PAUL A. SHACKELBARBARA J. UTILE

Post-Processual Approachesto Meanings and Usesof Material Culture inHistorical Archaeology

ABSTRACT

Discussions ofpost-processual archaeology are summarizedin order to suggest that historical archaeology is in a par­ticularly good position to answer the post-processual cri­tiques of the " new" archaeology and to create a contextualarchaeology that is both historically and anthropologicallyinformed and relevant. The work of four scholars is noted asparticularly influential in the development of post-proces­sual approaches.

Current debates within archaeology as a whole,and within historical archaeology in particular ,question what is and is not possible and desirable forthe disciplines . The Society for Historical Archae­ology marked its 20-year anniversary with soul­searching. The 1987 plenary session, meant to ex­plore the discipline's potential , proposed withtentative optimism the hope that historical archae­ology could indeed address " questions that count"and matter to anyone outside the discipline. In awider sense, "new" or processual archaeology isbeing challenged from several viewpoints, gener­ally lumped together as "post processual" archae­ology.

The point of this introductory essay is to placethe articles that follow within the context of thesedebates. The common concern of these paperswith qualitative interpretation-rather than prima­rily quantitative explication, with meaning , withactive symbolic uses of material culture, and oftenwith ideology, labels them as post-processual.They therefore have contributions to make both tocurrent epistemological negotiations within ar­chaeology as a whole and to the definitions ofquestions that count within historical archaeology .

There are various summaries and descriptions of

the challenges to processual archaeology , illustrat­ing the archaeological truism that there are as manypossible typologies as there are archaeologists .Hodder (e.g., 1985, 1986, 1987a, 1991), Millerand Tilley (1984), Leone (1986), Shennan (1986) ,Shanks and Tilley (1987) , Earle and Preucel(1987), Watson and Fotiadis (1990), Patterson(1990a, 1990b), and Preucel (1991c) are represen­tative of those who seek to explain post-processualarchaeology . Yet they do not represent all compel­ling critiques of processual archaeology . Feministarchaeology in particular, which is often omitted inpost-processual critiques, provides an increasinglyinfluential perspective that must be acknowledged.A discussion is beyond the scope of this summarythough, and is provided elsewhere in the literature(e.g., Gero 1983; Conkey and Spector 1984; Spec­tor and Whelan 1989; Little 1990, 1993; Gero andConkey 1991).

In the 1980s, post-processual archaeology aroseout of dissatisfaction with the new archaeology ofthe 1960s and 1970s. Miller and Tilley (1984:2) listthe following complaints against the New Archae­ology: uncritical acceptance of positivism , stress onfunctionalism and environmental adaptation , be­haviorist emphasis on biological directives, disdainfor emphasis on social relations or cognition orideology, lack of concern for the present socialproduction of knowledge, overemphasis on stabil­ity rather than conflict, reduction of social changeto effects of external factors, and belief in quanti­fication as the goal of archaeology. The chargemade by post-processual archaeologists , summedup, is that "archaeology has become so rational itis dehumanized. Much of the best of archaeologyhas become not only mechanical but almost devoidof cultural context" (Leone 1986:432). There is areaction against explanations that are mechanical,whether they are materially or mentally biased .Neither ecological determinism nor structuralismadequately addresses the concerns of post-proces­sualism. It is frustrating that to a large extent " Ar­chaeologists have yet to realize the power of theunderstanding that the essence of human-and,hence, cultural-life is that it is both material andsymbolic simultaneously " (Conkey and Spector1984:24).

6

This simultaneity provides the basis for one ofthe most compelling aspects of post-processualismthat has come from the intellectual influence ofpost-structuralism. That goal is breaking apart di­chotomies that have served as givens for structur­alist interpretation. All dichotomies are subject tosplitting and reintegration, but it is breaking theidealist-materialist explanatory distinction that isone of the major goals of Hodder's (1986) programin Reading the Past . Hodder also identifies othermajor characteristics of an approach that seeks toanswer the critiques made against processualism.Contextual (i.e., post-processual) archaeologypays attention to historical context and change andto social and physical environments; acknowledgesthe active participant, active material culture, andthe active archaeologist in the present; focuses onmeaning; and conceives of the archaeologicalrecord as text or discourse.

