The Postprocessual Condition. Robert Preucell

The Postprocessual Condition
Author(s): Robert W. Preucel

Source: Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 3, No. 2 (June 1995), pp. 147-175
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053103 .
Accessed: 07/12/2014 11:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Archaeological
Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JournalofArchaeologicalResearch,Vol 3, No. % 1995
The PostprocessualCondition
RobertW. Preucel1
Previousevaluationsofpostprocessualarchaeologyhave regardedit more as

a critiqueofprocessualarchaeology thanas a viableresearchprogram.Today
thisstatement needsto be modifiedto accountforthediversity offrameworks
that have grown up within and adjacent to the early postprocessual
formulations.Thesenew approachesincludevariousadmixturesof structural
Marxism,poststructuralism,critical theory,and feminism. Significant
separatesomeofthesepositions,butratherthanbeing
philosophicaldifferences
the activeexploration
debilitating, of theseareas holds out new possibilities
and prospectsbothfor linkingarchaeologymoresecurelyto the othersocial
sciencesand for makingunique contributions to thenatureof social theory.
KEY WORDS: postprocessualarchaeologies;hermeneutics;
structuralMarxism;neo-Marxism;
criticaltheory,feminism.
poststructuralism;
INTRODUCTION
Postprocessualarchaeologyis a label that activelyresistsdefinition.

At its most basic level, the term refersnot to an unifiedprogrambut,
rather,to a collectionof widelydivergentand oftencontradictory research
interests.If anythingcan be said to unite these archaeologies, it is that
mostshare a commondissatisfaction withthe standardpositivistparadigm,
a concernforrecapturingthe distinctive human qualities of the past, and
a preoccupationfor the uses of archaeologicalknowledgein the present.
This dissatisfaction,
however,shouldnotbe interpretedto implythe whole-
sale rejectionof processualism.Postprocessualarchaeologies are not so
department of Anthropology,
HarvardUniversity,
Cambridge,Massachusetts02138.
147
O 1995 Plenum PublishingCorporation

1059-0161/95/060(W147$07J(VO

148 Preucel
much a movementbeyond processualismas theyare a fullerexploration

of process througha considerationof historicalcontext.
Postprocessualismhas generatedand continuesto generateconsider-
able debate in the archaeologicalliterature.One importantresponse has
been a tendency to accept much of the "radical critique" (Earle and
Preucel, 1987) but to draw the line on the issue of methodology.This re-
action, however,can be shown to be limitedby its implicitadherence to
positivismand allegiance to a narrowview of the scientificmethod. Post-
processual approaches offermultipleways of knowingthe past and these
are best evaluatedfromwithintheirown frameworks. In thisreviewessay,
I give a briefhistoricalaccount of the processual/postprocessual debate,
provideseveralalternativetypologiesof some of themajorvarietiesof post-
processual archaeologieswhile discussingthe limitationsof such exercises,
and finally,touch on some postmoderndilemmasthat constitutewhat I
call the "postprocessualcondition."2
THE PROCESSUAiyPOSTPROCESSUAL DEBATE
Althoughpostprocessualism has importantantecedentsin art history

and historicalarchaeology,it became codifiedin the early 1980s largely
throughthe writingsof Ian Hodder and his studentsat Cambridge Uni-
versity.Influencedby symbolicand structuralist anthropology,the Cam-
bridge group developed the first sustained critique of processual
archaeology. On theiraccount,processualism was compromisedby its re-
liance on the scientificmethod,functionalist explanations,systemstheory,
and general laws (Hodder, 1982b). In addition,theyargued that it paid
littleor no attentionto the social constructionof meaningand the playing
out of power relationsin the social arena. This critiqueled to experimen-
tationwithpoststructuralism, neo-Marxism, gendertheory,and criticalthe-
ory (see contributionsin Miller and Tilley,1984; Spriggs,1984).
In the mid 1980s severalcounterreactions to the radicalcritiquearose
fromwithinprocessualarchaeology.The majorityof these was pessimistic.
In a pointed response,Binford(1987) claimed that Hodder and the "tex-
tual-contextualists"were raisingmetaphysicalissues thatwere irrelevantto
an archaeological science. His positionwas that Hodder was advocating
truthas renderedbysociopoliticalmoralizingratherthanas objectivestate-
mentsabout past dynamicssecuredbymiddle-range theory.Schiffer(1988)
2Thisreviewdoesnotcovercultural historical
materialism, andstructuralism,
materialism, the
threemainvarietiesofprocessual For reviews
archaeology. see Hodder
of theseapproaches
(1986) and Trigger
(1989).

The PostprocessualCondition 149
arguedthatsymbolicand neo-Mamst approachesare tragicallyflawedbe-

cause of theirneglect of middle range social theories.In a slightlyless
polemicvein but an equallypositivistmanner,TimothyEarle and I favor-
ablyevaluatedthe radicalcritique,but foundproblemswithpostprocessual
methodologywhichwe feltwas too subjective(Earle and Preucel, 1987).
Each of theseresponses,however,betraysa strictadherenceto positivism,
an epistemology thathas come underwithering attackin the social sciences
in the last three decades.
By the end of the 1980s further movementswithinpostprocessualar-
chaeologyallowed Thomas Patterson(1989, 1990) to identifythree inter-
related schools. The firstof these was the textualor contextualapproach
of Ian Hodder (1982b, 1984a, 1986). This approach identifiedthe signifi-
cance of the individualas a social actoractivelynegotiatinghis/herposition
withinsociety. The second was the neo-Marxistapproach of Michael
Shanksand Christopher Tilley(1987a, b). This approachmergedelements
of deconstruction witha focus upon power relations.The thirdwas the
criticaltheoryapproach of Mark Leone and his students(Leone, 1986;
Leone etaL, 1987). This approachexaminedhow theinstitutions of modern
capitalism came into being,how theyreproducethemselves, and how they
affectarchaeologicalinterpretation. For Patterson,these threeschools em-
body radically differentepistemologies and thereforecannot be easily
mergedinto a singleunifiedprogram.
A second round of critiqueswas initiatedat the beginningof the
1990s.While pessimistic responsescontinuedunabated(e.g., Binford,1989;
Spaulding,1988; P. J. Watson and Fotiadis,1990; R. Watson, 1990, 1991),
twonew developmentscan be distinguished. The firstof these is a growing
positivereactionto certainaspects of postprocessualthought.In 1990, I
organizeda conferenceon the currentdebate at SouthernIllinois Univer-
sityat Carbondalewhichbroughttogetheradvocateson manysides of the
issues. Althoughsharp differences were expressed,manyparticipantsac-
knowledgedthatthecurrentpolarizationwas harmfulforthe disciplineand
that new and deeper analyseswere needed (Preucel, 1991a). Additional
constructive evaluationscan be seen in the last threeAmericanAnthropo-
logical Association distinguishedlectures by Redman (1991), Brumfiel
(1992), and Cowgill(1993) and the recentlyrevisededitionsof textbooks
by Renfrewand Bahn (1991), Thomas (1989), Willeyand Sabloff(1992).
The second developmentis the explorationof theoreticaland prac-
ticaltensionswithinand betweenpostprocessualapproaches.One vehicle
for these debates has been the Theoretical ArchaeologyGroup (TAG)
meetingsin Britain.Recent debate has focused upon understandingthe
:omplexrelationships betweenthe postmodernand the postprocessualar-
chaeology(Bintliff, 1991; Thomas and Tilley,1992). Anothervehicle is the

150 Preucel
Cambridgeseminarson archaeologicaltheory.The recent1989 conference,

for example, yielded two widelydivergentpublications.One (Bapty and
Yates, 1990) presentsa poststructuralist
critiqueof archaeology,while the
other (Baker and Thomas, 1990) takes a criticalattitudetowardauthority
and elitismembodied in postmoderndiscourse.In the United States, the
Radical ArchaeologyTheorySeminars(RATS) held at Universityof Mas-
sachusetts,Amherst,and the State Universityof New York, Binghamton
have played an importantrole in articulatingdifferencesbetween strains
of Marxism(McGuire, 1992a). Finally,CherylClaassen (1992, 1994) has
hosted the Boone Conferenceson womenand archaeologyat Appalachian
State Universityin order to explore differentconceptionsof gender and
feminism.
VARIETIES OF POSTPROCESSUAL ARCHAEOLOGIES
The task of categorizingdifferent schools of postprocessualthought

is fraughtwithdangers.No singletypologycan possiblysufficeto capture
the range of positionscurrently espoused. Not only do scholars routinely
combine different theoreticalapproachesinternalto archaeology,but also
theyoftenborrowtheoriesacrossdisciplinesand in the processreformulate
existingconceptsto addressnew needs. In addition,manyscholarsfortheir
own reasons prefernot to be associatedwithparticularschools. For exam-
ple, the slow developmentof a Marxistarchaeologyin the United States
can be attributedto the stronganticommunist sentiment(Gilman, 1989).
Nonetheless,typologiesdo have theirplace, in part,because of theirpo-
tentialto expose contradictions and confusionsand the followingattempts
are offeredin thisspirit
The postprocessualscene currently encompassesa broad spectrumof
epistemological commitments. Three different positions can be distin-
guished-analytic,hermeneutic, and critical(cf. Preucel, 1991b). An ana-
lytic epistemology refers to those approaches seeking to provide
explanationsof systemicrelationshipsin termsof cause and effect.It is
associated with empiricistand more recentlyrealistontologies.A herme-
neutic epistemology,in contrast,attemptsto providean understandingof
the meaningof an event fromthe actor's point of view. This position is
closely allied to the phenomenologicalpositionthat meaningis grounded
in experience.Finally,a criticalepistemology seeks to expose past and pre-
sent ideological structuresforthe purposesof emancipation.Significantly,
thisapproach can be associatedwitheitherempiricistor anti-empiricist on-
tologies.

The PostprocessingCondition 151
Crosscuttingthese three epistemologiesare several discrete histori-

cally constitutedframeworksfor producingknowledge. Some of these
frameworks feminism)have shared originsin post-En-
(poststructuralism,
lightenment thought,while others Marxism,criticaltheory)have
(structural
theirrootsfirmly embeddedwithinthe Enlightenment tradition.Currently,
thereis growingexperimentation withinand betweenthesedifferent frame-
worksby different archaeologists,and in some cases, productivealliances
have been established.These alliances appear to be playinga special role
in bridgingthe empiricaland relativistextremescommonlysingled out by
both processualistsand postprocessualistsin debate. In the followingsec-
tion,I characterizepostprocessualapproaches in termsof three different
historicalframeworks and theirrelatedepistemologies.
Neo-MarxistApproaches
Neo-Marxistapproacheswere introducedintoarchaeologyduringthe
late 1970s. These draw from recent developmentsin western Marxist
thoughtlargelymediatedby Frenchsocial anthropology and German phi-
losophy.Althoughvariedin nature,these approachesreworkclassical his-
torical materialismby reexaminingthe relationshipsbetween base and
superstructure in the contextof precapitalistsocieties. Considerable re-
search has focusedupon definingand redefiningthe concept of ideology.
Not surprisingly, neo-Marxistapproacheshave receivedwider exposure in
Britainand Europe thanin the United Statesparticularly thoughthe writ-
ings of scholarsbased at the University
College, London.
Analyticalmo-Marxismis associatedlargelywitha philosophyknown
as structuralMarxism.This approach has its originsin the work of Louis
Althusser,who, throughan analysisof the writingsof the mature Marx,
developed the model of structuralcausalityand an influentialtheoryof
ideology.These ideas have been importedintoanthropology by the French
anthropologistsMaurice Godelier, Paul Meillassoux,Emmanuel Terray,
and P. Rey. In Britain,severalanthropologists
have reinterpreted some of
these ideas; for example,JonathanFriedmanregardsthe economic base
as constrainingratherthan determiningsociopoliticalorganization.An-
otherimportantinfluencehas been ImmanuelWallersteinand his world
systemstheory.
Analyticalneo-Marxismis now well establishedas a theoreticalfra-
mework.In Europe, Michael Rowlands and Barbara Bender at University
College London and KristenKristiansenat the University of Copenhagen
have modifiedand extendedstructuralMarxismto address the divergent
developmentalpathwaysof social evolutionbroughtabout by dominantre-

