Sorc SETTING THEORETICAL Et 8 ES AND THEORY IN NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY Michelle 1 Phvvrs on Sarth Ameren an sb daa tor dP be setae ace smb am sts oat tn i pe Ira ae ms este 8 se ne msde asennad le Neves Peperomia’ sede ate ay sta vt a fect nase eh pea fan fet ane Don wa sian verse T of specitie cases aun oF the wold a Fronted wits intincte stim heory is. or should be. a seta! general sie principles that help us rehiery nd ay Curious human Heaigs—iake sense ound us. Con Hits of information, theery cam help uy facs on dise bits that are par Hicularly important, understand their interrelation: Ships. and transform that infesmation inte Knowledge. Pheory gives us tools te identify, label. tand explain. Phas. theory as wells tangatage. cul lure, and almost all bums world pprewehes 1 the In fs af once enabling sind constrain onder to enlighten ussibeut one real it encour Awmernca Attu. 4 23 1 ea Aner eee JOS ASIDE fesmon ond ainsi os nantes on vesenede se l sewer of Norte anevada eta . et aot al the ayes nerves sd aise jeg ane tuvolies (paradigmatic va ne es cade commun oss. Empl ” cu ar traf Westen ideas vf tt ne osiparesau apie is. 1 i pesiticel evseites lt ad dha inte tenses aad tntoraate misunde Stauber af por be sg vise ela pict, oF ts ur indies. Crete ot Heads cd diversubad te entegies ters ve ‘8 eoaronlapertants amg bas com faster ox viet iulendans eae mutvsaco, bas xs epi vv erin em es posted, eo tet he ied «a ies gun tao pd satertamatanente matertcader peat US t0 ianore many otficrs: we do not see the work aasiteally is6if sueh vision isever sciemttially pos- Sibley bu, siewowies aul labels her. through the necessatily defined by aur thearies, Focushere ison theory in North American archae= specifically, the archucole ology yal pre Columbian Noch America ¢nehuding northern Mice but excluit done by Nonh Amerie toa Ne Ameria, atin Mesouneriest) primarily as wchavologists (very few i North do archace fy Americans do archieuloy North Amerie im many parts of the world, Theory at a conti heat level 1s potentially averwheliing, but in Tipe, AZ 828-2402 tau mapping oul this topic into an article-lengih treat- ‘nent, Hound myself zratetil forthe geographic com saints. Although there is plenty of theory to go «round. today (in the early twenty-hist century there ‘s much less explicit discussion of theory in North American archaeology than in archaeology done by scholars in other places. especially Britain Through ut this article, Jeonsider ways in which theory con iting and enables North American archaeology and it the sume time { explore the possibility dat tnexteration in theoretical rtetorie itselT i enabling {dre on theory published in all venues, especially since 1995, but in an effort to keep the list of refer ences shorter than the text. L emphasize published in America Amiquity My primary purpase is to identify what I see as the theoretical directions that help us make sense of the archaeology of North America. Thus, Linclude considerable discussion of issues and approaetiey that are aot usually considered t be “general the. ofy” but which | believe represent important theo retically informed principtes and underlying i This isin contrast toa straightforward review of the, ory. provided by several recent volumes and articles (ladder 2001: Jones 2002: Preucel 1991: Preucel and Hoxkler 1996; Schiffer 2000: Yotfee and Sher- Fatt 1993). 1 Facus on two realms, The firsts theory that helps us understand what humans do. what Schiffer (2000:1) broudly labels social theory (though see Hodder 2002), The interpretation of material culture is an important component of this Im of Uieory, but I do not try to cover the broad Tange of theory (sometimes called middle range) that ocases specifically on amifaets or the archseolog cal record: in thi sense my direction is contrary to that set forth by Bintord (2001). ‘The second andl shorter realm involves theoretical discus- sions regarding epistemology. Because this article is imended fora special see {ion in an issue of American Antiquity to be distily wed at the World Archaeological Congress, some background for non-North Americanists is neces