In a commentary on what they see as a unidi­mensional post-processual approach, Earle andPreucel (1987:501) comment that the radical cri­tique "rejects the scientific method and generallaws and, as alternatives to positivism, exploresthe utility of symbolic, structural, and structuralMarxist perspectives." And yet post-processualarchaeology, at least in its initial, basic conceptu­alization, does not reject general laws (Hodder1987a), but instead recognizes general theories ofstructuration, symbolic meaning, ideology, andpower. More recent discussions also emphasize theimportance of grounded data (Hodder 1991) andthe strong empiricist thread (Preucel 1991a:12) inmany post-processual approaches.

In the same general positivist vein as Earle andPreucel, Shennan (1986:327-356) critiques whathe sees as a single new approach. He interprets thecore of the post-processual approach as a synthesisbetween neo-Marxism and symbolic-structuralism,in which neo-Marxism contributes to ideas of ide­ology and culture change, and the symbolic-struc­tural approach lends ideas of ways to approachmaterial culture. The approaches complement eachother with their common denominators of rejectingthe systems approach and using ideology to under­stand material culture and society. Patterson(l990b), however, prefers to distinguish Marxist

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26

approaches as separate and argues that Marxistanalyses have long been used and are not neces­sarily post-processual.

There are also several typologies that recognizea variety of different strains within post-processualarchaeology. The work of Watson and Fotiadis(1990) contrasts cognitive, structural, and symbolicapproaches with critical and Marxist approaches.The latter, which are materialistic and concernedwith ideology, do not deny either real cultural pro­cess or the scientific method but do deny scientificneutrality. The first set views material culture astext and is focused on the interpretation (rather thantesting) of structure, symbols, and, most impor­tantly, intracultural meaning.

Watson understands cognitive, structural, andsymbolic archaeology as " post-processual" but ina much less radical way than does Patterson(1990a), who similarly contrasts critical ap­proaches born of the Frankfort school with post­structural approaches. Critical theory argues thatinterpretations and uses of the past are not value­free but are influenced by contemporary politicalagendas (Wylie 1985; Leone et al. 1987). Patter­son identifies two sorts of post-structural ap­proaches. The first views the archaeological recordas text to be decoded, reifying the individual andprivileging the archaeologist as interpreter. Thisapproach stresses the importance of the individual.Collingwood 's historical approach is often citedas the ancestor to this development (Hodder1985). Scholars such as Barthes, Bourdieu,Geertz, Giddens, and Ricoeur are incorporated inpost-processual analyses to disclose meanings anddiscourses. The second approach incorporates theworks of Michel Foucault to analyze group con­flicts and relations of power and domination (cf .Miller and Tilley 1984; Shanks and Tilley 1987;Tilley 1990). Patterson interprets all post-proces­sual archaeology as necessarily rejecting structur­alism and symbolic anthropology and engaging ,with post-modernism, a philosophical stance thatrejects meta-narratives (cf. Lyotard 1984), that is,the nonvulgar ideology that encompasses culturalgivens and cultural common sense . Patterson is indirect contrast with Watson and Fotiadis (1990:614), who see the "concern with cognitive sys-

POST-PROCESSUAL APPROACHES TO MEANINGS AND USES 7

terns" as rooted in earlier concerns and thereforenot presenting a necessary break with processualparadigms and procedures .

Leone (1986) provides an earlier typology inwhich he contrasts symbolic, structural, and criti­cal approaches. Although both Watson and Patter­son see his first two categories somewhat differ­ently, all three agree on distinguishing a criticalapproach from other approaches. Symbolic, struc­tural, and critical approaches, Leone argues, sharecommon issues concerning recursive culture, con­cern with meaning, critique of the function of pos­itivism and science, and a critique of positivism.Preucel (1991b) furnishes a simpler classification,contrasting hermeneutic and critical theory againstpositivist approaches.