152 Preucel
lationsof production(Bender,1985a,b ; Frankensteinand Rowlands,1978;

Friedman and Rowlands,1978; Gledhill and Rowlands, 1982; Kristiansen,
1978, 1984). In the United States, the impact of structuralMarxism has
been less strongbut can be seen in studies of political economy (Cobb,
1991, 1993; Gilman, 1981, 1984; Patterson,1985, 1986, 1991) and class
(Leone, 1984). Recentlyworld systemstheoryhas attractedconsiderable
interestfromboth sides of the Atlantic(Kohl, 1987a, b, 1989; McGuire,
1989; Rowlands et aly 1987).
Hermeneutic neo-Marxism places ideologyand power on centerstage.
It is inspiredby the work of the philosophersMichel Foucault, Jacques
Lacan, and JrgenHabermas.Here ideologysurrendersits meaningas the
opposite of truthor the reflectionof the infrastructureand becomes rede-
finedas the intersectionof power and knowledge.It is viewed as a discur-
sive practice conditioned by the material force of society. Ritual, for
example,is seen as a discoursedesignedto reaffirm existingsocial condi-
tionsby enhancingthe powerof individualand groups.Ideology,however,
is never all embracingand counter-ideologies are alwayspresent.Herme-
neuticneo-Maixistapproachestypicallyadopt a realistpositionthat state-
ments about the past can onlybe judged in termsof internalconceptual
relationsand not on the basis of externallyimposed standards.
Henneneutic neo-Maixismis gainingconsiderablepopularitydespite
critiquesfromwithinthe fold (e.g., Kristiansen,1988). Considerable re-
search has focused on power relations(Johnson,1991; Miller and Tilley,
1984; Shanks and Tilley,1987a; Thomas, 1991), ideology(Parker Pearson,
1982, 1984; Shanks and Tilley, 1982; Thomas, 1990), and resistance
(McGuire and Paynter,1991; Miller et al, 1989). A particularly good ex-
ample of thisapproach can be seen in Johnson's (1989) carefulanalysisof
domestic architecturein sixteenth-century Suffolk,England, where he
shows how the intendedand unintendedconsequences of individualgoals
vis--visfeudalismled to widersocial and enconomictransformations and
ultimatelythe rise of capitalism.
Criticalneo-Mamsm is associated with the Institutefor Social Re-
search founded in 1923 in Frankfurt,Germany.Its members,especially
HerbertMarcuse,Theodor Adorno,and Max Horkheimer,argued thatthe
empiricalsciences could onlybe supersededby a contextualreinterpreta-
tion of theirresultswiththe goal of exposingideology.Horkheimerchal-
lenged the natureof scientificexplanationby arguingthatpredictionis not
related to some ideal truthbut,rather,to the extentto whichsocial rela-
tions are relationsof unfreedom.More recently,JrgenHabermas has re-
formulatedthe antique of ideologyas a critiqueof systematically distorted
communication.The criticalprojectis thusconcernednot withverification

but, rather,with tracingout the particularhistoricalconditionsthat give

rise to presentformsin orderthat theymay be transcended.
The critical neo-Marxistproject can be subdivided into those ap-
proaches tied to the Frankfurt school and those workingwithHabermas.
Shanksand Tilley(1987a), forexample,have arguedfora value committed
archaeologythat examineswhat kind of interestscurrentinterpretations
serve. Mark Leone (Leone, 1991; Leone et aL, 1987) has begun a socio-
logical analysis of the questions that archaeologistsask. Parker Potter
(1992) has extendedthisresearchto considerhow site interpretations can
be made more responsiveto the concernsof visitors.Others have turned
to Habermas'sworkas a means of achievinga more democraticconsensus.
Leone and I (Leone and Preucel, 1992) have used Habermas's theoryof
communicativeaction to evaluate the impactof the passage of the Native
AmericanGraves Protectionand RepatriationAct (NAGPRA) upon the
practiceof archaeology.Baker (1990) has also used Habermas to propose
a model of archaeologyas dialoguewithdifferent publicswiththepotential
of recoveringpreviouslysilentareas of history,
Poststructuralist
Approaches
The arrivalof poststructuralism on the archaeologicalscene dates to

the Cambridgeseminarson symbolicand structural archaeologyin the early
whilemanyof the Cambridgegroup developed sharp
1980s. Significantly,
critiquesof functionalism theywere equally criticalof structuralism,par-
its to
ticularly inability explain specifichistoricalcontextsand the mean-
ingfulactionsof agents(Hodder, 1982a). A seriesof seminarsheld in 1986
exploredstructuralism, hermeneutics, and poststructuralismby criticallyex-
the
amining writings of their in
leadingproponents philosophyand anthro-
pology (Tilley, 1990a). Recent conferenceshave featuredpoststructural
approaches alongside pointed criticismfromfeministsand neo-Marxists.
The 1988 Cambridgeseminaron poststructural archaeology,forexample,
has produced papers on representation, power,and ideology(Baker and
Thomas, 1990; Bapty and Yates, 1990; Yates, 1988).
Hermeneutic poststructuralismattemptsto recoverstructures of mean-
ing related to both the intentionsand practiceof past actors.It is geared
towardproducingknowledge-as-understanding ratherthan knowledge-as-
explanation.This goal requiresthe translationof meaningfromone inter-
pretivecontextto anotherin a dialecticalprocess best describedby the
philosophersPaul Ricouer and Hans-GeorgGadamer and the anthropolo-
gist CliffordGeertz. Characteristically, it employs a textual metaphor
wherebythe archaeologicalrecordis to be read like a literarytext.Uni-

154 Preved
versalprinciplesof meaningare assumedto be encoded in materialculture

and the task of the archaeologistis to develop reliablewaysof interpreting
these texts.This process is securedby contextwhichactivelyconstrainsin-
terpretations.
This approach consistsof a bewilderingarrayof subfieldscreated lar-
gely throughthe productivescholarshipof Ian Hodder. Aftera brief in-
terest in structuralism(1982b, c, 1984b), Hodder has championed a
hermeneuticpoststructuralism as the operatingepistemologyunderlyinghis
interpretive or contextual archaeology (1986, 1988a, b, 1990, 1991a, b,
1992). The most coherentpresentationof thisapproach is his recentbook
on the domesticationof Europe (Hodder, 1990). In this study,which ex-
plicitlyavoids ponderous theoreticaldebate, he views domesticationas a
mentalas well as a materialprocess thatinvolvednew waysof controlling
people as well as plants and animals.Otherrecentexamplesinclude John
Barrett's(1987, 1988a, b, 1989, 1990a, b) substantialwork on Gidden's
structuration theory,Phillip Duke's (1991, 1992) Annalistestudies of the
prehistoryof the northernplains of the United States and Canada, and
Joan Gero's (1991) recoveryof "lived experience"at Queyash, Peru.
representsa turnawayfromknowingthe past
Criticalpoststructuralism
on its own termstowardthe ways in whichthe past is constructedin the
present.Drawing liberallyfromthe workof Roland Barthes,Michel Fou-
cault,and Jacques Derrida,it takes the positionthatoriginalmeaningsare
inaccessiblebecause of the polysmienatureof materialculture.On this
argument,meaningsdepend upon the placementof materialculturewithin
a networkof signifers, but because materialcultureparticipatesin many
different networksand these networksoftenproduce different and some-
times contradictorymeanings,there can never be any ultimatefixityof
meaning.For this reason, criticalpoststracturalists bracketpast meaning
and problematizethe practicesof readingand writingand the uses of the
past in the present.
This approach has a small but vocal following.Some have focused
on the practiceof writingthe past in the present.For example, Hodder
(1989) has writtenabout the productionof archaeologicalsite reportsand
the waysin whichtheyconstraininterpretation. Tilley(1988) has analyzed
the genre of the CambridgeInaugurallecturefocusingon issues of legiti-
mationand rhetoric.Othershave exploredthe structures of archaeological
discourse.Olsen (1991) has argued that the internationalscene is domi-
natedbyEnglishlanguagescholarshipto theexclusionof othernationalities
and languages. Still othershave embracedphenomenologyand are inter-
ested in the waysin whichwe experiencethe past.Tilley(1989) has written
of archaeologyas theateremphasizingthe performative nature of knowl-
edge production,and Shanks (1992) has discusseddramas of death, decay,

and the Otherwhilefocusingon the humanbodyas a metaphorforsocial

experience.
FeministApproaches
Despite the presenceof feministtheoryin the social sciences and ar-

chaeologistswho definedthemselvesas feminists, feministarchaeologyis
a relativelyrecentphenomenondatingto the mid 1980s. The firstwidely
read feminist contribution was the articlebyMeg Conkeyand JanetSpector
(1984), whichdefinedthe statusof womenin the professionand the issue
of gender as the twinfoundationsof a feministagenda. In 1990 Meg
Conkeyand Joan Gero (1991) organizedthe Wedge conferencein South
Carolina to explore the significanceof gender using several case studies.
More recentlythe 1991 University of CalgaiyChacmool conferenceon gen-
der drewover200 papers (Walde and Willows,1991) and sessionson femi-
nismand gender are now becommingcommonplaceat national meetings
(Seifert,1991).
Analyticalfeminismregardsour currentknowledgeof the past as bi-
ased due to sexismand androcentrism withinthe fieldand seeks to rectify
thisbyputtingwomenback intoprehistory. This positionregardspast male
as a
scholarship producing partial view of the world,consistentlyignoring
the roles and contributionof women in activelyeffectingsocial change.
Analyticalfeminists arguethatit is necessaryto take accountof the activi-
in
ties of women prehistory in order to conducta more objectivescience.
This tenetdirectlychallengesthe value freeassumptionof normalscience
byshowingthatobjectivity dependsupon thepoliticsof emancipatory social
change. Curiously,most analyticalfeministsdo not acknowledgefeminist
scholarsin otherfields,althoughthe workof women like Helen Longino
and Ruth Hubbard is directlyrelevant.
Analyticalfeminismis attractinga considerablefollowingperhaps
because of its close historicalties withprocessualism.Recent researchhas
focusedon such traditionalquestionsas paleolithicsubsistence,the origins
of agriculture,and stateformation.Kehoe (1990), forexample,has argued
thatfiberproductsand theirmanufacturing tools,possiblythe productsof
women'sactivities, are systematically neglectedin interpretationsof the Up-
per Paleolithic, and yet these are to
subject empiricalinvestigation. Other
examples of this approach are of
Wright's(1991) study Harappan society
whichimpliesthat the state did not wrestcontrolof potteryproduction
fromthe hands of.women,Brumfiel's(1991) analysisof changes in Aztec
gender ideologies in response to changingeconomic and political condi-