ry: The frst people to occupy the Americas were ‘watomically modern humans, although the date (probably betwee 11 SOV and 20,000 B.P jand path oftheir entry are vigerously debated te 2. Anderson and Gillam 2000; Fiedel 1999; Meltzer et al, 1997, Strauss 2000), th the 15008 the come 1 North Amer Imididle-range societies but ao states, Finally, most examples first Europeans 10 encountered a variety of AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [No 68, No.2, 2008 archaeologists who work on pre-Columbian Noah America were tt armies of ant. (48:1 which consider urchacology to be one of ser etal subdisciplines (the others bei inthropology. linguistics, an! sociocultn ology). { argue that North American 's. overall, characterized by considerable toler nd it may be that some of this open-nindedness stems from the broad anthro chavo of theoretical diversity Pological training that most archaeologists receive Mapping the Theoretical Landseape | divide the theoretical landscape of Noth Ameri ‘ean archaeology into two main parts. The first com, Prises three well-defined and self-identified perspectives. fairly closely tied to a few individuals and schools. The second. which Hlbel prncessual lus. incorporates the majority of North American archaeology and is more loosely detined. For other theoretical maps (which identify mone splits in the Processusl-plus category). see Hodder (21), Knapp (1996), Preucel (1991, 1995), and Schiffer (2000) The three sell-idemtitied perspectives. made expl in series of recent anticles in American Antiquity (Broughton and O'Connell 1999: OBrien et al 199R: Schiller 1996, 1999 ae (| jevolutionary ecol, ogy: (2) behavioral archaeology: and (3) Darwinian archaeology. also called evolutionary archaeology of selectionism. Behavioral and Darwinian approaches are mostly applied by U.S. scholars. and Jeading authors in both schools (Neff 2001: Schifter ctal. 2001) felt they were seriously misintenpreted ina recent discussion by Loney (2000). who is at the niversity of Glasgow, Spencer (1987) differentiates, Darwinian from processta approaches wo evolution, the Faater incl cts of evolutionary ecology, sp The Thwe Self-Ldentitied Perspectives /volutionary ecology (ale the nan of a journal is “an evolutionary science concerned with the difle tential persistence of variability in behavior overtime (Kelly 2000:64). A subset of evolutionary ecology Known as human behavioral ecology (HBE) involves the application of evolutionary ecology w humans ‘ind hurnan bela ior: in part it represents an attenypa ‘w address Julia Stewards (1955) cultural ecology with Figorous evolutionary theory (Winierhalderand Smith 2000:51). Most evolutionary ecology “pproaches to archaeology fitthisdetinition of HBE, but Frotain the term evilutionury eculiey because itichette Hegemon} steed hy msi pret ners Anthropstosical ppl a ronury eoulogy prieel by devel oping veneral models— derived trom evolutionary theory —that mike predictions sabuut fehas iors jr ua ie and wmetitnes anchacehica dats der an Sth 20045. White earlier archive HI work this perspective fowmsed on hone fhumuns cope with the envieontient te Leontents and e nese nextels will the det Prewlihy wdel), recent applications alse consider Social issues, stich as sus «Bone 2000, Some volun Hose hing etfun phic Work, toetts on holions nt evoliuonies fitness and the wlan usiup bers een a behavior and aS repraluctive consequences « fant (2003) tes shat there ts sometimes only a weak hink between such Hood related ssstes sand ex lita, At feast in Nor America eval vot y iS mest commons applica to stu rchateol fe of hunter sinall sate data tron Califor horticulturativts, often involve hnivor the Cireat Basia. where for historic times For example, Kelly 2O0U uses dt from the Carson Sink (Nessus ti evathiate taxtels ding settlenwent anid resident ruber of stlies focus sing comtiswued inte, nt th aan! prey e SHunay tn Brow O'Connell 1999: 154-150). Examples trom eles here in North Anverica include Shots 196) application of the diet brewltty nunlel te understand ehatiges 4 posit size in the Midhwest see als chapters i Bartow ate (Chark, 1907 od FitzhastS2H1 yenk on etyk