Society for American Archaeology

Rifts in the Theoretical Landscape of Archaeology in the United States: A Comment on

Hegmon and Watkins
Author(s): Madonna L. Moss
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 70, No. 3 (Jul., 2005), pp. 581-587
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40035315 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 01:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:08:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RIFTS IN THE THEORETICAL LANDSCAPE OF ARCHAEOLOGY IN
THE UNITED STATES:A COMMENT ON HEGMON AND WATKINS

MadonnaL. Moss

Recentpapers by Michelle Hegmon(2003) and Joe Watkins(2003) purport to "mapthe terrain" of NorthAmericanarchae-
ology. Yetthese two metaphoricalmaps present very differentviews of the contours of NorthAmerican archaeology. Taken
together,the two papers highlightproblematic divisions between (1) theory and practice in North American archaeology,
and (2) academic archaeology and cultural resource management.Whatare the roles archaeological theoryplays in the
contemporarypractice of archaeology? Whydo discussions of archaeological theory have so little to offer stakeholders
other than academic archaeologists? Although Hegmon has shown many areas of convergence in archaeological theory,
her depiction of "processual-plus"archaeologies dulls the edge of postprocessual critiques of the processual status quo. I
argue thatfeminist, Marxist, and postcolonial archaeologies cannot be subsumedby this label because some of theirprac-
titioners aspire to contributeto social change beyond the realm of archaeology itself Thesepractitioners realize that the
practice of archaeology always has political consequences, not just for academic archaeologists, butfor a diverse set of
stakeholders.

Los ensayos recientesde Michele Hegmon (2003) y de Joe Watkins(2003) pretenden "trazarel terreno"de la arqueologia
norteamericana.Con todo, estos dos mapas metaforicospresentan vistas muy diversas de los contornos de la arqueologia
norteamericana.Tornados juntos, los dos ensayos destacanlas divisionesproblemdticasentre(1) teoriay prdctica en la arque-
ologia norteamericana,y (2) arqueologiaacademica y el manejode recursosculturales.i Cudles son los roles que la teoria
arqueologicajuegaen la prdctica contempordneade la arqueologia? i?or que las discusionesde la teoria arqueologicatienen
tanpoco para ofrecera los interesadoscon excepcionde arqueologosacademicos? AunqueHegmonha demostradomuchas
areas de convergenciaen las teorias arqueologicas,su descripcion de las arqueologias "processual-plus"amortiguaelfilo
de las criticas "post-processuales"del status quo "processual."Yoargumentoque las arqueologiasfeminista, Marxista,y
post-colonial no puedan ser confinadaspor esta etiqueta,porque algunos de sus practicantesaspiran a contribuiral cambio
social mas alia del dmbitomismode la arqueologia.Estos practicantesse dan cuenta que la prdctica de la arqueologiatiene
siempreconsecuenciaspoliticas, no solamentepara los arqueologosacademicos, sino tambien para una variedadde intere-
sados.

the recent special section of this journal,
"Mappingthe Terrainof AmericanistArchae-
ology," Michelle Hegmon (2003) presents a
comprehensibletaxonomyand useful analysisof
recenttheoreticaltrendsandtopicalissuesin North
Americanarchaeology.Hegmon'stone is produc-
tive andoptimistic;she writes,
In the same sectionof thejournal,Joe Watkins
(2003) describessome of the fault lines that still
separateNativeAmericansandFirstNationsfrom
archaeologists.His perspectiveon the contempo-
rarypracticeof archaeologyin NorthAmericais
moreguardedandpessimisticthanthatof Hegmon.
Watkinswrites,

many NorthAmericanarchaeologistshave [u]ntil archaeologists more fully involve

pushedtheirtheoreticalegos to the side, and Indigenous populations in collaborative
arenot excessivelyattachedto or dismissive researchandareableto representmorefully
of any particularapproach,and seem to be Indigenous issues, American Indians and
opento multiplewaysof viewingthepast CanadianFirst Nations will continueto be
Instead of theoretical animosity, there is second-classcitizensin theculturalresources
refreshingdialogue[Hegmon2003:233]. worldof NorthAmerica,andwill continueto
Madonna L. Moss Departmentof Anthropology,1218 Universityof Oregon,Eugene, OR 97403
(mmoss@darkwing.uoregon.edu)