156 Praicel
tons,and Hastorfs (1991) analysisof the changingrole of women pre-

and post-Inkaconquest.
Hermeneutic feminismretainsthe politicalagenda of analyticalfemi-
nism, discards its scientism,and introducesa focus on women's lived ex-
periences. This approach borrowswidelyfromfeministscholars in other
fieldssuch as Donna Haraway,Sandra Harding,EvelynFox Keller, Louise
Lamphere,and HenriettaMoore. These scholarshave demonstratedthat
scienceworksto describeand explainsocial experiencewithinandrocentric
conceptualschemes that systematically neglectthe distinctivecharacterof
women's experience.Seen in thislightthe currentpracticeof science cre-
ates a fundamentalcontradictionbetweenwomen as women and women
as scientists.What is needed, manyfeministargue,is a sciencefor rather
than about women.
Attemptsto recoverpast lived experiencesof women are still in the
earlystagesand thefewstudiesthatexistmakeuse of narrativeapproaches.
A particularly good exampleis JanetSpector's(1991, 1993) "awl narrative"
about the Wahpeton (Dakota) peoples of the LittleRapids site in Minne-
sota. In thisstory,she presentsan archaeologicalethnographyof a young
girl'slife thatuses a decoratedbone awl as a metaphorforunderstanding
the transitions to womanhood.Anotherexampleis Ruth Tringham's(1991)
short"eyewitness"account of the burningof Opovo, a Late Neolithicvil-
lage in Yugoslavia that followsher more traditionalanalysisof the social
relationsof production.Using a versionof Geertz'sthickdescription,Rose-
maryJoyce(1993) has exploredhow publicrepresentations of human im-
ages in Classic Maya society were a medium for the negotiationof male
and female status.
Criticalfeminismseeks to expose the pervasivecharacterof andro-
centrismin all areas of society.Two relatedresearchprojectsare develop-
ing. The firstof these is the statusof womenwithinacademia. Issues of
employment, pay,publication,and fimcjing are now topics of investigation.
The second of these is the historicalcharacterof thisbias. Some scholars
are seekingto challenge science on its own terms,while othersare more
postmodernin outlookand rejectscienceas an irretrievably flawedproject.
While theirgoals may vary, most criticalfeministsare concerned to forge
a sense of solidaritybetween disempoweredwomen in order to more ef-
fectively challengeexistingpower relations.
Criticalfeministarchaeologyhas generateda set of powerfulcritiques
of the sociologyof the discipline.For example,several studies have now
documented how women scholars are consistentlyunderfunded(Gero,
1983) and underpublished(Victor and Beaudry,1992). This is particularly
the case in fieldwork whichGero (1985) has analyzedin the contextof the
broader "women-at-homeideology"withincontemporarysociety.Others

havebegunto investigate howgenderideologiesare formedand repro-

ducedthrough thepopularmedia(Gero and Root,1990).Finally,Alison
Wylie(1991,1992) has examinedquestionsof thetimingof feminismin
archaeologyand the of
relationships a feminist to
archaeology feminism
in
thesocialsciences.
SOME COUNTER-TYPOLOGIES
Thisexercisein categorization does twothings. It providesone pos-

siblestructure forunderstanding thearticulation of themajorepistemolo-
gies and theoretical frameworkscurrentlyespoused by different
practitionersofpostprocessual archaeologies.And,at thesametime,it also
exemplifies someof thedifficulties in trying to encompassthisvariability
in a single,reductionisticschema.In thissection,I discussthe strengths
and limitations ofmyanalysis and thensketchthebeginnings oftwocoun-
tertypologies.
Probablythe mostimportant contribution of the analysisis its de-
monstration thateach of thethreeframeworks has a criticalcomponent.
We canspeakofa critical neo-Maixism, criticalpoststructuralism,and criti-
cal feminism. Of these,criticalNeo-Marxism is perhapsthe best known,
and thisis due largelyto itslongerhistory in thesocialsciences,especially
thewritings of the members of the Frankfurt School.Important themes
are thecritiqueof ideologyand theuses ofknowledge to further class in-
terests.Criticalfeminism extendsthisargument to considerthe waysin
whichandrocentrism hasstructured andcontinues to structure archaeologi-
cal discourse.Criticalpoststructuralism questionsour abilityto access the
pastinanyobjective wayandturnsinsteadtoa consideration ofhowknowl-
edge of thepast is createdand experienced in the present.
An examination of thedistribution of individuals working witheach
oftheseepistemologies revealstwointeresting patterns. All individuals es-
pousing a critical
approach also advocate either an analytic or a herme-
neuticone. The implication hereis thatcriticalapproachescannotstand
on theirownandmustbe combined witha secondepistemology. Thisfind-
is
ing entirely understandable when one realizesthatcriticalapproaches
are largelyaboutthelegitimization of knowledge claims.On thisaccount,
one can claimthatcriticalapproachesare notincompatible withdifferent
varietiesofprocessualarchaeology, and indeedtheworkofBinford(1987,
1989),Hanneiy(1982),and Trigger(1989,1991)tendsto bear thisout.
The secondpatternis thatthereare certainlinkagesthatare notin
evidence.For themostpart,scholarsare notlinking analyticand herme-
neuticapproaches. Thismaybe becauseanalytic approacheshave strong

15S Preucel
historicalconnectionsto processual approaches,especiallyin their accep-

tance of the scientific method.But it is also due to fundamentaldifferences
in how these approaches conceptualizetheirobject/subject of analysis as
Patterson(1989) suggests.Analyticapproaches tend to focus on function
or structure, while hermeneuticones seek to recovermeaningand inten-
tionality. This observationsuggeststhatwhile some philosophicalbounda-
ries maybe permeable,othersare probablynot and need to be respected.
A more nuancedanalysis,therefore, shouldexplorethe differences between
a criticalanalytics and a critical hermeneutics.
A criticalanalyticsmightdescribe an interestin exposingdominant
ideologies throughthe use of the scientificmethod.This approach is em-
bodied in the work of some criticaltheorists.For example,Mark Leone
has been concernedwithexplainingthe natureof class conflictwithinnine-
teenth-century societyin the contextof his Annapolis Project (Leone et
aL, 1987). Equally importantto him,however,has been his attemptto un-
derstandhow the institutions of industrialcapitalismaffectthe veiy ques-
tions that we ask (Leone, 1991). A criticalanalyticsis also expressed in
the work of manyfeminists, especiallythose withclose ties to processual
archaeology. Patty Jo Watson has been exploringsubstantiveissues regard-
ing the adoption of agriculture in the midwestforover threedecades. Re-
cently, she has initiated a feminist critiqueof standardinterpretations that
automatically attribute the act of domestication to men (Watson and Ken-
nedy,1991).
The considerationof how past and presentsocial relationsare ex-
perienced and given meaningthroughan interpretive readingof the ma-
terialculturetextcould be called a criticalhermeneutics. This approach can
be seen in the workof some poststructuralists. Ian Hodder (1992), forex-
ample, has argued that his contextualapproach is an attemptto be his-
torical and hermeneuticwhile at the same time remainingreflexively
critical.Some feministshave adopted this positionto challenge more ef-
fectively theinevitabilityof presentgenderroles.Meg Conkey(Conkeywith
Williams,1991) has begun the processof reconstructing Upper Paleolithic
period contexts in which gender roles were played out. She questions the
standard"original narratives" presented in the literature on the grounds
thattheyare simplyprojectionsof moderngenderideologies back in time.
What is especiallyproblematicforher is thatthese roles are then used to
legitimizepresentgenderroles as "natural."
A second typologycould be constructedout of different admixtures
of the intellectualframeworks themselves.As modes of inquiry,these fra-
meworksare historically constitutedand in practiceonlycertaincombina-
tions tend to be favored. Neo-Maixism, for example, appears to be a
particularly fertileframework, as it is now beginningto be joined to both

poststructuralism and feminism. Ironically,poststructuralism and feminism,

whichon the surfaceseem to share strongaffinitiesin theircritiques of
positivism,actuallydisplaysharp antipathiestowardone another.Both of
these patternscan currently be seen in the othersocial sciences.
Neo-Marxist feminismcurrently representsa smallbut productivearea
of study.In her studyof the site of Queyash in Peru, Joan Gero (1992)
combines neo-Marxist ideas with feministinsightsto achieve a more
roundedunderstanding of the role of genderin sociopoliticalchange. On
her account,women'srolesin ritualfeastingwas a locus of negotiationand
contestationin the processesof powerconsolidation.Drawingfromethno-
historicaccountsand modernfolklore,ElizabethBrumfiel(1991) has sug-
gestedthatthe imagesof women'sworkin Aztec societywere parts of an
ideologicaldiscourseoverthe allocationof productiveand reproductivela-
bor. Vianna Mller (1987) has arguedthatthe controlof kin reproduction
is a central feature in the rise of the state. In her analysis of Archaic
Europe, she examinesthe strugglesbetweenlegal codes demandingsexual
purityand the processesof wealth accumulationamong the elite.
Anothergrowingresearcharea is poststructural neo-Marxism.Julian
Thomas (1991) has emphasizedthe impossibility of escaping the confines
of ones own culturalcontextto understandanothercultureon itsown terms
whileprovidinga series of parallel storiesbased upon different categories
of materialcultureto "stand for"Wessex culture.His motivesare to re-
coverthedifference of thepast in waysthatdelegitimizethe present.Work-
ing from the premise that the past does not entail any absolute truths,
Olsen (1986) examinesthe historyof the Saami peoples of Norway and
arguesfora Saami prehistory writtenand used bythe Saami to serve their
own social and politicalaims in the present.He advocates an archaeology
thatseeks to reveal hiddenpartisanshipsthougha self-examination of the
interestsour research serves.
The ambiguousrelationshipbetweenpoststructuralism and feminism
appears to derivein part fromthe absence of any serious engagementby
poststructuralistswithfeminism. Erika Englestadt(1989) has critiquedpost-
processualism as only paying lipservice to feministissues and simplyre-
placing one male dominated authority structure with another.This same
point is made by Sarah Taylor (Baker et al, 1990), who describesthe at-
mosphere of the 1988 Cambridge seminar on poststructuralism as being
charged with tension and between
hostility poststructuralistsand feminists.
One of her most tellingchargesis thatpoststructuralism is an example of
how academia insulatesitselffromchangeby absorbingwould-beradicals
intoexistingstructures, therebygivingthema vestedinterestin not making
changes.

160 Preucel
POSTMODERN DILEMMAS
A seriesof postmodern dilemmascontoursthe currenttheoryand

of
practice archaeology. Most conspicuously, theseincludequestionsof
identity,representation, interpretation, power,and politics.Manyarchae-
ologistsprefer to attribute these dilemmas to postprocessualism and con-
clude that since theyhave few or no implicationsfor processual
archaeology, we shouldquitourendlessdebating andgetdownto thebusi-
ness of doing"real archaeology." This reaction,however, is not tenable.
its
Underlying argument is a view of disciplinary that
growth deniesthe
workof Kuhn,Hansen,Harding,and Feyerabend. It also ignoreshowthe
current debatesare alreadyreshaping thefaceof processualarchaeology.
Examplesofthisaretherenewedinterest incognitive archaeology (Cowgill,
1993;FlanneiyandMarcus,1993;Renfrew, 1994;Renfrew andBahn,1991)
and theemerging dialoguebetweenarchaeologists and indigenous peoples
(Layton, 1989; McGuire, 1992b; Trigger, 1990).
Identity and representation are centralissuesin postprocessual dis-
course.Whatimagesdo we use to portray thepastand howshouldthey
be transmitted to others?Thesequestionsarecurrently beinghotlydebated
in bothBritainand the UnitedStatesin the contextof the HeritageIn-
dustry and LivingHistory Museums.Merriman (1991)has drawnattention
to the role museumsplayin contributing to classdivisions withinsociety
betweenthosewhopossess"cultural capitar and those who do not.Walsh's
(1992) sociological analysis of the heritage industry has concluded thatthe
processes ofmodernization associated with the expansion ofindustrial capi-
talismhaveresultedin thedistancing of peoplefromtheirpasts.In their
critique ofColonialWilliamsburg, GableetaL, (1992)havedrawnattention
to howa concernformulticulturalism ironicallycan disempower minority
culturesin conflicts withan objectivist viewof history.
Perhapsthemostcontroversial tenetof postprocessualism is the ac-
ceptanceand, indeed, active of
encouragement multipleinterpretations.
How are we to distinguish one readingof the past fromanother?One
ratherpessimistic answer(actuallyheldbyveryfewpractitioners) is that
we cannot and that the properrole forarchaeology is critique.Yates
(1990), forexample,takesthisstandin his argument fordeconstructing
archaeology byturning it againstitselfin orderto open up thepossibility
of newpasts.In a similarfashion, Bapty(1990,p. 267) discussesmethods
of excavationand radiocarbon datingas the "technologies of truth," and
proposesthatpostprocessual archaeology adopta reactiveposture"pro-
moting a truthofthepastbyitsrigorin questioning thegrounduponwhich
anysuchtruth mightbe constructed." Ironically,thispositionrunstherisk
of undermining theauthority of thediscipline notso muchon relativistic