nl invertinon an atk: Gull ot Akaska Many arehacologists who dlrs on evolutionary apt other nexkes of inquiry Forexample, although Kelly 2000 is quite erica of Darwinian archaeology. hey ess waysan whieh ul behav ioral ‘could be uscd in conjanction ith Dar clements of evolutionary cculigy 0 wi iad he specitivally: Hn app bbehissorat ins ils inte pertomanee characteristics fodevetopanevotutionary evolugical perspective on stone tants, Baglow (20011 stv researc on the eek laze toa Foraging strat the Southwest also consi And anit very citterent exaniple, MacDonald (20x ISSUES AND THEORY It NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 25 draw sun kin selection theory tdiseus adults Hehe burials, bat fhe explicitly sees hrs approach as complementary to treatment al you Marist anil praceysual interpretitions, Boiraviorat archavulogy was tiest set forth by Reid, Schifter. anal Ri wv it # clasely associated with Michael Schiller «1905), his students, Ie (197), althoust ex ud otters whe hse worked LaMouts und Schuler 2001; Schitler and Skibw 1997: Skibo cola 19S: Watker 2002; Zedeti 1097), Bebkavior isin fecuises on “the relationship her ‘sith hint he University oF Arisa tess Fehaviers sand material culture da ill urnes and alt places” (Schutter 1999-1660, thus a ances eal ‘ent maternal culture Muudiesée.g., Sehilleret al, 1904), Asthe name implies, facts is at bebuevior — not ot Inoreabstract concepts such asculture—and the way fpohav io created the archuaee fhaculogs may he nethiaxlalogies te. processes [Sclutter 147] and antilact lite histories ISchitter 1998:S5-6}) that advance our understand ihe archaeological recondand thus recone Strut part behas ior, Howe wst Well Kian for evel the study: of formation especially in recent work, heh ioral archacologists have explicitly tumed their attention ww Hesphuminy behavien including sues such as smeanine (Schitier with Miller 19, ritual) Walker 2002: Walkerand Lucene 200K aul comptes soetoties (LaMar std Schill 20011, bor example, in developing theury t explain artifact sariabuity, Sehitfer and Skibo (1997) cts en actors influencing the bchavier of produc crs. including everythin fon social processes and negotiations to the performance characteristics of thus tintshiod artfiet Schitter «1 W167) emphasizes neither oF any other theoretical appresicl ts exclusively ahh’ best way te adress all al problems, He his explicilly tried te ses touther apprtsiches in hisersini ‘of gonterences and edited volumes (1996, 200; seu alse Skibo and Feinown 1999, Skibo et al 1995) Scholars associated wil the behavioral perspective alse write about other issues tee. Skibwo and Schl Tor MSs Bin relatively few individu als ipeimariy those cited above) explicitly develop or deat on behavioral theory. muay of the meth tul Some wf the theoretical msights of beh ioral anchaeoley216 # cuncepts of technological strategies (Nelson 199 Ly and accusnutations researeh «Pauketat 1989: Show! 1996b; Vatien anid Milis 19971 Dacseinian arctaeriogs, the mest ughtly detined nary sissoeiated with Robert Da perspective. isp tell, nay retired from the University «af Washington (Dunnell 198O isa key e sind now some of his students students (e.g. Leonard and Jones 1987: Leomand and Reed 1993: Neiman 1995: O'Brien and Lynam 2000), Some studies by David Braun (e-s.. 1983, 1900) and David Rinks 19SY) ae also often cited us examples of Dar both: scholars seen) te have developed this perspective mdependentty. hi 1992, 2000 works in this nll. Neff, in his work with compositional valy sis and in trecent (2000) statement, contributes Hibowigh he diel not siucly sith Du loadiversity of approaches ais my impression that most scholars who Subserihe to Das ini tase this approach primarily or even exche sively. They were less thian welcoming of Schilfer’s ‘tempts bride building e.2,. Lynnan and” Brien 1998: O'Brien et al, 199%), The Darwin recor! and thus 6 rephice archive fof Darwinian archcoluey is 1 bring n heory to bear on the archacol ncral eonepts of etl ural evolution sale more rigomKts and scientiie Understanding of evolution ¢ recent stunary is pr Vidled in Leonard 20011. Focus ison the “replicative atset