AmericanAntiquity,70(3), 2005, pp. 581-587

Copyright2005 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

581

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:08:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
582 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
feel theyareoutsidersin a systemsupposedly
designedto protecttheir heritage[Watkins
2003:283].
Thereis surprisinglylittle overlapin the con-
tentof Hegmon'sandWatkins'sarticles.Why this
lackof topicaloverlap,andwhy sucha markeddis-
crepancyin tone?Why is Hegmonrelativelypos-
itive andoptimistic,while Watkinsis morecritical
andpessimistic?I suggestthe differencesbetween
these two contributionsare not due simply to the
authors'differentfoci or standpoints.In this com-
ment,I explainwhy thesedifferencesareemblem-
aticof: (1) theproblematicgapbetweentheoryand
practicein NorthAmericanarchaeology,and (2)
the unfortunateanddivisivechasmthatstill exists
between academic archaeology and cultural
resource management. Hegmon's category of
"processual-plus" providesa useful startingpoint
for this analysis of how archaeologicaltheory is
conceived,valued,anddeployed.
Processual-Plus Archaeological Theory?
In additionto the three "self-identifiedperspec-
tives"(evolutionaryecology, behavioralarchaeol-
ogy, and Darwinian archaeology), Hegmon
(2003:214-217) lumpswhatmanyof us do into a
categorycalled "processual-plus." She goes on to
insightfully consider how archaeologicaltermi-
nology reflects in
changes archaeologicaltheory
(Hegmon2003:225-230), andin so doing,she has
inspiredme to reflecton her inventionand use of
the term"processual-plus." I agree with Hegmon
when she states thatmost North
(2003:216-217)
Americanarchaeologistsstill considerthemselves
processualists but admit interest in other
approachesand theoreticaltrends.Nevertheless,
the term "processual-plus"does not identify the
sourceof the "plus"which Hegmonwouldproba- McGuirearguesthat
bly agreederivesfromthecontributions of a diverse
of
group postprocessualarchaeologistsand other
archaeologistswho haveheavilyborrowedfroma
varietyof social theorists.Insteadof acknowledg-
ing the intellectual contributions of these
researchers,however,this new term obscuresthe
origins of the ideas now encompassed within
"processual-plus."
"Processual-plus" may be a comfortableterm
for many archaeologiststo use because it avoids
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:08:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]
association with the diversity of approaches
enveloped under the postprocessualistmoniker.
This word choice also indicateslatentskepticism
towardpostprocessualarchaeologiesandthedeep-
seatedfear that some versionsof postprocessual-
ism threaten the foundations of a "scientific"
archaeology(butsee VanPoolandVanPool1999).
I do notattributesuchskepticismorfearto Michelle
Hegmon,butobservethatthe termshe has coined
avoidsevokingthese feelings in others.The term
does have the resultof obfuscatingandgeneraliz-
ing the genesis of manynew (andsome recycled)
ideas thathave enlivenedarchaeologicaltheoryin
recentyears.The specific trajectoriesof theoreti-
cal developmentareblurredandideas originating
in entirelydifferentparadigmsarelumpedtogether.
It would appearthata personcan "update"her or
his theoreticalstancesimply by appropriating the
latestbuzzwordsandcatchphrases(althoughHeg-
mon does not advocatethis).
More than a decade ago, McGuire (1992)
warnedagainst"rampanttheoreticaleclecticism"
by postprocessualists.His criticismsalsopertainto
approachesHegmon called "processual-plus."
has
WhatMcGuire(1992:8) calls a "methodof brico-
lage"amountsto archaeologistspickingandchoos-
ing snippetsfrom a wide rangeof social theories
withoutdevelopingcoherent,logically consistent
theories.Pattersondescribesthispracticein a more
graphicway, by statingthatarchaeologists
behavelikemuggerswhorandomlyselecttheir
victims,stealtheirideasormethodologiesand
retreatwithno regardfor the identitiesof the
victims,theirplacein socialdiscourse,or the
of such acts, and then sell the
implications
stolengoods in the next issue of a scholarly
journal[Patterson2000:51].
Instead of such a "hit and run" approach,
Ourknowledgeof thepastis madethroughthe
tensionscreatedby differenttheories,through
debateandstruggle.... it [thestruggle]leads
us to critically examine the conceptual
schemes that structurethose observations.
Through thisdebate,archeologistsmakenew
knowledgeandmakethenewtheorynecessary
to continuethe struggle.. . . Ourtheoriesdo
not get better and better;we exhausttheir
 COMMENTS
insightson the world,they groanand break