groundsas is so oftenclaimed (e.g., R. Watson, 1990, 199), but because

of the lack of attentionto structures forforginga democraticconsensus.
A more optimisticansweris thatwhile no global solutionsare pos-
sible,verdictscan be renderedon the basis of local conditionsand data
constraints.Wylie (1993) has argued that data are not so malleable that
theycan be construedto fitanytheoryof whateverform.Their materiality
provides"networksof resistances,"to use Shanks and Tille/s term(1987a,
p. 104), whichmustbe accommodated.The key to constructing strongar-
guments,then,is to exploita rangeof different independentdata sets that
togetherare highlyunlikelyto possess identicalerrors.Similarly,Hodder
(1992, p. 191) has arguedthatthe past possesses an existencethatis "par-
tiallyobjective"in the sense that it is distancedfromits author and can
influencethe interpreter. This materialistqualityimplies thatwe are not
simply interpretinginterpretations but,rather,dealingwithobjectsthathad
and continueto have practicalconsequences in the world.
A numberof scholarsare profoundly disturbedby the claim that ar-
chaeology cannot be separated from power and politics.The usual response
is to draw attentionto the dramaticabuses of archaeologyin nationalist
regimes.For example,Arnold(1990) has clearlydocumentedhow the Nazi
regimeused archaeologyto promotethe notionof Aryansupremacy.Simi-
larly,Hall (1984) has shown how Great Zimbabwe was originallyinter-
preted to be the productof a lost whitecivilization,reinforcing colonial
power relations. What is important here is not that archaeology was pressed
into the sendee of politics,howeverdistastefulto us any particularcase
may be, but ratherthat these nationalistarchaeologies did not include
mechanismsforthe rejectionof theirown conceptsand forthisreason the
possibilitiesfor self-critique were abrogated (Mller, 1991). It is this re-
flexivecharacterof sciencethatdistinguishes it fromotherformsof knowl-
edge production. There can be no defense for any archaeology,nationalist
or otherwise,thatdoes not possess thisself-critical character,but to argue
thatall cases of science and politicsare inherently evil is to confuse ide-
ology with morality.
It is also possible to take a more constructive view and argue that
archaeologyhas the potentialto "make a difference"in the world. One
area involvesexamininghow the past is accessed in the social construction
of national,racial, class, ethnic,and gender identities.Media reportsof
the turmoilin Bosnia-Herzegovina, NorthernIreland,Israel,and South Af-
rica serveonlyto highlight thatpasts are contestedon a dailybasis. What
we are onlynow beginningto recognizeis thatarchaeologistshave always
been implicatedin thisprocessto the extentthat the knowledgethat we
producehas been and is beingused bydifferent interestgroups.More often
than not thisinformation is put to purposesthatwe do not intend.Con-

162 Preucel
sequently,we cannot avoid thinkingabout whichuses of the past we are

willingto promoteand whichwe feel we mustoppose. A particularlygood
exampleis Russ Handsman's (1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, b; Handsman
and Maymon,1987; Handsman and Williamson,1993) long termcommit-
ment to recoveringthe "hidden histories"of New England firstpeoples.
Other examplesincludeJanetSpector's (1991, 1993) workamong the Da-
kota,LarryZimmerman's(McDonald et al, 1991) workwiththe Cheyenne
and Dakota, and T. J. Ferguson's (1981, 1984) workwiththe Zuni.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
What can be said about the postprocessualcondition?Do the recent

"end of thesesput forthforhistoryand philosophyapplyto archaeology?
If the death of the authoris requiredfor the birthof the reader, can we
talk about a real past constitutedby the meaningfulactions of social
agents? Is the postprocessualconditionsimplyan expressionof the post-
modernistturnin archaeology?Each of these questionsraises challenging
issues,but because theirphrasingis embeddedwithinspecificformsof dis-
course, theyremain fragmentary and contradictory.I do not presume to
have answersfor these questions,but I want to conclude by offeringtwo
tentativemovesthatI feel mayhelp archaeologybeginitsengagementwith
othersocial sciences and societyat large.
The firstmove is exploringthe natureof materiality, spatiality,and
temporality in a trialectic.
Three decades ago, AlbertSpaulding(1960) de-
finedthe three dimensionsof archaeologyas space, time,and form.For
him,materialculturewas acted upon by humans at differenttimes and
places to achieve certaingoals. This definitionbecame embedded in the
new archaeologyof Lewis Binford.Recent critiquesby postprocessualists
have shownwhythisview of materialcultureis inadequate. This passive
view ignoreshow objectsboth shape and are shaped by social action. It is
thisdual characterof materialculturethatis drawnupon by social actors
in theirdailylife and thatsometimesresultsin social transformation. For
all our professedinterestin materialculture,we have made verylittlepro-
gressin understanding how objects move into and out of contextsof corn-
modification,how they are ascribed value and meaning, or how they
transform social practice.It is thus particularly
ironicthat social anthro-
pologistsare takingthe lead in this area (e.g., Appadurai, 1986; Miller,
1987).
The second move involvestakingShanksand Tilley(1987a) seriously
when theytalk about reconstructing archaeologyas a formof social prac-
tice. This requiresextendingthe disciplinein directionsthatwe have tra-

Condition
ThePostprocessual 1(3
ditionallyavoided because of the hegemonyof the natural science dis-

course. Instead of definingour object solelyas materialcultureproduced
by membersof past societies,archaeologistsneed also to confrontthe in-
tersectionsof power and knowledgeby examiningthe institutions, funding
agencies,and professionalvehiclesforknowledgeproductionand dissemi-
nation.This is necessarybecause, as Joan Gero (1985, p. 342) has written,
archaeologyis "fundamentally and uniquelyan institutionof state-levelso-
ciety.It is only the state that can support,and that requiresthe services
of,elite specialiststo produceand controlthe past/*The resultof thiskind
of reconstruction maybe an archaeologycloser to Foucault's definitionof
the termthan Binford's(cf. Tilley,1990b).
There are severalencouragingsignsthatthese moves are alreadyun-
derwayto varyingdegrees. However,it is clear that theirfull realization
willrequirefurtherdebate and dialogue withinand across different varie-
tiesof postprocessualarchaeologies.It is also clear thatprocessualarchae-
ologies will continueto play a role in thisprocess.Rather than regarding
the postprocessualconditionas problematic,we should insteadview these
debates as sitesforfurtherdifferentiation and explorationthatcan poten-
tiallylink archaeology to the humanities and social sciences in new and
meaningful ways.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to acknowledgethe followingindividualsfor theiradvice and

commentson issues relevantto thisessay: Gary Campbell,Chris Chippin-
dale, Erika Evasdottir,Ian Hodder, RosemaryJoyce,Mark Leone, Robert
Paynter,Colin Renfrew,JeremySabloff, Laurajane Smith, Matthew
Spriggs,and Irene Winter.I am also gratefulto the studentsof mymethod
and theoryseminarfor theircritiqueand stimulation.Finally,I want to
thankChurchillCollege and the Departmentof Archaeology,Cambridge
University,forsponsoringme duringmyspring1993 sabbatical
REFERENCES CITED
Appadurai,A. (ed) (1986).TheSocialLifeof Things: Commodities in Cultural

Perspective,
Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge.
B.
Arnold, (1990). The as
past propaganda:Totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany.
Antiquity64: 464-478.
Baker,F. (1990).Archaeology,Habermasand thepathologies of modernity.In Baker,F.,
and Thomas,J. (eds.), WritingthePast in thePresent,
St. David's University
College,
Lampeter, pp. 54-62.

164 Prencel
Baker,F., and Thomas, J. (eds.) (1990). Writing thePast in thePresent,St David's University
College, Lampeter,Wales.
Baker,R, Taylor,S., and Thomas,J. (1990). Writingthe past in the present:An introductory
dialogue. In Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds), Writing thePast in the Present,St David's
UniversityCollege, Lampeter,pp. 1-11.
Bapty,I. {1990). Nietzsche,Dernda and Foucault: Re-excavatingthe meaningof archaeology.
In Bapty,I., and Yates, T. (ts.)9 Archaeology AfterStructuralism: Post-structuralism
and
thePracticeof Archaeology ' Routledge,London, pp. 240-276.
Bapty,I., and Yates, T. (eds.) (1990). Archaeology AfterStructuralism: and
Post-structuralism
thePracticeof Archaeology, Routledge,London.
Barrett,J. C. (1987). Contextualarchaeology.Antiquity61: 468-473.
Barrett,J. C. (1988a). Fields of discourse:Reconstituting a social archaeology.Critiqueof
Anthropology 7: 5-16.
Barrett,J. C. (1988b). The living,the dead, and the ancestors:Neolithicand Early Bronze
Age mortuarypractices.In Barrett,J. C, and Kinnes, I. A. (eds.), The Archaeologyof
Contextin the Neolithicand BronzeAge, Departmentof Archaeologyand Prehistory,
SheffieldUniversity, Sheffield,pp. 30-41.
tiarrett,J. <~. (roy;. lime ana tradition:me ntuais ot everydaylite, in Nordstrom,H.-A.,
and Knape, A. (eds.), BronzeAge Studies,StatensHistoriiskaMuseum, Stockholm.
Barrett,J. C. (1990a). Archaeologym the age of uncertainty. ScottishArchaeologyReview7:
31-36.
Barrett,J. C. (1990b). The monumentality of death: The characterof Early Bronze Age
mortuarymoundsin SouthernBritain.WorldArchaeology22: 179-189.
Bender, B. (1985a). Emergenttribal formationsm the American MidcontinenLAmerican
Antiquity 5<h52-62.
Bender,B. (1985b). Prehistoricdevelopmentsin the AmericanMidcontinentand in Brittany.
In Price, T. D., and Brown,J. A. (eds.), Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, Academic Press,
New York, pp. 21-57.
Binford,L. R. (1987). Data, relativismand archaeologicalscience.Man 22: 391-404.
Binford,L. R. (1989). The "new archaeology"then and now. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C
(ed.), ArchaeologicalThoughtin America,Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge pp.
50-62.
J. (1991). Post-modernism,
Bintliff, rhetoricand scholasticismat TAG: The currentstate of
Britisharchaeologicaltheory.Antiquity 65: 274-278.
Brumfiel,E. (1991). Weaving and cooking:Women's productionin Aztec Mexico. In Gero,
J.,and Conkey,M. (eds.), Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell,Oxford,pp. 132-162.
Brumfiel,E. (1992). Breakingand enteringthe ecosystem-gender,class, and factionsteal
the show.AmericanAnthropologist 94: 551-567.
Claasscn, G (ed.) (1992). ExploringGenderThroughArchaeology:SelectedPapers of the 1991
Boone Conference, PrehistoryPress, Madison, WI.
Cobb, C R. (1991). Social reproductionand the longue dure in the prehistoryof the
midcontinentalUnited States. In Preuccl, R. W. (ed.), Processual and Postprocessual
Archaeologies:MultipleWaysof Knowingthe Past, Center for Archaeological
Investigations, SouthernIllinois University,
Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp.
168-182.
Cobb, C. R. (1993). Archaeological approaches to the political economy of nonstratifed
societies.ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory5: 43-100.
Conkey,M. W., and Spector,J. (1984). Archaeologyand the studyof gender.Advances in
ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory7: 1-38.
Conkey,M. W., withWilliams,S. H. (1991). Original narratives:The political economy of
genderin archaeology.In di Leonardo, M. (ed.), Genderat the Crossroadsof Knowledge-
FeministAnthropology in the PostmodernEra, Universityof CaliforniaPress, Berkeley,
pp. 102-139.
Cowgill,G. (1993). Beyondcriticizing new archaeology.AmericanAnthropologist95: 551-573.
Duke, P. (1991). Pointsin Time:Structureand Eventin a Late PeriodNorthernPlains Hunting
Society,Universityof Colorado Press,Boulder.

