8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

1/51

, h this collection Polity Press 2001. Chapter 5 C ICopyng t ' 0InRenf rew, bl. hed in 2001 b y Po li ty P re ss i n a ss o ci at Jo n with BI k .First pu us ac wellPublishers LtdEditor ta l o f f ice :PolI t y Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CBl 1 UR , U KMarke t ing an d produc t ion:BlackwellPublishers Lt d108 Cowley RoadOxford O X4 IJF, U KPubl ished ill the U SA byBlackwell Publishers [ n c oC omm e rc e P la ce35 0 Main StreetM ald en , M A 02148, U SAA ll f ightsreserved. Except fo r the qu otation of sho rt passag es f or rhf .. d revi f hi e purposeso c nn cr sm an review, n o p ar t 0 t IS p ub lic atio n m ay b e reproduc d d

I .. e ; store10 a retneva sy s tem , o r t ra n sm i t te d , m any form or by any m eans I .h . . . , e ectcomcmecan. lca l , photocopymg , recording or otherw ise, w ithou t the prior 'permrssion of the publisher.Exce~~n th e ~ nite d S ta te s o f A m er ica , th is b oo k is s old s ub je ct to th econdition that _Itsh.allnot, by w ay o f tra de o r o th er wis e, b e len t, re -s old , h ir edo ~~. o~o th erw is eC i rc u la te dw i t ho u t t he p u bl is he r' s p ri or c on se nt i n a ny f o rm~ 1 1 n 1 0 9 o~ ~over o th er than that in w hich it is pu blished and w ith ou t asum ar condirion includin hi diti bei .h g r IS con rnon em g imp osed o n t he s ub se qu en tpure asetI SBN 0 -7 45 6 - 22 6 8 -2I SB N 0 -7 45 6- 22 69 -0 ( pb k)A catalogue record for this b ... . . .been applied f or f ro m th e . o ak I S av ailab le f ro m th e B ritis h L Ib rar y an d h asL ib ra ry o f Co ng re ss .Typesetin 10 on 12 S bb B pt a ony. est-setT yp es ette r L dPnnted in G reat B. .. t ., H on g K o ngm ain b y MPG Bo ak s L td , B od min C orn wallTbj~ book . IS pnn ted on id fa C I - re e paper.

Contents

L ist of F ig ures and T ab lesList of Contributors VlIix1 Introduction: A R e vi ew o f C on te m po ra ry Theoretrca]D eb at es i n A r ch ae ol og yIan Hodder2 B eh av io ral A rc ha eo lo gy : T ow ard a N ew S yn th es isVincent M. LaMotta and Michael B. Schiffer 143 Ev ol ut io na ry A r ch ae ol og y 65Robert D. Leonard4 A rc ha eo lo gic al T heo ry an d T he orie s o f C og nitiv e E vo lu tio n 98Steven Mithen5 S ym b ol b ef or e C on ce pt: Material E n ga ge m en t a nd theE arly D ev elopm ent of S ociety 122

Colin Renfrew6 A gency , the D uality of S tructu re, and the Problem of theA r ch ae ol og ic al R e co rd 141John C. Barrett7 A rch ae olo gie s o f P lac e a nd L an ds ca pe 165Julian Thomas8 A r ch ae ol og ie s o f I de nt it y 187Lynn Meskell

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

2/51

VI Content s9 American Mater ial Cul ture in Mind, Thought, and

DeedAni l e Yel l t sch a nd Mary C. Beaudr y10 P St colonial Archaeology: Issues of Cul ture, Ident itya . ,MdKnowledge

Ch r is G o s d el l11 Archaeological Representation: The Visual Convent" fb h IOns OrConstructing Knowledge a out t e Past

S t e pb a n ie Mo s e r12 CuJture/Archaeology: The Dispe rsion of a Discipline and

its ObjectsMi c b a el S h a n k sIndex

2 4 1

2 6 2

2 8 43 0 6

Figures and Tables

FIGURES2 . 1 The four s trategies of behavioral archaeology 162 . 2 A general ized art ifact l ife h is tory 212 . 3 Examples of cri ti cal var iables and associated values 252 . 4 Element, energy, and information flows ("linkages")

between activities 272 . 5 Model of a behavioral system comprised of linked

activities 283 . 1 Paqui rne (formerly known as Casas Grandes) 813 . 2 Casas Grandes ceramics f rom the Maxwell Museum,

University of New Mexico 823.3 Di Peso (1974) hypothesized type relat ionships 843.4 Hypothesized historical l ineage 893.5 Relat ionship of des ign elements to clustering 917.1 Megalithic tomb at Loughcrew, County Mea th 17811.1 The discovery of fire ( from Vitruvius 1548) 2701 1 . 2 A Young Daughter of the Piets (ca. 1585), painting by

Jacques Le Moyne de Morgues 2721 1 . 3 Ancient Germans (from Cluverius 1616) 2741 1 . 4 Figures of ancient Br itons (from Strutt 1779) 27511.5 "Man the conqueror of the cave bear" (from du Cleuziou

1887) 27711.6 Un rapt (1888), painting by Paul jarnin 2781 1 . 7 Cro-Magnon Artists (1924), mural by Charles

Knight 279

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

3/51

1

Introduction: A Review ofContemporary TheoreticalDebates in Archaeology

Ia n H odd er

There has recently been a marked increase in the numbers of volumesdealing with archaeological theory, whether these be introductory texts(e.? Johnson 1999), readers (Preucel and Hodder 1996; Whitley 1998),edited global surveys (Ucko 1995; Hodder 1991) or innovative volumespushing in new directions (e.g. Shanks and Tilley 1987; Schiffer 1995;Skibo, Walker, and Nielsen 1995; Tilley 1994; Thomas 1996, etc.). Ithasbecome possible to exist in archaeology largely as a theory specialist, andmany advertised lecturing jobs now refer to theory teaching and research.Annual conferences are devoted entirely to theory as in the British TAG(Theoretical Archaeology Group). This rise to prominence of self-conscious archaeological theory can probably betraced back to the NewArchaeology of the 1960s and 19705.The reasons for the rise are numerous, and we can probably distin-guish reasons internal and external to the discipline, although in prac-tice the two sets of reasons are interconnected. As for the internalreasons, the development of archaeological theory iscertainly very muchlinked to the emphasis in the New Archaeology on a critical approachto method and theory. This self-conscious awareness of the need for theo-retical discussion is perhaps most clearly seen in David Clarke 's (1973)description of a loss of archaeological innocence, and in Binford's (1977)call "for theory building." Postprocessual archaeology took this reflex-ivity and theorizing still further. Much of the critique of ~rocessualarchaeology was about theory rather than method, and the ma(~ ernpha-sis was on opening archaeology to a broader rang~ of t~eoretIcal POS1-tions, particularly those in the historical and social sciences. In fact,

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

4/51

? Ia n Hodde r- , 1 United States had already taken its hist 'J gy In rne iew of onealanwropo 0 " b t it was only a narrow VIew 0 anthropolo andlingu.isric "turnS, I U ology that the New Archaeologists had gY bas 1'\>0., d eultura ec in arch em rlunon an "us" were taken III arc aeology to prod aced.h same wr . ' UC e pWhen r e h logy the theorIzmg became very abstract .0St_aJ arc aeo, , I f d' and sp.r~essu us h such abstraction IS a so oun III other develo. pe.elahzed,altho l~ rion ofcatastrophe theory (Renfrew and COok P l 1 1 e n t sh th e app lea I e 1979)sue as 1 h peeing theories have developed their Own sp 'I' .E t al t e com. eCla IZ dIn ae d h a tendency to be difficult to penetrate. e'argons an ave dJ f h mrernal moves was towar s a search for external idOne 0 r e Ill. . I . . leas

J legitimatJOn for rheoretica moves withi-, archae) Iand externa irh .h d' . I' oogyh b n a catching up WIt at er ISClP Illes and an integ .'There as ee "rationf d b Similar moves towards an openmg and Integration of debo e ate. . ' d '1 ' ateacross the humanines an SOCIa SCiences. Meskell aare seen ..'. tgues(chapter B ) that contemporary" third wave, feminist Wnters seek to opendebate to a theoretical plurahsm. ~here, has ,also been a looking intoarchaeology from the outside, especially Inphilosophy but also in otherfields.Shanks (chapter 12 ) shows how the metaphor of archaeology haswideresonance in cultural studies today. Indeed, he disperses archaeol-ogy into broad cultural and interdisciplinary fields. There are numerousexamplesof close external relations between archaeology and other dis-ciplinesin this book. Leonard (chapter 3) describes the productive resultsof interactions between biology and archaeology. An important emerg-ing area of interaction is with various branches of psychology. Mithen(chapter 4) discusses the links to evolutionary psychology, and both heand Renfrew (chapter 5) describe debates with cognitive science and cog-nitive psychology. Barrett (chapter 6) shows how the agency debate inarchaeology owes much to sociology, and indeed he argues that archae-ology needs to he further informed by sociology, Thomas (chapter 7 )shows how archaeological work on landscapes has been greatly i n f l u -~nced b~ geography, especially by the recent cultural geographers, andy art hJstory. But it should be pointed out that these interactions withother disciplines are n t b . f ' , f i f '. . 0 seen as OrroWlllg rom a position 0 in error-ttyr')BOhthMIthen and Meskell in their chapters (4 . and 8) argue specifi-cay t at the . 1 . h e i, I' partIcu ar nature of archaeological data especially t e rrmatena tty and 1 ' . ' I ', ong-termness, has something to offer other d isc ip m es10 return.Gosden (chapter 10 ) d d farchaeolog' an Shan.ks (chapter 12) point our the nee oriSts to engag , h . . . f omother voices d f e WIt postcolonial theory. The cntrque r dan rom m I' I . f f cetheoretical deb F u tip e non~western interests has 0 ten orate. or exa 1 N I the-oretical debate b mp e, orwegian archaeology saw a cng. .a Outthe ab'} ' , f ' . thOiCJ Itles a archaeologists to identify past e

I ntroduction 3groups as a result of Sami-Norwegian conflicts over ongms, Reburialissues have forced some to rethink the use of oral traditions in NorthAmerican ar~haeology ~Anyon e t a t. 1996), Indigenous groups in theirclaims for ~lg~ts qu~stlon the value of "objective science" (Langford1983). A Similar point can be made about the impact of feminism,This has questioned how we do research (Gero 1996) and has soughtalternative ways of writ ing about the past (Spector 1994), opening updebate about fundamentals. The same can also be said of debates aboutrepresentation in cultural heritage and museums {seeMoser in chapter11; Merriman 1991}. These debates force a critique of interpretation.They challenge us to evaluate in whose interests interpretation lies, andto be sensitive to the relationship between audience and message.