undertheweightof therealitiesthattheyseek
to abstract,ortheybecomeirrelevant oroffen-
siveto theconcernsof theworldwe livein
Thedevelopment of thefield,therefore,lies in
theinconsistenciesandtensionscreatedby the
juxtapositionof differenttheoriesin archaeol-
ogy andnotin theresolutionof thesetensions
[McGuire1992:7].
Use of the term"processual-plus" seems to be
a strategy aimed at dissolving such - a
tensions
to
valiantattempt unify archaeologists under the
banner of a "new" (?) processualismperhaps,and
demonstratethatdespiteourdifferences,we really
can "getalong."But the tensionbetweencompet-
ing paradigms can be productive in the way
McGuireargues,andsome wouldclaimit is essen-
tial (VanPoolandVanPool2003). Marxistarchae-
ologists might make the case thateven the social
tensions among archaeologistsexpressedat pro-
fessionalmeetingsor in the pages of ourjournals
areindispensablepartsof thedialecticalprocessof
creatingknowledge.
An even more serious problemwith the term
"processual-plus"is that it attemptsto subsume
schoolsof thoughtwhose practitionersclaimto lie
outside the bounds of either processualor post-
processualarchaeology.Even though some vari-
eties of postprocessualism(and processualism)
borrowfromMarxistthought,Patterson(1990) and
McGuire (1992) are unambiguous about their
standsthatMarxistarchaeologyoccupies a theo-
reticalspace outsidethe oppositionof processual
andpostprocessualarchaeologies.I believe this is
becauseboth McGuireand Pattersonbelieve that
the goals of Marxistarchaeologyare not simply
theory-building,but ultimatelyto promotesocial
change. In this respect, the use of the term
"processual-plus" might be read as an attemptto
defang depoliticizethe largergoals of marxist
or
archaeology.
Feministarchaeologyalso occupies a theoreti-
cal space outside the processual-postprocessual
opposition.A feministarchaeologyis not simplya
concern with gender in the past. As Hegmon
(2003:218-219) points out, not all archaeologists
who studygenderdo so within a feministframe-
work, and those studying gender may use
approachesfrom differentvarietiesof processual
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:08:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
583
or postprocessualarchaeology.Yet manyfeminist
archaeologistsmaintainallegiance to the larger
social goals of feminism(e.g., Conkey2003:874).
Lumpingtheir work in a "processual-plus" cate-
gory fails to acknowledgepolitical agendasthat
admittedly cause discomfortto some people both
inside and outside the profession. Those brave
enoughto attemptto incorporatequeertheoryinto
archaeologicaldiscourseto challengethe hetero-
sexism in our field are even further"beyondthe
margin,"to borrowa phrasefrom the title of Joe
Watkins'sarticle.
Another school of thinking taking hold in
Europe(Gosden 1999) and in historicalarchaeol-
ogy (e.g., Paynter2000) is postcolonialarchaeol-
ogy. AlthoughWatkins'sarticleshows how farwe
have to travel, some of what has been labeled
indigenous archaeology(Nicholas and Andrews
1997; Watkins2000) or covenentalor ethnocriti-
cal archaeology(Zimmerman2000) areaimingto
decolonizearchaeologyin a way in whichthe field
can betterserveNativeAmericanandFirstNation
stakeholders.Froma feministpoint of departure,
Spector(1993) aimedto decolonizethepracticeof
archaeologyfrom the field and laboratoryto the
analysis and reporting.These moves have been
happeningalongsidetribalarchaeologyprograms
workingatthegrass-rootslevel to assertmorecon-
troloverheritage(e.g., Dongoskeet al. 2000; Fer-
guson 2003; Stappand Burney2002). The social
goals of these practitionersagain range beyond
archaeologicaltheory,andto considerthemunder
the "processual-plus"category underplaystheir
sociopoliticalsignificance.
By lumpingvarioustheoreticalpositionsunder
"
"processual-plus we not only lose the genealogy
of varied and sometimes conflicting theoretical
positions,we failto acknowledgethatsomeschools
of archaeologicalthinkingreallydo aspireto social
changebothwithinandoutsidethe archaeological
profession.Obviously,not everyonein the disci-
pline agrees with the political agendas of these
schools of thought,and some archaeologistsfear
thatexposingthecontentof theseagendasrisksthe
scientificcredibilityof our entire field. Yet other
schoolsof archaeologicalthinkingalso havepolit-
ical andpublicpolicy agendas;some zooarchaeol-
ogists are passionatelyconcernedwith issues of
conservationbiology (Lymanand Cannon2004),
and some historicalecologists seek genuinesolu-
 584 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
tionsforenvironmental problems(Crumley1994).