It is clear that the challenges to processual ar­chaeology are not easily simplified and standard­ized into bounded categories. It is also obvious thatthe kinds of goals espoused by various post-pro­cessualists-particularly concerns with meanings,symbols, cognition, power, and historical con­text-are much more completely and convincinglyachieved within historical archaeology . Hodderwrites that:

It is partly for this reason [need for a great deal of contextualdata] that historical archaeology is an 'easier ' approach .. .the richer data allow more similarities and differences to besought along more relevantdimensionsof variation (Hodder1986:141).

Watson and Fotiadas (1990:615) also write, "Ithas not escaped the notice of processualists, andothers who are not persuaded by the symbolic­structuralist post-processualists , that virtually allof their published work so far has been within orhas relied heavily upon ethnographic and historicaldata (e.g., Leone and Potter 1988)."

From the quite cogent and telling critiques ofprocessual archaeology and from the various post­processual approaches, historical archaeologistscan compose a compelling program in contextualarchaeology that is both historically and anthropo­logically informed and relevant. The focus of theseapproaches on historical and socio-cultural con­texts is particularly important as archaeologistsseek to recreate and interpret human behavior and

intention. Understanding the activeness of materialculture as it is used by people is essential for suchinterpretation. Although processual and descrip­tive approaches have dominated the field of histor­ical archaeology since the 1960s, they are not theonly viable approaches to historic sites and arti­facts. Post-processualism works in historical ar­chaeology because its demands are for an histori­cally-situated social science that recognizes thecontingencies of history and knowledge. The" questions that count" in historical archaeologywill be questions that begin to address these de­mands.

Many historical archaeologists have alreadytaken up the challenge; there are some studies thatexplore the active and symbolic nature of materialculture. Those that include more than abstract the­ory and seek to ground explanation in solid histor­ical and archaeological data are still rare. Many ofthe historical archaeologists who have taken on thechallenge practice the sort of cognitive-structural­symbolic archaeology described by Watson and donot necessarily break with time-honored models.For instance, Deetz's (1977) adaptation of Glass­ie's (1975) structural approach to describe changesin world view seen in architecture, gravestones,ceramics, and other items in 17th- and 18th-cen­tury New England is still quite influential. Work inthis general cognitive-structural-symbolic traditionalso includes, for example, that of Leone (1977,1984, 1988), Hodder (1987b, 1987c), Ingersolland Bronitsky (1987), Leone and Potter (1988),Beaudry (1988, 1989), Little and Shackel (1989),Praetzellis and Praetzellis (1989), and Burley(1989).

Compelling aspects of post-processual ap­proaches can be seen in most of the typologiescited earlier . However, none of those typologiesexactly fits either the articles in this collection orstudies in historical archaeology as a whole. Forexample, Patterson (1990a) distinguishes ap­proaches that focus on the individual from thosethat focus on power, but quite often-as seen inmany of the papers here (e.g. , Driscoll 's use ofBarrett [1981], this volume}-individual agencyand power, or the desire for power, are closelyintertwined.

8

Four scholars whose works have been most in­fluential in the development of a post-processualhistorical archaeology are the English sociologistAnthony Giddens (1976, 1979, 1981), French an­thropologist-turned-sociologist Pierre Bourdieu(1977, 1984), English anthropologist Mary Doug­las (1966; Douglas and Isherwood 1979), andFrench philosopher Michel Foucault (1979) . Theirwork has been successfully incorporated into in­terpretation by several archaeologists (e.g. , Barrett1981; Tilley 1982; Davis 1984; Miller 1987; Wall1991; and the authors in this volume).

Giddens' (1976) and Douglas' (e.g., 1966;Doug­las and Isherwood 1979) work points up the activequality of social life. Douglas' symbolic anthro­pology is drawn upon by several authors in thiscollection. The actions of the individual and of thegroup are interrelated and dynamic and are there­fore always reproducing and changing society. Ac­cording to Giddens, structures are in a continualstate of structuration, i.e. , of being created, withmeaning established as it is needed . Such meaningis neither haphazard nor ever truly fixed. Becausematerial culture is endowed with symbolic mean­ing, it can be actively used to create and reproducesociety. As one of its many functions material cul­ture plays an essential and effective role in provid­ing a medium of social domination to legitimatethe social order in structuring society (e.g ., Tilley1982).

