Parts of chapters 1 and 5 were originally written and presented at the conference "Doing Archaeol... more Parts of chapters 1 and 5 were originally written and presented at the conference "Doing Archaeology as a Feminist" at the School of American Research (April, 1998), organized by Alison Wylie and Meg Conkey. A revised version of the portions of that paper incorporated here was presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (Chicago, 1999), in a session organized by Kevin Bartoy. Rosemary Joyce would like to thank these organizers, the other participants at the SAR conference, and members of the audience at SAA who offered specific comments on these presentations. She is especially indebted to Julia Hendon, Carol McDavid, Lynn Meskell, Stephanie Moser, and Alison Wylie for their encouragement of her engagement with issues raised in these papers. The original version of the first dialogue, in chapter 2, was written for and presented in the session "Doing Archaeology As if it Mattered" at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (Atlanta, 1994), organized by Meg Conkey and Ruth Tringham. Rosemary Joyce would like thank Bob Preucel for extending the invitation to collaborate on this paper. Preucel and Joyce thank the organizers for the invitation to participate and Alison Wylie, discussant for the session, for her comments. They also gratefully acknowledge the collaboration of Meredith Chesson and Erika Evasdottir on the survey of textbooks cited in this dialogue. Leslie Atik provided the alternative metaphor of fieldwork-as-cultivation, for which we are indebted to her. Joyce's analysis of burials from Tlatilco, Mexico, in chapter 6 was originally presented in the Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposium "Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica" (1993). She would like to thank David C. Grove for the opportunity to coorganize and participate in this conference, and Elizabeth Boone, then Director of Pre-Columbian Studies, for her encouragement. The first version of the reanalysis of these burials incorporated in chapter 7 was presented at the Third Archaeology and Gender Conference held at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina in 1994, organized by Cheryl Claassen. A reworked version was presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in 1997, in the session "New Perspectives on Mortuary Ritual" organized by Meredith Chesson and Ian Kuijt. Joyce thanks the organizers of both conferences, and the discussants of the AAA session, Susan Kus, Ken George, and Tom Dillehay, for their comments. Part of the introductory discussion in chapter 6 is based on material first published in "Women's Work: Images of Production and Reproduction in Prehispanic Southern Central America", by Rosemary A. Joyce, which appeared in Current Anthropology 34: 255-74 (1993). Finally, the risks taken by the many experimental writers whose works are discussed here should be acknowledged; without them, there would be no material for this book. In the pages that follow, I attempt to treat their work seriously, meaning that I question what the unintended effects of those works are, as well as seeking to understand the intentional goals of the writers. While, as a participant in experimental writing, self-reflection is one of my own goals, I can predict that I am less aware of my own production of unintended, and potentially problematic, effects. The advantage of critically considering the work of scholars whose attempts to innovate I admire is that I can see more clearly what they have accomplished. I hope the authors of these works will appreciate the sincerity of my regard for their work, and I urge every reader of this book to see for themselves what innovative archaeological writers discussed herein have done. Disagreement is only contradiction unless there are two different subjects to make it into a dialogue (Bakhtin 1984: 183). "We only come to know what we have written by understanding the choices of others . . . We understand from the third person what we have written in the first person, but only in the process of reading the second person" (M. Joyce 1995: 237). The authors and publishers would like to thank the following for permission to reproduce copyright material: photographs of Maya pottery, copyright Justin Kerr, were used with permission as sources for images in Crafting Cosmos featured in chapter 4. viii acknowledgments This book examines the nature of archaeological writing. In it, I employ concepts from literary theory to examine practices through which archaeologists create representations of the past while simultaneously reproducing the discipline itself. I argue that a process of creating narratives permeates archaeology from the initial moments of investigation of sites through to the production of texts, a term which should be understood to include far more than written materials like this book. My emphasis is less on the specific structures employed in such archaeological narratives than on the event of narrativization, an event which is, I suggest, always an act of social communication. To understand archaeological storytelling implies not only understanding how archaeologists come to the knowledge they hold, but also how archaeological knowledge creates different communities. Telling stories speaks to and connects diverse circles of participants engaged in attempts to understand the past. In 1989, Ian Hodder published a brief article, "Writing archaeology," which raised the basic issues this book will address (Hodder 1989b). Contrasting a late eighteenth-century archaeological field report with its late-twentieth-century descendants, he called for archaeologists to reflect on their writing practices, as ethnographers and historians were then already doing. He specifically identified rhetoric, narrative, and dialogue as crucial topics for archaeological reflection. These concepts are central to this book. Ten years later, there has been an explosion of experimentation with new forms of writing within archaeology, fueled by sources including feminism, post-structuralism, and critiques of representation from descendant groups who see archaeological sites as their cultural heritage. Yet this vibrant experimentation with writing has yet to include a sustained critical examination of writing. This book explores the nature of narrative and the significance of dialogue within archae-
Parts of chapters 1 and 5 were originally written and presented at the conference "Doing Archaeol... more Parts of chapters 1 and 5 were originally written and presented at the conference "Doing Archaeology as a Feminist" at the School of American Research (April, 1998), organized by Alison Wylie and Meg Conkey. A revised version of the portions of that paper incorporated here was presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (Chicago, 1999), in a session organized by Kevin Bartoy. Rosemary Joyce would like to thank these organizers, the other participants at the SAR conference, and members of the audience at SAA who offered specific comments on these presentations. She is especially indebted to Julia Hendon, Carol McDavid, Lynn Meskell, Stephanie Moser, and Alison Wylie for their encouragement of her engagement with issues raised in these papers. The original version of the first dialogue, in chapter 2, was written for and presented in the session "Doing Archaeology As if it Mattered" at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (Atlanta, 1994), organized by Meg Conkey and Ruth Tringham. Rosemary Joyce would like thank Bob Preucel for extending the invitation to collaborate on this paper. Preucel and Joyce thank the organizers for the invitation to participate and Alison Wylie, discussant for the session, for her comments. They also gratefully acknowledge the collaboration of Meredith Chesson and Erika Evasdottir on the survey of textbooks cited in this dialogue. Leslie Atik provided the alternative metaphor of fieldwork-as-cultivation, for which we are indebted to her. Joyce's analysis of burials from Tlatilco, Mexico, in chapter 6 was originally presented in the Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposium "Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica" (1993). She would like to thank David C. Grove for the opportunity to coorganize and participate in this conference, and Elizabeth Boone, then Director of Pre-Columbian Studies, for her encouragement. The first version of the reanalysis of these burials incorporated in chapter 7 was presented at the Third Archaeology and Gender Conference held at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina in 1994, organized by Cheryl Claassen. A reworked version was presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in 1997, in the session "New Perspectives on Mortuary Ritual" organized by Meredith Chesson and Ian Kuijt. Joyce thanks the organizers of both conferences, and the discussants of the AAA session, Susan Kus, Ken George, and Tom Dillehay, for their comments. Part of the introductory discussion in chapter 6 is based on material first published in "Women's Work: Images of Production and Reproduction in Prehispanic Southern Central America", by Rosemary A. Joyce, which appeared in Current Anthropology 34: 255-74 (1993). Finally, the risks taken by the many experimental writers whose works are discussed here should be acknowledged; without them, there would be no material for this book. In the pages that follow, I attempt to treat their work seriously, meaning that I question what the unintended effects of those works are, as well as seeking to understand the intentional goals of the writers. While, as a participant in experimental writing, self-reflection is one of my own goals, I can predict that I am less aware of my own production of unintended, and potentially problematic, effects. The advantage of critically considering the work of scholars whose attempts to innovate I admire is that I can see more clearly what they have accomplished. I hope the authors of these works will appreciate the sincerity of my regard for their work, and I urge every reader of this book to see for themselves what innovative archaeological writers discussed herein have done. Disagreement is only contradiction unless there are two different subjects to make it into a dialogue (Bakhtin 1984: 183). "We only come to know what we have written by understanding the choices of others . . . We understand from the third person what we have written in the first person, but only in the process of reading the second person" (M. Joyce 1995: 237). The authors and publishers would like to thank the following for permission to reproduce copyright material: photographs of Maya pottery, copyright Justin Kerr, were used with permission as sources for images in Crafting Cosmos featured in chapter 4. viii acknowledgments This book examines the nature of archaeological writing. In it, I employ concepts from literary theory to examine practices through which archaeologists create representations of the past while simultaneously reproducing the discipline itself. I argue that a process of creating narratives permeates archaeology from the initial moments of investigation of sites through to the production of texts, a term which should be understood to include far more than written materials like this book. My emphasis is less on the specific structures employed in such archaeological narratives than on the event of narrativization, an event which is, I suggest, always an act of social communication. To understand archaeological storytelling implies not only understanding how archaeologists come to the knowledge they hold, but also how archaeological knowledge creates different communities. Telling stories speaks to and connects diverse circles of participants engaged in attempts to understand the past. In 1989, Ian Hodder published a brief article, "Writing archaeology," which raised the basic issues this book will address (Hodder 1989b). Contrasting a late eighteenth-century archaeological field report with its late-twentieth-century descendants, he called for archaeologists to reflect on their writing practices, as ethnographers and historians were then already doing. He specifically identified rhetoric, narrative, and dialogue as crucial topics for archaeological reflection. These concepts are central to this book. Ten years later, there has been an explosion of experimentation with new forms of writing within archaeology, fueled by sources including feminism, post-structuralism, and critiques of representation from descendant groups who see archaeological sites as their cultural heritage. Yet this vibrant experimentation with writing has yet to include a sustained critical examination of writing. This book explores the nature of narrative and the significance of dialogue within archae-
a discussion essay in reply to Lucas and Witmore's "Paradigm Lost: What Is a Commitment to Theory... more a discussion essay in reply to Lucas and Witmore's "Paradigm Lost: What Is a Commitment to Theory in Contemporary Archaeology?"
Figures xi 5.5 Axis of reflection and point of bifold rotation for the core area of Chaco Canyon ... more Figures xi 5.5 Axis of reflection and point of bifold rotation for the core area of Chaco Canyon (Fritz 1978:Figure 3.7). 5.6 The William Paca garden (courtesy of the Historic Annapolis Foundation). 6.1 Structure, habitus, and practice (after Bourdieu 1984:Figure 8). 6.2 Modalities of structuration (after Giddens 1984:Figure 2). 6.3 The mutuality of ritual and social maps of the Saami kahte (after Yates 1989:Figure 20.4). 6.4 Pot decorated with snake motif from Igbo Jonah (Ray 1987:Figure 7.3). 6.5 The canoe as a big man (Tilley 1999:Figure 4.3). 7.1 Steven Mithen's cathedral model of the evolution of intelligence (Mithen 1996:67).
Heritage Keywords: Rhetoric and Redescription in Cultural Heritage, 2015
Against the backdrop of increasing social change, an urgency courses through contemporary life fo... more Against the backdrop of increasing social change, an urgency courses through contemporary life for weaving the past into the present. The process of folding past conditions into present ones is selective; it has to be, given the richly textured inheritance bestowed on each passing generation (Trouillot 1995). The result over the past century plus has been a gradual refining of practices and ways of talking about what came before, encompassed by the concept of 'cultural heritage.' Cultural heritage is variously invoked as something (some object, site, building, landscape, traditional practice) with historic connections that must be properly tended to, as well as the field of expertise that has developed around this care. Over time, or at critical moments provoked by shifting events, these practices and languages of heritage became incorporated into political and legal institutions with jurisdiction over local, regional (e.g., state), national, or international bodies of governance. National standards have traditionally been the most influential in institutionalizing how heritage is dealt with, but increasingly so too are international norms codified within an expanding oeuvre of global conventions, recommendations, lists, safeguards, management guidelines, and reports picked up as 'best practices.
To what extent is semiotics an appropriate model for understanding material culture meaning? The ... more To what extent is semiotics an appropriate model for understanding material culture meaning? The answer to this question, of course, depends upon the kinds of semiotics that one is talking about. In our article we argue that Saussurean and post-Saussurean approaches favored by some Postprocessualists are incomplete and advocate an alternative approach inspired by the 'other father' of semiotics, namely Charles Sanders Peirce.
Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique [and Comments and Reply]
Current Anthropology, 1987
Archaeology is becoming a broader, more catholic discipline. The positivist foundation of new arc... more Archaeology is becoming a broader, more catholic discipline. The positivist foundation of new archaeology is being questioned, and alternative radical approaches are being championed. In an at-tempt to assess the validity of these new directions, this paper ...
Structuralism and its Archaeological Legacy
Oxford Handbooks Online, 2014
Structuralism is an important influence in the development of Anglo-American archaeology. Its bas... more Structuralism is an important influence in the development of Anglo-American archaeology. Its basic insight is to conceptualize the world in terms of relationships between things rather than in terms of the things themselves. Alongside functionalism and adaptationalism, it played a seminal role in the early days of processual archaeology, particularly in the context of systems theory. Structuralism and its poststructural critiques were also central to the rise of postprocessual approaches and their engagement with issues of reading, writing, discourse and performance. While structuralism is no longer advocated in its original forms, its legacies are evident in many current research directions. Among these directions are cognitive archaeology, Peircian semiotics, and network analysis.
Archaeology is a semiotic enterprise engaged in the study of meaning-making practices by past act... more Archaeology is a semiotic enterprise engaged in the study of meaning-making practices by past actors and of archaeologists themselves. Archaeology embraced its semiotic character in the context of the processual and postprocessual debates, and in terms of various postprocessual developments. Recently some archaeologists have drawn inspiration from the material semiotics of Bruno Latour to advocate for a symmetrical archaeology. This perspective offers a novel approach to object agency and focuses on how objects and humans together form assemblages. However, it neglects a satisfying account of how objects and things transform each other. One productive way forward is a consideration of semiotic mediation offered by a pragmatic archaeology linked to the work of Charles Sanders Peirce. Keywords: Peirce, semiotic mediation, transformation, assemblages, object agency, archaeology
The ‘ontological turn’ is currently being touted in anthropology and other social sciences as a w... more The ‘ontological turn’ is currently being touted in anthropology and other social sciences as a way of providing new insights into the global ecological crisis. This move encompasses a variety of posthumanist and New Materialist approaches including assemblage theory, vibrant matter, perspectivism and object-oriented ontology. Although distinctive, these approaches share an interest in animating things. Not surprisingly, archaeologists have taken notice of this new-found fascination with things and are participating in the ontological debates on our own terms. One can distinguish three main approaches: symmetrical archaeology, assemblage thinking and relational archaeologies. This paper will examine the nature of the ontological turn and offer a critical review of its use in archaeology.
Introduction: Engaging with Pueblo Movement
In The Continuous Path: Pueblo Movement and the Archaeology of Becoming, edited by Samuel Duwe and Robert W. Preucel. University of Arizona Press, Tucson., 2019
Over 30 years ago, Paul Minnis (1985) proposed the distinction between ‘pristine domestication’ a... more Over 30 years ago, Paul Minnis (1985) proposed the distinction between ‘pristine domestication’ and ‘primary crop acquisition’. The former refers to the initial domestication of wild plant resources and is characterised by only a dozen or so places in the world, most notably China, the Near East and Mesoamerica. The latter refers to the local integration of crops that were domesticated elsewhere and is the more common process. The American Southwest, here defined as the U.S. states of Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, and the Mexican states of Sonora and Chihuahua, is a classic case of primary crop acquisition. Cultigens, first maize and then squash and beans, originally domesticated in Mesoamerica, were brought north by immigrant groups who joined with local hunter-gatherer communities. The introduction of these cultigens did not initiate major immediate changes in ecological or social relationships, instead the shift to agriculture as the central subsistence practice took mill...
Post-processual archaeology refers to an intellectual movement in Anglo-American archaeology that... more Post-processual archaeology refers to an intellectual movement in Anglo-American archaeology that emerged in the 1980s. As its name implies, it grew out of critiques of processual archaeology and advocated alternative interpretive perspectives, especially those encompassing questions of meaning, history, politics, and practice. At the broadest level, post-processual archaeology can be seen as a response to the widespread influences of post-structuralism, feminism, postcolonialism, and postmodernism on the humanities and social sciences. Significantly, post-processual archaeology expanded the reach of the field by opening up spaces for the investigation of gender, practice, materiality, and identity. It also encouraged archaeologists to acknowledge the relationships of humans and their object worlds and the different possible trajectories they travel. A key insight is that studies of materiality cannot simply focus upon the characteristics of objects; they must engage in the dialecti...
Out of heaviness, enlightenment: NAGPRA and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
Uploads
Papers by Robert Preucel