Such openly stated political agendas or non-
archaeologicalgoals providea trailwe can follow
thathelpsreadersmoreeffectivelyevaluateanargu-
ment's meritandits supportingarchaeologicalevi-
dence (Wylie 1992). Such agendas also make
archaeologyandeven archaeologicaltheorymore
relevantto stakeholdersoutsidetheranksof thepro-
fession.
How has archaeologicaltheorymanifestitself
in public policy regardingheritageresources?In
the next sectionI tryto show how the evolutionof
CRM laws and regulationsin the United States
reflectsthe changinglandscapeof archaeological
theory.Perhaps"processual-plus"better charac-
terizesthe directionsin which CRM archaeology
has moved over the past 15 years.
Processual-Plus CRM Archaeology?
In the United States, archaeological theory-
specifically that of processual archaeology- is
writteninto the languageof the federallaws, reg-
ulations,andguidelinesthatdirectheritageresource
management.While all laws reflect the political
struggleandhistoricalcircumstancesof theirtimes,
the laws and regulationsthatdrivemost archaeo-
logical work today bear the indelible stamp of
processualarchaeology.Forexample,theSecretary
of Interior'sStandardsand Guidelinesfor Archae-
ology andHistoricPreservation(firstpublishedin
1983) call for problem-oriented researchdirected
towardparticulardata gaps. These standardsand
guidelines specify formal researchdesigns with
"explicitstatementsof theproblemto be addressed
and the methodsor tests to be applied"(National
ParkService2003). The sitesconsideredin preser-
vationplanningarethose listed or eligible for list-
ing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Thecriteriaforeligibilityto theRegisterwereorig-
inallydevelopedwhenanarchaeologicalsite'ssig-
nificancewas based solely on its "datapotential"
(CriterionD). Even thoughearly on Schifferand
Gumerman(1977:244-245) encouragedassocia-
tive valuesto be takeninto accountin assessments
of site significance,most archaeologistshavecon-
tinuedto use CriterionD only (King 1998:76).
Inrecentyearsin theUnitedStates,some of our
federal laws and regulationshave become more
"processual-plus," not due to the incorporationof
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:08:47 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]
postprocessualthinking,but throughthe activism
of AmericanIndians,Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians.In 1984, Protectionof Archaeological
Resources(43 CFR 7) [theregulationsauthorized
by the ArchaeologicalResourcesProtectionAct
(1979)] requiredthat Indiantribesbe notifiedof
possibleharmto, or destructionof, sites on public
lands havingreligiousor culturalimportance.As
pointedoutby Watkins(2003:275-276), thesereg-
ulations also requiredconsultation with Indian
tribesin the issuanceof permitsto conductarchae-
ological work.In 1990, TheGuidelinesfor Evalu-
ating and Documenting Traditional Cultural
Properties (NationalRegister Bulletin 38) were
published,openingup the rangeof sites important
to NativeAmericansthatarenow eligible for list-
ing on theNationalRegister.Requirements forcon-
sultationwith IndianTribesare also mandatedby
the NativeAmericanGravesProtectionandRepa-
triationAct (1990) as well as the 1992amendments
to the NationalHistoricPreservationAct. Incre-
mentalchanges have subsequentlybeen made to
variousregulations(including36 CFR 63, Deter-
minationof Eligibilityfor Inclusionin theNational
Register,36 CFR800, Protectionof HistoricProp-
erties)andtheSecretaryofInterior'sStandardsand
Guidelinesfor Archaeologyand HistoricPreser-
vation.
Even thoughthese changeswere not drivenby
the changingtheoreticalclimatein archaeology,I
believe thatpostprocessualcritiquesopenedup an
intellectualspace for at least some archaeologists
to acceptthe changingpoliticalrealitiesof doing
archaeologyin the UnitedStates.Criticaltheorists
had been urging fellow archaeologists to re-
evaluatethe social and politicalcontextin which
we work, to recognize that our interpretations
always have political implications(Leone et al.
1987). Feminist archaeologistssuch as Spector
(1993:17) had grownimpatientwith the categori-
cal thinkingof processualarchaeologythat had
resultedin "distancedand lifeless representations
of the past."Spectormoved towardcollaborating
withIndianpeopleto tapintotheinsightsof indige-
nous ways of thinking.Workingon nineteenth-
centuryarchaeologicalsites,KentLightfoot(1995,
2005) has called for the removalof the artificial
divisionbetweenprehistoryandhistoryin studies
of contact and colonialism.Numeroushistorical
archaeologistshave documentedhow class, race,
 COMMENTS 585