The community of discourses modelIt can be argued that archaeology has a new maturity inthat , as claimedabove, i t has caught up with disciplines in related fie lds in terms of thetheories and issues being discussed. Many now, as we will see in thisbook, wish to contribute back from archaeology to other disciplines (e.g.LaMotta and Schiffer, chapter 2) - this emphasis on contributing ratherthan borrowing suggests a maturity and confidence which Iwill examineagain below. This maturity al~o seems,t~ i~voJve accepting diversity anddifference of perspective within the discipline,There are always those who will claim that archaeology ~hould speakwith a unified voice, or who feel that disagreeme~t within the r~n~sundermines the abilities of archaeologists to con~nbu~e ,to other diSCI-plines or be taken seriously. A tendency towards identifying some ove:-arching unity in the discipline can be seen in some of the chapters, inthis volume. Renfrew (1994) has talked of reaching .an acc~~o~:~~;between processual and postprocessual archaeology in cogOltlveP h-sual archaeology. LaMotta and Schiffer (chapter 2) argu~bthadtot berb f 1 t d 'n and be contn ute to ytheoretical approaches can e ormu a e I b f dif-. h (ch t 4) notes that anum er 0 Ibehavioral approaches. Mit en c ap er d he problem, ' ions h ently converge onto tferent paradigmatic positions ave rec 1 b Meskellof mind. Even the claim of postprocessual archaeo ogy, tr g'lYCttempt, I I I' be seen as astra e(chapter 8), for theoretica p ura Ism can .' (. this case the posi-, ithin one posinon mto embrace and incorporate WI Ition of pluralism). . ,. ' n in discussions about the needThere is often an implicit assumpncn ' li d in the naturalfor unity in the discipline that real rnatunty, as g unpse

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

5/51

4 Ian Hodder. niry B ut in fact, G alison (1997) h as a rg ue d h. ces means unu r- . h I R t at LSClen 'J . far f rom a unified woe, ather he sees it P1lYSICS, exam p e, IS , , as at, 'Jar om pering perspectives, instrumental method fadingone betw een c " f 5, an d~ I chaeology roo, there IS a massive ragmentatio f eXPer ,Iments, n ar , B A ' n a th e d', J ' 'tIl chose workm g on, say , ronze ge studIes in Eu . IS-e rp me, WI ' I' , rope ft. " I to d o w i th l ab or at or y specia ists workm g on i 0 e nhavtng Itte I' hi I' hi , I ' SOtopes, I' roman w ith P alaeo It IC It IC specia rsts, New A rch and[itt e In co he sarne ti aeola '

b were J 'ntroduced at abou t t e sam e time as, bu t sep glcaJr eones , arate frc om pu te rs a nd s ta tis tiC S, as th e e arly w ,o rk o f DaVId Clarke (1970 orn,D an and Hodson (1975) show s. S Ing le-co ntex t reco rdin (B) an dor , h lIb g ark1982) was introduced to d ea l W it arge-sca e u r an ex cavatio er, 1 heoreti n, and wno t immed ia t el y l inked to any partrcu ar t eoretical position A d ash d " n So 0In th es e e xa mp le s w e s ee th at th eo ry , m et 0 an d pracnce are n I' n ,

h 'J he I' k be r dom ai at I n k e di n un if i ed who les . W let e In s etw een om arns certainly ,di 'I " f i ions b eXist, th eh is to ry o f t he ISClP m e I S on e 0. interacnons e tw e en s ep ar at e d ', 'I' 1 omalOSof te .owith their ow n specra 1 St anguages, ow n conferences and J ' . 'I, ,aurnalsand ow n personnel. A s G a ison (1 99 7) argues for physics, it is thi d' 'd h I' k irhi h di , Sh IS rver-siry an t e in ages W it in t e ispersion ( anks, chapter 12) hiensure the vitality o f the discipline. w ic hW e should not then bem aan theoretical diversity in the di 'I', , , ISCIP m e .

Diversity at the cu rrent scale m ay be fairly new in theoretical d 'b " . . ' h d i , I ' omamsu t I t IS n ot n ew In t e is cr p m e as a w hole. These productive t ' ', . f h d" , I' ensronsar e I mp ortan t o r t e rscip m e as a whole.

From "theory" to "theory of"T he p artia l d is ju nc tio n b tw h 'tified b e een t eorerical and other dom ains iden-a ove, a s w ell as the . 1' ,ca l posi tions h ' I I ' specra t zat ion and diversification of theoreti-, ave a rem forced th ' h h 'a bs tr ac t c al le d ( ( . hi' e v iew t. at t ere can be somethingFor m any , archa:r~ a~o fg~cal theory ," how ever diverse that m ight be,t hi s a bs tr ac t wo rl ~ ogica t eory, ha s becom e rarified and rem oved. Inarchaeological kn ' a1PdParently divorced f rom any site of production of, , ow e ge the 'I d bp rmc lp l es ba si c 'd ? O retlca e ate becom es focused on term s,, leas, U ntve I Th 'confrontational b rsa s. eoretical debate becom es by natu ree c aUse term d fiterm s. T he bound's are e ned and fought over in abstractf h anes around d f i ' ,or t eory 's sake b e m ttons are policed .. Abstract theoryasse ' ecam es eng d ' brt lons. Theore tic I ' age. in attles over opposing abstract"shah a ISSu es ve ' k19 u t c e loudest" of" h ry qUIC ly becom e a m atter of who can93) , 'W 0 sets the agenda?" (Y offee and Sherratt

Introduction 5Bu t in practice w e see t hat the abstract th' ,p artic ular d om ain s a t all. R ath er p artic ula e Oh rlesa re n ot divorced from, , ' r t eortes s eem to b f dby certain sets of tnterests an d s ee m to be rid . e avored Ie ate to q ue st io ns o f d if fe rent ty pes an sea es. Thus evolu tionary pe . h -, h. rspectlv es ave been mcommon In unter-garherer or Pa la eol it h ic s t ud ' , d ,osth d I, h res; ge n er s tu d ie s h av ea es s Im pact on t e Palaeolithic than on It' d 'b d 'I' h ' a er peno s; subsistence-ase m atena 1 St t eones tend to be applied t h . hd id I heori a unter-gat erers: poweran 1 eo ogy t eones com e into their ow n m ai I ' I' , .d h In y In c am p e x S OC ie ti es 'an p enom eno ogy seem s to be particu larly appli d t hi 'die a pr e isrortc mon-u men ts an landscap es.W hen archaeolog ists talk of a behavioral or a c o g ni ri h I" ive ar c aeo og yth ey tend to hav e specific qu estions and problem s in m ind F M 1, . . or er eau-Panty (1962), thought IS alw ay s "o f s om eth in g," I n th is boo k Th(chapter 7) describes how for H eidegg er place is alw ay s "of so' h~ ma~

h I " m et 109,S ? t?O , arc" ae? og ,!cal ~ heory IS always " of s omet hi ng . n T he ory is , lik edigging, a doing, It IS a practice or prax is (H odd er 1992 S han ks inchapter 12). T his recog nitio n u nderm ines claim s for a universality an du nity o f a rc ha eo lo gica l th eo ry .Of course, it can be arg ued that archaeolog y as a w hole IS e ng ag ed in au nif ied p rax is, a u nif ied doing , so th at w e shou ld ex pect u nif ied theories.B ut e ve n at th e m os t g en er al th eo re tica l le ve ls , a rc ha eo lo gis ts ar e in vo lv edin qu ite dif ferent projects. Som e archaeolog ists w ish to m ake contri-b ut io ns t o s ci en ti fi c k no w le dg e, or th ey m ig ht w is h to p ro vid e k no wled geso that people can better understand the w orld around them . But ina postcolonial w orld, such aim s of a distanced objective archaeologycan easily appear narrow , self-interested and even colonial. A s G osden(chapter 1 0) show s, in a postcolonial contex t of m ultivocaliry , a nego-tiated past seem s m ore relevant. This m ay invalve negotiation andaccomm odation of the idea that past m onum ents m ay have a livingpresence in the w orld today - that they are "alive" in som e sense. In thela tter c on te xt, ab str ac t th eo ry d eals le ss w ith a bs tra ct s cien tif ic k no wle dg eand m ore w ith specific social valu es and local fram ew orks of m eaning .

I t is in the interests of the academ y and of elite universities to pro-m u lg ate th e id ea o f a bs tra ct th eo ry . T he s pec ializ atio n o f a rc ha eo lo gica lintellectual debate is thus leg itim ized. B ut critique f rom outside t~ eacadem y has show n that these abstract theories too are em bedded 10interests - they too are "theories o f som eth in g," W ithin the acade~ lY Iarchaeolog ists vie w ith each other to com e up w ith yet m ore theories,especially if they can be claim ed to be m eta-theories that purpon, to"ex plain every th in g," I n f act, how ever, this d iv ersity co mes fro m ~ skm gdif ferent qu estions _ from the diversity of the contex ts of production ofa rc ha eo lo gi ca l k no w le dg e.

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

6/51

6 J a n H odd e rVariation in perspective

A esulr of such processes, there are radical divs a r .' b k erg ence 'd ' f fe r en t a u tho rs m this 00 co ns tru e th eo ry In S In thw ay I . . s umma ed'f ferences stem partly from the process of vy ing for d 'ff ry , t h e s eI . d b d . I ,.1 erenc '' nnovat ion o f te n mf l u enc e y eve opments InneIghbor" d i ~J W i t hI , '1 deri f 10 9 ISC I'T he variation , m persp ec~ lve a so eriv es ~0I? the fact that r IP ,IneS ,d if fe re nt q ue st JO n s a re b ei ng a sk ed f ro m within q uite d if fe re nt a ~I Ca U yp rodu c ti on o f knowledg e. . S i t es o fMa ny o f t he d if fe re nc es o f perspective rem ain those that hthe discip line since the 1 980s or earlier. For exam ple O n thave doggedh ' 'e O ne hRenfrew (chapter 5) repeats t e science ve rsu s re la ti v ism 0 " andhasi h hesi ' is x iom i PPO S ltion dthe ernp aS IS on ypot eS IS tesnng IS omm ant in the' anl aMo tt a a nd Schiffer (chapter 2). O n the other hand Tho ap~roach o fid f h" . , "f ' ,m as s (chapt7) I ea 0 t e rearnmanon 0 ancient monum ents a d I ertries to m ove beyond this dichotom y (for a w ider di s n , an ds cap es. W .I ' CUSS l on o f th iIssu e see y ie 1989 and Lam peter A rchaeology ~ k h IS

h. .. . wor s op 1997)A n ot e r d i ch ot om y w h ic h srill s eem s to O C cu r c on ce rn s h h .1 h W et er archo o gy IS seen as ant ropology or history . For LaMotta d S h ' a:-h 2" I I an c lfferc apter It IS C e ar y a c ro ss -c ult ur al a nt hr op ol og y if h Inhasi hi , , , even I t ey alsoem p asis on .lstoflcal Issues at various scales G en I ' . , pu th L e ra l za tI o n IS a kr erne throughout m any chapters bu t for s . . ' eyL eonard, L aM otta and S ch if fer, R e~ frew and ~ ~~ au (th~ rs, especlall,Yplays a key role. G osden (cha t ,len c apters 2-5) It

g en er al in fo rm a ti on a nd lo ca l t : r 10) places :he opposition betweeni nd ee d r em a rk ab le t h owledge within W Ider C ontex ts. I t iswes te rncoun tr i es ev I t m any grant-g lvm g bodies in E nglish-speakingto g en er al k no wled a u a; ~ p ro po sals s olely in ter ms o f th eir c on tr ib utio ni m pa ct o f a p ro je ct g~ n 10~:1re O ften, ? O questions asked abou t thethe project to local kId. 0n:m ulllties or abou t the relevance ofprojects, and tho nO We ge. It IS rather local m useum s and heritage" se concerned with I d . hrnmo fl ty g roup s th at lik I 1. an ng . ts and identity claim s ofon local issues H .he I. e y to eschew universal science and to focusd' . ere t e relan hi bpro U ctlO nof know led . ~ns Ip etween theory and the contex t ofSom e au th ge IS evidem,I h ors, such L M, c apters 2 -4 ), sep arat as la otta and Schif fer, Leonard and M ithenlara I0 I' e cu tu re hi d ', r eva u tlonary , Istory an contingency from b ehav-InSchif f ' processes Th ' . ,at h er s (1999) beha' l I S o PP os.ltlO naI stance is dearly seent e abs . V Iora appr h "R I d, ence m th oacn. eaders m ay be nonp ussem eanIng ' . e new the fv al ue b 'l ~l gn , s ym b ol int. ' ory o. m uch vocabu lary ... such as

> e lef ,entIO n m ti , . dI nOrm fu. , 0 IV atlO n pu rpose goal attLtu e,, nctIO n' , ", m ind, and cu ltu re. Despite hercu lean

Introduction 7e ff orts in th e s oc ial s cie nc es to d ef in e th e ft .p hy sica l n otio ns , th ey r em ain b eh av io ra ll s e a ble: e th no ce nt nc o r meta-, h y pr o ernatic an d s ofluous rn t e present project" In th l' are super-r ep res en te d b y L eo nar d { ch ap te ~ 3} bistoe evodu tlon ~ry appro ach asf h D '. 1 ,. ry an C ontm gen cy are ao t e arwmran ev o u tionary p rocess and I " partId h ' cu tu re IS ItS product bu t IWOll argu e t at at a cerrain scale of analys th I' ' .d . IS e se ecnve materialpro.cess orrunates. For Y entsch and B eaudry ( h 9) ., . I' f c apter rn at ena l c u lt u re