pheuety pes, whit archi its wonly call rats, W the tionally aclvamayconsand thus inerease reproxluctive success, thew they ame subject 4a pasitive selection, ub Jn contest, nontunctional (stylistic) traits Ject fe prrcesses sich as drill, Many applications ef Darwinian archacwloey focus on material cul dand some are reviewed in the section.n material cule ture below. A different example is Leon Reeds (19951 attempt to explain patterns of gation in the Souhwest in terns of the diene ganization SELES OF Strategies oF lab The sources of var the causes uf mntel defxite, nisunkerstanding. ttiticism. Foresunple. Banitoth (2002-442) that finks between archaeological patterns a Wintan pravesses are incenrect bec: ope! observe es at an salesidual fevel but a concern ret mains of AMeRICAN ANTIQUITY {ot 58, No.2, 2003 processes. He iuchaeolygy does not apply evautionry theory per ‘¢. but instead! uses evolution asi metaphor tie..truts athe Tike genes), [elieve that one reason Hor the vit perative nature of many debates abet Darwinian atchacilogy isa lack of flexibility. While anost other theoretical apprinicties taday are regarded s 100K oF p hinds of is taken ay more of cps it perspectives useful tor addressine ce srwinian ancbaey ‘an all-or-nothing proposition: one believes in its or reyects i. The problem is compounded by s lack of ag ment regarding detiniions. especially of widely used wl Fone tion Darwinian atclive vwlogists have ayaa that style sind function cannot (ors such as sive be distinguished a priori hut, rather. are identified based om patterns vf chs gate whether selection (Dunnell 197 Most these detiniti ize over tine, which inkli- ind thus subject 0) Hurt and Rakita 2001, HWinian atheists seem ta ignore ussions consider trait is function ns. and recent dis concepts that Would be oxymoron inn Ds terms, such ay the function of style ar the style wl technologies (Hegnint 1998), One exception is recent ieuropean work by Shennan and Wilkinson (20011, who do net embrace the Darwinian archae ‘ology school but who do explicitly addhess some of fis concepts, Specifically. they comncluate that while the West af style as neuttal with regal fo Selection is av useful heuristic, i does aot aceon! tor actu Frequemey distributinns sul, thus, hist there is not wical differcae between functional and siylistic variation, From aditterent ( Darwinian perspective, Nett 12000) also seems 0 solten the fine between style and function, Specitiea Hy. he tins some com hon ground with evolutionary ecology. eoncludin that Sclection need not necessarily act through teal repent Put rater a tea ale be cultural press, These hinds of perspectives tive of un opening of theowetica benders althoush Remains much niare elesed Danwiman archiacol shan her theoretical approaches, Prncessal-Phas A large msiority of Noh Americ: do uot associate themselves with ene of the three ppreachey outlined sibose, Many would probably say that they ave 1 archuacnlognsts these seholars sncrally proces but alse interested i other perspectives, ‘some explicitly try to combine proicesstutl aad josHichette Hegmon) Duke 1998, Preucel 19h K cmphiasize thew pasty processaal mise Wale seme a eesstul Hise the teri pr scesstd ples tes neces Ia Ny oF apprnuclies, My use af a sinishe kabel asm interudead 6 anypty that these #s ome unified thewry Ruther. Hine a single term hecaaise Helio that J mine asefial fs eanisider crosscuattiny frends ht aH argue that Seok lines of difference tn ofthe 1980 tas Thanacterized hy Heer {14 ierests in mca agentes. athl eenwles have beow inconparatest iuie thie processual (plus dmamstecan ta tend Bruwnabel (1925 aeticed ann! tenceurased a decinke ae Prewcel 19S) Hotes that eomunon trevaly have even beet set forth sit teeent revisions of well-established kext mks Thames HAN, Wilkes and Sabot (4721 Tas as iv comtrast tothe situation in Larope. particularly Bran. whicre the processual/posipracesstith sepsis 1S maclt fer Recent pustprocessual volumes bea mies MKD, Tilley. F903 Social Archacolirge anche sone Neth American ake the new junta! ois hut nly one chapter Ger 200K pe Columisian Non tion TF casier clememts al the prewesstal-phis Intinssee America atcha appivact ne general tena: ny characterization ts substantiated below. as fcnsiulcr current directions in mere detail The New Archacule 19TH. audvocaied seteataic ssomelinies positivist ‘approaches and the search for gencral Laws 4 Bontord 1965. Watson et al. 197L1 Although now explicitly reqected, these cimphases were moderated Sumevtiat as the New Archiienl Ymatared ites Renate poxtprcessil what is owe called processual atcha 1891), Batly stuteynemts cal ey tespecnally Hodder (982, Hoxider. ed. (482. Shanks andl Tilley 19873, (487) en cnlly different approaches mvelyi inkerpretation and histery. Mihough the idea of shumanisticy mer Prelation avis controversial, te pustprovessuial ‘emiphasis on history coincided with processtal tur toward Cor hack to the study oF specific cases. For example. Braun (1991) srued tha why Mulsesteru Woadkand paticry sas decorated questions abet ‘vould onfy he understood ia terms ofthe specttic Heal and fustorical setting. Mose commun, provessua esaniples of and i Kinigh (982, Its focused on specilic eases relation Ww the ISSUES AND THEORY It’ NORTH AMERICAN AACHAEOLOGY 27 Stepemaitis 1981 apps shat tee lose, 1s shared across the theuretieal see Tr He 38), an spectruni Gene ot eschewed, bat nel laws Df cultural processes te be considered tmaportant and p r lication int Aeueviewt Auviquity. Ax is cclaborated hela, serest in specatte eases tits well Sith Natse Americans concern with dcir nibal fis tories as well aes work on cultural affiliation Fosipracessnal aivhacoleny rejected soeill eve Litonary Aypolagies il coneeptons al walhuresysucteties as entities sash Sutition oF needs, Insteal emphasis wais individ, agewicy, si internal nets for chante, Samia. ansins pow sual anctiaevlewisty tet. Shenk 1993) identified they problems with evolutionary frameworks. th rete effet revised chute totally reyected ty pelo seg, Carle and! Johnsen 1487). Today many Noth \ierican archacalogists, fron across the theeneti- weal specie h nctnpettte consideration a inv soctil strategies, al interna societal dy marie to then accounts of change te, Byers 1990: Fein rian et al. 2K; MeGittire and Satta 1996: Patter 200, 206K: Truitt 2000: Veli 2002), Posiprocesstal archaenlugy emphasized the ots td meaning. Wheres ca fer processual archacoligy hual (very gmgerty men: honed « Banton’ (1962) eneept of “ideotechnic™ artisets), pastpraces very where, 0 “ast am subsistence as wells staal As Robb pots i: “Phe question 1s not whether swe can fine! symbols archaeotogically. but whither we an tinal anyth cultural that is: mot symbolic” 1998233 13, Today. symbols and mating are everywhere in pracesstal alse beharsiora! see Schuler sith Miller 1999) as Welln pesipravessuall accounts Cor soine overviews, see Brann 1997; Roh 999: farrevent Non Anict= iam examples. see Byers 199%: Gamble et a. 200 ‘Orman 2000, Yan Nest et ul. 2001; Whiten anid Mine nis UND Ins revem review, Robb 11998} even sletuities & perspective characteristic of processual archavology: the “eyinbols as toketty approach, which imsslves an emphasis on the ale of symbols Hy communication There is also much recent work canostly hy process fists) on the evalution of WS Semubolic capacity and eognitive arches Linally and Chath, 19); Rentiew and Searre 197%, Renfrew and Zubrow 1994), primarily focus: tng on the Old Worle216 Finally. postpracessual archaeology embraced critical perypectives. in thar it considered the ways ies taverpretations the present intlaenees (or dete fof dhe past and how interpret the present. Recent work from acroys the theoretical smut jaciudes al less! moderately entical perspee+ tives. although often without explicit di altheory, Ferexanple, although Watson is wa inl Potiadis| tions become part of ofaspeetsof postpracessttism Watson 1990), insome of her work she has demonstrated how pretaions of domestication arefacolagists’ int the canter United States reproduced an aarocen: tric bias, inetuding assumptions about women as pas sive bearers of culture (Watson aiid Kennedy 1991 lence and warkure also often explic> Rescareh an y inly considers the social miicwof the researcher é9ee overview in Ouethenn 2008s oF the polities tanith has been brought tthe ations of the research, fare by the debate about 3 jst in the Sout west (Billmuan ct al 2000; Dongoske et al. 2000: Marian 20 Tamer andl Trner 199%), Theoretical Directions, 1: Major Themes tu ths and the follow ing section TL ikentity mtany of the major theoretical directions i North American rehavology coxliy. First I discuss five pervasive tive devel issues, mast of sehely opment in the jx seaiion, t chareterize recent trendy i enms of ing key wor anal plhrases. Conceptually. these ground: whether the next chan two sections caver the same issues ure included inthe frst or second depends pr marily on whether they can be characterized intents inging hey words o phrases, One af the issues ‘anal that Fretar tein hie final section, is tha Hoses ay sties ew comieepis crimsets theo ial ote that emer Isto positive sical uppaoxiches and thus les and dy namic syathieses, The Past ts Pager rendee is in ny Wary pat gy andthe she The aachacology: of digntatic ar processual- pus archaic aacterizes much of North coretigal openness thi American archacolog con gender developed concarrently with posipraces salisny in the HSOs, Clearly both were pat of the Sune theoretical current: sone see the reheat vf gender Houde as part of posipracesstiat archaeology (es stat iw 1901), whereas others sa yorouch that paralleled and perhaps AMERICAN aNTIOUTTY [Vo 68, No. 2.2003, uypired postprowessuall directions te, Wylie 1992, Re: processual Jess of its initial relationship With post- neglected study of gender in archueolugy became enormously popular by the fate 1980s: axkay it is alanost manstresn in celica perspectives. although there are sill as, Much of this work is done by Anglo-Saxon researchers working inal! parts of the world (see Conkey and Gero 19971, Feminist perspectives imtch tess popular i oil (Coawkart 1908.4 The very ide of sit anchacolensy of gender was 2 many the skeptics ane unduly harsh rey il researc) on gender are nul Waditions res Feminist concept, anal many of the first applications dada critical calye andl Louned androcenurie bias te Watson and Kenedy 19917, Numerous publications have since engendered the Non American past focusing an women and more recently veal genders amd on gender relations. A few sclikurs have linked the archaeology oF gender to new ways oF knenving Spectr 199T, [A explores raphy” abouts lees the past Bor ewamp the power of narraiive “ethite eated awl and nuanfwed among she Dakota, Move than junta story, Spevior"s account isone a few examples of a hermenetbe appr i Nom American archaeology (see review ut Prewvel 1995), \ rovent review hy Conkey and Ger (1997) emphasizesthe iat aeory sane Jeminist eriiqucof science tarthe practice of arche 1 in knowledge pre ndthe npertance of Ream logy, including issues a uetion, the ivaonnof esearch projects, achnow ledguient of ambiguity Move commonly, recent research on gender tn North American avchaeoligy Hoetises on whit women (and son y wore Ueated, gual the inplications for gender relations, Much of this work. which Preteel (1995; classexas analytical feminist is anescellent exam ple of what | mes by prucessua plus archacolos vail i Gikes on postpraigessual thenwes but autempts la develop systematic methodologies and general- izable cntelusions, [ako includes contributions by behavioral iSkibo and Schiffer (9S) sand evolutionary veology (Burlowe 2001) Not all of cis feminist: Hor does i necessarily tik itera Untw on fennnist theory. * But ars our understand ‘of gender in the past meseases, aL arses questions, gender, and social theory, aid thus it has the potenti rt refevant to temini to contribute to. as well as nw from, this body of literature. Kor example,ichone Hegmon} Cross 2000) organized 3 volume that explores how gender relations and the activities of wemen said men changed wvertime in the Souls est. Athen the volume lectses on the archacsligy of gender the results have implications—reyarliny sitcl isttes Js Pereepuions af Women's fbr as drudgery or a valued contribution 1 subsistence atul the Felative elie women relevantte feminist ail sew etal theory CLamphere 2000, Other recent work that engenders North: American prelistery sncludes that Armkd and Wicker foyer 1997), Chav 2001, Claassen and ial Bish (19909, Eastin ste Roxining 12001), Munson 2000), sand Spietunann «19955 Another lnk bets cen zener and aschacokigical theory concerns epistemological issues. Speetically Wylie 1992: see also Brnuticl 16 explores iysties ‘of politically motivated research, concluding that the jal Constr archisenloical record provides ide that shut allow archacologists tov evaluate their s vubatever their source systematically, Fur ther winder archiaenshnsy > ties 10 feminist resect on gener politics and eqaity sues, Sone ofthe. work tocuses specitically ant the Heutnwent of Women archielogtsts i terms ’sites ste ash penvtunities. There sowsany Doaly oil tues that det sale, strates wht dis- ‘wloygial practice today sand how gender polities and sometirnes ‘ertmination affect arch historically amd. thus. hae polinies inithvence our nore ledize ofthe pasties. Ger 2008 Hutson 402 Retsan et al, 19Y4; Parez 1993: Wright 1996) Ty sum. the archaeal fot gender isan exemplar ‘of what yee as the positive develpments itt Nort open ness aid Uynainisns tha result from diakogie across America cchaeulyy. i that it manifests theoretical fines. Ha tts initial Stages a wis at Keast Partially postprocessnal, but it abso involved proces pairs of Many theoretical perspectives. Some of the more Pestprocessial aspects of gender archaco a eriical perspective sind interests archacolos Ney. pushed processus realais, Conversely, processual concerns with methorlological rig and yeneral concepts may have rch wale ponsprocessual sender tes wane widely applicable and aecepluble. Such interfaces sare the which am befian ioral and eval essenee of processual-phis archieolog tins Sense angtinles aypects emuiry ecoliey, Phearchiictl fof gender inclenes, ISSUES ANID THEORY IN HORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 219 Jan array of theoretical spproxtches, ng from pestinodern nasratives said overtly political sate: ments to methodological studies and the search for that might seems wnutheucal, But the ‘conumon interest in a portant sabjed sesteral Laws sects te spine a relative lack vonisin aid even open intindedness, In this case af least. theoretical diver Say comtrates to dyeramisa Ayenes fy Fveren Archie Bourde 1984), and Ortner 1984) regarding practice andl sts dinysell Inehled) are fon of ite tespeetally 1977), Gisklens Cespecially ). This social theory hutshau! enormoss explicit Nowth Amerie ind implicit effects uehaeology 4 populated by people (rather than culturesorsystemsy However. as iH nspires concept izations oo a pi this popularity hy so fed to some conceptual prob- fems, One 1s ney. in (Sols as Clark ¥ theory” (2000-97). A sceond is the assumed equation ef overemphasis on a tow from structure and practice, altho lav of rnofes, there 1S no separate Fe nts wat) Wester “uuaividuals” and lwck oF atten: thon fe the selational aspects. of personhood (Chay 1902: Gillespie HT: Steathern 19S, pos in social Theory, espe wrote ildens, who defines it as individ deep) cally Marsism. the term ageney wats bn hore recently by tals capability of doing Hangs, regardless of their ene) comcetmy evenly of which an indi for in the sense that the in vidual could. at any phase in a given sequence af 19), Dobres vidual the perpetr conduct. have acted differently” (19 il Robb (2000:8-9) olor list of recent definitions, as well ay the usetial encapsulation that ageney is "a socullly signifivant quality of setion.” AL least for iddens. ag \altinnigh he wees structure and ageney as having Icy is inevtricubly linked to siructure, atrecunsive relationship, his ermphaisis is primarily om ated and perpetiated. the princess he cally structuration, Bourdiey (1977. 1990 and whch Oraner fas a has polit al implications. Practice is embedded inv struct aml it fs through practice that thanstonm structure. However, diveussionsel ageney wet this 12002) notes and equate how structure isc Grtner 1984) emphasize practice yale is vost anything people eo thy nis reproxtuce or Semetimes mibeddedness fas Wiessner ney with the su eal sell-inter vested ati ficeand agency have todo with