Useful to much recent work is Bourdieu's(1977) explanation of habitus and its applicabilityto material culture studies. Habitus. as the inter­action between the unconscious and the physicalworld, is learned and reinforced through interac­tion. Symbolic meaning plays an important role increating a strategy for the structuring of relations insociety. The creation of hierarchies with classifi­cation systems is incorporated into ideologies ofpower. The ability to read the meanings of objects ,combined with past experience, makes an objectculturally accepted or rejected by individuals or bygroups. Although Bourdieu's work is not con­cerned mainly with the role of material goods insociety, Bourdieu

constantly affirms the effectiveness of order embodied indetails such as dress, body movement and manners , and

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26

argues that it is a function of the mundane artifact almostalways to be regarded as an example of mere " trivia" un­worthy of systematic academic study (Miller 1987:105).

Michel Foucault's work becomes particularlyuseful in the historical archaeology of modem life.Foucault argues that with the Enlightenment camenew institutional structures such as schools, fami­lies, and insane asylums that maintained class he­gemony . A new surveillance technology enabledsuperordinates to monitor and guide the move­ments and actions of subordinates. According toFoucault, power is intricately linked to social re­lations. Social relations are based on power andtherefore shape and create forms of social interac­tion (Tilley 1990:287-288).

Continued discussion of issues addressed withinpost-processual archaeology has resulted in an al­most overwhelming expansion of the number ofauthorities invoked in the development of theoret­ical stances. A perusal of the references cited bythe contributors to Preucel's (1991c) recent workreveals many names heretofore far removed fromarchaeological concerns. As Hodder (1991:8) re­marks, however , it is necessary to move beyondtheoretical posturing . It is time to concentrate onissues such as power relations, social negotiation ,symbolic manipulation , reification , and contempo­rary social context. A focus on the meanings anduses of material culture supplies a concrete way toexamine these issues. It is important to note thattheoretical and methodological approaches to suchissues vary. Hodder (1991: 15) writes that "inter­pretive approaches at least try to understand theother in its own terms in that they look for internalrather than external criteria of plausibility. "

In contrast to some critiques, post-processualapproaches do not eschew general law; nor do theyavoid the constraints of data . It is impossible todisallow all general laws in explanations or de­scription of societies outside the researchers' directexperience. Expectations that humans experiencethe world through their cultural constructions haveled to seemingly widely acceptable , if not yetwidely used, theories of structuration and themeaningful roles of material culture . It is impor­tant to realize, however, that goods are not equallymeaningful in all times and places .

POST-PROCESSUAL APPROACHES TO MEANINGS AND USES 9

Ideology. Fields of Discourse. Structure. Mean­ing. Commodity . Symbol. Recursivity. Negotia­tion. New conceptual constructs require new vo­cabularies and rethinking of old. In spite of newkey words, the reader should note that the vocab­ulary of post-processual archaeology is not fixed.It is not final. The dialogue is still fresh, still vol­atile, still experimental. While competition en­courages standardization, it should be understoodby those doing post-processual archaeology thatthe approach is not ready to be standardized andformalized. Perhaps the debate and seeming disor­der are marks of a mature discipline. Has archae­ology truly lost its innocence as it "gains maturityby being fully integrated into wider contemporarydebates" (Hodder 1986:ix)? Has the discipline re­ally gained the maturity "to allow diversity, con­troversy, and uncertainty" (Hodder 1986:x)?

REFERENCES

BARRETT, JOHN C .1981 Aspects of the Iron Age in Atlantic Scotland: A Case

Study in the Problems of Archaeological Interpreta­tion. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries ofScotland 111 :205-219.

BEAUDRY, MARY C .1989 The Lowell Boott Mills Complex and Its Housing:

Material Expressions of Corporate Ideology. Histor­ical Archaeology 23(1):19-32.

BEAUDRY, MARY C. (EDITOR)1988 Documentary Archaeology in the New World. Cam­

bridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

BOURDIEU, PIERRE1977 Outline ofa Theory ofPractice. Cambridge Univer­

sity Press, Cambridge, England.1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of

Taste, translated by Richard Nice. Harvard Univer­sity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

BURLEY, DAVID V.1989 Function, Meaning, and Context: Ambiguities in Ce­

ramic Use by the Hivernant Metis of the NorthwestPlains. Historical Archaeology 23(1):97-106.

CONKEY, MARGARET W . , AND JANET D. SPECTOR1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances

in Archaeological Methods and Theory , Vol. 7, ed­ited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 1-38 . AcademicPress, New York.

DA VIS, WHITNEY1984 Representation and Knowledge in the Prehistoric

Rock Art of Africa. African Archaeological Review2:7-35.

DEETZ, JAMES1977 In Small Things Forgotten : The Archaeology of

Early American Life. Anchor Press/Doubleday, NewYork.

DOUGLAS, MARY1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis ofConcepts ofPol­

lution and Taboo. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Lon­don.

DOUGLAS, MARY, AND BARON ISHERWOOD1979 The World of Goods. Basic Books, New York.

EARLE, TIMOTHY, AND ROBERT PREUCEL1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique.

Current Anthropology 28(4):501-527.

FOUCAULT, MICHEL1979 Discipline and Punish. Vintage Books, New York.

GERO, JOAN1983 Gender Bias in Archaeology: A Cross Cultural Per­

spective. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, ed­ited by 1. Gero, D. Lacy, and M. L. Blakey. De­partment of Anthropology Research Report No. 23:51-57. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mas­sachusetts.

GERO, JOAN, AND MARGARET CONKEY (EDITORS)1991 Women and Prehistory: Engendering Archaeology.

Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

GIDDENS, ANTONY1976 New Rules of Sociological Method . Hutchinson,

London.1979 Central Problems in Social Theory. Macmillan,

London.1981 A Contemporary Critique ofHistorical Materialism .

Macmillan, London.

GLASSIE, HENRY1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. University of Ten­

nessee Press, Knoxville.

HODDER, IAN1985 Postporcessual Archaeology. In Advances in Archae­

ological Methods and Theory , Vol. 8, edited byMichael B. Schiffer, pp. 1-26. Academic Press,New York.

1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, England.

1987a Comment on Timothy Earle and Robert Preuce1,Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique.Current Anthropology 28(4):501-527.

1991 Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American An­tiquity 56(1):7-18 .

10

HODDER , IAN (EDITOR)1987b The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Cam­

bridge University Press, Cambridge, England.1987c Archaeology as Long-term History . Cambridge Uni­

versity Press, Cambridge, England.

INGERSOLL , DANIEL., JR ., AND GORDON BRONITSKY

(EDITORS)1987 Mirror and Metaphor: Material and Social Con­

structions of Reality. University Press of America,Lanham, Maryland.

LEONE, MARK P.1977 The New Mormon Temple in Washington, D.C. In

Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Mate­rial Things, edited by Leland Ferguson. Special Pub­lication Series No. 2:43-61 . Society for HistoricalArchaeology, California, Pennsylvania.

1984 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Us­ing the Rules of Perspective in the William PacaGarden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology,Power , and Prehistory , edited by Daniel Miller andChristopher Tilley, pp. 25-35 . Cambridge Univer­sity Press, Cambridge, England.

1986 Symbolic, Structural and Critical Archaeology. InAmerican Archaeolo gy Past and Future , edited byD. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, pp.415-438. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washing­ton, D.C.

1988 The Relationship between Archaeological Data andthe Documentary Record: 18th-Century Gardens inAnnapolis, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 22(1):29-35 .

LEONE, MARK P. , AND PARKER B. POTTER, JR .

(EDITORS)1988 The Recovery ofMeaning : Historical Archaeology in

the Eastern United States. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, D.C.

LEONE, MARK P ., PARKER POTTER, JR ., AND

PAUL A . SHACKEL1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropol­

ogy 28(3):823-302 .

LITTLE, BARBARA J .1990 Post-Processual Archaeology and the Hermaphro­

ditic Mind. Paper presented at the 89th Annual Meet­ing of the American Anthropological Association,New Orleans, Louisiana.

1993 "She was an example to her Sex" Possibilities forFeminist Historical Archaeology. In The HistoricChesapeake : Archaeological Contributions , editedby Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little. Smithso­nian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. , in press.

LITTLE, BARBARA J., AND PAUL A. SHACKEL1989 Scales of Historical Anthropology: An Archaeology

of Colonial Anglo-America. Antiquity 63:495-509.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26

LYOTARD , JEAN-FRANc;OIS1984 The Postmodern Condition : A Report on Knowledge ,

translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi.University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

MILLER, DANIEL1987 Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Basil

Blackwell, Oxford.

MILLER, DANIEL, AND CHRISTOPHER TILLEY1984 Ideology, Power, and Prehistory: An Introduction.

In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited byDaniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, pp. 1-15.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

PATTERSON , THOMAS C.1990a History and the Post-Processual Archaeologies. Man

24:555-566.1990b Some Theoretical Tensions within and between the

Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Jour­nal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:189-200.

PRAETZELLlS, ADRIAN , AND MARY PRAETZELLIS1989 " Utility and Beauty Should Be One" : The Land­

scape of Jack London's Ranch of Good Intentions.Historical Archaeology 23(1):33-44.

PREuCEL, ROBERT W.1991a Introduction. In Processual and Postprocessual Ar­

chaeologies, Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, ed­ited by Robert W. Preucel. Center for Archaeologi­cal Investigations , Occasional Paper No. 10:1-14.Southern II1inois University, Carbondale.

1991b The Philosophy of Archaeology. In Processual andPostprocessual Archaeologies, Multiple Ways ofKnowing the Past, edited by Robert W. Preucel.Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occa­sional Paper No. 10:17-29. Southern IIlinois Uni­versity, Carbondale.

PREUCEL, ROBERT W. (EDITOR)1991c Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies, Mul­

tiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Center for Archae­ological Investigations , Occasional Paper No. 10.Southern IIlinois University, Carbondale.

SHANKS, MICHAEL, AND CHRISTOPHER TILLEY1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology, Theory and Practice.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

SHENNAN , STEPHEN1986 Toward a Critical Archaeology? Proceedings of the

Prehistoric Society 52:327-356. Cambridge Univer­sity Press, Cambridge, England.

SPECTOR , JANET D., AND MARY K. WHELAN

1989 Incorporating Gender into Archaeology Courses. InGender and Anthropology, Critical Reviews for Re­search and Teaching , edited by Sandra Morgen, pp.65-94. American Anthropological Association,Washington, D.C.

POST-PROCESSUAL APPROACHES TO MEANINGS AND USES 11

TILLEY , CHRISTOPHER1982 Social Formation, Social Structures and Social

Change. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology,edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 26-38 . Cambridge Uni­versity Press, Cambridge, England.

1990 Michel Foucault: Towards an Archaeology of Ar­chaeology. In Reading Material Culture : Structural­ism, Hermeneutics and Post-Structuralism, edited byChristopher Tilley, pp. 281-347 . Basil Blackwell,London.

WALL, DIANA DIZEREGA1991 Sacred Dinners and Secular Teas: Constructing Do­

mesticity in Mid-19th-Century New York. HistoricalArchaeology 25(4):69-81.

WATSON, PATTY Jo, AND MICHAEL FOTIADIS1990 The Razor's Edge: Symbolic-Structuralist Archaeol­

ogy and the Expansion of Archaeological Inference.American Anthropologist 92(3):613-629.

WYLIE, ALISON1985 Putting Shakertown Back Together: Critical Theory

in Archaeology. Journal ofAnthropological Archae­ology 4:133-147 .

BARBARA J. LITTLE

DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

COLLEGE PARK , MARYLAND 20742

PAUL A. SHACKEL

DIVISION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

P.O. Box 65HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA 24524