IS uruve rsa ; Its use, arm , substance and sym b li ,11 I A laic m ean 10 9 are cultur-a y re atrve. t east at the analy ticallevei a sep a ti , dbi , hvsi I '. '. ra Ion IS rna e betw eeno ject ive P ysica mater iali ty an d th e m ea nin g th at i ' d .hi I' l' s assigne t o I t. T h eysee t IS ana ynca separation as one step tow ard hi'd di f h '. an ant ropo ogicalu n e rs ta n mg 0 ow m eanm g IS assig ned and ho w lati . hi, ift re anons Wit 10society shi and thu s cau se chan ges in m ean in gs of object Th d i . ,,. . . . S, e IVIS lonof m eanm g from object allow s archaeolog is ts to sort artifact' dif-f ies and b ' . s m to Ierent categ ones an eg m to evalu ate their sig nificance withi ,, , , Ina soci et y .:rhus the C artesian O ppositions of m ateriaU m eaning and subjectlobject are held t o : T ho m ~s a nd M es ke ll ( ch ap ter s 7 an d 8) a ttem pt totranscend th ese dichotom ies. T hey arg ue ag ainst th e id ea that there ISa m aterial ex istence onto w hich m eaning is added. R ather for themm aterial ex istence is alw ay s already m eaning fu l and m eanin'g is alw ay ~already liv ed in th e m aterial w orld b y em bo died being s. At t h e th eo ret -ica l le vel, m an y au th ors d ea lin g w ith h is to rica l s pe cif icitie s, in clu din gY entsch and B eaudry , w ould take this view . A n ot d is si m il ar p os it io n i staken by R enfrew (chapter 5 ) , for w hom sy mbols are active and consti-tu ting . For him too, the sym bolic is part of daily life and it helps to con-s tru ct th e w or ld .I t is p os sib le to s ee th en h ow th es e d if fe re nt p ers pe ctiv es a re lin ked todif ferent sites of the produ ction of archaeolog ical know led ge. T here arecle ar u nd erly in g d if fe re nce s b etw ee n th e ty pe s o f in te re sts a nd q ue stio nso f th os e u sin g g en er al ev olu tio na ry ap pro ac hes a nd th os e co nce rn ed w ithhistory and ag ency . W ith in this array , individu al au th ors tak e their ow npositions . D iscou rses specific to each approach em erg e, and sch ools ared ef in ed . D is tin ct liter atu re s em erg e a nd s ep ara te c on fe re nc es an d c irc lesof citation. E ven if these diff erent com m unities are w ork ing along verysim ilar lines they do not co mm unicate well. Fo r ex am ple, L aM otta andS chiff er discu ss an em ulation m odel w ith ou t ref erring to M iller's (1982)a ge nc y v er si on . B ar re tt 's (1987 an d s ee a ls o ch ap te r 6) ?oti~ n of ~ fieldof social practice has parallels w ith LaM otta and Schiffer s notlo~ ofa ctiv ity , b ut a ga in th ere is n o c ro ss -r ef er en ce . R en fr ew 's ~ ch ap te r 5) Ideathat "w eig ht" can only be "w eig ht o f som eth in g" is identical ~ o Merl~ ~ll-Ponty's (1962) p he no me no lo gic al d is cu ss io n b ut is c ou cb ed III cogrunvep ro ce ss ua l t er m s.

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

7/51

IntroductIOn 9con stru ction and the m ore slo wly chang ing social rna b id .. D' . res a ou t I entitycategones. isagreement m a y OC cu r a bo ut t he r ela ti ve I m po rt an ce of thed if fer en t s cale s, ab ou t th .e n atu re o f th e in .er actio ns hetwee I .d'. n sea es, anabo ~t the deg ree to which t he d if f er en t s ca le s c an b e a cc es se d w i th a rc ha e-olog ical data. B ~t there seem s to be a general recog nition that a mulu-sc al a r a pproa~h IS n be ed ed a nd ( lh at a rc ha eo lo gy c an c on tr ib ute to a s tu dyo f th e interactions etw ee n s ca e s.

A nother frequ ently occurring general them e in this volum e IS thatm aterial cu ltu re has a central role to play in w hat it m eans to be hum an.M ost au thors here seem to be sug gesting som e version of a dialecticalview in w hich hu mans and thing s are dependent on each other. T his ISa reform ulation of the C hildean M arx ist view th at "m an m akes him self "(Childe 1 936) or the G eertzian view that it is hum an natu re to be cu l-tural (Geertz 1 97 3), bu t w ith a new em phasis on the "m aterial cu ltu ral."LaM otta and S chiffer (chapter 2) arg ue th at behav ior inclu des bothpeople and objects. L eon ard ( ch apter 3) su gg ests that the hu man phe-noty pe inclu des behavioral and m aterial cu ltu re traits, so that m aterialcu ltu re can be described as the hard part of the hum an phenotype.M ith en ( ch ap ter 4) discu sses the notion of "the ex tended m ind,"w hereb y even relig iou s thou ght is seen as d ependent on m aterial objects.R e nf re w ( ch ap te r 5) a nd G os den ( ch ap ter 10) su gg est that it is odd thatarchaeolog ists have n ot paid m ore attention to m ate ria lity an d th e s ig -n if icance o f thing s. R enf rew refers to D on ald's (1991) id ea s o n " ex te r-n al sy mbolic storag e," and talk s o f the orig ins of sedenti~ m in term s.ofa new em bodim ent and a n ew m ate ria liz atio n. T he theories of behavioru sed by B arrett ( chapter 6) in clu de B ou rd ie u's ac co un t o f h um an a ge nc!in term s of daily practice, w hile Thom as (chapter 7) f ~l lo ,:s t he e xp en -ential approach of Heidegg er in describ ing bodily be~ng m t he w ~ r~ d.M e sk el l ( ch ap te r 8) talks of iden tity being g rou nded in t h e rnat e rt~h tyo f the body . Fo r S hanks (chapter 1 2), people are aiv:ray s li~ ked to objects_ cyborg s are the norm . Thus, for him , m aterial ~rtlfacts are no~"objects" in any sim ple sense. R ather, they disperse into networks 0l in ka ge s b et w ee n a g re at v ar iety o f f ac to rs . di fIn all these ways then, it is being arg ued that an und~rstan I~g ofhum an behavior, a.g~ncy , and cu ltu re needs to include a. Close s t lduYD ,o_

b . d d o n the m ateria w or . ISthe w ays in w hich hum an eings epen d te-agreem ent m ay ex ist am ong st the au thors abou t how hum adns an rna. Ith t hum ans depen on m atenarial cu ltu re interac. t.. S om e m ay arg ue a I '6 11 . O t he rs a ss er tI II' h . depend on too s speer ca y .cu tu re g enera Y Just a s t ey . b . derstood in term sth at the relationship w ith m aterial cu lt.u re has to h e ~ 7 " the "w e" areof the very constru ction of self and being, Thus tb ~ ct ~~ c oncepts andalw ays already partly m aterial, as are the m ost a s ra

8 /all Hodder . . .. . to ddferent commurunes, comm unic .earatiO n JO Th dif f atlon iWith thIS P lk ass each other. e I e re nce s b ec om Sople ra acr d i ffi I Ide eX acd i f f i c u l t a s p e . h d d convergence I cu t. 0 no t w ish t d . -erba[l'd and en~renc e ~ b ut th ey b ec om e d if fic ult to tra ns ce nd b0 enye real dtfferences ecausethere arof discourse.

Convergences. this volu me tw O areas of convergence stand ou t. B thI n t he chapters 10 . . . haeoiozi I' 0rhng disuncnve abou t arc aeo og tca eV Idence - a baconcern some I . . J ' B f " seh i h contribute to other dlS CIP m eso ecau se 0 t he d ls tI n ct ivfrom W Ie r o . . . ' . 1 . h ef the archaeologIca l evidence in re anon to t ese tw o areasnature 0 in contrib . id d )a rcha eo log i st s f e el a conf i dence m contn ~tm g to W I er ehates. T h e

rw o a re as c on ce rn t he l on g t er m a n~ material culture.A s re ga rd s t he lo ng -ter m p ers pe ctiv e o ff er ed b y a rch ae olo gy , th ere is a

g eneral r ecog nition b y the au th or~ in thiS . v olu me o f t.he im portance ofmult i -sca lar approaches in a dd re ss in g a W id e r an ge of I ss ues . A s a lre ad yn ot ed , th e s ca le a t w h ic h q ue st io ns a re a sk ed h as w id er i m pli ca ti on s in thec on te xt s of p r od uc ti on o f a r ch ae ol og ic al k no w le dg e. G o sd en ( ch ap te r 10 )s ug ges ts m ak in g a d is tin ctio n b etw een g en era l in fo rm atio n o f w id er re le-v an ce, an d l oca l k no wled ge o f re lev an ce to lo ca l co m mu nities . T his p oin tis illustrated in t he c as e s tu die s p ro vid ed b y Y e nts ch a nd B ea ud ry ( ch ap te r9 ) . A JI the au thors in this volum e recognize the need to disting u ishshort-term and long -term inf lu ences on hu man behavior. L aM otta andSchiffer(chapter 2) m ake a threefold distinction b etw een interactionsoc cu r ri ng a .t t .h em ic ro l e ve l, a c ti v it ie s i nvo lving the pe rf o rmance of tasks,a n~ s y ste m ic I nt er ac ti on s o cc ur ri ng w it hi n e ve ry th in g f ro m h ou se ho ld s to~ atJon .states. T hey pu t m ost em phasis in their w ork on the prox im ated esP le cl ~UYc ti vi ty ) s ca le . Bo th L e on ar d a nd Mithen (chapters 3 and 4)ea W ith longer-term h b h ii n v o l v d I ' . P enomena , u t as Leonard points ou t, t ISes ea m g With the i findivid . 11 I e I ss u e 0 w hether selection operates at g roup orua eve s. Renfrew (h 5) . h 1og y f o r i ts e hasi . c apter castig ates postprocessual arc aeo-m p aSIS o n m d" d I . dw o r k a t t h e' I IV I u a expenence, bu t he stresses the nee tomicro e ve ] o f th . di id .w i t h o u t confu ' h e 10 I.VI u al and at the m acro level of SO CIetySlOg t e tw . IIeralizingstatem e dO ., especia y w hen it com es to the value of gen-nts an ...sizes h ow lon g-t S en SitiV Ity to C O ntex t. B arrett ( ch apter 6) empha-ki erm process d f hwor In g OU t of . es nee to be understood in term s 0 t edi m icro-proces h hIrectlon of path f s es , s u e as the tem po of g if t- giv in g, o r t e(chapter 8 ) Cont S 0 m ho~em ent in Iron A ge round houses.. M eskellrasts t e mdd . . .IV I ual, flU id processes of daily IdentI ty

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

8/51

10 JOlt Hodder d foregrounds an archaeolog ical, on situate ness, This em phasIS d the present, ,rheone s., _ on the past an on d that w id e d iv erg en cie s o cc urre dspectlV e b n expecte d .per'.J 'r m ight have ee 'ati hip between hum ans an. n.tateria]Wli e ( f h elatIons I , hif mu J at io n a te t d ly in th e c ha pte rs in rms volume.'0 the or. s repeate . ,I I on e key i de a r ew rn , I It re d iffers fro m lan gu ag e. S ch iffercu rore, rh arena cu u I b h .Thi is th e i de a at m h'ff (C/lapter 2) deve op a e avioralIS I nd S c I er .., I(1999) and LaM otta a 'h Mo st a uth or s Inthis vo urne havecatIon teary. .' 1 d bP roach to comm uni . h t ma te ri al c ult ur e 15 rnarupu ate yap f the V iew tad h 9) Amoved aw ay rom . ( Y entsch and Beau ry, c apter . t'I e -lI ke w ay se e M' h (chhumans Ina anguag. . evolutionary term s.. It en c apter" can be seen In done scal e, this Issue , f aterial cu ltu re and lan gu ag e 0 no th h volunon 0 m h I4) argue.s r at t .e e d R f w ( ch a pt er 5) decou ples. t e ear y use'1 I ' re an en renecessan Y cor.re a, 'g .nl'[ icant shifts in how hum ans m adef m later m ace Sl . ,o f l an g ua g e ro h ale a sim ilar point can be m ade illterms. I I e A t anot er sc ,m at~ na ~ u t ur d ethno raphic observation. M eskell (chapter 8) noteso f h l sr o fl call a~ g have developed a m ore com plicated discourset ha t med ica science may ,, ' d f 1 1 h, h h d the ancient G reeks, but It oes no t 0 ow t atabou t l ive rs t an a " "{Craib 1998 109)I" op hl'sticated th an w as Plato s lrv er ( rai : .my rver IS m ore s ior whi 1I n r e sponse to the need to develop a theory of behavior w IC 1 goes

b d the m odels o f lan gu ag e and d iscou rse, B arrett (ch apter 6) useseyon ice and srructu rati Th .B ou rd ie u's a nd G id de ns 's t he or ie s o f practice an structuratron. erraccou nt of beh avio r fo reg rou nd s th e u se o f no n-discu rsive k no wled ge ind ai ly p ra ct ic e. T homa s ( ch ap te r 7) u ses Heideg ger's and Ingold 's ideaso f b ein g in th e w orld . M os er ( ch ap te r 11 ) adds that the non-verbal (inth is c ase v is ua l im ag es ) m a y e xp re ss th in gs w e a re n ot a wa re o f. A similarp oin t is m ad e by Yenrsch a nd B ea ud ry ( ch ap te r 9) . M oser defines theno n-lin gu istic co nv ention s th at are u sed to m ak e visu al im ag es m ean-ing fu l. T hese co nven tion s d eal w ith, for ex am ple, au th en ticity and sin-gulariry, Shanks t oo, in chapter 12, points to the im portance of the visu al10 h um an , a nd sp ec if ic ally a rc ha eo lo gic al b eh av io r. A g ain th en sp ec if ich ' i g h r i ' "t, e one s r m t v ary , b ut th ere is a w id ely accep ted view that archaeolo-gists need to ,focu s o n the p articu lar m aterial character of th eir data an ddevelop speci fic , non- la ng u ag e -b a se d, mod el s.

ConclusionS o the con clu sio n, b ased o n thiDespite the enorm ous gap d di sm all sam ple of essays, is positive.despite the evidence th s ahn. Isagreem ents about fu ndam entals andat arc aeologi I h . 'ca t eonsts are trapped in separate

'. . In trod u c t io n . IInon-com municating discourses there ' Id ' ' IS at east ..moves forwar . In particu lar, there is ab d s ome i nd ic at io n ofith h " un a nt e V ld e f 'eng agem ent W It ot er dIsciplines and th nee 0 Increasingw . ide r debat es . This mo re e xt en siv ; enga e entrhy of a r chaeo l ogy intoh 1 ' . gem ent as 0 dwhen arc aeo ogisrs sen se a g reater c fid CCUcre at a tim ef hei , on ence abo t hcharacter 0 t err evidence, In particula rh ' u . t e pa rt icu la rh I ' h r, ere IS a Wid .that arc aeo ogists a ve a p ar tic ula r exp rti , . e recognitionh

' , else reg ard mg b h hterm and t e materiality of hum an life Th is th ot t e lo ng. , ' ere IS t us ernerc: idof archaeolog ists contnbuting to w ider db. rglO g eV Lenceibuti , e ates, n ot lu st b 'T he se c on tn unons mvolve a r chaeo l og i st s ki , ,or rowmg,, spea 109 m thei hnot as anthropolog ists or historians. There is th r ow ~ rig t,

fid us a n ew m atu rity a ndcon ence.Perhaps add in g to this m aturity and confid b" " . h ence, Ut a ls o u nd er -mmmg It, IS a new p ase of reflex ivity and critique hi'isrs trv to resoond as arc aeo ogicaltheorists try to respon to the challenges of w orkm g wirhi I ba!' , I Inago a andplural environm ent. The operung of debate to a w id f', , '" er range 0 VOIcesfrom fem inism to indigenous interests and m inority gro hid. , ups as e toq~le~t1 ~nm g abou t first 'pnn~)ples and taken-for-gram eds w ithin the

d isc ip lin e. T ~e ~ ha p~ ers 10 th is v olu m e in dic ate so m e d ire ctio ns w hic hrespond to this S itu ation an d focu s o n issu es of representatio n and po wer(e.g . Moser and Shanks in chapters 1 1 an d 1 2 ), T he p ro ce ss es o f p o st -colonialism and the new inform ation technologies create a new contextin w hich archaeology w ill w ork. Bu t It is a f luid and c om p le x c on te xt inw hich theory and practice are in a continual state of challenge and re-negotiation. This volum e m ay help that process forw ard, but it cannothope to define it or structu re it.Note: This introduction is shorter than m ight have been expected,becau se in asking au thors from a diversity of perspectives to contributeto the volu me, I ndertook not to situ ate their w ork w ithin a polem ic ofm y own. Nevertheless an in tro du ctio n h ad to be w ritten, bu t it is diffi-cu lt to p lace th e au tho rs w ithin a histo rical persp ectiv e w itho ut slan tingthe account in som e w ay . I ircu lated a draft of the introdu ction to, allthe authors and Ihave in corp orated their com m ents in this final versiona~ fully as I can. I apo lo gize to th~ au th ~rs if I have mi s re~ re s ,en ted theirV iew s but thank them for enrrustm g their w ork to m y edltonal contra.

REFERENCES

J di d archaeology. Soc ie tyA ny on, R . er al, 1 996 . N ative A merican ora tra m ons anfor American Archaeology Bulletin 14(2): 14-16,

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

9/51

r . 2 / , , , , I'III/{/I'!I IIJU J ' / 'r ' l ll I l iq t ll : s o f A rchaeological Excavatzon. Lo dII 111 I 0 . .. . , non B. 1 1 " I I J H Field:. o r dj~cCJur"l:: rcconstrtunng a s ocial arch . atsfotd11.11n'll, .I . f. aeology. C ' ..(I{IIIIlb,II/J11It1f. :V 7: ~ .1n.. . rltlqUe1I}'7 /iOI H}(>ory Budding In Archaeology, New yIlutlllrd. L. . ork: Acade '

1'1'l'\~. . 1 '1 . I l I l c, \I ( ,l ) 16. M all M ak es H tm se t- L on do n: C ollm s.l I l l/ ti t, v, I. . f G . B ., I. J) .19 '10. Beaker Pottery o reat rttatn and Ireland Cl 1 , l I l > o l . . J' . arnbr'dl, 1 1 1 1 h "l d g l' U l l Iv ( 'r s n y rcss, ,I ge ;

(1.lIke,l>. 1 9 7 1 . Ar ch ae ol og y : t he .l os s of mnocence. AntIquity 47 : 6-18, I I Illl'R ,'xfJerlel1cmg Identity, London: Sage. 'lr,1I 1,. ~1 ,. I. . ,. II M r 99 r. Origms of the Modern Mmd. Cambndge M A -null.1l .' . ' . Harva dlJl11VCfSlty Press. . r11' IlIld E ll od so . n 1 9 7 5. MathematIcs and Computers In A h01.\11, .I' , ..' rc aeoloF din bu fg h: E din bu rg h U n iv ers it y P re ss . g y .( '. hs IP J 997. Image and LogIC:A MaterIal Culture of Microphysics Ch i,,\ ISOI, Icago'University of Chicago Press. .G t'c rt z, C . 1 9 73 . The Interpretation of Cultures. N ew Y ork : B asic Bo ok s.Gem , J. 1 99 6. A rc ha eo lo gic al p ra ctic e a nd g en dere d en co un t~ rs w ith f ie ld d ata .I n R . P . W ng ht (e d.) , Gender and Archaeology, 251-80. Phil ade lph I a: Un i ver .s ir y o f P enns y lv an ia P re ss .

Hodder. L 1 9 9 1 . Archaeological Theory in Europe: The Last Three D e c o d e s .London: Rou tl edge .

Hodder, I. 1992 . Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London: R o u tl ed g e.Jo hn so n, M . 1 99 9. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction: Ox f or d: B la ckw e ll .L ampe te r A r ch ae o lo g y Wo rk shop 1997. R ela tiv is m, o bje ctiv ity a nd th e p oliticso f t he p as t. Archaeological Dialogues 4: 164-98.

L an gf or d, R . 1 9 83 . OUf h erita ge - y ou r p la yg ro un d. Australian Archaeology1 6 :1-6.Merleau-Ponry, M. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. Atlantic Highlands, N]:Human it ie s P re ss .

M errim an , N . 1 9 91 . Beyond the Glass Case. L ei ce st er : L e ic es te r U n i ve rs it y P re ss .M iller, D . 1 98 2. S tru ctu res and strateg ies: an asp ect of the relationship b etw eenso cial h ierarchy an d cu ltu ral chan ge, In 1 . H odd er (ed.), Symbolic an d StHIC 't ural Archaeology, 8 9-98 . Cam bridg e: Cam bridge U niversity Press.

Pre uc el, R . a nd I. H odder (eds) 1996. Contemporary Archaeology In Theory .Oxf ord : B l ackwe ll .R en frew , C . 1 99 4. To wards a cog nitive archaeolog y. In C. R enfrew and E . B .W .Z ub row ( ed s) , The Ancient Mind, Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, 3-12.C am b rid ge : C am b rid ge U n iv er si ty P re ss . I

R en frew , C . an d K . L. Cooke 1979. Transformations: Mathematical Approaoe sto Culture Change. N ew Y ork: A cadem ic Press. C ..Schiffer M B 1995 B h . .' . I S I t Lake J y I ". e amoral Archaeology: Firs t Prmclp es . aU m ve rs ity o f U ta h P re ss .S ch if fe r, M B 1999 Th' . . d . R oucledge.Sh '. '. e Matenal Life of Human Beings. Lon on. b 'dg e:anks, ~ . and C . Tilley 1 98 7. Reconstructing Archaeology. CaJ11 IIC am b nd ge U n iv er sit y P re ss .

[mroductlon 13Skibo, J., W. Walker, and A. Nielsen (eds) 1995 . Expa d' A ILake City: U niversity of Utah Press. 'lIng rc 1ae o l ogy . SaltSpector, J. D. 1994. What th is Awl Means: Femini st Arch I' . V'II S P I M' . . aeo og) ' at a WahpetonDakota I age. t. au: mnesot a H i st o ri ca l Sociery P .Thomas,. J .. 1996. Time, Cul ture and Ident ity. Cambridge' Cressbd U. .. am rt ge nlversltyPress.Tilley, C. 1994. The P~en01nenology of Landscape. London: Berg.Ucko , P. 1995. Theory 111 Archa~ology: A World Perspective. Ox fo rd : Ro u tl ed g e.Whitley D. S. 1998. Reader tn Archaeolog ical Theory Pos t p I d' . - rocessua anCognttive Approaches. London: Routledge.Wylie, A. 1989. Archaeological cables and tackmg. P hIlo so ph y o f th e S od alSciences 19: 1-18.Yoffee, N . and A. She~ratt 19?3. ~ rc ha eo lo gj ca l T h eo ry : Who Sets th e Agenda?Cambridge: Cambndge U niversity Press.

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

10/51

2Behavioral ArchaeologyT ow ard a New SynthesisVincen t M. LaMotta andMichae l B. Schif fer

IntroductionBehavioralarchaeology is commonly equated with the study of the for-mat ionprocessesof the archaeological record and with the reconstruc-tion o f t h e cultural past through behavioral inferences. Although notinaccurate,such a character ization incomple tely describes the goals oftheprogram. In this chapte r, we present a gene ral fr amework for explain-in g behavioral variability at a number of scale s, the reby dispelling themyth , that behavioral archaeologist s are concerned only with recon-struct~ngp,astbehavior. Drawing on a growing corpus of literature - bybehavlO~ahstsand others - we lay the methodologica l foundations fora behaVIOralrchaeol . d d ., ogy geare towar explanation and then presentcasestudiesthat ill t h d 'h . us rate t e evelopment and application of explana-tory t eory.Wesugge t that I ., s at exp anatlOns for many of the same types ofprocessesof mterest t .selectionist h i? processuahst, postprocessualist, Marxist, andarc a eo o gis ts - 0 form u lared : " fanalysis_ als b ,nee re ormu ated in appropnate uruts ao c an e furmsh db' 'I Ie Y pnncrp es of behavioral arehaeo ogy.

BackgroundBehavioral. h .includ" arc aeology is diff 'f ' mg other bran h erent from many other social SCIences,o Inte' c es of arch I'dractlons behve aeo ogy, m that it is based on the stu Yen people ad" hn matena l objec ts ("behavior"). Be av-

Behaviora l Archaeology 15ioralists seek to develop appropriate method and the f '" 11 f f variari ory Or studYlUgandex:plammg a arms a variation 10 human social r f .h fi "I fie Inte rm s o f b eh av -ior. Among t erst prmci p es a the program is the co ' 'h '. h f d . nV\ctlOnt at vana-rion in te . arm an . arrangement of artifacts archite tr d ', ' I"' .d " ' cure, an culturaldepOSits m ivmg systems an 10 the archaeologic I d 'd f h b h ' a recor IS mostdirec t ly the pro uct a uman e avior (controll ing for n I Id fan-ell tura Or -mation processes), an not a some second-order analytical lik

"1 . , construct I e"culture, me~ta ,states, or ~daptlve Imperatives (Walker et al. 1995)For the behavioralist, then, virtually any aspec t of human I'lf ' ."'. e IS open toscientlfi~ scrutiny and explana~lon ~o long as re search questions can beframed tn terms ? f pe~ple:-oblect mteractions. Thus, many traditionalquestions of SOCial SCientists, as well as the corresponding units ofanalysis, need to be reformulated in terms amenable to study within abehavioral framework. Indeed, the provision of such an alternativebehavioral lexicon for studying human social life has been among theprimary goals of behavioral archaeologists .