and gender in capitalist societies structurethe only useful for theirinformationpotentialthatwe

everydaylives of people(Paynter2000). Dukeand
Saitta (1998) have called for an "emancipatory
archaeologyfor the workingclass."I am suggest-
ing thatthechangingpoliticalcontextof American
archaeologyis consistentwith aspectsof evolving
archaeologicaltheory, some of which we might
classify as postprocessual,andsome of which lies
outside the processual and postprocessual
dichotomy.Archaeologiststodayarereconsidering
culturehistoryand attendingto systemsof mean-
ing, social space, individualaction, gender, and
inequality(Goodby 1994:52-53). This is not to
claimthatonly feminists,Marxists,or postproces-
sualists can "get along" with Native Americans
becausetheirconcernsare understoodin term of
largersociopoliticalprocesses;cooperativeefforts
betweenarchaeologistsandNativeAmericansdate
backto at leastthe 1960s (Sprague1974;Kirkand
Daugherty1974). Nevertheless,many archaeolo-
gists stillbelievethatas scientists,theyaretheulti-
mate authorities over archaeological sites and
materials.Such resistanceto sharingpower over
thedispositionof archaeologicalmaterialshasbeen
amply illustratedin the struggleover Kennewick
Man (Meskell 2002:290-291; Watkins 2003:
274-275; 2004).
Clearly,not all CRM archaeologistshave kept
pace with (andsome may continueto resist)these
changes. For example, even thoughthe National
Registerguidelinescited abovehavebeen updated
to include language about "associativevalues,"
somearchaeologistsstilloperateundertheassump-
tion that archaeologicalsites are eligible to the
NationalRegisteronlyfortheirdatapotential.Con-
sequently,this type of thinkingcan lead to state-
mentsthatsomeNativeAmericansas well as some
archaeologistsmightfindoffensiveor anachronis-
tic.Forexample,in writingaboutthegoalsof Phase
IIIdatarecoveryin theirrecenttextbook,Neumann
andSanfordstated,
can efficiently exploit using the technologies of
modernarchaeology.Sucha statementignoresthe
associativevaluessucha site mayhold for descen-
dant communities. What Goodby (1994:55)
observeda decade ago is still truetoday;most of
the income generatedfrom CRM work on Native
Americanarchaeologicalresourcesis earnedby
non-NativeAmericans.To me it appearsthat the
timelag betweenchangingregulationsandarchae-
ologicalpracticeis parallelto thetimelag between
changing archaeologicaltheory and practice.A
processualistview of culturehas been institution-
alized in our CRM infrastructurein the United
States, and recent adjustmentsmay have made it
more "processual-plus." But if CRM archaeology
has simplyevolvedinto"processual-plus," thenwe
have not fully appreciatedthe critiques of past
archaeological practiceoriginatingfrombothinside
and outsidethe discipline.Watkins'sreviewhelps
show how far we may have to travelif we choose
to decolonize the practiceof archaeology.Heg-
mon's typologyhelps demonstratewhy Watkins's
concernsare still so "beyondthe margin."
Some CRMpractitionersareout in frontof the
changingregulations,leadingthe way in develop-
ing collaborativerelationshipswithTribesandother
NativeAmericangroups(e.g., Ferguson1996;Ivy
and Byram2001; Stappand Burney2002; Welch
2000). Those academicarchaeologistswho work
in CRMcontextsarealso cultivatingtrustwith the
Tribeswith whom they regularlywork by recog-
nizing theirlegitimateconcernswith repatriation,
sacredsites,andthepoliticsof representation (e.g.,
Erlandson1998; Mills and Ferguson1998; Moss
andWasson1998;Spector2000;SteinandPhillips
2002). It is importantto acknowledgethe restric-
tions in the currentregulatoryframework,how-
ever,andthatthesepractitioners do notyetrepresent
the majority of archaeologists working in the
UnitedStateson NativeAmericanaffiliatedsites.

