legitimizingmodern socialrelacan be usedfor purposes theory in aicl-raeology tio.,, by uncritically projecting them back in time. In decidedcontrastto all other contriboutside her inspirationfrom explicitly politicizedsources utors in this volume, Ge.o drarus and activists, feminist political economists,third-rvorld anthropology an{ archaeology: race gender and. are to show how contemporary culture critics whose explicit agenclas ideologiesinfluence the global economic realities of women and other disenfranchised feed into the political economyof g.orrpr.Gero points out h* such ideologicalinfluences horv such but she leavesit to the readerto considerfor thernselves .u,I"*i. kncirvleclge, archaeolo' to bJ applied as correcrivesto the biasedinterpretive framer'vorks arguments ".. that lve may be able to use giJts-ay employ.This is an irnportant argument,for it suggests theory not only to u.rd..rtu.rd the past, but also to trace out and correct at least "g".r.y practice (Gero 1985)' ,o-" of the more insidiouspolitical effectsof contemporary

Conclusions agency are beginning to passthe "add actorsand stir" stage; Agency studiesin archaeology way that same the much in productively ald crirically .,o* ,-r".d, to be probler,-ruiir"d record' archaeologicai the in women identify the first rush to gentler studies*"i" "ft., earlier: arediscussed consideration we believewarrantsustained 3oro. k.y theoreticalissues One and culture, rnaterial Ptolitics' issues of definition, intentionality,scale,temporality,

14 Marcia-Anne DobresandJohn E. Robb real litmus test for the success of this endeavorwill be how we answerthe question,does thinking about agencychange the way we do archaeology, not mereryin htw ,u" ig o, survey'but also in how we understandartifacts,sites,ani'landscapes within our r"pr"r..r. tations of the pastl We also need to acknowledge the hard-learned lessonof history: that archaeology has been colonizedby too many theoreticalempiresoriginaringin disciplines with standpoints and agendas very different from our own. Rather than being .o.r,..r, to borrow co.rc.pts of agencywholesale,we need to address how contemporary agencytheory should b" -oifi.d to fit archaeological researchinterests,archaeological'scle, of inqulry, and the unique qualities of archaeological data. We should alro .eturn to , ."rdin"'l lessonof early New Archaeology: archaeologydoesnot have to be the intellectual poor cousin of anthropology, gratefullyand uncritically acceptinghand-me'downconceprs nd theories. Archaeologists often study societies'practices,and processes of social .".rg. u.,kno*n in the modern world, and we have a uniquely long temporal vision. Mor"u.r, we deal with material culture far more serio:rsly and innovatiu.iy th"., do most social scientists, and material culture is clearly central to creatingagents and expressing agency. Studiesof the long.term, studiesof societiesdifferent-from the presenr, ,tui"l recognizingthe centrility oi ".rd material culture are sorely lacking in contemporary agencytheory tl.,u, ar.h".oloical conceptshave somethingimportant ro saybeyondou. . iisciplinry wa[s. Bibliography Althusser, L. 1990. ForMarx. Verso, London. Archer,M' S' 1988'Culure and Agency: ThePlace of Culunein Social Thenry.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. 1995. Realur Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. cambridge university press, Cambridge UK, Barrett,,J. Fragments An Archaeology from Antiquity: of SociarLife in Binin, 2900-1200 nc. 9: ?91 3(2):25740. Binford,L. R. 1962."Archeology asAnthropology."AmeicanAntiquity zg(z): zr7-25. 'Aerrcan 1965'"Archeological Systematics and the Studyof Cultur. P..or." Annquity 3I(Z): 203-10. Bintliff'i' 1991. "TheContribution of an Annaliste/Structural History Approach to Archaeology," in The Annales School and Archaeology, ed.J. Bintliff, pp. 1-33.t-.i."r,". .riu"rsity press, London. u"T1,i:"1P. 1973. "The Berber House," in Rules andMianings,ed. M. Douglas, pp.98*r 10.penguin,

tllackwell, Uxtord. Bender,B' 1993' "Cognitive Archaeology and Cultural Materialism." C mnbridge ArchaeologicalJoumal

DatUmore. 1977' outline of aTheory of Pracace, ftans. R. Nice. Cambridge Universiry press, Cambridge UK, Brand, M. 1984- lntendingmd, Acring: Toward a NaturaliTed erion Theo$.-'MIT p..rr, cambridge Mass. Bra'del, E 1980. "Hisrory and the social Sciences: The LongueDwe," in on Hdsrory,pp. 25_54. University of Chicago press,Chicaeo. Brumfiel, E. M. l99Z'" Distinguished Le.tur. in Archaeology:Breakingand Entering the Ecosysrem: Gender, class, and Faction steal the Show" America n Anthropolaglst 94(3): 55147 . u","i:f. and D. Jarv (eds) 1991. Giddens'Theu'y of Structtnatioi' e"catic'i ppreciarion. Routledge, LOnOOn.

Carr, C' and J' E. Neitzel (eds) 1995. Style, Socieryan Person: Archaeolagical and Ethnological Perspectiues. Plenum, New york. Clark' J' E' and M' Blake 1994."The Powerof Prestige: Competitive Generosityand the Emergence

AgencY in archaeologY 15 and PoliticalDeuelopnentin of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica," in FactirmalCompetition university Press, cambridge pp. 17-30. w. Fox, and J. rhe Neru world, ed. E. M. Brumfiel CambridgeUK. Methuen, London' Clarke, D. 1968. Analyrical Archaeology. ed. A' Giddensand cohen, l. 1987."strucruration Theo{ anclSocial Praxis,"in socialTheorl Today, Stanford' Press, University J. H. Turner, pp. 2?3-308. Stanford Conkey,M.\7.andJ.M.Gero1997'"ProgrammetoPractice:GenderandFeminismin 76: 411-37 ' of Anthropolagy Archaeology." Annual Reo'iew ht Gender." Aduances conkey, N{. v. a.,d J. D. spector 1984. "Archaeology and the study of 1-38' Method andTheory 7: Archaeolo$cal BeyondCriticizing New Archaeology'" Corvgill, C. i. f SSf . "DistinguisheLecture in Archtreology: 9 5 (3) 255 | -7 3. Ameican Anthropologrst Agency of Technical Dobres, M-A. 1995. "Gender and Prehistoric Technology: on the social (l\: ' 75-49 Z7 lVmli ArchaeologJ Strategies." Mattered," in lgiga,,,Of paradigmso.,d W"y, of Seeing: Artifact Variability As If People E' Chilton, pp' ed' of Matenal Cul"twe, rc the InterpTetanon Material Meanings; Critical Approaches Salt Lake City' ?-23. University of Utah Press, ,,Technology's Links and Chaine.st The Processual Unfolding of Tchnique and 1999b. Practice,Polirics,mWorll Vieurs,ed' M'A' of Technology: Dyrcmics The Social Technician," in Washington,D'C' Dobresand C, R. Hoffman, pp.17446. SmithsonianInstitution Press, ond So.fu Agency: OutliningaPracnceFrameworkfor Archaeolog.Blackwell, in press.Tchnology Oxford. HundngSocietl University Plains andEuentinal-ateNorthern Duke, p. 1991.PoinrsinTjme: Srrucrrrre Niwot. Press, of Colorado ',The of Changing Role of \7omen in Models of Human Evolution." Anntnl Review L. 1986. Fedigan, AnthroPology15: 75-66. ed' N' Dirks' G' Eley'and S' B' Ortner' Foucault,M. 1994."Two Lectures,"inCtthurelPowerlHistorJ, Princeton' Press, pp. 200-21. Princeton University Polity Press,Cambridge UK. in Ethnonethodolo,y;-. Gurfi.,k.l, H. 1984. Srudies in The Socio-Politics Gero, J. M. 1983."Gender Bias in Archaeology:A cross-culturat Perspective", Reports no.23, Research pp.51-?. Blakey, M. ecl. J. M. Gero, D. Lacey and of Archaeologl, Amhersr. Universityof Massachusctts, ,iSocio.Politics and the Woman.at-l-lome ldeology." Ameican Antiqtitl 50 342-50' 1985. in Social Theory: Acnon, Structure,an Conwolicrion in Social Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems Berkeley' Anall'sis.University of CalifcrrniaPress, Universityof California 1984. TheConstitutiono/Socierl:Outlineof aTheoryof Strucunation Press,Berkeley. New York' International Publishers, Gramsci,A. 19?1.Selecionsfrom thePrisonNotebooks. Austin' Press, of Txas University Present. an Past Halperin, R. H. 1994.Cuhural Economies in Inequalities," Socioeconomic for creating Principles Power: B. 1995. "PathwaysTo ttuy.l..,, 'Foundations T, D. Price and G. Feinrnan,pp. 15-86. Plenum,Nerv York' of sociallneqnnlity,ed. of.Anthropologl71t 517-36' Hegmon, M. IggZ."Archaeolc.,gicalResearchon Style." Annual Retrietu and J. H. Turner,pp' Giddens A. ed. Today, Theory in Social H"iitog., J. 198?,"Ethnomethodology," Stanford' 224-72. StanfordUniversity Press, CambridgeUK' Arclveologl.CambridgeUniversiry Press, and StntcuuaL 1982a.Symbolic Hodder, l. (e<1.) Cambridge Cubure, Srudiesof Mateial (ed.) 1982b. Slmbols in Action; Erhnoarchaeological CambridgeUK. University Press, CambridgeUK' CambridgeUniversity Press, 1986. ReutingThePast. CambridgeUK' Hisrory.CambridgeUniversity Press, as Long-Term (ed.) 1987a.Archaeology CambridgeUK' CambridgeUniversiry Press, (ed.) I9B7b.The,\rcW"ton of ConterualMeanings. University andPractice' inTheory Agenrsr Genderanl Agency Kegan Gardiner, l. (ed.) 1995. Proc,oking Urbana. of Illinois Press,

16

Marcia-Anne Dobres andJohn E. Robb

Knapp, A'8. lggla. "Archaeology and Annales: Time, space, and change," in Archaeology, Anrwlzs, and Ethnohixul, ed. A. B. Knapp, pp. 1-21. Cambridge University piess,Cambridge K. (ed.) 1997b. Archaeology, Aruules, andEthnahixml. CambridgeUniversity pres, CambridgeUK. Leone, M. P. 1986' "symbolic, Structural, and Critical ArchaeoLgy," in Aerican post Archaeotogy and Future: A Celebration of the Society 1935-1985,ed. D. J. Melr, D. for Arneican Archocotog1 D. Fowler and J. A. s.ablofl,pp. 415-38. Societyfor American Archaeology, washington, D. c. 1995. "A Historical Archaeology of capitalism." Ameican AnrhropotagltgT: ?51-6g. Levy, J. 1992' Orayui Reuisited:SociolSnatification in an "Egalitarian" Comminiry. School of American Research, Santa Fe. Marcus,J. and K. V. Flannery lgg6.ZapotecCiuilization: HowlJrbanSociety Evolued.inMexicot Oaxaca Valley.Thames and Hudson, London. Marquardt,W H. 1992."Dialectical Archaeology."ArchaeologkalMethodmTlwor14: l0l-40. Marx, K. 1963 [orig. 1869]. The EighteenthBramaire of Lou Binaparte.lntemational publishers,New York. Marx, K' and F. Engels1970 [orig. 1846].Tfu German ldeologl.lnternational publishers, New york. McCall' J' 1999."Structure, Agency, and the Locus of the So.i"l, Why Post-Stnrcural Theory is Good for Archaeology," inMaterial symbols:culuue andEcorunnyinpreiistory,ed. -Carbondale, J. E. Robb, pp. l6*2l, for Archaeological lnvestigations,Southem Illinois Universiry - ,Center 'ambridge Illinis. Miller, D' and C. Tilley (eds) 1984. ldeobgy, Power,md Prehistory. University press, CambridgeUK. Mithen, S. 1990. Thwghtful Foragus: A Srudyof Prehistaric DecisionMcking. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeUK. Moore, H. L. 1986. space, Text, and Gender: An Anthropological Stuyof the Mmakwet of Ken1a. CambridgeUniversity Press, CambrideeUK. Ortner, S' B. 1984. "Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties." ComparatiueSrudies in Societland History 26( I ): 126-166. Parker Pearson,M. and C. Richards (eds) 1994. Architecnueand,Order: Approaches rc Socialspace, Routledge,London. Parsons,T. 1949 [orig. 1937]. The Strttcture of Social Accion.Free Pressof Glencoe, New york. Peebles, C' 1992. "Rooting Out Latent Behaviorism in Prehistory" in Representations In Archaeology, ed. J.-c. Gardin and c. Peebles, pp. 352-84. Indiana university press, Bloomington. Price,T' D. and G. M. Feinman (eds) 1995.FounAadonsolsocial lruqualitl.plenum press, New york. Rapp, R. R. 1977. "Gender and Class:An ArchaeologicalConsiderationof KnowledgeConceming the Origins of the Stare." DialecticalAnthopolagyZ:309_16. Redman,C, 1977."The 'Analytical Individual' and PrehistoricStyle Variability," in The Indiuiduolin Ptehistory:Satdies of Varinbilityin ScyleinPrehistoricTechnologies,ed,Hill andJ. Gunn, pp. J. {1-53. Academic Press, New York. Robb' J. E. 1998."The Archaeologyof symbols."Annuar Reuiew of Anthropology 27:32946. 1999. "Secret Agents: Culture, Economy, and Social Reproduction,,l in Mateial Symbols: Culmre andEccrnrnny in Prehisrory,pp. 3-15. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois Universiry,Carbondale,Illinois. Sahlins, M. 1981' Historica| Metaphorsand Myrhical Realides: Suucturein the Early Histnrl of the Sandn,ich lsland,s Kngdom. Universiry of Michigan press,Ann Arbor. Scott, J' 1985. We@onsof theWeak: Enterydny Formsof Peasanr Resisrcnce. Yale University press,New Haven. Sewell W' H. Jr. 1992. "A Theory of Structure: Dualiry Agency, and Tiansformation.,, American JournalofSociology 98(l): 1-29. Shanks,M' and C' lilley 1987' Re-cmsrntcting Archaeotogy.Cambridge University Press, CambridgeUK. Shennan,S. 1989."Cultural Tiansmission and Culturai Change,"L wnort Ni A Closer Inok at the Process of Innouation, ed, s. E. van der Leeuw and R. Tor.enc", pp. 33G46. unwin Hyman, London. silverblatt, I. 1988."\(/omen in Srares."Annua|Review of Anthropology 17:427-60.