Reid e t a l. (1974; see a lso Re id et a l, 1975; Re id 1995; Schif fer 1995a:ch. 1) f ir st cr afted behavioral a rchaeology as an explic it program a t theUniversity of Arizona in the early 1970s. Though originally an out-growth of the "new" (processual) archaeology developed by Binford(1962, 1965, 1968) and others (e.g. Deetz 1965; Hill 1970; Longacre1970), behavioralists promoted an expanded archaeology that wouldovercome the many methodological and theoretical failings of earlyprocessualism. '. "To behavioralists, the i rreducib le core of archaeology IS Simply thestudy of material objects ... in order to describe and explain huma,nbehavior" (Reid et a!. 1975: 864, emphasis added). In the 1970s-, ~ISdef inition shif ted the focus of explana tion away from the adaptatl~ms(concerns of processualism and toward the explanation of beha:loralvariation at many scales. Importantly, behavioral ly defined uruts of. b desi d t anscend or cross-cut theanalysis and explanation can e esigne to r ", dari hat ci 'be the "cultural systemstemporal and spatial boun aries t at circumscn , " h d. h b h " 1 chaeologists estab IS e astudied by processualists. T us, e aviora ar, b. d d . othetic statements a outscience of human behavior groun e 10 nom . , '.fi d b dary conditions - rangingpeople-object interactions under speer e ounfrom highly specific to highly gener.a!. 974 1975) offered four

In their seminal statements, Reid et al. (,1 . I ? rh t appeared to. id f for a discip me aresearch strategies to provi e ocus , ' h diverse researchb ., b h ." ral science wite reconfiguring into a new . e avioagendas (figure 2.1). . khors the areas of com-Strategies 2 and 3 are the theoretiCal w?r, ~rs~~at could be appliedparative research for developing general pnncip es

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

11/51

16 Vincel1tM. LaMotta and Michael B. Schiffer- - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - ~ater ia l Items~2. EthnoarCh aeololt1tand experirn "1h entalarc aeology4. MOdern rnaterial

culture StudiesFigure 2.1 The four str ategies of behaviora l ar chaeology (adapt d f1995) e r o m R e i d

HumanBehavior

1. Prehistoric, historicaland classicalarcha eol ogies

3. Study of long-termbehavioral change

Behavioral ArchaeOlogy 17rchaeologists, and many others - has been among tha lifi d B h ' e program's mostvisible and pro I c pro ucts, e aviora! archaeologists I h

the explanatory frameworks adopted by processuali sts chaso,c alhlengedI ' I I ' argl1'lgt at th enew archaeo ogy s a -purpose causes - population press ' 'd d vari ure, envirOn-mental change an stress, an various cybernetic process _f 1 " b h ' I es were forpurposes 0 exp airung e aviora and organizational v ' , '. ULahon andchange, small l~provements over those of CUlturehistory (Schi ffer 1976:2). Ins tead , Schiffer (1975a, 1976: 2-3) urged archaeologists t d II heori did 0 e v e opnew behaviora t eories, rna e s, an experimental laws by drawing onthe methods of strategy 2 of behavioral archaeology, and by exploit ingthe archaeol?gica l r ecord itself ( str ategy 3) as the most appropriatesource of evidence on long-term change processes , After twenty-plusyears of behavioral researc~, we are now in a position to synthesize amethodological and theoretical framework for achieving these goals ,

Apparently, one message that many archaeologists take from theseea rly cr itiques is that behavioral ar chaeologists a re atheore tical indue-t ivi st s, hos ti le to explanation and to the construction of "social theory. "IOther s surmise tha t behaviora lists ar e conce rned sole ly, or a t lea st pri-marily, with the discovery of "universal" laws of human behavior - i.e.principles tha t are true in al l times and in al l place~ (e.g. Flannery 1973;McGuire 1995; O'Brien and Holland 1995; cf . Wylte 1995). In fact, bothbeliefs are incorrect . Behavioralis ts have repeatedly cal led for the bui ld-ing, not borrowing, of explana tory theory, and they have devoted mucheffort to the construction of such theory III recent years (see bel~w). Ev~nin the 1970s and 1980s, behavioralists off ered some f?rmulatlons akinto social theory (e.g. McGuire and Schiffer 1983; RathJ ; and McCarthy1977 Schiffer 1979) and c-transforms/ and correlates can themselvesconstitute social the~ry in certa in re search contexts (LaMotta 1999;Schiffer 1988 Tani 1995). The behavioral approach ma~ appear to b,e, . " ial" theories on the baSISinductivist because It proposes to construct soc 'I dof r egula ritie s in obse rved or inferre,d intera~tions between Pbehop~ aol_1 b" nons however e avtoraobjects. By privileging peop e-o jeer mteracnons, , h h man. f socia I theory across t e uists seek to redirect the construcnon 0 'I scientific unless' h ' I sci b neither behaviora norSCIences: be aviora science can e . 1 Shiffer and Millerit a lso attends to artifacts (Schiffe r 1995b: 23; s~e ~h:od~scovery of truly1999b; Walker er a1. 1995). ~ast~y, although 0 ram's goals, many"universa l" pr inc iples of behavior IS amo~~a: ~~:a~ora lists are com'examples in this chapter demonstrate 1ywhere along themitted to building explanatory theory that operates arcontinuum from general to specific. k h l ike the old social

The new behavioral theories might not 100 hmu~ocial sciences oftenies b ed from ot ertheories, however. Theones orrow

Present

in explaining spec if ic cases of behaviora l va riation in prehistoric (strat-egy I) or modern (strategy 4) contexts. Three decades of research W i t h instrategy 2, encompassing ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeol_ogy, has resulted in the development of coun~less experimental laws per-taining to diverse processes of hum~r: behavior, fro~ the use of potteryand groundstone tools, to the deposition of ceremonial t rash and humanremains. An important feature of this nomothetic research is t he con-struction of "behavioral contexts" - analytical units that specify th eboundaries (e.g. material, behavioral, social, ecological parameters) of aprocess within which a general principle of behavior is applicable(Walker and LaMotta 1995; Walker et al. 1995). As shown below, behav-ioral contexts playa critical role in the use of nomothetic statementsabout behavior in idiographic research.

Clearly, behavioral archaeology was, and still is, much more than anextension of the processualist agenda. Behavioral archaeologists not onlydeparted stridently from "new" archaeologists in their treatment o f'd , ' d i l i eevi ence from the archaeological record, but also quesnoneexplanatory potential of early processual theory. It was argued that n ewarchaeologists had adopted simplistic conceptions of inference ~ndupon these built inadequate methods for reconstructing past behavlOl~:fl ' f h "culturaCon atmg traces of formation processes with traces 0 t e h. . d y t eseprocesses of mterest (Schiffer 1976' Sullivan 1978). To remebl ' , f . f ce (Deanpro ems, behavioralists formulated new models 0 1 .0 eren d to1978; Schiff er 1976: ch, 2 Sullivan 1978) and insisr,ed on the nele983" 1 '1976, 'mvestlgate formatIOn processes (Reid 1985; Schiffer 1972, , As a1985, ] 9 87), seen as the major source of uncontrolled va[l~blesl;new"result, formation-process research _ conducted by behaviorahsts,

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

12/51

IH Vtn('enl M. l~aM{Jtta and Mich Iae B, Schifferresl 011 L1JHc:>tcd premises abo t h ~1-(i - - U uman b h '( , IcrCIJt and oftcn incompatibl (' e aV10r a dI I . I h ' e i.e. non-b h " n U s Ik i a v .o ra t COrlCS, therefore reou: e aV10ral) ,u a ly e lhh h ' qUIre new w Units f " l p l ~n _ ; : - ;C < 1c m g um an life that at first 'h ays o f thi k ' 0 anal ~'J h f II ' mIg t seem . n In g b f i l l11 t e () oWIng section We provld . qUIte alie a QUta d '. h e an OUtJlUef n, Qlory qllestIOns r at currently face beh '. Or the typ. f , ' a vlorahsts e s ofeLUS~lOI10 JChavlOraJ method and th ' and later f , l C p 1 a l l a ,. ~ eory necessa f Urntsh,questIons ngorously. We concJude with J ry Or addre a d IS ,J b h ' 1 severa case st d' SSlnghlOW e aVJOra theory can explain variat" U re s t h a t ' I I ~. f ' ion and cha I U St rrangmg rom discrer- person-object inr ' nge atseveral atestructure of behaVIOral systems eraCtIOns to the organtzaSt~ales,. I O n a l

Objectives; explaining behavior at different s c a l e sWhat exactly is it that beha vioralists are trying to explainl B "ti ., b'" I h ' Y e x p l a ,na IOn we mean su surrnng emplrJca p enomena under. h .'' , nomote t , cstatem~nts , (i.e, explanat,ory, socIal,' '" ,behaVioral theory) and e m p l ! l c a lgenerahzanons that specify regulannes In behavioral processes atvariousscales, statements that operate within explicitly and concretelydefinedboundary conditions (see below, "Behavioral contexts"), It IS convenientto recognize three scales of human behavioral variation, each of whichposes a slightly different set of explanatory challenges:

(1) Interaction scale, which is focused on regularity and variationin discrete person-object interactions. ThIS area of research isgearedtoward understanding the specific processes whereby visual, t a c t i l e ,acoustic and chemical interactions occur between and among p eopleand artifacts and how such interactions underlie variation and

, b I "C o m m um 'hange in larger-scale behavioral processes (e.g, see e ow, " les. , , , hI" niversal" pnnClpcation"). At this level of inquiry, If now ere eise, u, , ht b e" ." h inh ' II ' teractlOns - migf behavior - i.e. regulariries t at 10 ere In a In

discovered. " nd diachronic(2) Activity scale, in which synchronic variation, h Ids Of t a s k, di id I house 0, fhange, in activities performed by In IVI ua s, ed behavior0groups is examined. An activity consists of the patte~~ffer 1992: 78!.one or more material (possibly human) elements (~C ~tentiallYmodi'Materials, energy, and information are processed a~ p can developf~~"AI 'behavIOfS h OOi lied in the COurse of an acnviry, . ternatrve s of sync r, k d ch pattern h e arethe performance of the same baSIC tas ,an SU h ugh time. T es5 b.variation in activity performance may change t fa in at this scale. II

h 'I' k to exp armong the processes that be aviora IStS see

B eh aV io ra l A rch ae olo gy 19ti 1 explanatory research at the activirv scale has already bestan la, h 'en Con-d by archaeologists and as Yielded,for example many pn Iducte '.' . .' ,> ' . nClpesxpiaining variation and change In the design anduseof artifactsa dfor e ( "T hi b I ) nh"tectLIralspaces see rec no ogy e ow .arc 1 l h' h I(3) Systemic s~a e, at w, Ie, eve' synchronic va~latlon, and' h onic change, 10 the orgaruzano-, of one or mare behaVIOralystems

diac r b h 'I " ' fPiained, A" e aviora system IS a set a patterned actiVitieshatare ex , h 1 hvsi I ld'. late a human grou.p wit t re p ysica wor and with Otherbehav-artlCU , 9 99) f' 1 ystems (Schiffer 197 , 1 2; or example, a household commu-ora s , , ,. 'nsti tution, regional system, or nation-state can each be modeledasnlty, I '. , h " f ' , ,b h vioral system. Variations 10 t e orgaruzano-, 0 actlVltles,and ina e a , I d inf ..' flh . rworks of materia , energy, an I ormanon ows among theset riviries {termed "linkages"}, are some of the behavioral phenomenaactIVl 1 f 1 d" ' ed at this scale. How, or examp e, 0 patterned networks ofscruttnlZ ietv or t'b h '1 ~" H' " develop within a SOCIety or e aviora system, oware pat-acttvItles d i f ' hi' h d di fd fl S of materials, energy, an Inormation esta IS e among 1-terne ow h" d' ities and human actors? How are c ange processes uunateferent activi I d Add' hi behavioral system and how do such changessprea? \_from WIt mad b h ' Iionall . processual questions, when reformulate 10 e aviorationa y, mabny ommodated at this scale of analysis (seebelow,"Theterms, can e ace

" ")'b i ) questions . h a s i h hl~ iting three scales of behavioral analysis, weemp asize t at ~ ac

~ POSt ~'Herent set of explana tory principles. Althou~hexplanatlo,osrequires ai, I henomena will likely contnbute to exp a-for lower-order behaviors p ct that higher scaleswill entail' f h' h der processes we expe ,nations or ig -~r , b f lly reducible to lower-order pnn-emergent properties that may no~ e ~ the organization ofactiv it iesinciples. For example, l~ng-term c ange l~ be explained efficientlyby thea community (systemic scal~) ma'h n~ h 'or of individuals participat-same principles used to exph~a,te tel e ~I netheless explanations foring in discrete activities (activity sea e')li b~ behavio;al without beingsuch higher-order phenomena can Stlreductionist. . seeking principles of behavioralFinally it is important to note that, beh . al archaeologists do not, II I e avior isms thregularity and change at a .sca es, h ism or set of mechaOismst at

f'I nous mec arns , 'fi t dyoposit a priori, a smg e exoge . Because the SClentlC5 U f' ines b h ioral processes. f h a set adrives or determines e avIO, h 'mposition 0 sue, , 'II' its mfancy, tel Th t presenthuman behavior IS sn III L d If-limiting. us, a" Id b remature an se , of explana-causal principles wouic e p "I tmg of aWidearray , t" . d mpmca tes I hand rejecwefavor the application an e , I iation and C ange, 'Idi behavlOra var d f om a si ng etory frameworks regar mg. 1 must proeee r, 'archaeo ogythe notion that explanation mhigh-level social or cultural theory.

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

13/51

2 0 Vincent M. LaMotta and Michael B. SchifferFoundations: method and theo~

In this section we discuss fundam ental def initions and .. . l' d fi . . f h UnIts o fincludmg a materia rst e ninon 0 um an behav' . analY sId d i h . d: f' lor, an S,m ethodology groun e Int e stu y a art ifaor life hisr . . analYtltal. I d . 1 b Ones In crive behavIO ra. c.ontexts, an a m atena. - eha.vi_o.ral m odel fo r ornpa~a.ing and explaining c han ge p ro ces se s In a ct IV i tI es a nd ' d e s c f l b .In behaVioralystems.

BehaviorBehavioral archaeologists define the basic unit of analysis _ h. . 1 h e i . f u r n a nbehavior - precise y as t e .lnteractIon o. one or m ore living i n d i v i d u a l sw ith elem ents of the matenal world (R eid et a1 . 1 974 , 1 975). A s a un io f analy sis, "behav ior" inclu des both people and objects (W alker e t a l.1 995). This analytical focus on both the m aterial (artifact) and organis.m al (people) aspects of behavior distinguishes behavioral archaeologyfrom other theoretical perspectives founded on purely organ i smal C on -c ep ti on s o f b eh av io r (sensu Walker et al, 1 99 5: 5-8). In org anism al p e r -spectives, an analytical barrier divides the anim ate organism from theinanim ate world of m aterial objects, and explanations for actions ofthe human organism are generally framed in term s of chang ing e x t e r n a lvariables ("the environm ent") or internal states ("ideolog y," "values,""attitudes," or "intentions"). Behavioralists do not argue that changesin environm ental variab les are u nin volv ed in b eh av io ra l c ha ng e ( e.g .s eeR eid 1 978), nor do they dispute that people's know ledge a f f e c t s theirbehavior (e.g . see Schiffer and Miller 1 999bj W alker 1998b) . Nonethc dless, w e conceive of behavior - w hen defined to include both people anbi I . I . I ial andcog -jeers - as a p l enomenon that mediates all eco ogica ,SO CI ,. . . . t o f extra-rntrve processes; through behavior the potential rrnpac . Ib h . I h 'f. t BehavtOra-. e aviora p en om ena on life processes is made mant,es.. f thei s t s , therefore, are not concerned w ith explaining the beha~lO r 0 F u r '. ld f cnfacts.o.rgamsm as a process som ehow distinct f rom the wor 0 a. ha r isth'f . . fashion r. errn or e, a rt Iacts define the boundaries of behavior Ina r d h dis-u sefu .1 analy tically , facilitatin g cross-cu ltu ral co mpariso ns an h. t e thatc f b h . . . a fas Ionovery 0 e aV loral principles. To study behavior rn tl'liz ea. .' we UrecognIzes the centrality of artifacts in hum an jnteractlon~, . i t ie s _fram k I . I. 'l'ty In actlV fewor t rar focu ses on regularities and variam I d i osal 0for exa I . h ki and ISP. m p e, In remaking , using , reusing , brea J O g ,obieces.

B e ha V io r al A r cl J ae o lo g y 21Sys t emIC con tex t \ A rc ha eo lo g Ic al conlCX!,

men t ---+Manufacture - Use ---~ .....DIsca dp," ,u" 1 \ Reuse ~ : ~ O " ' " ' Jecay....___-L.. ReclamFig ure 2 .2 A g eneralized artif act lif e history (adapted f ro m S ch if fe r 1 9 76 : 4 6 )

L if e h is to ri es and b eh a vi or al c ha in sA t th e co re o f b eh av io ra l m eth od olo gy lies th ~ lif e . his t? ry c on ce pt. A nartifact's life histo ry is the seq uence o f behaviors (I .e. I~teracttons andactivities) that lead fro m the proc~rem ent of raw m atenals and m anu -f f th at obj ect, th ro ug h v an ou s s ta ges o f u se, reu se a nd /o r ree y-acture 0 f h bi . hr t the eventual discard or abandonm ent 0 t e. 0 j e e r In t ec lO hg, 01 . al record - w ith the possibility . o f mu l ti pl e c y cl es o f manu-arc aeo OglC . di df se and recycling and of reclam ation, reuse and r s ca rcture, u ,(figure 2.2). . f b b hL if e histories play a key ro le in b uildin g 10 ere n~ es a o ut _ pa st e av -. d 1 e ha v io ra l s ys te m s f rom t he ir a rc ha eo lo gic al remains (Bmford~ o; ~8 ~n 21 ~2 ' S ch if fer 1 97 5b , 1 97 6: 44-9, 1987: 13-15; Shi~ma~ ~9~1;Zedefio 1 99 7; cf . chaine opera t o i r e [ se e S ell er 1 9 93 1 1 ), a nd h[ ( ~ ~~ ::. . ." cross-culture researcunits of analysis and com ?anson m ea flow model or behavioraland LaMotta 1 995 ). For e ith er p ur po s d f . y g iven artifact class inchain (Schiffer 1 975b) can be constructe o~ ~n behaviora l c ha in f or aa behavioral sy stem (see table 2 .1 ). I Afc.om , f e ~ns ta nc e wou ld d es cr ib e

. .. . itu a en s 1, or I ,ceramic c oo kin g J ar , m aize, or an . h life h is to ri es o f t he se. h . l Iy o cc ur In ted .al l of the interactions t at typlca ial un it s) i nvo lve In[i Id in g h um an SOCI .o bjects' the energ y so urces m e u .. d e lemen ts ); l oc at io n ,' . . 1 if sed ( cO I1 )O lO e . 1e ac h a ct iv it y; additiona arti acts ~ . . d h activi ty 'S matenaf t vines, an eac . Itim e frequency, and order o: ac I ibuti t o t he a rc ha eo lo g lc a, . I contri unons . __outpu t (i.e. actu al and potentla c . bl ay b e s up plied b y crossrecord). V alues for som e of these varia vhile rhers must be inferred. I . . data W leo i b l ecultural, ethnographic, or nstoric If I'. e ld om n ec es sa ry o r pO.5S1f ro m th e ar ch aeo lo gica l re co .rd itse . t .IS ~ orporating a ll Iife-hls~o.ryI b h . or al c ham inc " C[IVluesto construct a com p ete e aVI. ts representJOg a . 1 1activities R ather behavioral chain segmenb I'ow} are more t Y P I C : l h Y. '. t" (see e ro w r- . f r t ewithin a specific "behavioral contex II w the researcher to In e. I hai gments a 0constructed. Behaviors Clam se

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

14/51

. - - -~

~

- .. .~~o!!:'0~L>J~ \3 iii'"~~ ~gf- 02

~ ~-l -l ~ -I ~ t=. . . : -( s '" V1 u:L1J ~ ~ ~2: :;: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q 0

~ ~o . i l .u --l

~ ~ ~Q CJ CJ o If !

~t= : s :'i ~ I/) VI Vl 00 3!~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -I -I0: ' i i : ~ 1(- 0 .~ ~ ~o f-o ~ a :: a u, 0Zo ~ :2 z ~ I> :I J . < I ' l Z Z z z z z a o~0 0 oel 00 0 0 0 < 1 ' 1 -a::0 Of:: 0 Z B ~~ ~ ~~ 1 = 1 = i= i= 00~o ~ ~ t : : E t t t 0 a : : L L . I~ t: - t ; : ; t I= ~ II> ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~0 5 o0 0 IlJ 0 00< < . : > ~ 1 ;; ~Q U '"-

C IC I~~V) Z ~)~ LI.l~~

.. .~

-I -Io ~ ...: i ~ U J z z ': z~~::>N U J trJ Z s :3 Q :1H~~

...) ...) I.t.I. . . . -l :: l . . : z 3~V)O ~ 0 0 Ucr::~ ULI.l~ 0 : . : : Ulil0:.::i 8 i : r : : ~

V):r: : r : : : r : : ~~ 0 &o u, u., ~o Ozu., . .. . : :r : 0 0

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

15/51

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

16/51

LaMotta and M' htc ael B 'when the cerem onial ob' . SChtf ferpnc\[s In non-localized I~ctslare u se d in ritu 1 ~. . ~ ntu a . . aslISC IS restricted to th h sodalIties bu t . perforllled bahles and their associ:tedO usehold O r d~m es~~t w ~en the I: S p eC j a l i ~the behavioral C ontex t to ::~~es - ~reatly overs~ nlt., T hese ~r~;'of r i t u a ~t:. '()urse, t h i s would b J Ich this hypoth . m phfied he I C a l \ t a r 'e O n y the fi etlcal re - d Ibehavioral pattern ar d I rsr step in the Pnnciple a ~ s c r i b eses by observing ~ha: e~;:c:esearcher ~ ou ld w ~~ ~~ ess of eX PI~~ :~s.fthe spatial properties of suc: ~~~nge~ ~no th e r v a ri ~~~st O t ~er y p ! : ~ 1 S

The behavioral contex t ap h sa ehaviors . e s m ig ht h aV e e -. bI proac em I . o nvaria es and associated val s crnp Y Ing carefu ll ddi hi . ues, ca n be Y ef i dlrec.t Istoncal com parisons B h . Contrasted W ith ne criticalh . e a V J O r 1 . . analo'grap IC analogy in how th . a Contex ts dif f f glcalandhe com paratIve er rom hm et ods used to establish th b dari CO ntex t is d ef ined et n.o.ti 11 ' e . o un arIes of h . ' an d In thron a y , com pa rI son s berw h t at cam pa' eb een arc aeolo' I f 1SonT d'aS ,ed o~ broad si.m ~larities betw een th;I:~u ~nd e~ ~nog raphicc ~ s e : : : ~their regional a ffilIa tI On or g enera l I I f ~ re s u nder stu dy _D' . . ev e 0 SOC IOP iiti I" e,g .eterm mants for sirnilarirns or diff . O l tlc a c om p le xity "1 1 erences In sp ' 1 b h .genera y sought not in the critical variabl I eCl.c e avior(s)aretex ts, bu t in overarching characteristics e; e:p oyed ,10 behavioral an.t~eir environm ents); hence, the use of si; t e s oc le~ le s O rc u l ~ re s (o r"Inference tha t if tw o or m ore things agr~ee ;~ thalog lcal reahsom .ng- anh 'II one anot er In Somerespects t . ey WI probably ag ree in others" (M erriam - W ebster 1 9 8 5. 8 2 'see also Salm on 1982 61) Th h h' ' ,. . u s, t e yporhesis-resr procedureusedto define the boundaries of a behavioral contex t is characteristicallyabsent from m any exam ples of "ethnog raphic analogy ." D i r e c t histori-cal analogy , in which sim ilarities betw een tw o or m ore behavioralsystem s are sim ply asserted based on the historical and genetic related-ness of the groups involved, em ploys a com parative log ic that i sevenl es s r ig o ro us . For ex am ple, in certain research contex ts a behavioral!stmight attem pt to ex plain prehistoric ritu al disposal behaviors o~prehis-toric Pueblo groups by exam ining the determ inants of variatio~ In thoseb h . ' d Z OJ descen-e aviors am ong , for ex am ple, their m odern Hopi an . u . I .d . ' . b h av lo ra p atants. How ever, even assum ing historical contm uity III e I ' ' ted. o n ly Hlllterns, this narrow ly defined behavioral contex t perm Its. . ues-. . , . bl h behavIors In qtestm g of the effects of other critical vana es o n t e . f thosetion, and provides only one (idiographic) level of ex pla~atlo~h~r u nrc'behaviors. The behavioral researcher is m ore likely to 100 WO h which o. 1 t xt througlated groups to define a broader behavlO ra con eidentify a m ore general principle of behavior. 'b'l'.n the des ign f. - d 1 f fleX! I lty I b 13\'-Behavioral contex ts perm it a great ea 0 . o d the enI I Pansons aresearch , w hile ensuring that cross-cu rura com

Behavioral Archaeology 27ioral principles derived from them are bas d . .a n al y si s ( c ri ti ca l v a ri ab le s ) t ha t a re d e fi ned c~ea~n cOdmpar ab leu ru ts of" . rly an concretely Whcompa r at iv e r es ea r ch 1S s tr uc tu re d i n t hi s fashi f . '. en. d ith h . 1On, many 0 t h e p i tf a ll sassocIate Wit t e u se o f e th no ar ch ae ol og ic al d at f erh .'" I " b id d a or 0 e t n og ra ph icana ogy can e aVO I e (e.g, s ee B in fo rd 1 9 8 5 ; C or de ll et al 1987 .Dunnell 1 996 : 1 1 5 ; G ou ld 1 978b 1 980 1 985 O 'B . d H' II 'hiff ' , , nen an a an d1 99 5; S c I er 1 97 8; 1 9 95 a: c h. 14; Wa ts on 1 9 8 2 ; Wy li e 1995) .

Activi ties and behavioral systemsHaving d ef in ed "b eh av io r" a bo ve , w e n ow e xp lo re s om e o th er u nits o fa na ly sis. T he f ra me wo rk f or a naly zin g ac tivity cha ng e ou tlined bS ch if fe r ( 1 97 9 , 1 9 92 ) p ro vid es o ur m a in p oi nt o f d ep ar tu re f or th is d i:-c us sio n. T his f ra m ew o rk s er ve s a s a s pr in gb oa rd f or f or m ula tin g n om o -th etic qu estions abo ut be ha viora l c ha ng e a t the a ctivity a nd sy stem ics ca le s, a nd f or su g ge stin g a pp ro pr ia te lin es o f r es ea rc h f or a ns we rin gthem.W e be gin w ith a m od el in w hic h the "soc ial sy ste m" or "c ultu re " - ac omm o n u nit o f a na ly si s a m on g a rc ha eo lo gis ts - is r ec as t in b eh av io ra lterm s. A behavioral system, th en, is a se t of pa ttern ed be ha viors th ata rticu late s a hu m an g ro up w ith th e ph ysica l w orld a rou nd it an d w itho th e r s em i- in dep en den t b ehav io ra l s y st ems . A b ehav io ra l s y st em i nc lud esp eo ple a nd only those e lem en ts of the m ateria l w orld w ith w hic h th eya c tu a ll y ( i. e. p h ys ic a ll y , v is u al ly , c h em i c al ly , a cou s ti ca ll y ) i nt er a ct . Su cha system is com prised of activities - p at te rn ed b eh av io rs t ha t p ro ce ssm a tt er , e ne rg y , a nd i nf orm at io n. A n y a ct iv it y i s l i nk ed d ir ec tl y (ao ne o rm o re o th er a ctiv itie s in th e b eh av io ra l s ys te m th ro ug h th e e xc ha ng e o fm a tte r, e ne rg y, a nd i nf or m atio n - t he n atu re , d ir ec tio n, r ate s, a nd o th erc on sta nt o r v ar ia ble c ha ra cte ris tic s o f th es e tr an sf er s ( te rm e d linkages)

Linkages

l in ka ge I nC lo rs : MaterialsPeopleEnergyI n f orm " r i on

Inputs andoutputstoIfrom other~crivitits

Inputs andoutputsto/trom otheractivities

Act iv it ) A A ,r iv iq ' B

Figure 2 .4 . f low s ("linkages") betw eenE le m en t, e ne rg y, a nd r nf or m au onactivities

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

17/51

d M IChae l B . S c lJ l ff er1 "Motta att28 V in ce '" M. LA"

7 - - - - - - - "///"8,\ 8,.".,.,.,\.~--~~ ~ ,

",,(0 (0 //~8/ _/-//

B eh avIo ra l A rc ha eo lo gy 2 9how change processes are initia ted from w ith ' b h 'di h h h m ae aV loral sy tunders,tan 109 ow sue c an ge p ro ce sse s sp re d h s em , a ndb d "II a to or er act" .te xts, h as een - an WI continue to be _ a" , IVl tycon-h major topic of behavioralresearc .

W e prop, o se that change processes are of te '" dI ' . I' k n initiate and spre dthrough a teranons 10 In ag e factors betw een a ti "T h a.. f her.for i c IV ttles. e substitu-tion of one activity or anot e r, fo r m stan ce is like ly to i Iin inpu ts and ou tpu ts (linkage factors) ~ossibly c~ I~VO ve abchange, h . , , ith hi u sm g su sequentchanges In or er actrvities Wit W ich th e r ep la ce d a ct " 'ty f.' bsti IV I w as o rm e rlylinked. Activity su stitunon or chang e m ay resu lt from th I" f e r ep a c emen tin an acnvity 0 :m e or m ore elem ents (people or m aterials) w ith fu nc-

tio na lly n ~n -e qU i va le n~ c ou nte rp arts . E le m en ts p os se ss s pe cif ic f orm a land behaV Ioral properties - p e rf or m an c e c h ar ac te ri st ic s - that are c 'II " " ruciato that e em ent s interactions 10 a s pe ci fi c a cti vi ty . U t he p e rf o rman cech arac te ristics o f a su bstitu ted elem en t d if fer fro m th ose o f th e elem en tit replaced, the fit betw een the su bstitu ted elem ent and the activity m ayb e su fficien tly im perf ect to a lte r a ctiv ity p erf orm an ce , p ossib ly lea din gto ch an ge s in lin kag e fac to rs an d far-re ach in g b eh av io ra l ch an ges.

The box overleaf show s a sim ple exam ple to illu strate the u se o f th em odel. The point of this ex am ple is to dem onstrate that linkag e factorsprovide a usefu l fram ew ork for exam ining change processes am ongre lated ac tiv itie s. T he ch an ge in p erfo rm an ce ch aracteristics o f a sin gleartif act ty pe ca n re su lt in far-rea ch in g b eh av io ral ch an ge; h ow ev er, th edirection and ex tent of such changes largely depend on how activitiesare linked w ith each other.

R esearch both on the processes through w hich activity and elem entchange m ay be initia ted, and on hum an responses to technology ~nda ctiv ity c ha ng e, is b ein g p urs ue d r ig oro us ly b y b eh av io ra l a rc ha eo lo gis ts,W ithin the contex t of activity perform ance, hu man responses to elem entsu bstitu tio ns a nd to c han ges in lin ked activ itie s d ep en d (1 ) o n h ow th osechang es m odify linkag e factors (inpu ts) for the activity in ~u ~s~ionj (2)on w hich linkage factors (outpu ts) for that activity are prioritized; (3). . I .s that can or m ust beon the technological an d behaviora com prom Ise . '.m ade to offset chang es in linkag e factors and in acnvrty perform a,n~e,an d (4) on the availability and interpretation of feedback from a~t~vltyperform ance. For ex am ple behavioralists have addressed m a~y 0 h t l es e, d d h f understandmg umanIssues w hile developing m etho an teary ord (. . d esi f actu re an use seem teractions w ith artif acts dunnges1 gn, m anu ,below , "Technology"). . havi I r oces ses t hatW e cu rrently su ggest fou r broad fam ilies of be avrora Pd'f ications in, h d .' h ge and cause rna Im ig t initia te elem ent an aCtiV Ity c an , . . . . h ' a behavioralh d organi ' of scnvices W it int e natu re , stru ctu re, an orgam zation

,\,"

- '- _ .-KEY :0 ctivity 0' En v ir onmenr ( n at u ra l r es o ur ce s )

. .. . .. . .. .. L i nkage ( spec i f ied_. by l inkage fac to r s)

. . . . -.. .( '; A naly tical""_/ boundary forbehavioralsystem

Figure 2. 5 Model o f a b e ha v io r al s y st em comp ri se d o f l in k ed activites

bemg spec if i ed by l i nk a g e [ a ct o rs " ( se e f ig u re 2.4). Flow s of m atter,energ y, and inform ation establish patterned relationships am ongactivities, leading to v ary in g d eg re es o f in terd epe nd en ce - d ire ct o r indi-recr, stro ng o r w eak - a mo ng all ac tiv ities in a behavioral system (seefigure 2.5),

A behavioral arch ae olo gist seek in g to ex plain c han ge in an activ ityw o u ld lo ok first t o c h an g es In d irectly an d clo se ly lin ke d activ ities a ndto proxunare v an atio n in lin ka ge f ac to rs , a nd second to th e stru ctu reo f I nte rd ep end en t activ ities w ith in th e sy stem to id en tify m ore d istan tS ou rces o f change A ltho h b h ' I h ' .." . ug e aviora c ange processes m ay be iruti-ated b y ex tern al" ph e (1 "nom ena e.g . c imatic change im mig ration) thenature, ex tent and pe ' f h ..' , ,s tr on g ly d . t', d brslste.nce a c ang e w ithin the behavioral. sy stem '.se e rm m e y the st f I' k . .chat sy stem . ructu re 0 in a ge s a m on g a ct iv it ie s within

Cer ta i nl y , no t a l l behav i o ra l ch '" ,f ro m t he e nv lr onm e t f an ge IS initiated by variation in inpu tsn O r ro m ex terna l b eh av io ral sy stem s. E xp lain in g

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

18/51

d M ic ha el B , S ch iffe r30 Vincent M, LaMotta anare confronted with a behav-

f h uristic purposes, we ,Suppose, or e ised o f only three activities:ioralsystem compnseA Food procuremenr through fisbi?g, d sumptlonB Food prepara[Jon an conC potter)' making'sJda' r> . 5 0 00 0 k ca l f is h/ da y00 , 29 c o ok 109 Jar ~0 .

C . Food preparatlon F~o~ procurement:Ponery making and c onsum ption Fishing

. , . I' ked to each other via flows of people, arti-T he se a cn vm e s a re In .'. 'f d 'nformation - of which linkage factors we WIJ1acts, energy, an I . hid J few for this example. Let us assume that this be av-consi e ron y a I' ;Y ,ior al system consists of a single behaviora l componen~ - ~ large(IS-person) extended fami ly l iv ing on a~ . J~olated PacI ,f ic Island .Food procurement (activ ity A) consi st s ini tia lly of f ishing alone,F ishermen in our behavioral sys tem employ modern rod-and-reeltechnology, acquired through trade, to catch fish at a rate of 15fish/day. Activity A is thus linked to ac tivity B, food processing andconsumption, by a l inkage factor speci fied as 50,000 kcal fish/day( input) - sufficient to feed our 25 people. Food processing (activ-ic y B) involves the stewing of fish in ceramic cooking jar s, whichbreak or wear out a t a r ate of about 2 jar s/week. Activity B is there -fore linked to activity C (pottery making) by a linkage factor of0.29 jars/day (input).

2 7 , 0 00 kc al w i ld p l an ts l da y

0 . 1 0 cooking Ja rs / day~ 0 .0 I s!otag t jar> lday (-:\ 23 0 00 k 1 f hid\ L ) \ ! _ _ ) of' ca s ayPonery m akmg F ._-1fJ1J(1 preparatIonand consumptIon

Food procurement:Foraging

Food procurement:FishingNext, suppose that most of our 6 h 'or wear OUt an.d cannot b 1 s .ermen s rod~-and-r eels breakf de rep aced perh d he vicio trace relanons (i e th ' '. aps ue. to t e VICIssitudes. . ere IS a chan ' linkrespect to the input of nge m. I age factors withnew rods-and-reels for activity A). For a

B eh a vi oT a l A rc ha eO lo g y 3 1time, a t least, they a re replaced with simple fi hido not possess the same performance ch cane ~ ~n gpoles which] f hi aractenstlcs as dreel. As a resu tot IS element substitutio . , ro -and-obtain fish _at a rate of 7 per day, changing ~~ ~ : ~ r yca n o~lyactivity B {input of 23 ,OOOkca l f ish/day _ ins Hici ge fact,or w ah

1 Thi u cient nourishfor the popu ation], 5 modif icat ion in link f menr. .' A dB' age actors berweaC(lVItleS an requires that some behavio 1 h enbasi lori d ra c ange OCcur sthat the aSK ca one nee s of the community ca b e 0 0luti . hr i I he i n met, ne pos-sib~e .s? utflon midg r mV~lvdetl e initiat ion of new food procurementactlVlnes ocuse on WL p ant foods, This would, ' foraci . , create a newactiVity (D, o~agmg) linked to acrivrtv B via an input of 27,000

kcaVday of wild plant foods. Although this new activity ldh ' . f waulallow r e commuruty to meet Its ood needs, it would also intro-

duce a new element (plant foods) with new performance charac-teristics into activity B. If prepara tion requirements for this fooddiffe r substantially from those for fish, infonnation flows betweenactivit ies Band C might s timulate potters to develop ceramic vesselswith per formance characteristic s appropriate for cooking these newfoods. Linkage factors from activity C to B. then, might change aswell. Obviously, many other behavioral changes might occur aslinked act iv it ies are compromised by changes in linkage factors.

system. We note that these processes are not all mutually exclusive andthat additional processes will be recognized in the future. .

First, element and activity change can be caused by massive andrapid changes in per formance cha rac te ristics of eleme~ts. For example ,disease epidemics, leading to morbidity and mortah~y, can alter t~eperformance characteristics of human, plant, and animal elements IIIactivities and often lead to widespread behavioral change and even s truc-tural modification of societies, community reorganization, and large-scale migration. . ' .' h di ectlySecond as noted above changes in input from actlvloes t at f d. ) " I s may have pro OUDarticulate a behavioral system With natura r.esouree , fhid' ts may arise romeffects on that behavioral system. Sue a tere. mpu, h xtractiveh' . f changes m teee anges III the natural environment or rom . h must. , , d f . thi s reason researc ersactiVltles themselves (or both),. an or I d chan e processes atbe careful to specify the exact lmkage factors an gwork.

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

19/51

d Alichoel B. Scbiffer1 L \lotta 011 1), 1 Vin c e n t 1 ' . oJ JJ_ . . n historically has led to rep eated. I "penmenratlo I . I diThird . technoioglC a ex d b eh av io ra l c ha ng e. T ec hn o ogrca m o ifi-so des o f t ec hn ol og IC al a nd - d m an uf actu re s tag .e s m ay p ro du ceepr ) the esrgn an. . if'anons /experim enrsat h acrensrics (inventions) and -1these'- . rform ance c ar d iznifeie-ments\\'Im n ew p e d d for u se - possibly lea to srgm cantn ew a rn fa ct s a re W I d e ly a y T iteh o lo o-v ") " I m po rtan tly , th e a do ptio n, , below , ec n 01 " dJa c tlVJn"chang e ( see il t1tf .oresee11 ramifications an or un.. I f te n e nt al S I I' .. .of Dew t ec hno og le s 0 h. h contribu te through acnvity linkages topredicted brproductS w ic m ay

widespread beha \' iora~tz; som e research questions it is usefu lF h we recognIze r at f idi id Iourn , f rom t he p er sp ec ti ve 0 10 IVI ua actorsramine change processes , bto ex . . J enrs ( "s oc ia l g ro up s" ). M a ny questions a ou td lo r b eh av iO r a c ompo n dan " th I rionshipls) between structu re an . age. ncy , or~sO CL31ow er., e re a I ... I . h en p hr as ed i n behavioral term s - can be addressedpolirica e co nomy - w .. . ' . f kf ro m s uc h a p er sp ec ti ve within th e a ctiv ity a .n aly sls r am ew or (e.g.A d 1 996 Cam eron 1999 ; N ielsen 1 995 ; N Ielsen and W alker 1 998 ;W a~ rr; 1 99 8'b ; W alk er a nd L uce ro 1 9 97 ). T he c ap ac ity o f in div id ~also r g r ou p s [0m a in ta in , a lt er , o r r ed ir ec t t h.e .f l.o w ~ o f p e~ pl e, m a te na ls ,i nf or m at io n, a nd e ne rg y a m on g li nk ed acnvmes IS certainly o ne a sp ectof behavior that is pertinent to such research. W hat are the changeprocesses inv olved ? H ow are su ch processes in itiated ? And, whatc ir cu m st an ce s ( be ha vi or al c on te xt s) e na bl e s om e g ro up s o r in di vi du al sto m odify linkage factors m ore effectively than others? This is anarea w here m uch new research is needed. N onetheless, w e tentativ elys ug ge st s ev era l b eh av io ral p ro ce ss es th ro ug h w hic h s uch c ha ng es m ig htb e ef fected ( see belo w, "F orm ation processes of the archaeolog icalr ~ co rd n) . Two a sp ~ct s o f t he se p ro ce ss es m e ri t a tt en ti on : (1) ch ang es in i-t ia te d b y t ?e physical m odification of elem ents during m anu factu re or~ se ( m cl u~ lf lg t he ~ es tr u" ct io n o f o bj ec ts o r p eo pl e) , a nd (2) chang es ini-t ia te d ~ ~ m f orma t.lO n ( vis ual, ac ou stic , c hem ic al, p hy sica l) f urn is he d b yan actl\'Jty occurrm g at any . . . bi '1 . .. il h '. pom t rn an 0 j ec t s 1e history, i .e . a ct iv -mes enta t e em iSS ion of . f . ., 'ff h bin orm ation (V Ia Im kage factors) that m aya ect t e su sequ ent behavi () f h '.and it is lik I h or SO t e recipients o f th e in fo rm atio n1 e y t at som e change . .. 'su ch linkage fact ( b I p ro ce ss es a re mitiated by variation inors see e ow : "C '."o f s uc h p ro ce ss es their . 0' orrunUnICat lOn). A consideration " ,1 ongms an d eff f hm dlvldual people beh ' I' ecrs rom t e perspective of, e aV IO ra com pappr ,oa ch fo r behav io ral I hi on.em s, or sectors provides oney researc mg s bi likeconom y. u jects I e pow er and political. L a st ly , i n e x p la in in g b eh av io ra l chIt shou ld be eV ident t hat d ang e at activity and sy stem ic scalesada ti We 0 not ado t .. ,P i ve a ss um p ti on s u nd e I . P , a pnon, the cybernetic orr YlOg models of b h .e a vior and social system s

Behaviora l Archaeology 33f ou nd , f or ex am ple , in ap plica tio ns of s y st em s t he a r func' .c ul tu ra l e co lo gy (~ontra MCGUi re 1995: 165). A lt~ 'u h /I onahsm , _ o ray explain certain aspects of behavioral system . gd hese theonesm S un er som e d-tions, w e recogruze m any change processes not ex I' d co n 1-m odels. B ehavioral explanations for change proc x p am e by such.. . h f acri . . esses m ust aCCOUntf o r v an at lo n Int e types 0 a ct IV I tt es f ro m w h ic h s hd i h I' k f . uc processes are

' In it ia te d, a n Int e 10 age actors by w hich thev are d J sprea to otheractivmes.

T h e c as e s tl- td ie sA lthough the w ork of constru cting a me th o do lo g ic al a nd t he or et ic alf ram ew ork for an explanatory behaV IO ral archaeology has begu n, thereal w ork now begins - that of apply ing this f ram ew ork to prehistonc,h is to ric , a nd m od ern ca se s o f b eh av io ral v ar ia tio n a nd c ha ng e. N on eth e-less, this skeletal f ram ew ork already dem onstrates m uch potential forexploring new areas of hum an life in a behavioral fashion, and for re-ex am ining som e of the m ore traditional con cerns o f behav io ral archae-ology f rom a new , explanation-oriented perspective. To illustrate, w ef urn ish d is cu ssion s of a n um ber of research areas that are cu rrently beingpursued by behavioralists. Som e topics m ay seem fa~iliar ("Te~?-nology ," and "Form ation .processes. of the archa~olo~lC al ..record );o thers enter realm s not previously ex plored by behav io ral is t s ( Commu -nication" and "The 'big ' questions"). A lthough we have arrang edthese to~ical discu ssions in approx im ate order by increasing sc~le ofb eh av io ra l c om ple xity , s ev era l s cale s o f b eh av io ra l p he no me na ar e in factaddressed under each topic.

Communication ,0 1 aspect of all hum anThe comm unication of inform ation is a. cntica ib t he f o rw a rd. ... and contri utes tobehaviors, In form ation cues m te. ractlO ns, . I' k ag e f ac to rs _. . . , . fo r t on flow s - V ia Inm otion of activities; moreover, m orma 1 b h . 1 system's activ-dinan ng a e avioraestablish cohesion and coor marion amo. h O f cts p l ay s i gn i fi -. , I . d b chaeolog 1sts t at arn ameso It is ~ id e 'Y recogmzec ~ ar 0 Wobst 1977). In seeking toc an t r ole s III hum an commU fllcatlO n (e.g . d t d conventional. . . h 1 . t ha ve a op e ,apply this insight, m any arc aeo og isi s. nd h uman it ie s ( fo rh . , . h SOCial SCIences a .t eones of cornm um canon rom t e bl b cause these theonesThi . regretta e eex am ples, see L ittlejo hn 1 99 1). IS IS

8/7/2019 Ian Hodder

20/51

d Michael B. Schif fer34 Vil ,cel l t M . L aM o tta all ., Jrernative beha vioralhowever, an a theory nowBehaV io ra l A h. rc a eo lo g y 35senders and responding accordingly. Tha t thif h I ' I' f IS aCCOUnt bProcesS 0 arc aeo ogica Inerence is no accd. rese rn les th eI , b h ' Ient: the newtion theory genera izes e avioral models of' f communica_.. h Inerence to LI'of human co~mun~catlon (Sc iffer and Miller 1999b. a Instancesana lyses, the Investigator may wish to collapse h iu ch , 4 ). In certainI dI. t e tree rol .but the three-ro e mo e IS the more general 0 es Into two,

Another significant flaw in extant Communicnet: h . .. I I " a Ion t cones IS th hPermit only peop e to p ay commuOlcative roles y. at t ey. . I . . et, 10 everyda 1 'humans acqUIre consequenna mformation from th f' y I eplants, rocks, animals, and artifac ts, and they infe r th per ~rrnances of. 1 d h""" Th e actions of non-matena, sen ers sue as spmts, e behavioral rh f .ithi eory 0 CommUnication, however, operates Wit Ina behavioral Context th ffi', -. , .. at IS Sll cientiybroad to mcorporate mteracnons of this kind as well Thi h .. IS t eory permitsinteractors of every kind to play any role so long as th h h. . f h . . ey ave t erequISite per ormance c aracte risncs (~.g. a receiver must have a sensoryapparatus and be capable of responding), This move forces the' _.. h f Invest,gator to ascer tain , 10 eac case 0 communication, from which inter-actors - whether people or not - the receiver obtained information.

The behaviora l theory reor ients the study of human communicationby emphasizing the need to explain receiver r esponses. ln so doing, theinvestigator models the relational knowledge that is keyed in by thereceiver in a specific communication context- defined by an activityoccurring in a place . Such re la tional knowledge, examples of which arecalled correlons, has been acquired by the rece ive r through genetic andontogenet ic hard-wi ring and by partic ipation in li fe h is tory activi ti es . Inbrief , many corre lons probably resemble expe rimenta l laws and ernpiri-ca l genera liza tions r elating sende r behavior to vanation 10 emitter per-formances . The processes whereby the receiver builds ( learns) correions ,and determines their boundary conditions, may be likened to the con-struction of behavioral contexts by the analyst seeking to delimir theboundar ie s of a principle of human behavior ( see ab~ve); her~, however ,events and observa tions in a per son's life history furmsh a t~stmg groundfor establishing the validity and boundaries of a correlon (1 0 contrast cothe more specific body of cases used by