[t]heidea is to makethe continuedexistence

of theportionof thethreatened siteredundant. Conclusion
If successful,the site's informationpotential label masks the ori-
Hegmon's"processual-plus"
is capturedby theprocessandcontainedin the
gin and development of a wide rangeof theoreti-
archaeological assemblage,fieldrecords,lab-
cal approacheswhose practitionersmay or may
oratoryanalysisrecords,andreport[Neumann not claim affiliationwith postprocessualism.The
andSanford2001:159]. fails to distinguish
designation"processual-plus"
assumes
Thisstatement sites
archaeological are among those approaches whose primaryconcern

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:08:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 586 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 70, No. 3, 2005]

is archaeological theory-building and other Professor Phil Young, University of Oregon, translatedthe
approachesthataimto achievebroadersocialgoals. abstractinto Spanishin recordtime with his persistentgood
cheer. I also the work of EditorMike Jochim and
By softeningtheedges of postprocessual,Marxist, his assistant,appreciate
Melissa Lambright, at the University of
feminist, and postcolonialcritiquesof archaeol- California,Santa Barbara,and John Neikirk at SAA head-
ogy, it becomeseasierto claim thatideas deriving quartersfor their help with the revised manuscript.
from these archaeologieshave been incorporated
into the mainstream(Hegmon2003:217). But the
References Cited
insights that most seriously challenge the status
quo of archaeologicalpracticehavenot madetheir Conkey,MargaretW.
2003 Has FeminismChangedArchaeology?Signs: Jour-
full impact. nal of Womenin Cultureand Society28(3):867-880.
As illustratedby Watkins,manyNorthAmeri- Crumley,Carole(editor)
can archaeologistshavenotrecognizedthe gravity 1994 HistoricalEcology,CulturalKnowledge,and Chang-
of NativeAmericancritiquesof archaeology.The ingLandscapes.Schoolof AmericanResearchPress,Santa
Fe, New Mexico.
conceptualgap betweenHegmon'sandWatkins's Dongoske,KurtE., MarkAldenderfer,andKarenDoehner(edi-
assessments of North American archaeology tors)
2000 WorkingTogether:NativeAmericans& Archaeolo-
demonstratesdeep rifts betweentheoryand prac-
gists.SocietyforAmericanArchaeology,Washington, D.C.
tice. Even thoughHegmon(2003:224-225) asks, Duke, Philip,andDean J. Saitta
"WhosePastIs It?"the centralityof this question 1998 An Emancipatory ArchaeologyfortheWorkingClass.
to the day-to-day practice of North American Assemblage4, Universityof SheffieldGraduateStudent
Journal of Archaeology. Electronic document,
archaeologyis lost. If CRMarchaeologyis merely http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/4/4duk_sai.html, accessed
"processual-plus,"perhapsthat helps explain at September28, 2004.
Jon M.
least partof the problem.The critiquesof practi- Erlandson,
1998 The Makingof ChumashTradition:Repliesto Haley