The PostprocessingCondition 165
Duke, P. (1992). Braudel and North American archaeology. In Knapp, A. B. (ed.),

Archaeology,Annales and Ethnohistory, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, pp.
99-111.
Earle, T. K., and Preucel, R. W. (1987). Processual archaeologyand the radical critique.
Current Anthropology 28: 501-538.
Englestad,E. (1991). Feministtheoryand postprocessualarchaeology.In Walde, D., and
Willows, N. D. (eds.), The Archaeologyof Gender,Proceedings of the 22nd Annual
Chacmool Conference,University of CalgaryArchaeologicalAssociation,Calgary.
Ferguson,T. J. (1981). Rebuttalreport,preparedforthe Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni Indian Tribe
v. UnitedStates,Docket No. 161-79L,beforethe United States Court of Claims, VoL I.
Ferguson, T. J. (1984). Archaeological ethics and values in a tribal cultural resource
managementprogramat the Pueblo of Zuni. In Greene,E. L. (ed.), Ethics and Values
in Archaeology, Free Press,New York, pp. 224-235.
Flannery,K. V. (1982). The goldenMarshalltown:A parableforthe archaeologyof the 1980s.
AmericanAnthropologist 84: 265-278.
Flannery,K. V., and Marcus, J. (1993). Cognitivearchaeology.CambridgeArchaeological
Journal3: 260-270.
Frankenstein, S., and Rowlands,M J. (1978). The internalstructureand regionalcontextof
early Iron Age societyin south-westGermany.Bulletinof the Instituteof archaeology,
London 15: 73-112.
Friedman,J.,and Kowiands,M. j. (ly/oj. Notes towardsan epigeneticmodel ot the evolution
of "civilization."In Friedman,J., and Rowlands,M. J. (eds.), The Evolutionof Social
Systems,Duckworth,London, pp. 201-276.
Gable, E., Handler, R., and Lawson, A. (1992). On the uses of relativism:Fact, conjecture,
and blackand whitehistoriesat Colonial Williamsburg.AmericanEthnologist19: 791-805.
Gero, J. (1983). Gender bias in archaeology:A cross culturalperspective.In Gero, J., Lacy,
D., and Blakey,M. (eds.), The Socio-politicsofArchaeology,
Universityof Massachusetts
Departmentof AnthropologyResearch Report 23, pp. 51-57.
Gero, J. (1985). Socio-politicsof archaeologyand the woman-at-homeideology.American
Antiquity 50: 342-350.
Gero, J. (1991). Who experiencedwhatin prehistory? A narrativeexplanationfromQueyash,
Peru. In Preucel,R. W. (ed.), Processualand Postprocessual
Archaeologies:MultipleWays
ofKnowingthePast, SouthernIllinoisUniversity CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations,
Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 126-141.
Gero, J. (1992). Feasts and females: Gender ideology and political meals in the Andes.
Norwegian ArchaeologicalReview25: 15-30.
Gero, J., and Conkey,M. (eds.) (1991). Engendering Archaeology,Basil Blackwell,Oxford.
Gero, J.,and Root, v. (ix*)). Public presentationsand privateconcerns:Archaeologym the
pages of National Geographic.In Gathercole,P., and Lowenthal,D. (eds.), The Politics
of thePast, Unwin Hyman,London, pp. 19-37.
Gilman,A. (1981). The developmentof social stratification in Bronze Age Europe. Current
Gilman,A. (1984). Explainingthe Upper PaleolithicRevolution.In Spriggs,M. (ed.), Marxist
Perspectives in Archaeology, CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge,pp. 115-126.
Gilman,A. (1989). Marxismin American archaeology.In Lamberg-Karlovsky, G C. (ed.),
ArchaeologicalThoughtin America,CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge,pp. 62^-73.
Gledhill, J., and Rowlands, M. J. (1982). Materialism and socio-economic process in
multilinearevolution.In Renfrew,C, and Shennan,S. (eds.), Ranking,Resource,and
Exchange:Aspectsof theArchaeologyof EarfyEuropean Society,Cambridge University
Press,Cambridge,pp. 144-149.
Hall, M. (1984). The burdenof tribalism:The social contextof southernAfricanIron Age
Studies.AmericanAntiquity 49: 455-467.
Handsman, R. G. (1987). Stop making sense: Towards an anti-catalogue of woodsplint
basketry.In McMuUen,A., and Handsman, R. G. (eds.), A Key into the Language of
WoodsplintBaskets,American Indian Archaeological Institute,Washington,CT, pp.
144-163.

166 Prence!
Handsman, R. G. (1988).Algonldan
womenresistcolonialism. 16: 29-31.
Artifacts
Handsman, R. G. (1989).NativeAmericans
and an archaeology
of livingtraditions.
Artifacts
17(2): 3-5.
Handsman, R. G. (1990).TheWeantinockIndianhomelandwasnota "desert."Artifacts
18(2):
Handsman, R. G. (1991a).Whathappenedto theheritage oftheWeantinock people.Artifacts
19(1): 3-9.
Handsman,R. G. (1991b).Illuminating history'ssilencesin the"PioneerValley."Artifacts
19(2): 14-25.
Handsman, R. G., and Maymon, J.H. (1987).The Weantinoge siteand an archaeology of
tencenturies of nativehistory.
Artifacts15(4): 4-11.
Handsman,R. G., and Williamson, L. (1993).As we tellour stories:Livingtraditions and
theAlgonkian peoplesof IndianNewEngland. 17(4): 4-34.
Artifacts
Hastorf,C A. (1991).Gender,space,and foodin prehistory. In Gero,J.,and Conkey,M.
(eds.),Engendering Archaeology,BasilBlackwell, Oxford,pp. 132-162.
Hodder, l. (I9za;. ymooucana structural Archaeology, CambridgeUniversity Press,
Cambridge.
Hodder,I. (1982b).Theoretical A reactionary
archaeology: view.In Hodder,I. (ed.),Symbolic
and Structural Archaeology,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 1-16.
Hodder,I. (1982c).Sequencesof structural changein the DutchNeolithic. In Hodder,I.
(ed.), Symbolic and Structural
Archaeology,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp.
162-177.
1.
Hodder, (1984a).Archaeology in 1984.Antiquity 5& 25-32.
Hodder,I. (1984b).Bunals,houses,womenand menm theEuropeanNeolithic. In Miller,
D., and Tilley,C. (eds.),Ideology, Powerand Prehistory, CambridgeUniversity Press,
Cambridge, pp. 51-68.
Hodder,I. (1986).ReadingthePast,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.
Hodder,I. (1988a).Materialculture"texts"and socialchange:A theoretical discussion
and
somearchaeological examples.ProceedingsofthePrehistoric Society54: 67-75.
Hodder, I. (1988b). This is not an articleabout materialcultureas text.Journalof
8: 250-269.
Archaeology
Anthropological
Hodder,I. (1989).Writing Sitereports
archaeology: in contextAntiquity
63: 268-274.
Hodder,I. (1990).TheDomestication
ofEurope,BasilBlackwell,
Oxford.
Hodder,I. (1991a). Postprocessual and thecurrent
archaeology debate.In Preucel,R. W.
(ed.), Processual and PostprocessualArchaeologies:MultipleWaysof Knowingthe Past,
CenterforArchaeological Carbondale,SouthernIllinoisUniversity,
Investigations,
Carbondalc, OccasionalPaper,No. 10,pp. 30-41.
Hodder,I. (1991b).Interpretive
archaeologyand itsrole.American
Antiquity56: 7-18.
andPractice
Hodder,I. ( (1992).Theory mArchaeology, London.
Routledge,
Johnson,M. H. (1989). Conceptions of agencyin archaeological
interpretation.Journal
of
Archaeology8: 189-211.
Anthropological
M. H. (1991).Enclosure
Johnson, andcapitalism:
The history
ofa process.In Preucel,R. W.
(ed.), Processual and PostprocessualArchaeologies:MultipleWaysof Knowingthe Past9
CenterforArchaeological SouthernIllinoisUniversity,
Investigations, Carbondale,
OccasionalPaper,No. 10,pp. 159-167.
Joyce,K. A. (199J).womens work:Imagesot production andreproduction m pre-Hspanic
southern CentralAmerica.Current Anthropology34: 255-274.
Kehoe,A. (1990).Pointandlines.In Nelson,S., andKehoe,A. (eds.),PowersofObservation:
AlternativeViewsinArchaeology, ArcheologicalPapersof theAmerican Anthropological
Association, No. 2, pp. 23-38.
Kohl,P. (1987a).The ancienteconomy, transferable and theBronzeAge World
technologies
System: A viewfromthenortheastern frontier
of theancientNear East In Rowlands,
M. J.,Larsen,M., andKristiansen, K. (eds.),CentreandPeripheryin theAncientWorld,
Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge,pp. 13-24.
Kohl,P. (1987b).The use and abuseof WorldSystems Theory.AdvancesinArchaeological
Methodand Theory11: 1-35.

Kohl, P. (1989). The use and abuse of World SystemsTheory:The case of the "pristine**
West Asian State. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C G (ed.), ArchaeologicalThougfit in America,
CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp. 218-240.
Kristiansen,K. (1978). The consumptionof wealthin Bronze Age Denmark: A studyin the
dynamicsof economicprocessesin tribalsocieties.In Paludan-Mller,I., and Kristiansen,
K. (eds.), New Directionsin ScandinavianArchaeology, K0benhavn.
Kristiansen,K. (1984). Ideology and material culture: An archaeological perspective.In
Spriggs, M. (ed.), MarxistPerspectivesin Archaeology,Cambridge UniversityPress,
Cambridge,pp. 72-100.
Kristiansen,K. (1988). The black and the red: Shanks and Tilley'sprogrammefor a radical
archaeology.Antiquity62: 473-482.
Layton, R. (ed.) (1989). Conflictin the Archaeologyof Living Traditions,Unwin Hyman,
London.
Leone, M. P. (1984). Interpreting ideologyin historicalarchaeology:The WilliamPaca garden
in Annapolis, Maryland. In Miller, D., and Tilley, C. (eds.), Ideology,Power, and
Prehistory,CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge,pp. 25-35.
Leone, M. P. (1986). Symbolic,structuraland criticalarchaeology.In Meltzer,D., Fowler,
D., and Sabloff,J. (eds.), AmericanArchaeology Past and Future,SmithsonianInstitution
Press, Washington,DC, pp. 415-438.
Leone, M. P. (1991). Materialisttheoryand the formationof questions m archaeology.In
Preucel, R. W. (ed.), Processual and PostprocessualArchaeologies:Multiple Ways of
KnowingthePast, CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations, SouthernIllinois University,
Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 235-241.
Leone, M. R., Potter,P. B., and Shackel,P. (1987). Toward a criticalarchaeology.Current
Leone, M. P., and Preucel, R. W. (1992). Archaeologyin a democraticsociety:A critical
theoryapproach.In Wandsnider,L. (ed.), Quandariesand Quests:VisionsofArchaeology's
Future,CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations, SouthernIllinoisUniversity, Occasional
Paper, No. 20, pp. 115-135.
McDonald, J. D., Zimmerman,L. J., McDonald, A. L., Tall Bull, W., and Rising Sun, T.
(1991). The NorthernCheyenneoutbreakof 1897: Using oral historyand archaeology
as tools of resistance.In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter,R. (eds.), The Archaeologyof
Inequality,Basil Blackwell,Oxford,pp. 125-150.
McGuire, R. H. (1989). The sanctityof the grave: White concepts and American Indian
burials. In Layton, R. (ed.), Conflictsin the Archaeologyof Living Traditions,Unwin
Hvman,London, pp. 167-184.
McGuire, R. H. (1992a). A MarxistArchaeohsy,Academic Press,New York.
McGuire, R. H. (1992b). Archaeologyand the FirstAmericans.AmericanAnthropologist 94:
816-836.
McGuire, R. H., and Paynter,R. (eds.) (1991). TheArchaeology of Inequality,Basil Blackweil,
Oxford.
Merriman,N. (1991). BeyondtheGlass Case: The Past, theHeritageand thePublic in Britain,
LeicesterUniversityPress,Leicester.
Miller,D. ( 1987). MaterialCultureand Mass Consumotion.Basil BlackwelLOxford.
Miller,D., and Tilley,C. (eds.) (1984). Ideology,Powerand Prehistory, CambridgeUniversity
Press, Cambridge.
Miller,D., Rowlands,M. J.,and Tilley,C. (eds.) (1989). Dominationand Resistance,Unwin
Hyman,London.
Mller,J. (1991). The new holyfamily:A polemic on bourgeoisidealismin archaeology.In
Preucel, R. W. (ed.), Processual and PostprocessualArchaeologies:Multiple Ways of
KnowingthePast, CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations, SouthernIllinois University,
Carbondale. Occasional Paoer. No. 10. dd. 251-261.
Mller,V. (1987). Kin reproduction and elite accumulationin the Archaicstatesof northwest
Europe. In Patterson, T. C, and Gailey, C. W. (eds.), Power Relations and State
Formation,AmericanAnthropological Association,Washington,DC.

168 Preocel
Olsen, B. (1986). Norwegianarchaeologyand the people without(pre-)history:Or how to

create a mythof a uniformpast ArchaeologicalReviewfromCambridge5: 25-42.
Olsen, B. (1991). Metropolisesand satellitesin archaeology:On power and asymmetryin
global archaeologicaldiscourse. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.), Processimiand Postprocessual
Investigations, SouthernIllinoisUniversity, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 211-224.
ParkerPearson,M. (1982). Mortuarypractices,society,and ideology:An ethnoarchaeological
study.In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolicand Structural Archaeology,Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge,pp. 99-113.
ParkerPearson,M. (1984). Social change,ideologyand the archaeologicalrecord.In Spriggs,
M. (ed.), MarxistPerspectives in Archaeology,
CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge,pp.
59-71.
Patterson,T. G (1985). Pachacamac An Andean oracle under Inca rule. In Kvietok,D. P.,
and Sandweiss,D. H. (eds.), RecentStudiesinAndean Prehistory and Protohistory,Cornell
UniversityPress, Ithaca, NY, pp. 155-176.
Patterson,T. C (1986). Ideology,class formation,and resistancem the Inca state. Critique
ofAnthropology 6: 75-85.
Patterson,T. C. (1989). Historyand postprocessualarchaeology.Man 24: 555-566.
Patterson,T. C. (1990). Some theoreticaltensionswithinand between the processual and
postprocessualarchaeologies.Journalof Anthropological Archaeology9: 189-200.
Patterson,T. C (is;. Ine inca umpire:me formationand Disintegration of a Pre-capitalist
State,Berg, Oxford.
Potter,P. B., Jr. (1992). Criticalarchaeology:In the ground and on the street.Historical
Archaeology26: 117-129.
Preucel, R. W. (ed.) (1991a). Processualand Postprocessual Archaeologies:MultipleWaysof
KnowingthePast, Center forArchaeologicalInvestigations, SouthernIllinois University,
Carbondale,Occasional Paper, No. 10.
Preucel, R. W. (1991b). The philosophyof archaeology.In Preucel, R. W. (ed.), Processual
and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for
ArchaeologicalInvestigations, SouthernIllinoisUniversity,Carbondale,Occasional Paper,
No. 10, pp. 17-29.
Redman, C L. (1991). In defense of the seventies-The adolescence of new archaeology.
AmericanAnthropologist 93: 295-307.
Renfrew,C (1994). Towards a cognitivearchaeology.In Renfrew,C, and Zubrow,E. B. W.
(eds.), The AncientMind, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge,pp. 3-12.
Renfrew,C, and Bahn, P. (1991). Archaeology:Theories,Methodsand Practice,Thames and
Hudson, London.
Rowlands,M. J., Larsen, M,, and Kristiansen,K. (eds.) (1987). Centreand Periphery in the
AncientWorld,CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge.
Schiffer,M. B. (1988). The structureof archaeologicaltheory. AmericanAntiquity 53: 461-486.
Seifert,D. J. (ed.) (1991). Gender in historicalarchaeology.HistoricalArchaeology25 (4).
Shanks,M. (1992). Experiencing thePast: On theCharacterofArchaeology, Routledge,London.
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1982). Ideology,symbolicpower, and ritualcommunication:A
reinterpretationof Neolithic mortuarypractices. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolicand
Structural Archaeology, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge,pp. 129-154.
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1987a). Re-constructing Archaeology:Theoryand Practice,
CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge.
Shanks,M., and Tilley,C (1987b). Social Theoryand Archaeology, PolityPress, Cambridge.
Spaulding,A. (1960). The dimensionsof archaeology.In Dole, G. ., and Carneiro, R. L.
(eds.), Essays in the Science of Culturein Honor of Leslie A. White,Crowell,New York,
pp. 437-456.
Spaulding,A (1988). Archaeologyand anthropology. AmericanAnthropologist 90: 263-271.
Spector,J. u. (lyyi). What tinsawl means: lo ward a temmistarchaeology,in uero, J.,and
Conkey,M. (eds.), Engendering Archaeology,Basil Blackwell,Oxford,pp. 388-406.
Spector,J.D. (1993). WhatthisAwl Means: FeministArchaeology at a WahpetonDakota ViUage,
MinnesotaHistoricalSocietyPress, St. Paul.

Condition
The Postprocessuai 169
Spriggs, M. (ed.) (1984).Marxist Perspectivesin Archaeology, CambridgeUniversity Press,

Cambridge.
Tliomas,D. H. (1989).Archaeology, 2nded, Holt,Rinehart and Winston, NewYork.
Thomas,J. (1990).Archaeology and thenotionof ideology. In Baker,F., and Thomas,J.
(eds.),Writing thePastinthePresent, St.David'sUniversity College,Lampeter, pp. 63-68.
Thomas,J.(1991).Rethinking theNeolithic, Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge.
Thomas,J.,and TiUey,C (1992). TAG and "post-modernism": A replyto JohnBintliff.
Antiquity 66: 106-114.
Tley,C (1988).Discourseand powerThe genreof theCambridge InauguralLecture.In
Miller,D., Rowlands, M. J.,and Tilley,C. (eds.),Domination and Resistance, Unwin
Hyman, London,pp. 41-62.
Tilley,C. (1989).Excavation as theater.Antiquity 63: 275-280.
Tilley, C. (ed.) (1990a). ReadingMaterialCulture:Structuralism, Hermeneutics, and
Poststructuralism9BasilBlackwell, Oxford.
Tilley,C. (1990b).MichelFoucault:Towardsan archaeology of archaeology. In Tilley,C.
(ed.),ReadingMaterial Culture: Structuralism,Hermeneutics, and Poststructuralism, Basil
BiackwelL Oxfordpp. 281-347.
Trigger,B. G. (1989).A History ofArchaeological Thought, CambridgeUniversity Press,
Cambridge.
Trigger, B. u. (19**)).The 1990s:NorthAmerican archaeology witha humanface?Antiquity
64: 77&-787.
Trigger, J.u. (1991j. constraint andfreedom: A newsynthesis forarchaeological explanation.
American Anthropologist 93: 551-569.
Tringham,R. (1991). Householdswithfaces: The challengeof genderin prehistoric
architecturalremains. In Gero,J.,andConkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil
Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 93-131.
Victor, K. u, andBeaudry, M. C. (1992).Women'sparticipation m American prehistoric and
historic archaeology. A comparative lookat thejournals American Antiquity andHistorical
Archaeology. In Ciaassen,C. (ed.),Exploring GenderThrough Archaeology:Selected Papers
fromthe1991BooneConference, Monographs in WorldArchaeology, No. 11,Prehistory
Press,Madison,WL pp. 11-21.
Walde,D., andWillows, N. D. (eds.) (1991).TheArchaeology of Gender,Proceedings of the
22ndAnnualChacmoolConference, University of CalgaryArchaeological Association.
Walsh,K. (1992).TheRepresentation of thePast:Museumsand Heritage in thePost-Modern
World, Routledge, London.
Watson,P. J.,and Fotiadis,M. (1990).The razor'sedge:Symbolic-structuralist archaeology
and theexpansion ofarchaeological inference. American Anthropologist92z613-629.
Watson,P. J.,and Kennedy, M. C (1991).The development of horticulturein theeastern
woodlandsof NorthAmerica:Women'srole. In Gero, J., and Conkey,M. (eds.),
Engendering Archaeology, BasilBlackwell, Oxford, pp. 255-275.
Watson, R. (1990).Ozymandias, kingofkings:Postprocessuai radicalarchaeology as critique.
American Antiquity 55: 673-689.
Watson,R. (1991).Whatthenewarchaeology has accomplished CurrentAnthropology 32:
275-291.
Wiiley,G. R^ andSabioftJ.A. (1992).A History ofAmerican Archaeology,3rded Freeman,
NewYork.
Wright, R. (1991). Women'slaborand pottery production in prehistory.In Gero,J.,and
Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 194-223.
Wyhe, A. (1991).Gendertheory andthearchaeological record:Whyis thereno archaeology
ofgender?In Gero,J.,andConkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology,BasilBlackwell,
Oxford, pp. 31-56.
Wyhe,A. (1992). The interplay of evidentialconstraints and politicalinterests: Recent
archaeological research on gender. American Antiquity 57: 15-35.
Wyiie, A. (1993).A proliferation ofnewarchaeologies: "Beyondobjectivism and relativism."
In Yoffee,N., and Sherratt, A. (ed.), Archaeological Theory:WhoSets theAgenda?
Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 20-26.

170 Prence!
Yates, T. (1988). The Cambridgeseminaron poststnicturalism and archaeology:An

note.Archaeological
organizer's Review fromCambridge 7: 239-240.
Yates,T. (1990).Archaeologythoughthe looking-glass.
In Bapty,I., and Yates,T. (eds.),
Archaeology AfterStructuralism:
Post-structuralism
and thePracticeof Archaeology,
Routledge,London,pp. 153-204.
BIBUOGRAPHY OF RECENT UTERATURE
Bagnai,R. (1990).The experience andidentity of"women": Feminism afterstructuralism. In

Bapty,L, andYates,T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism:Post-structuralism and the
PracticeofArchaeology, Routledge, London,pp. 103-123.
Bapty,I. (1990).The agonyandtheecstasy. Archaeological Review fromCambridge 9: 233-242.
Bapty,I. (1990).On modernity andarchaeological discourse. In Bapty,L, andYates,T. (eds.),
Archaeology AfterStructuralism: Post-structuralism and thePracticeof Archaeology,
Routledge, London,pp. 127-152.
Barrett,J. C. (1987). Food, gender,and metal:Questionsof social reproduction. In
Stig-Sorenson, M.- L., and Thomas,R. (eds.), TheBronzeAge-Iron Age Transition in
Europe,BAR (International Series)483,pp. 304-320.
Barrett,J. C (1990). Sciencing archaeology: A replyto LewisBinford. In Baker,F., and
Thomas,J.(eds.),Writing thePastinthePresent, St David'sUniversity College,Lampeter,
pp. 42-48.
J.G (1991).Towardsan archaeology
Barrett, ofritual.In Garwood, P.,Jennings, D., Skeates,
R., and Toms,J. (eds.),Sacredand Profane:TheArchaeology of Ritualand Religion,
OUDES, Oxford, pp. 1-9.
Barrett,J.C (1994).Fragments mAntiquity, BasilBlackwell, Oxford
Beaudry, M. G, Cook,L. J.,andMorzowski, S. J.(1991).Artifacts andactivevoices:Material
cultureas socialdiscourse. In McGuire,R., and Paynter, R. (eds.), TheArchaeology of
Inequality,Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 150-191.
Bender,B. (1978). Gatherer-hunter to farmer: A socialperspective. World Archaeology l<h
204-222.
Bender,B. (1986). TheArchaeology of Brittany,Normandy, and theChannelIslands,Faber
and Faber,London.
Bender,B. (1989). The rootsof inequality. In Miller,D., Rowlands,M. J.,and Tilley,C.
(eds.),Domination andResistance, UnwinHyman, London,pp. 83-95.
Bender,B. (1990). The dynamics of nonhierarcmcal societies.In Upham,S. (ed.), The
Evolution ofPoliticalSystems: Sociopoliticsin SmallScaleSedentary Societies,Cambridge
University Press,Cambridge, pp. 247-263.
Bender,B. (1992).Theorizing landscapesand theprehistoric landscapeof Stonehenge. Man
27: 735-755.
Botscharow, L. J. (1989).Sitesas texts:An exploration of Mousterian traces.In Hodder,L
(ed.), TheMeaningof Things: MaterialCulture and Symbolic Expression, UnwinHyman,
London,pp. 50-54.
Boyd,B. (1992).The transformation ofknowledge: Natufian mortuary practicesat Hayonim,
western Galilee.Archaeological ReviewfromCambridge 11: 19-38.
Burr,G. (1990).The jokeris wild,thetextuntameable: The analytics of Homo Analogicus
(anthropology, post-structuralism andpost-modernism). In Bapty,I., andYates,T. (eds.),
Archaeology AfterStructuralism: Post-structuralism and thePracticeof Archaeology,
Routledge, London,pp. 35-59.
Chippindale, C. (1993). Ambition, deference, discrepancy, consumption: The intellectual
background to a post-processual archaeology. In Yoffee,N., and Sherratt, A. (ed.),
Archaeological Theory:WhoSetstheAgenda?Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp.
27-36.

Claassen,C. P. (1991).Gender,shellfishing,
and theShellMoundArchaic.In Gero,J.,and
Conkey, M. (eds.),EngenderingArchaeology,BasilBlackwell,
Oxford, pp. 276-300.
Gaassen, C. P. (ed.) (1994). Womenand Archaeology, Universityof Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia.
Conkey, M. W. (1991).Contexts of action,contextsforpowerMaterialcultureand gender
in theMagdalenian. In Gero,J.,and Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering , Basil
Archaeology
BlackwelL Oxford, pp. 57-92.
Criado,F. (1989).*We,thepost-megalithiepeople. ..." In Hodder,I. (ed.), TheMeaningof
Things:MaterialCultureand SymbolicExpression,UnwinHyman,London, pp. 79-87.
Davis,W. (1989).Towardsandarchaeology
of thoughtIn Hodder,I. (ed.), TheMeaningof
Things:MaterialCultureand SymbolicExpression,Unwin Hyman,London, pp. 202-208.
Dommasnes, L. H. (1990).Feminist archaeology:Critiqueof theory In Baker,F.,
building.
and Thomas,J. (eds.), WritingthePast in thePresent,St. David'sUniversityCollege,
Lampeter, pp. 24-31.
du Cross,H., andSmith, L. (1993).Women inArchaeology:A Feminist ' Department
Critique
ResearchSchoolof PacificStudies,OccasionalPapersin Prehistory,
of Prehistory, No.
23,The Australian NationalUniversity,Canberra.
Edmunds, M. (1993).Interpretingcauseway in thepastand thepresent.
enclosures In Tilley,
C (ed.),Interpretive
Archaeology, Berg,Oxford,pp. 99-142.
Gilchrist,R. (1989). Community and self: Perceptionsand use of space in medieval
monestaries.ScottishArchaeologicalReview6: 55-64.
R. (1991).Women'sarchaeology?
Gilchrist, Politicalfeminism,gendertheory and historical
revision.Antiquity65: 495-501.
Handsman, R. G. (1980).Studying myth andhistory in modern America:Perspectives forthe
pastfromthecontinent. Reviews inAnthropology 7: 255-268.
Handsman, R. G. (1991).Whoseartwasfoundat Lepinski Vir?Genderrelations andpower
in archaeology. In Gero,J.,and Conkey,M. (eds.), Engendering Archaeology,Basil
Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 329-365.
Handsman, R. G., and Leone,M. P. (1989).Livinghistory and criticalarchaeologyin the
reconstruction of the past In Pinsky, V., and Wylie,A. (eds.), CriticalTraditionsin
Contemporary Archaeology, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 117-135.
Hertzfield,M. (1992). Metapatterns: Archaeology and the uses of evidential In
scarcity.
Gardin, G.-G ,andPeebles,C. S. (eds.),RepresentationsinArchaeology, IndianaUniversity
Press,Bloomington, pp. 66-86.
Hewison,R. (1987).TheHeritage Industry,Methuen, London.
Hill,J.D. (1989).Rethinking theIronAge.Scottish ArchaeologyReview6: 16-24.
Hill,J.D. (1992).Can we recognize a different Europeanpast?A contrastive archaeologyof
laterprehistoric settlementsin southern England.Journal of EuropeanArchaeology 1:
57-75.
Hodder,I. (1986). Politicsand ideologyin the WorldArchaeologicalCongress1986.
ArchaeologicalReviewfromCambridge5: 113-119.
Hodder,I. (ed.) (1987).Archaeology
as Long TermHistory, Press,
CambridgeUniversity
Cambridge.
Hodder, I. (ed.) (1989). The Meaningof Things:MaterialCultureand SymbolicExpression,
UnwinHyman, London.
Hodder,I. (1989).Post-modernism, and post-processual
post-structuralism, In
archaeology.
Hodder,I. (ed.), TheMeaningof Things:MaterialCultureand SymbolicExpression,Unwin
Hyman, London,pp. 64-78.
Hodder,I. (ed.) (1990).TheArchaeology
ofContextual Meanings,
CambridgeUniversityPress,
Cambridge.
Hodder,L (1990).Archaeology and thepostmodern. Today6: 13-15.
Anthropology
Johnson,H., and Olsen,B. (1992).Henneneutics and archaeology:
On the philosophyof
contextual archaeology.AmericanAntiquity57: 419-436.
M. H. (1992).Meanings
Johnson, ofpolitearchitecture
insixteenth-century
England.Historical
26: 26-44.
Archaeology

172 Preucel
Johnson, M. H. (1993). Notes towards an archaeology of capitalism. In Tflley,C. (ed.),

InterpretiveArchaeology,Berg, Oxford,pp. 327-356.
Johnson,M. H., and Coleman, S. (1990). Power and passion m archaeologicaldiscourse.In
Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.), Writingthe Past in thePresent,St. David's University
College, Lampeter,pp. 13-17.
Joyce,R. A. (1992). Images of gender and labor organizationin Cassie Maya society.In
Claassen, C. (ed.), ExploringGender Througfi Archaeology:Selected Papers of the 1991
Boone Conference, PrehistoryPress,Madison, WI, pp. 23-32.
Kelly, R. (1991). Toward a reconciliationof processual and postprocessualarchaeology.In
Wandsnider,L. (ed.), Quandariesand Quests: VisionsofArchaeology'sFuture,Center for
ArchaeologicalInvestigations,SouthernIllinoisUniversity,Carbondale,Occasional Paper,
No. 20. do. 254-265.
Kirk, T. (1990). Post-structuralism:
We don't know what it is, but we like it. In Baker, F.,
and Thomas, J. (eds.), Writing the Past in the Present,St. David's UniversityCollege,
Lampeter,pp. 87-89.
Kirk,T. (1991). Structure,agency,and powerrelations"Chez les DerniersChasseurs-Cueillers"
of northwestern France. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.), Processual and Postprocessual
Investigations,SouthernIllinois University, Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp.
108-125.
Kirk, T. (1993). Space, subjectivity, power, and hegemony:Megaliths and long mounds in
earlier NeolithicBrittany.In Tilley,C. (ed.), Interpretive
Archaeology,Berg, Oxford,pp.
181-224.
Kohl, P. (1984). Force, history,and the evolutionistparadigm.In Spriggs,M. (ed.), Marxist
Perspectives in Archaeology, CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridgepp. 127-134.
Kohl, P. (1985). Symbolic,cognitive archaeology: A new loss of innocence. Dialectical
Kohl, P. (1993). Limits to a post-processual archaeology (or, the dangers of a new
scholasticism).In Yoffec,N., and Sherratt,A (ed.), ArchaeologicalTheory:Who Sets the
Agenda*!CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge,pp. 13-19.
Kosso, P. (1991). Method in archaeology.Middle-rangetheoryas hermeneutics.American
Antiquity56: 621-627.
Kristiansen,K. (1982). The formationof tribal systemsin Later European prehistory.In
Renfrew,C, Rowlands,M. J., and Seagraves,B. A. (eds.), Theoryand Explanationin
Archaeology,Academic Press,New York, pp. 5-24.
Kristiansen,K. (1989). Value, ranking,and consumptionin the European Bronze Age. In
Miller, D., Rowlands,M. J., and Tilley, C. (eds.), Dominationand Resistance,Unwin
Hyman,London, pp. 211-214.
Kristiansen,K. (1991). Chiefdoms,states,and systemsof social evolution.In Earle, T. K.
(ed.), Chiefdoms:Power,Economy,and Ideology,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,
pp. 16-43.
Kus, S. (1982). Matters material and ideal. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolicand Structural
Archaeology,CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge,pp. 47-62.
Kus, S. (1984). The spiritand its burden:Archaeologyand symbolicactivity.In Spriggs,M.
(ed.), MarxistPerspectives in Archaeology,CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge,pp.
101-107.
Kus, S. (1989). Sensuous humanactivityand the state: Toward an archaeologyof bread and
circuses. In Miller,D., Tilley,C, and Rowlands,M. (eds.), Dominationand Resistance,
Unwin Hyman,London, pp. 140-154.
Layton,R. (ed.) (1989). WhoNeeds thePast? Unwin Hyman,London.
Leone, M. P. (1981). The relationshipbetweenartifactsand the public in Outdoor History
Museums.Annals of theNew YorkAcademyof Sciences376: 301-314.
Leone, M., and Potter,P. B. (1984). ArchaeologicalAnnapolis,Archaeologyin Annapolis,
Annapolis,MD.
Leone, M., and Potter,Y. t. (eds.) (1990). The Recoveryof Meaning,SmithsonianInstitution
Press, Washington,DC

Condition
The Postproccssual 173
Little,B. (cd) (1993).Text-aided Archaeology, CRC Press,Boca Raton,FL.

Maley,W. (1990).Undermining archaeology:Fromreconstruction todeconstruction. In Bapty,
L, andYates,T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism:
Post-structuralismandthePractice
ofArchaeology, Routledge, London,pp. 61-77.
McGuire,R. H. (1988).Dialogueswiththedead:Ideologyand thecemetery. In Leone,M.
P., and Potter,P. B. (eds.), TheRecovery of Meaning,Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC do. 435-480.
Melas,. M. (1989).Etks,emics,andempathy inarchaeological theory. In Hodder,I. (ed.),
TheMeaning ofThings:Material CultureandSymbolic Expression,UnwinHyman, London,
pp. 137-154.
Merriman, N. (1988).Thesocialbasisofmuseum andheritage In Pearce,S. M. (ed.),
visiting.
MuseumStudiesin Material Culture,Leicester University Press,Leicester.
Miller,D. (1985).Artifactsas Categories, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.
Mizoguchi, K. (1992).A historiography ofa linearbarrow cemetery: A structurationist's point
ofview.Archaeological Review fromCambridge 11: 39-49.
Moore,H. L. (1986).Space,Text, and Gender, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.
Moore,H. L. (1988).Feminism andAnthropology, University ofMinnesota Press,Minneapolis.
Moran,P., andHides,D. S. (1990).Writing, authorityandthedetermination of a subject.In
Bapty,I., andYates,T. (eds.),Archaeology AfterStructuralism:Post-structuralism and the
Practice ofArchaeoloev. RoutJedee. London,dd. 205-220.
Nassaney, M. S. (1989).An epistemolgica! enquiry intosomearchaeological and historical
interpretations of17thcentury NativeAmerican-European In Sherman,
relations. S. (ed.),
Archaeological Approaches to CulturalIdentity,UnwinHyman, London,pp. 76-93.
Nelson,S. (1990). Diversity of theUpperPaleolithic "Venus"figurines and archaeological
mythology. In Powersof Observation: Alternative Viewsin Archeology, Archaeological
PapersoftheAmerican Anthropological Association, No. 2, pp. 11-22.
Nordbladh, J.,andYates,T. (1990).Thisperfect body,thisvirgin text:Betweensexandgender
in archaeology.In Bapty,I., and Yates, T. (eds.), Archaeology AfterStructuralism:
Post-structuralismand thePractice ofArchaeology, Routledge, London,pp. 222-237.
Patterson, T. C, and Uailey,C (eds.) rowerRelationsand StateFormation, American
Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.
Paynter,R. (1989).The archaeology ofequality andinequality. AnnualReview ofAnthropology
18:369-399.
raynter,k., ana Mcuuire,k. (ivov;. me arcnaeoiogy ot inequality:Materialculture,
domination and resistance.In McGuire,R., and Paynter, R. (eds.), TheArchaeology of
Inequality, BasilBlackwell,Oxford, pp. 1-11.
Potter,P. B., Jr.(1991).Self-reflection in archaeology. In Preucel,R. W. (ed), Processual
and Postprocessual Archaeologies: MultipleWaysof KnowingthePast, Center for
Archaeological Southern
Investigations, IllinoisUniversity,OccasionalPaper,No. 10,pp.
225-234.
Potter,P. B., Jr.,and Leone, M. P. (1989). Liberationnot replication: Archaeologyin
Annapolis Journal
analyzed. oftheWashington Academy ofSciences76: 97-105.
Richards, C. (1988). Alteredimages:A reexaminaron of Neolithicmortuary practicesin
Orkney. In Barrett,J. C, and Kinnes,I. A (eds.), TheArchaeology of Context in the
Neolithic and BronzeAge:RecentTrends, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory,
University of Sheffield,
Sheffield,pp. 42-56.
Richards, G (1993). Monumental choreography: Architecture and spatialrepresentation in
Late NeolithicOrkney.In Tilley,C. (ed.), Interpretive Archaeology, Berg,Oxford,pp.
143-178.
Richards, C, and Thomas,J. (1984).Ritualactivity and structured deposition in the Later
Neolithic Wessex.In Bradley, R., and Gardiner, J.(eds.),NeolithicStudies, BAR British
Series133,Oxford, pp. 189-218.
Rowlands,M. J. (1982). Processualarchaeologyas historicalscience.In Renfrew,C,
Rowlands, M. J.,and Seagraves, B. A. (eds.), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology,
AcademicPress,NewYork,pp. 155-174.

174 Preucd
Rowlands, M. J. (1984). Objectivityand subjectivityin archaeology.In Spriggs,M. (ed.),

Mansi Perspectives inArchaeology,CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge,pp. 108*114.
Rowlands, M. J. (1987). Power and moral order in pre-colonial west-centralAfrica. In
Brumfiel, E., and Earle, T. (eds.), Specialization,Exchange, and Complex Societies,
CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge,pp. 52-63.
Rowlands,M. J. (1989). A questionof complexity. In Miller,D., Rowlands,M. J.,and Tilley,
C. (eds.), Dominationand Resistance,Unwin Hyman,London, pp. 29-40.
Saitta, D. J., and Keene, A. S. (1990). Politics and surplusflow in prehistoriccommunal
societies. In Upham,S. (ed.), The Evolutionof PoliticalSystems:Sociopoliticsin
Small-ScaleSedentarySocieties,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp. 203-224.
Samson, R. (1992) Knowledge,constraint, and power in inaction:The defenselessmedieval
wall. HistoricalArchaeology26: 26-^4.
Saunders,T. (1990). Prestigeand exchange:Althusserand structuralMarxistarchaeology.In
Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.), Writing the Past in thePresent,St David's University
College, Lampeter,pp. 69-78.
Shackei, P. (1992) Modern discipline:Its historicalcontextin the Colonial Chesapeake.
HistoricalArchaeology26: 73-84.
Shackei, P., and Little, B. J. (1992) Post-processualapproaches to meaning and uses of
materialculturein historicalarchaeology.HistoricalArchaeology26: 5-11.
Shanks, M. (1991). Some recent approaches to styleand social reconstructionin classical
archaeology.ArchaeologicalReviewfromCambridge10: 164-174.
Shanks,M., and Tilley,C. (1987). Abstractand substantialtime.ArchaeologicalReviewfrom
Cambridgefc 32-41.
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1990). Archaeologyinto the 1990s. NorwegianArchaeological
Review22: 1-54.
Sherman,S. (1986). loward a criticaiarchaeology?Proceedingsof the Prehistoric Society52:
327-338.
Spencer-Wood, S. (1992). A feministprogramfornon-sexistarchaeology.In Wandsnider,L.
(ed.), Quandariesand Quests: VisionsofArchaeology's Future,Center forArchaeological
Investigations, SouthernIllinoisUniversity at Carbondale,Occasional Paper, No. 20.
Spriggs,M. (1991). Facing the nation:Archaeologistsand Hawaiians in the era of sovereignty.
The Contemporary Pacific3: 379-392.
Spriggs, M. (1992). Alternative prehistories for Bougainville: Regional, national, or
micronational.The Contemporary Pacific4: 269-298.
Taylor, S. (1990). Brothers m arms? Feminism, post-structuralismand the "rise of
civilisation."In Baker,F., and Thomas,J.(eds.), Writing thePast in thePresent,SL David's
UniversityCollege, Lampeter,pp. 32-41.
Thomas, J. (1987). Relations of productionand social change m the Neolithicof northwest
Europe. Man 22: 405-430.
Thomas, J. (1988). Neolithic explanationsrevisited:The Mesolithic-Neohthic transitionm
Britainand southernScandinavia.Proceedingsof thePrehistoric Society54: 59-66.
Thomas, J. (1988). The social significance of Cotswold-Seyern burial rites.Man 23: 540-559.
Thomas,J. (1989). Technologiesof the selfand the constitution of the subject Archaeological
ReviewfromCambridge8: 101-107.
Thomas, J. (1990). Same, other,analogue: Writingthe past. In Baker, F., and Thomas, J.
(eds.), Writing thePast in thePresent,St. David's UniversityCollege, Lampeter,pp. 18-23.
Thomas, J. (1990). Monumentsfromthe outside: The case of the Irish megalithictombs.
WorldArchaeology22: 168-178.
Thomas,J. (1991). Silentrunning:The ills of environmental archaeology.ScottishArchaeology
Review7: 2-7.
Thomas, J. (1991). Science versus anti-science.ArchaeologicalReviewfrom Cambridge10:
27-36.
Thomas, J. (1992). Monuments,movement,and the contextof megalithicart In Sharpies,
N., and Sheridan,A (eds.), Vesselsfor theAncestors:Essays on the Neolithicof Britain
and Ireland,EdinburghUniversity Press,Edinburgh,pp. 143-155.

Thomas, J. (1993). The hermenuticaof Megalithicspace. In Tilley, C. (ed.), Interpretive

Archaeology, Bere, Oxford,pp. 73-98.
Thomas,J. (1993). Discourse,totalizationand "The Neolithic."In Tilley,C. (ed.), Interpretive
Archaeology, Bere, Oxford,pp. 357-394.
Thomas,J.,and Tilley,C. (1993). The axe and the torso:Symbolicstructuresin the Neolithic
of Brittany.In Tillev,G fed.),Interpretive Archaeoloev.Bere. Oxford,od. 225-324.
Tilley,C. (1989). Interpreting materialculture.In Hodder, I. (ed.j, The Meaningof Things:
MaterialCultureand SymbolicExpression* Unwin Hyman,London, pp. 185-194.
Tilley,C. (1990). On modernity and archaeologicaldiscourse.In Bapty,L, and Yates, T. (eds.),
ArchaeologyAfterStructuralism:Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology,
Routledge,London, pp. 127-152.
Tilley,C. (1991). Materialismand an archaeologyof dissonance.ScottishArchaeologyReview
8: 14-22.
Tilley,C. (1991). MaterialCultureand Text:TheArtofAmbiguity, Routledge,London.
Tilley,C. (ed.) (1993). Interpretive
Archaeology, Berg,Oxford.
Tilley,C. (1993). Introduction:Interpretation and a poetics of the past. In Tilley,C. (ed.),
Interpretive
Archaeology, Berg,Oxford,pp. 1-27.
Tilley,C. (1993). Prospectingarchaeology.In Tilley,C. (ed.), Interpretive Archaeology,Berg,
Oxford,pp. 395-416.
Trigger,B. (1984). Alternativearchaeologies: Nationalist,colonialist,imperialist.Man 19:
355-370.
Trigger, B. G. (1984). Archaeology at the cross-roads: What's new? Annual Review of
Trigger,B. G. (1990). Hyperrelativism, and the social sciences.Canadian Review
responsibility,
of Sociologyand Anthropology 26: 776-777.
Trigger, B. G. (1991). Post-processual developments in Anglo-American Archaeology.
NorwegianArchaeologicalReview24: 65-76.
Walsh, K. (1990). The Post-Modernthreatto the past. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.),
ArchaeologyAfterStructuralism:Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology,
Routledge,London, pp. 278-293.
Wylie,A. (1985). PuttingShakertownback together:Criticaltheoryin archaeology.Journal
ofAnthropological Archaeology 4: 133-147.
Wylie, A. (1989). The interpretive dilemma. In Pinsky,V., and Wylie, A. (eds.), Critical
Traditionsin Contemporary Archaeology,Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, pp.
18-27.
Wylie,A. (1989). Archeologicalcables and tacking:The implicationsof practiceforBernstein's
"optionsbeyondobjectivismand relativism." Philosophyof Social Science 19: 1-18.
Yates, T. (1988). Michael Schifferand processualismas sciencewitha capitalS. Archaeological
ReviewfromCambridge7: 235-238.
Yates, T. (1989). Habitus and social space: Some suggestionsabout meaningin the Saami
(Lapp) tentca. 1700-1900.In Hodder, I. (ed.), The Meaningof Things:MaterialCulture
and SymbolicExpression,UnwinHyman,London, pp. 249-261.
Yates, T. (1993). Frameworksforan archaeologyof the body.In Tilley,C. (ed.), Interpretive
Archaeology, Berg, Oxford,pp. 31-72.


The Postprocessual Condition. Robert Preucell

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Postprocessual Condition. Robert Preucell

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Postprocessual Condition

Author(s): Robert W. Preucel

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

Previousevaluationsofpostprocessualarchaeologyhave regardedit more as

Postprocessualarchaeologyis a label that activelyresistsdefinition.

O 1995 Plenum PublishingCorporation

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

much a movementbeyond processualismas theyare a fullerexploration

THE PROCESSUAiyPOSTPROCESSUAL DEBATE

Althoughpostprocessualism has importantantecedentsin art history

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

arguedthatsymbolicand neo-Mamst approachesare tragicallyflawedbe-

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

Cambridgeseminarson archaeologicaltheory.The recent1989 conference,

VARIETIES OF POSTPROCESSUAL ARCHAEOLOGIES

The task of categorizingdifferent schools of postprocessualthought

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

Crosscuttingthese three epistemologiesare several discrete histori-

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

lationsof production(Bender,1985a,b ; Frankensteinand Rowlands,1978;

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

but, rather,with tracingout the particularhistoricalconditionsthat give

The arrivalof poststructuralism on the archaeologicalscene dates to

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

versalprinciplesof meaningare assumedto be encoded in materialculture

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

and the Otherwhilefocusingon the humanbodyas a metaphorforsocial

Despite the presenceof feministtheoryin the social sciences and ar-

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

tons,and Hastorfs (1991) analysisof the changingrole of women pre-

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

havebegunto investigate howgenderideologiesare formedand repro-

Thisexercisein categorization does twothings. It providesone pos-

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

historicalconnectionsto processual approaches,especiallyin their accep-

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

poststructuralism and feminism. Ironically,poststructuralism and feminism,

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

A seriesof postmodern dilemmascontoursthe currenttheoryand

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

groundsas is so oftenclaimed (e.g., R. Watson, 1990, 199), but because

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

sequently,we cannot avoid thinkingabout whichuses of the past we are

What can be said about the postprocessualcondition?Do the recent

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

ditionallyavoided because of the hegemonyof the natural science dis-

I wish to acknowledgethe followingindividualsfor theiradvice and

Appadurai,A. (ed) (1986).TheSocialLifeof Things: Commodities in Cultural

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

Duke, P. (1992). Braudel and North American archaeology. In Knapp, A. B. (ed.),

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

Olsen, B. (1986). Norwegianarchaeologyand the people without(pre-)history:Or how to

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

Spriggs, M. (ed.) (1984).Marxist Perspectivesin Archaeology, CambridgeUniversity Press,

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

Yates, T. (1988). The Cambridgeseminaron poststnicturalism and archaeology:An

BIBUOGRAPHY OF RECENT UTERATURE

Bagnai,R. (1990).The experience andidentity of"women": Feminism afterstructuralism. In

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 11:44:54 AM

Johnson, M. H. (1993). Notes towards an archaeology of capitalism. In Tflley,C. (ed.),