Agencl in archaeologY 17 UK. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge in Archaeobgl. M. (ed.) 1984.Marnsr Perspectiues Spriggs, of Reading A Critical Action: of Social "The Constitution Spatial and Temporal Storp.t, M. 1985. -Z : 3 Space 4, : ty and 407 D Socie Planning " and Ent,ironment G iddens. Chicago' in Acdon. University of Chicago Press, Sztompka,P. 1991.Society Switzerland' i"a ) 94a. Agencland structtne: ReoientingSooal Theory. Cordon and Breach, Agencl and in Collectivism," and Individualism Beyond lgg4b. "Sociery as Social Becoming: Switzerland. Breach, and Gordon pp. 251-82. P. Sztompka, SocialTheory,ed. Reorienring Srrrrcrure: cambridge uK. cambridge university Press, rheNeolichic. Thomas,J. 1991. Rethinking 1996. Time, Culture and Identity, Routledge, London. andStructural Tilley, C. 198Z."Social Formarion,Social Structuresand Social Change," in Symbolic UK' Cambridge Press, pp. University 26-38. Cambridge Hodder, ed. I. Archaeology, Berg, Oxford. . InrerprewtiueArchaeologl. 1993 CambridgeUK. CambridgeUniversity Press, o/ rheNeolichic. 1996.An Erhnography Press, Cambridge UK. University Cambridge Tiigger, B. 1989. A History of Archaeologlca)Thought. in Prehistoric of Gender Challenge Faces: The With "Households E. 1991. Tringham, R. ed. J. M. Gero and M. Archaeology:.WomenandPrehistor1, Architectural Remains,"in Engendering 'W. Colrkey,pp. 93-131. Blackwell,Oxford. Tumer, S. 1994. The Sociol Theory of Pracnces:Tradition, Tacit Knowledge,on Presuppositions. Chicago' University of Chicago Press, 'Appropriate Metrology' of Human Action in Archaeology,"in Wobsr, H. M. 1997. "Towards an ed. S. E. van der Leeurv and J. Time, Proce.ss,and Snuctured Tiansfortnationin Archaeology, McGladc, pp. 426-48. Routledge,London.