tionersinsidethe professionandstakeholdersout- andWilcoxon.CurrentAnthropology39:477^-85.
side the professionare not fully acknowledgedin Ferguson,T. J.
1996 NativeAmericansand the Practiceof Archaeology.
Hegmon's typology of contemporaryarchaeolo- AnnualReviewof Anthropology25:63-79.
gies in NorthAmerica. 2003 AnthropologicalArchaeologyConductedby Tribes:
Not all archaeologistsagreethatit is necessary TraditionalCulturalPropertiesandCulturalAffiliation.In
orevendesirableto makearchaeological rel- Archaeologyis Anthropology,edited by Susan D. Gille-
theory spie andDeborahL. Nichols,pp. 137-144. Archeological
evant to stakeholdersoutside of archaeology.Yet Papersof theAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,No.
archaeologyandheritagepreservation havebecome 13, Arlington,Virginia.
RobertG.
big businessandarchaeologistsnow holdpositions Goodby, 1994 Processualism, Postprocessualism, and Cultural
withpowerto legitimateor authenticate certaincul- Resource Management in New England. In Cultural
turalpracticesandtraditions(Scher2004). Moreis ResourceManagement:ArchaeologicalResearch,Preser-
at stake than ever before. I agree with Hegmon vationPlanning,and Public Educationin the Northeast-
ern United States, edited by JordanKerber,pp. 51-63.
(2003:234) that North American archaeologists Bergin& Garvey,Westport,Connecticut.
shouldpaymoreattentionto generaltheorybecause Gosden,Christopher
it "conditions 1999 Anthropologyand Archaeology:A ChangingRela-
themannerinwhichwe seetheworld."
tionship.Routledge,New York.
Ourhabitof adoptingtheoreticalfashiontrendsfrom Hegmon,Michelle
oursisterdisciplines,however,oftenresultsin a rel- 2003 SettingTheoreticalEgosAside:IssuesandTheoryin
North American Archaeology. American Antiquity
ativelypoorfitbetweentheoryandpractice(as well 68:213-243.
as appearingchronicallyout-of-dateto othersocial Ivy, Don, andR. Scott Byram
scientists).Insteadof "hitandrun"borrowing,we 2001 CoquilleCulturalHeritageandWetlandArchaeology.
In EnduringRecords: The Environmentaland Cultural
mightmoreproductivelyandmoredeeplyacknowl- Heritage of Wetlands, edited by Barbara Purdy, pp.
edge thathow we constructthe past has relevance 120-131. OxbowBooks, Oxford.
to peopleotherthanourselves. King,ThomasF.
1998 CulturalResourceLaws and Practice: an Introduc-
Acknowledgments. I am most grateful to Tim Kohler, tory Guide.AltaMiraPress,WalnutCreek,California.
Michael Schiffer, Larry Zimmerman,and one anonymous Kirk,Ruth,andRichardD. Daugherty
1974 Huntersof the Whale.WilliamMorrow,New York.
reviewer who read the initial version of this paper and pro-
Leone, Mark,ParkerPotter,Jr.,andPaulShackel
vided many constructivecomments.I thankJoe Watkinsand 1987 Towardsa CriticalArchaeology.CurrentAnthropol-
LindaCordell,who gave helpful feedbackon a laterversion. ogy 28:283-302.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:08:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMMENTS 587

Lightfoot,KentG. Spector,JanetD.
1995 CultureContactStudies:RedefiningtheRelationship 1993 WhatThis Awl Means: FeministArchaeologyat a
between Prehistoricand HistoricalArchaeology.Ameri- WahpetonDakota Village.MinnesotaHistoricalSociety
can Antiquity60:199-217. Press,St. Paul.
2005 Indians,Missionaries,andMerchants:theLegacyof 2000 Collaborationat InyanCeyakaAtonwan(Village at
ColonialEncounterson the CaliforniaFrontiers.Univer- the Rapids).In WorkingTogether:Native Americans&
sity of CaliforniaPress,Berkeley. Archaeologists,editedby K. E. Dongoske,M. Aldender-
Lyman,R. Lee andKennethP. Cannon fer, andKarenDoehner,pp. 133-138. Society forAmeri-
2004 Zooarchaeologyand ConservationBiology. Univer- can Archaeology,Washington,D.C.
sity of UtahPress,Salt LakeCity. Sprague,Roderick
McGuire,RandallH. 1974 AmericanIndiansandAmericanArchaeology.Amer-
1992 A MarxistArchaeology. AcademicPress,SanDiego. icanArchaeology39(1):1-2.
Meskell,Lynn Stapp,DarbyC, andMichaelS. Burney
2002 The Intersectionsof Identityand Politics in Archae- 2002 TribalCulturalResourceManagement:the Full Cir-
ology.AnnualReviewof Anthropology3 1:279-30 1. cle to Stewardship.AltaMiraPress,WalnutCreek,Cali-
Mills, BarbaraJ., andT. J. Ferguson fornia.
1998 Preservation andResearchof SacredSitesby theZuni Stein,JulieK., andLauraS. Phillips
Indian Tribe of New Mexico. Human Organization 2002 VashonIslandArchaeology:A ViewfromBurtonAcres
57(l):30-42. ShellMidden.BurkeMuseumof NaturalHistoryandCul-
Moss, MadonnaL., andGeorgeB. Wasson,Jr. tureResearchReportNo. 8. BurkeMuseum,Seattle,Wash-
1998 IntimateRelationswiththePast:the Storyof anAtha- ington.
paskanVillageon the SouthernNorthwestCoastof North VanPool,ChristineS., andToddL.VanPool
America.WorldArchaeology29(3):317-332. 1999 The ScientificNatureof Postprocessualism.Ameri-
NationalParkService can Antiquity64:33-53.
2003 Secretaryof Interior'sStandardsand Guidelinesfor 2003 Introduction: Method,Theory,andEssentialTension.
Archaeologyand HistoricPreservation.Electronicdocu- In EssentialTensionsinArchaeologicalMethodand The-
ment,http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch_stnds_7.htm ory, editedby T. L. VanPooland C. S. VanPool,pp. \-A.
#guide, accessedJune 13, 2003. Universityof Utah Press,Salt LakeCity.
Neumann,ThomasW., andRobertM. Sanford Watkins,Joe E.
2001 CulturalResourcesArchaeology:An Introduction. 2000 IndigenousArchaeology:AmericanIndianValuesand
AltamiraPress,WalnutCreek,California. ScientificPractice. AltaMiraPress,WalnutCreek,Cali-
Nicholas,GeorgeP., andThomasD. Andrews(editors) fornia.
1997 At a Crossroads:Archaeologyand First Peoples in 2003 BeyondtheMargin:AmericanIndians,FirstNations,
Canada. Simon FraserUniversity,Archaeology Press, andArchaeologyin NorthAmerica.AmericanAntiquity
Burnaby,B.C. 68:273-285.
Patterson,ThomasC. 2004 Archaeology,AboriginalsandthePast:thePoliticsof
1990 Some TheoreticalTensionswithin and between the Representation. AnthropologyNews 45(8):12.
ProcessualandPostprocessualArchaeologies.Journalof Welch,JohnR.
AnthropologicalArchaeology9:189-200. 2000 TheWhiteMountainApacheTribeHeritageProgram:
2000 Archeologistsand HistoriansConfrontCivilization, Origins,Operations,andChallenges.In WorkingTogether:
Relativism,and Poststructuralism in the Late Twentieth NativeAmericans&Archaeologists,editedby K. E. Don-
Century. In History After the Three Worlds: Post- goske, M. Aldenderfer,and KarenDoehner,pp. 67-83.
EurocentricHistoriographies,editedbyArifDirlik,Vinay Society forAmericanArchaeology,Washington,D.C.
Bahl, and PeterGran,pp. 49-64. Rowman& Littlefield, Wylie,Alison
New York. 1992 The Interplayof EvidentialConstraintsandPolitical
Paynter,Robert Interests:Recent Archaeological Research on Gender.
2000 Historical Archaeology and the Post-Columbian AmericanAntiquity57:15-35.
World of North America. Journal of Archaeological Zimmerman,LarryJ.
Research8(3):169-217. 2000 A New andDifferentArchaeology?Witha Postscript
Scher,PhilipW. on the Impactof the KennewickDispute.In Repatriation
2004 ThePoliticsof Preservation: AnAnthropologicalPer- Reader:WhoOwnsAmericanIndianRemains?,editedby
spective.Paperpresentedto the InternationalCommittee DevonA. Mihesuah,pp. 294-306. Universityof Nebraska
for Museumsof EthnographySession of the International Press,Lincoln.
Councilof MuseumsGeneralConference,Seoul, Korea.
Schiffer,MichaelB., andGeorgeJ. Gumerman(editors)
1977 ConservationArchaeology:A Guidefor Cultural ReceivedJune 16, 2003; RevisedDecember 20, 2004;
ResourceManagement Studies.AcademicPress,NewYork. AcceptedJanuary15, 2005.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 01:08:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions