schiffer et al 01
TRANSCRIPT
7/30/2019 Schiffer Et Al 01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/schiffer-et-al-01 1/10
Society for American Archaeology
Behavioral Archaeology and the Study of TechnologyAuthor(s): Michael Brian Schiffer, James M. Skibo, Janet L. Griffitts, Kacy L. Hollenback andWilliam A. LongacreReviewed work(s):Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 2001), pp. 729-737Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694186 .
Accessed: 20/05/2012 14:46
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 [email protected].
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
7/30/2019 Schiffer Et Al 01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/schiffer-et-al-01 2/10
BEHAVIORAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF TECHNOLOGY
Michael Brian Schiffer, James M. Skibo, Janet L. Griffitts,
Kacy L. Hollenback, and William A. Longacre
Loney's (2000) recentpaper claims that Americanarchaeologistshavepaid scant attentionto thestudyof technological, espe?
cially ceramic,change. Weargue that, infact, interestin such change processes has grown greatly in recentdecades and that
Loneyhas overlooked much relevant literature.Wesupportour general argumentwitha catalog of recentbehavioral research
on technological change.
El articulo escritopor Loney(2000) arguye que la arqueologiaamericana haprestadomuypoca atencidn al estudio de cambio
tecnoldgico,especialmenteen materialcerdmico.Nosotrossugerimosquede hecho el interes en estosprocesosde cambioha cre-
cido mucho en decadas recientesy queLoneyha ignoradola literaturarelevante.Apoyamosnuestroargumentogeneral con un
catdlogode la recienteinvestigacionconductualsobre cambiotecnoldgico.
We
read with great interest Loney's (2000)
recent paper on ceramic studies in Europe
and America. Although we appreciate
Loney's attempt to initiate international discussion,
and admire her chutzpah for challenging an entire
hemisphere, we are troubled by her negative assess?
ment of American ceramic research: "European stud?
ies of ceramic change are undergoing a period of
vitality and innovation, [whereas] American studies
have been less fruitful" (p. 647). On the contrary, agreat many American scholars, following the lead of
Frederick Matson (1965) and other ceramic ecolo-
gists (e.g., Arnold 1985; Kolb 1988), have toiled for
decades to understand the dynamic and multifaceted
relationships between pottery and people; this large
and theoretically diverse body of research should not
be summarily dismissed. Although we dispute sev?
eral of Loney's problematic claims, our paper mainly
illustrates the fruitfulness of American ceramic
researchby focusing
on howtechnology
and tech?
nological change are explored by behavioral archae?
ologists?the theoretical orientation we know best.
(In contrast to Loney's usage, by "America" we
include the United States, Canada, Mexico, and
nations of the Caribbean, and Central and South
America.)
Are All American Ceramic
Scholars Evolutionists?
Because evolutionists have been so articulate and
prolific, one could get the impression that they speak
for all American archaeologists. That Loney seems
to have formed such an impression is betrayed by
her insistence that the lack of vitality and innovationin American ceramic studies stems from our dogged
insistence on using the concept of evolution. How?
ever, the majority of ceramic specialists are not evo?
lutionists, and they do not equate ceramic change
with "evolution." (Loney has also misrepresented
evolutionary arguments, as Hector Neff points out
elsewhere in this volume.)
We agree with Loney that the use of "progress"
as an underlying assumption in ceramic studies
imposesviews of
changethat are unidirectional.
However, she neglects to mention that most Ameri?
can scholars do not use value-laden terms like
"progress" in their studies of ceramic change, nor do
they invoke Darwinian or any other kind of evolu-
Michael Brian Schiffer ? Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Arizona, Tucson,AZ 85721
James M. Skibo ? 4640 AnthropologyProgram, llinois StateUniversity,Normal-Bloomington, L 61761-6901
Janet L. Griffitts ? Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Arizona, Tucson,AZ 85721
Kacy L. Hollenback ? Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Arizona,Tucson,AZ 85721
William A. Longacre ? Department f Anthropology,Universityof Arizona, Tucson,AZ 85721
AmericanAntiquity,66(4), 2001, pp. 729-738Copyright? 2001 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
729
7/30/2019 Schiffer Et Al 01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/schiffer-et-al-01 3/10
730 AMERICANNTIQUITY [Vol.66, No. 4,2001]
tionary theory. Rather, they employ diverse social and
behavioral theories to provide richly contextualized
accounts of empirically documented sequences of
technological change. American ceramic theory is
not circumscribed by evolutionism, but has receivedcontributions from practitioners of many theoretical
programs. That these programs are not merely vari?
ations on an evolutionary theme should be evident
to anyone who compares, for example, Dobres and
Hoffman (1994), Kuhn (1994), O'Brien et al. (1998),
and Schiffer and Skibo (1997). (For a discussion of
specific differences, even incompatibilities, between
behavioral and evolutionary archaeologies, see P.
Arnold [1999]; O'Brien et al. [1998]; Schiffer
[1996]; and Wylie [1995].)
Following the Scholarly Trail
We do not believe that behavioral studies of ceramic
change make tracks that are difficult to find. Yet
Loney fails to follow the intellectual trail for many
ofthe concepts she discusses. In the section "Anthro?
pology of Technology," Loney does mention some
of our work, but places it among the Shipibo. Ship-
ibo-Conibo pottery and the research of Warren
DeBoer are indeedimportant,
but our ethnoarchae?
ological investigations have taken place mainly
among the Kalinga and other Philippine groups (e.g.,
Graves 1994; Longacre 1981; Longacre and Skibo
1994; Longacre and Stark 1992; Longacre et al.
2000; Neupert 2000; Skibo 1992; Stark 1999).
Beyond geography are problems in the attribu-
tion of key concepts. We do not wish to bicker about
who originated the notion of "technological choice,"
which Loney clearly likes and attributes solely to
Lemonnier (1993), but the concept?also labeled as
"technical choice"?has long been central to behav?
ioral discussions of ceramic change. For example,
we have used "technical choice" since 1987 in stud?
ies that employ various data bases?experimental
(e.g., Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Schiffer et al. 1994),
ethnoarchaeological (e.g., Longacre et al. 2000;
Skibo 1992, 1994), and prehistoric (e.g., Schiffer
and Skibo 1987; Skibo andBlinman 1999; Skibo and
Walker 2002). What is more, the basic idea that the
explanation of any technological change should be
based on a rigorous comparison among alternatives,
in terms of their behavioral capabilities, goes back
at least to Schiffer (1979), and is doubtless present
much earlier in the American literature.
Remarkably, Loney also contends that American
archaeologists have shown little interest in contex-
tualized studies of technological change in general
and ceramic change in particular: "This intense inter?
est [in Europe] in the relationship between technol?
ogy and society, and the resulting interest in how theychange over time, has not been followed by Ameri?
can ceramic analysts" (p. 647). We are mystified by
this sweeping statement, which seems to be based
on an incomplete familiarity with the American lit?
erature. We realize, of course, that this latter phrase
is usually a euphemism for "the author did not cite
me." And, in this case, it is exactly what we mean.
At the risk of appearing like people jumping up and
down yelling, "nobody wants to play with us," we
forge ahead and apologize now for our self-indul-gence.
Trends in the Study of Technological Change
The most cursory reading ofthe American literature
would indicate that interest in studying technologi?
cal change has grown steadily over the past several
decades. This trend is evident in the many papers
published since 1980 by major American periodicals,
including Archaeological Method and Theory, Jour?
nalof Archaeological
Method andTheory,
Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology, and American
Antiquity, as well as in general monographs and
books?some focused entirely on ceramics (e.g.,
Bronitsky 1989; Kingery 1990,1993; Nelson 1984;
Plog 1980; Rice 1987; Sassaman 1993; Sinopoli
1991; Skibo and Feinman 1999). A recent review by
Rice (1996a, 1996b) should also disabuse any one of
the belief that Americans have not been active in
studies of ceramic change. Although there is as yet
no in-depth history of American research on tech?
nology, telescoped discussions can be found in the
introductory sections of several recent volumes
(Chilton 1999; Dobres and Hoffman 1999; Stark
1998).
Research on technological change has been car?
ried out by many American investigators working
under the umbrellas of processual, postprocessual,
evolutionary, and behavioral programs. Here we call
attention only to relevant behavioral studies carried
out in America, for representatives of other programs
can more ably prepare their own responses. (The
citations below include works that would not have
been available yet to Loney; we include these
anachronisms in order to make this paper more use?
ful to people desiring to learn about the theoretical
7/30/2019 Schiffer Et Al 01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/schiffer-et-al-01 4/10
COMMENTS 731
resources available for behavioral research on tech?
nological change. On the other hand, for obvious rea-
sons we exclude references to the countless
behavioral studies done by non-Americans.)
Core Concepts and Principles
At the core of behavioral archaeology is a set of
highly general formulations, both concepts and prin?
ciples, useful for technological studies. For exam?
ple, attention has been called to the four dimensions
of artifact variability?formal, spatial, quantitative,
and relational (Rathje and Schiffer 1982, chapter 4;
Schiffer 1992, chapter 1), which assist in formulat-
ing research questions and in evaluating the perti-
nence and weight of evidence. Behavioralists have
also stressed the myriad utilitarian and symbolic
functions of artifacts, coining the terms "techno-
function," "socio-function," and "ideo-function"
(Rathje and Schiffer 1982, chapter 4; Schiffer 1992,
chapter 1). (These functional categories are merely
research tools that serve to focus the investigator's
attention on the complex relationships between peo?
ple and artifacts; they would not be expected to cor?
respond to distinctions made by past peoples.) We
have also underscored the vital contributions of tech?
nologies to the conduct of all human activities (Rathje
and Schiffer 1982; Walker et al. 1995; Zedeno 1997,
2000), including communication (Schiffer and Miller
1999a, 1999b) and ritual and religion (LaMotta and
Schiffer 2001; Skibo and Walker 2002; Walker 1995,
2001). In addition, several versions ofthe life-his-
tory framework?now employed by virtually all seri-
ous students of technology?have been developed,
including flow models (Schiffer 1972, 1976) and
behavioral chains (Schiffer 1975,1976). These mod?
els differ from chatnes operatoires (e.g., Cresswell
1990) by including all activities and processes that
take place during an artifact's life history, not just
operational sequences of manufacture. Also of con?
cern have been the varied kinds of knowledge, often
tacit, that are embodied in the exercise of technical
skill (e.g., Keller 2001; Keller and Keller 1996; Schif?
fer and Miller 1999a; Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Young
and Bonnichsen 1984), as well as learning processes
for acquiring knowledge and skill (e.g., Crown 1999,
2001).Behavioral studies have also clarified, in general
terms, the complex relationships among a technol?
ogy's technical choices, material properties, and per-
formance characteristics (e.g., Kingery 2001; Rice
1996a; Schiffer and Skibo 1987, 1997; Skibo and
Schiffer 2001). Indeed, the concept of performance
characteristic, introduced into archaeology by Braun
(1983), is given special prominence in behavioral
studies, and has been redefined as an interaction- and
activity-specific capability of a person or artifact
(Schiffer and Miller 1999a: 16-20; Schiffer and
Skibo 1997). Performance characteristics enable util-
itarian interactions?e.g., mechanical and thermal?
as well as symbolic ones based on visual, acoustic,
or other sensory modes (for further discussion of
sensory-based performance characteristics, see Lon?
gacre et al. 2000; Schiffer and Skibo 1997; Schiffer
and Miller 1999a, chapter 2). The elucidation of
behaviorally relevant performance characteristics,
which underlie all interactions in activities, is essen-
tial for behavioral studies of technology.
Finally, behavioral principles and techniques have
enhanced our ability to infer specific activities in the
life histories of pottery and other materials, from
procurement of raw materials to reuse and deposi?
tion (for ceramic bibliographies, see Rice 1987,
1996a, 1996b). Such inferences obviously lay a foun?
dation for studying technological change in archae?
ological cases.
Framing Questions
An important move is to frame questions about
"change" in behavioral terms? that is, in relation to
concrete people-artifact interactions in activities.
Indeed, we believe that all "social" processes?as
well as all other high-level concepts and abstrac-
tions?should be expressible in behavioral terms,
and thus made amenable to rigorous archaeological
study. This move clearly reflects our abiding concern
for understanding the involvement of people in tech?
nologies. Construed in this way, "change" denotes a
large family of diverse behavioral/social processes,
from invention to adoption to long-term patterns.
Dealing with such varied processes requires us to for-
mulate and employ a correspondingly varied family
of theories and models (Schiffer 1988,1993,2000b).
Behavioral theories, as opposed to experimental
laws, are often sufficiently general to encompass all
technologies, from ceramics to electric automobiles.
Perhaps Loney has ignored behavioral theoriesbecause they are often closely juxtaposed with case
studies of industrial technologies, which are unfa-
miliar to most archaeologists. It would be ironic
indeed if behavioral theories, which enable the inves-
7/30/2019 Schiffer Et Al 01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/schiffer-et-al-01 5/10
732 AMERICAN NTIQUITY [Vol.66, No. 4,2001]
tigator to construct deeply contextualized explana?
tions, have been overlooked precisely on account of
their great generality.
We now present an overview of some behavioral
theories and models of change processes and callattention to illustrative case studies. For present pur-
poses, any study that is "behavioral" in fact or spirit
is included, without regard to the programmatic com-
mitment of the investigator; we hope that this deci-
sion causes no offense.
Assessing Received Ideas
One requirement of behavioral research is to adopt
a critical stance toward prevalent?but often erro-
neous?ideas abouttechnology
andtechnological
change, regardless of source. Discernible as ideol?
ogy, mythology, and indigenous theory, such ideas
permeate academic and nonacademic discourse and
are often adopted implicitly. Investigators who hold
these ideas may be severely hampered in efforts to
achieve a nuanced understanding of technological
processes.
Behavioral research has identified several kinds
of technology-related ideational phenomena as well
as offered hypotheses on their functions and some?
times insidious effects. Among these contributions
are analyses of corporate "crypto-history" (Schiffer
1991, chapters 1 and 15; 1992, chapter 6), indige?
nous theories about product histories (Schiffer
2000a), myths about garbage and landfill contents
(Rathje 1979, 1989; Rathje et al. 1992; Rathje and
Murphy 1992), and the ideology of "technological
revolution" (Schiffer 1992, chapter 5). Although still
at an early stage, such research shows much promise
for untangling the strands of ideology and "common
sense" that make their way, usually implicitly, into
archaeological discussions about technological
change.
Design Processes
Some questions about technological change can be
fruitfully reformulated as questions about artifact
design processes, and there have been many behav?
ioral contributions to design theory in archaeology
(e.g., Arnold 1985; Binford 1979; Bleed 1986; Bleed
and Bleed 1987; Carr 1995; Hayden et al. 1996;
Horsfall 1987; Kingery 1984, 1989, 2001; Kuhn
1994; McGuire and Schiffer 1983; Nelson 1991;
Rice 1984; Schiffer and Skibo 1987,1997; Skibo and
Schiffer 2001). Behavioral theories of design require
the investigator to assess how myriad causal factors
in the activities along an artifact's behavioral chain
affected, through feedback, the artisan's technical
choices. One also needs to assess the influence of
social variables?e.g., power differentials, gender,sex, social class, age, and ethnicity?on the actual
weighting of performance characteristics (for spe?
cific discussions, see, e.g., Ahler and Geib 2000;
Arnold 1993; Nielsen 1995; Schiffer 1991; Schiffer
etal. 1994; Stark 1998, 1999).
Processes oflnvention
Another promising avenue of inquiry centers on
processes of invention, which create new technolo?
giesand new varieties of old
technologies.Several
behavioral models have been proposed to account for
specific inventions as well as for bursts of inventive
activities in a given kind of technology. Among these
we mention the aggrandizer model (Hayden 1998),
the cultural imperative model (Schiffer 1993), and
the stimulated variation model (Schiffer 1996). Addi?
tional models, as yet unnamed, explain the invention
of specific technologies such as ceramics (e.g., Bar-
nett and Hoopes 1995; Rice 1999). Moreover, the
contingencies surrounding the origin of particular
industrial technologies have been integrated into
detailed historical narratives (e.g., Mullins 1999;
Orser 1996; Schiffer 1991; Schiffer et al. 1994;
Shackel 1996).
Replication Processes
Once invented, technologies may be replicated?
i.e., pass into processes of manufacture and
exchange. Questions about replication focus, for
example, on processes of commercialization in the
industrial world and?more generally?on the orga?
nization of production and exchange. Regarding the
latter processes, there is no dearth of behavioral
research, general and specific (e.g., Arnold 1999;
Bey and Pool 1992; Costin 1991; Graves 1991; Mills
and Crown 1995; Neupert 2000; Rice 1981, 1996;
Skibo and Schiffer 1995; Stark 1991,1994; Triadan
1997; Zedeno 1994).
Adoption Processes
The adoption process (Plog 1974) is another impor?
tant domain of theoretical activity. These studies fur-
nish an opportunity for the archaeologist to integrate
variables of social class, ethnicity, gender, sex, age,
ideology, and so forth into explanations of adoption
7/30/2019 Schiffer Et Al 01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/schiffer-et-al-01 6/10
COMMENTS 733
decisions (e.g., Eighmy 1981; Majewski and Schif?
fer 2001; Spencer-Wood 1987). The central idea in
behavioral theories of adoption, which are still in
their infancy, is that adopting groups?defined usu?
ally by sociodemographic parameters?base their
choices on comparisons among the performance
characteristics of competing technologies in relation
to given activities (e.g., Adams 1999; Longacre et al.
2000; Schiffer 1979, 1995; Skibo 1994). One ofthe
most useful contributions has been the "performance
matrix," a tool for explicitly assessing differences in
the behaviorally relevant performance characteristics
of competing technologies (e.g., Schiffer and Skibo
1987; Schiffer 1995,2000a, 2000b). In an important
caveat, Schiffer and Miller (1999a: 116-118) call
attention to the problem of stereotyping individuals
on the basis of social-group membership.
Large-Scale, Long-Term Processes
Behavioral archaeologists have thus far devoted con?
siderable effort to understanding micro-processes of
technological change such as design and adoption,
but we are not unmindful of the need to research
large-scale, long-term processes (LaMotta and Schif?
fer 2001). In an early paper, for example, Schiffer
(1979; Schiffer 1992, chapter 4) addressed the ques-
tion of how adoption decisions ramify throughout a
society, affecting over the long term other activities
and technologies. Behavioral models have also been
proposed for studying competitions among large-
scale technologies (Gould 1981, 2001; Schiffer
2001) and for investigating processes of technolog?
ical differentiation (Hayden 1981; Schiffer 2002).
Needless to say, in no case do we assume that these
processes are unidirectional or represent technolog?
ical "progress." Indeed, our models can cope withinstances of technological simplification as well as
the loss of entire technologies.
Actualist Contributions
And, lest we forget, the foundation for many tech?
nology studies?undertaken by behavioral archae?
ologists and others?is knowledge, specific and
general, supplied by ethnoarchaeology and experi?
mental archaeology. Both together comprise the actu?
alist strategy of behavioral archaeology (Reid et al.1975; Schiffer 1976, chapter 1). Not only have Amer?
ican archaeologists, especially behavioralists, been
for decades at the forefront of actualist research (e.g.,
D. Arnold 1985, 1993; P. Arnold 1991; David and
Hennig 1972; Deal 1998; Gould 1980,1990; Kramer
1982, 1985, 1997; Longacre 1991; Longacre and
Skibo 1994), which has yielded hundreds?if not
thousands?of process- and technology-specific
experimental laws, but they have also contributed to
methodology (e.g., Griffitts 1997; Keeley 1980;
Mobely-Tanaka and Griffitts 1997; Schiffer et al.
1994; Skibo 1992). We have even reached the point
of establishing correlates on the basis of compara?
tive ethnoarchaeological studies, especially in ceram?
ics (e.g., D. Arnold 1985; Henrickson and McDonald
1983; Shott 1996; Varien and Mills 1997).
Discussion and Conclusion
The preceding paragraphs have cited a sample of
behavioral studies of technological change; many
are explicitly concerned with ceramics or present
general theories and models that subsume ceramics.
In addition, the behavioral program is only one of
several in America that can help anthropologists to
construct deeply contextualized, nuanced, and nomo-
thetically based explanations of technological
change. That said, we find it difficult to sustain the
position that American archaeologists have ignored
studies of technological, especially ceramic, change.
Acknowledgments.We thankM. Nieves Zedeno for preparingthe Spanishabstract.Brian R. McKee furnishedus with help-ful commentson earlierdrafts.
References Cited
Adams,J. L.1999 Refocusing he Role of Food-Grinding ools asCorre-
lates orSubsistenceStrategiesn the U.S. Southwest.Amer?icanAntiquity 4:475^98.
Ahler,S. A., andP.R. Geib2000 WhyFlute?FolsomPointDesignandAdaptation.our?
nal ofArchaeologicalScience27:799-820.
Arnold,D.1985 CeramicTheory nd CulturalProcess.CambridgeUni?
versityPress,Cambridge.1993 Ecologyand CeramicProductionn anAndean Com?
munity.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.Arnold,P.J. III
1991 DomesticCeramicProductionand SpatialOrganiza?tion:A Mexican Case Studyin Ethnoarchaeology.Cam?
bridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.1999 On Typologies, Selection, and Ethnoarchaeologyn
CeramicProductionStudies.In MaterialMeanings:Criti-cal Approaches o the Interpretationf MaterialCulture,editedby E. S. Chilton,pp. 103-177. Universityof Utah
Press,Salt LakeCity.Barnett,W.K., andJ.W.Hoopes(editors)
1995 TheEmergence f Pottery:Technology ndInnovationin Ancient Societies.Smithsonian nstitutionPress,Wash?
ington,D.C.
Bey,G.J., III,andC.A. Pool (editors)
7/30/2019 Schiffer Et Al 01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/schiffer-et-al-01 7/10
734 AMERICANNTIQUITY [Vol.66, No. 4,2001]
1992 CeramicProductionand Distribution:An IntegratedApproach.WestviewPress,Boulder,Colorado.
Binford,L. R.1979 Organizationand FormationProcesses: Looking at
Curated echnologies. ournalofAnthropological esearch32:255-273.
Bleed,P.1986 The OptimalDesign of HuntingWeapons:Maintain-
abilityorReliability.AmericanAntiquity1:737-747.2001 ArtificeConstrained:WhatDeterminesTechnological
Choice?In AnthropologicalPerspectiveson Technology,editedby M. B. Schiffer,pp. 151-162. Universityof NewMexicoPress,Albuquerque.
Bleed, R, andA. Bleed1987 Energy Efficiencyand Hand Tool Design:A Perfor?
manceComparison f PushandPull StrokeSaws.Journal
of AnthropologicalArchaeology6:189-197.
Braun,D.1983 Pots as Tools.InArchaeologicalHammersand Theo?
ries,editedby A. Keene and J.Moore,pp. 107-134. Acad?
emicPress,NewYork.Bronitsky,G. (editor)
1989 PotteryTechnology:deas andApproaches.Westview
Press,Boulder,Colorado.
Carr,C.1995 Buildinga Unified Middle-RangeTheoryof Artifact
Design:HistoricalPerspectivesandTactics.InStyle,Soci?
ety,andPerson,editedby C. Carrand J.H. E. Neitzel, pp.151-258. Plenum,New York.
Chilton,E. S.1999 MaterialMeaningsandMeaningfulMaterials: nIntro?
duction. nMaterialMeanings:CriticalApproacheso the
Interpretationf MaterialCulture, ditedby E. S. Chilton,
pp.1-6.
Universityof Utah
Press,SaltLake
City.Costin,C. L.1991 CraftSpecialization:ssues nDefining,Documenting,
andExplaining he Organization f Production.Archaeo?
logicalMethodandTheory3:1-56.
Cresswell,R.1990 "ANewTechnology"Revisited.ArchaeologicalReview
from Cambridge :39-54.
Crown,P.1999 Socialization n AmericanSouthwestPotteryDecora?
tion.InPotteryandPeople:a DynamicInteraction, dited
by J. M. Skibo and G. M. Feinman,pp. 25^-3. Universityof UtahPress,Salt LakeCity.
2001 Learningo MakePotterynthePrehispanicAmerican
Southwest.Journalof AnthropologicalResearch57(4), inpress.
David, N., and H. Hennig1972 The Ethnography f Pottery:A Fulani Case Seen in
ArchaeologicalPerspective.Addison-WesleyModularPub?lications nAnthropology, o. 21.
Dobres,M.-A., andC. R. Hoffman1994 SocialAgencyand theDynamicsof PrehistoricTech?
nology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory1:211-258.
1999 Introduction: Context or the Presentand Futureof
TechnologyStudies. nTheSocialDynamicsof Technology,editedby M.-A. Dobres and C. R. Hoffman,pp. 1- 19.Smithsonian nstitution
Press,Washington,D.C.
Eighmy,J.L.1981 TheUse of MaterialCulturen DiachronicAnthropol?
ogy.InModernMaterialCultureStudies:TheArchaeologyofUs, editedbyR. A. GouldandM. B. Schiffer,pp.31-^9.AcademicPress,NewYork.
Gould,R.A.
1980 LivingArchaeology.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cam?
bridge.1981 BrandonRevisited:A New Look atan OldTechnology.
InModernMaterialCulture tudies:TheArchaeology fUs,editedbyR. A. GouldandM.B. Schiffer,pp.269-281. Aca?demicPress,New York.
1990Recovering
he Past.University
of New MexicoPress,Albuquerque.
2001 FromSailto Steamat Seain the Late 19thCentury.n
AnthropologicalPerspectiveson Technology, ditedby M.B. Schiffer,pp. 193-213. Universityof New MexicoPress,
Albuquerque.Graves,M.
1991 Pottery Production and Distribution Among the
Kalinga:A Studyof HouseholdandRegionalOrganizationandDifferentiation.n CeramicEthnoarchaeology,dited
byW.A.Longacre, p.112-143.University fArizonaPress,Tucson.
1994 KalingaSocial and Material CultureBoundaries:ACaseofSpatialConvergence.nKalingaEthnoarchaeology:
ExpandingArchaeologicalMethodand Theory,editedbyW.A. LongacreandJ. M. Skibo,pp. 13^-9. SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Griffitts, .L.1997 ReplicationandAnalysisof Use-Wearon Bone Tools.
In Proceedingsof the InternationalConferenceon Bone
Modification,8th RoundTable on Taphonomy nd Bone
Modification, ept.1993,HotSprings,SouthDakota,edited
byL.A.Hannus,L.Rossum,andR.P.Winham, p.236-246.
AugustanaCollege,ArchaeologyLaboratory,OccasionalPublicationNo. 1. SiouxFalls,SouthDakota.
Hayden,B.1981 ResearchandDevelopment n the StoneAge. Current
Anthropology2:519- 548.
1998 PracticalandPrestigeTechnologies:TheEvolutionofMaterialSystems.Journalof ArchaeologicalMethod and
Theory5:1-55.
Hayden,B., N. Francis,and J. Spafford1996 EvaluatingLithic Strategiesand Design Criteria.In
Stone Tools:Theoretical nsightsintoHumanPrehistory,editedby G. Odell,pp.9-^5. Plenum,New York.
Henrickson,E. F.,and M. A. McDonald1983 CeramicForm and Function:An Ethnoarchaeological
Search ndanArchaeological pplication. mericanAnthro?
pologist $5:630-643.
Horsfall,G. A.1987 Design TheoryandGrinding. tones.InLithic Studies
among heContemporaryighlandMaya,editedbyB.Hay?den,pp. 332-377. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Keeley,L.1980 ExperimentalDetermination f Stone Tool Uses.Uni?
versityof ChicagoPress,Chicago.Keller,C. M.
2001 ThoughtandProduction:nsightsof the Practitioner.n
AnthropologicalPerspectiveson Technology, ditedby M.B. Schiffer,pp. 33-^5. Universityof New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.Keller,C. M., andJ.D. Keller
1996 Cognition ndToolUse:TheBlacksmithtWork.Cam?
bridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Kingery,W. D.
1984 Interactions f CeramicTechnologywith Society.InPotsand Potters:CurrentApproachesn CeramicArchae?
ology,editedby P. M. Rice, pp. 171-178. MonographNo.
24, Instituteof Archaeology,Universityof California,Los
Angeles.1989 CeramicMaterialsSciencein Society.AnnualReview
7/30/2019 Schiffer Et Al 01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/schiffer-et-al-01 8/10
COMMENTS 735
ofMaterialsScience 19:1-20.2001 The Design Process as a CriticalComponentof the
Anthropology f Technology. nAnthropological erspec?tives onTechnology,ditedby M.B. Schiffer,pp. 123-138.
Universityof New MexicoPress,Albuquerque.Kingery,W. D. (editor)
1990 TheChangingRolesofCeramics nSociety:26,000B.P.to thePresent.AmericanCeramicSociety,Westerville,Ohio.1993 TheSocialand CulturalContexts fNewCeramicTech?
nologies. Ceramics and Civilization, vol. 6. AmericanCeramicSociety,Westerville,Ohio.
Kolb,C. C. (editor)1988 CeramicEcologyRevisited,1987: TheTechnology nd
Socioeconomics fPottery.BARInternationaleries436(1).BritishArchaeologicalReports,Oxford.
Kramer,C.1985 CeramicEthnoarchaeology.nnualReviewofAnthro?
pology 14:77-102.1997 PotterynRajasthan:EthnoarchaeologynTwo ndian
Cities. Smithsonian nstitutionPress,Washington,D. C.
Kramer,C. (editor)1982 VillageEthnoarchaeology. cademicPress,NewYork.
Kuhn,S. L.1994 A FormalApproach o the Design andAssembly of
Mobile Toolkits.AmericanAntiquity 9:426^142.
LaMotta,V.M., and M. B. Schiffer2001 BehavioralArchaeology:Towards New Synthesis. n
ArchaeologicalTheoryToday,editedby Ian Hodder,pp.14-64. PolityPress,Cambridge.
Lemonnier,P.(editor)1993 TechnologicalChoices: Transformationn Material
CulturesSince the Neolithic.Routledge,London.
Loney,H. L.
2000 SocietyandTechnologicalControl:A CriticalReviewof Models of TechnologicalChangein Ceramic Studies.
AmericanAntiquity5:646-668.
Longacre,W. A.1981 KalingaPottery:AnEthnoarchaeologicaltudy. nPat?
ternsofthe Past,editedby I.Hodder,G.Isaac,andN. Ham-
mond,pp.49-66. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.Longacre,W. A. (editor)
1991 CeramicEthnoarchaeology.University of Arizona
Press,Tucson.
Longacre,W.A.,K. L. Kvamme,andM. Kobayashi1988 SouthwesternPotteryStandardization: n Ethnoar?
chaeologicalView fromthePhilippines.Kiva53:101-12.
Longacre,W.A., andJ.M. Skibo(editors)
1994 Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Longacre,W.A., andM. T. Stark1992 Ceramics,Kinshipand Space:A Kalinga Example.
JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology11:125-136.
Longacre,W.A., J.Xia, andT.Yang2000 I Want o Buy a BlackPot.Journalof Archaeological
MethodandTheory7:273-293.
Majewski,T.,and M. B. Schiffer2001 BeyondConsumption: oward nArchaeologyof Con-
sumerism.In Archaeologies of the ContemporaryPast,editedbyV.BuchliandG.Lucas,pp.26-50. Routledge,Lon?don.
Matson,F. R.
1965 CeramicEcology:An Approach o the Study of the
EarlyCultures fthe NearEast. nCeramics ndMan,edited
byF. R. Matson,pp. 202-217. Aldine,Chicago.McGuire,R. H., and M. B. Schiffer
1983 A Theoryof ArchitecturalDesign.JournalofAnthro?
pological Archaeology2:277-303.
Mills,B. J.,andP.L. Crown editors)1995 CeramicProduction n the AmericanSouthwest.Uni?
versityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Mobely-Tanaka,.L., andJ.L. Griffitts1997 SpatulatedndNotchedTools rom heAmerican outh?
west:A LessoninFunction-BasedTypologies. nProceed?
ingsofthe InternationalConference n BoneModification,8th Round Table on Taphonomy nd Bone Modification,Sept.1993,HotSprings,SouthDakota,editedbyL. A. Han-
nus,L.Rossum,andR. RWinham,pp.247-255. AugustanaCollege, ArchaeologyLaboratory,OccasionalPublicationNo. 1. SiouxFalls,SouthDakota.
Mullins,R R.1999 Race andAffluence:AnArchaeologyof AfricanAmer?
ican ConsumerCulture.Plenum,NewYork.
Nelson,B. (editor)1984 DecodingPrehistoricCeramics.SouthernllinoisUni?
versityPress,Carbondale.
Nelson,M.1991 The Study of Technological Organization.Archaeo?
logicalMethodandTheory3:57-100.Neupert,M.
2000 Claysof Contention:AnEthnoarchaeologicaltudyofFactionalismandClay Composition.Journalof Archaeo?
logicalMethodandTheory7:249-272.
Nielsen,A. E.1995 ArchitecturalPerformanceand the Reproductionof
Social Power.In ExpandingArchaeology,editedby J. M.
Skibo,W.H.Walker, ndA. E. Nielsen,pp.47-66. Univer?
sityof UtahPress,Salt LakeCity.O'Brien,M. J.,T. D. Holland,R. J.Hoard,andG.L. Fox
1994 Evolutionary mplications f DesignandPerformanceCharacteristicsf PrehistoricPottery.JournalofArchaeo?
logicalMethodandTheory1:259-304.O'Brien,M.J.,R. L. Lyman,andR. D. Leonard1998 Basic IncompatibilitiesBetween Evolutionaryand
BehavioralArchaeology.AmericanAntiquity3:485^-98.
Orser,C. E., Jr.1996 A HistoricalArchaeology ftheModernWorld. lenum,
NewYork.
Plog,F.1974 TheStudyofPrehistoricChange.AcademicPress,New
York.
Plog, S.1980 StylisticVariationn PrehistoricCeramics.Cambridge
UniversityPress,Cambridge.Rathje,WL.
1979 ModernMaterialCultureStudies.Advances nArchae?ologicalMethodandTheory2:1-37.
1989 TheThreeFaces of Garbage?Measurements,Percep-tions,Behaviors.TheJournalofResourceManagement nd
Technology 7:61-65.
Rathje,W L., W W Hughes,D. C. Wilson,M. K. Tani,G. H.
Archer,R. G. Hunt,andT. W.Jones1992 TheArchaeology f Contemporaryandfills.American
Antiquity 7:437-537.
Rathje,W L., and C. Murphy1992 Rubbish!TheArchaeologyof Garbage.HarperCollins,
New York.
Rathje,W L., and M. B. Schiffer1982
Archaeology.HarcourtBrace
Jovanovich,NewYork.
Reid,J.J.,M. B. Schiffer,andW L. Rathje1975 BehavioralArchaeology:Four Strategies.American
Anthropologist 7:864-869.
Rice,P.M.1981 Evolution of SpecializedPotteryProduction:A Trial
Model. CurrentAnthropology 2:219-240.
7/30/2019 Schiffer Et Al 01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/schiffer-et-al-01 9/10
736 AMERICANNTIQUITY [Vol.66, No. 4,2001]
1984 SomeReflectionsonChangenPotteryProducingSys?tems. In TheManyDimensionsof Pottery: Ceramicsin
Archaeologyand Anthropology,edited by S. E. van derLeeuw andA. C. Pritchard, p. 231-293. Institute orPre-andProto-History,Universityof Amsterdam,Amsterdam.
1987 PotteryAnalysis:a Sourcebook.Universityof Chicago
Press,Chicago.1996a Recent CeramicAnalysis1.Function,Style,andOri?
gins.Journalof ArchaeologicalResearch4:133-163.1996b Recent CeramicAnalysis:2. Composition,Produc?
tion, and Theory. Journal of Archaeological Research4:165-202.
1999 On the Originsof Pottery.Journalof ArchaeologicalMethodandTheory6:1-54.
Sassaman,K. E.1993 Early Pottery n theSoutheast:Tradition nd Innova?
tion in CookingTechnology.Universityof AlabamaPress,Tuscaloosa.
Schiffer,M. B.1972 ArchaeologicalContextandSystemicContext.Amer?
icanAntiquity 7:156-165.1975 BehavioralChainAnalysis:Activities,Organization,
and he Use of Space.InChaptersn thePrehistory fEast?ern Arizona, IV. Fieldiana: Anthropology Vol. 65, pp.103-119. Field Museumof NaturalHistory,Chicago.
1976 BehavioralArcheology.AcademicPress,New York.1979 A PreliminaryConsiderationf BehavioralChange. n
Transformations:MathematicalApproaches to Culture
Change,editedby C. Renfrewand K. Cooke,pp.353-368.AcademicPress,NewYork.
1988 The Structureof ArchaeologicalTheory.American
Antiquity 3:461-485.1991 ThePortableRadio nAmericanLife.University f Ari?
zonaPress,Tucson.1992 TechnologicalerspectivesnBehavioralChange.Uni?
versityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.1993 Cultural mperativesand ProductDevelopment:The
Case of the Shirt-PocketRadio. Technologyand Culture34:98-113.
1995 SocialTheoryandHistory n BehavioralArchaeology.In ExpandingArchaeology,editedby J. M. Skibo,W. H.
Walker,and A. E. Nielsen,pp. 22-35. Universityof Utah
Press,Salt LakeCity.1996 Some RelationshipsBetween Behavioraland Evolu?
tionaryArchaeologies.AmericanAntiquity 1:643-662.2000a IndigenousTheories,ScientificTheoriesandProduct
Histories. nMatter,Materiality ndModernCulture,dited
by P.Graves-Brown,p.72-96. Routledge,London.2000b SocialTheory n Archaeology:Building Bridges.In
SocialTheorynArchaeology, ditedby M. B. Schiffer,pp.1-13. Universityof UtahPress,Salt LakeCity.
2001 TheExplanation fLong-TermTechnologicalChange.InAnthropologicalPerspectiveson Technology, ditedbyM. B. Schiffer,pp. 215-235. Universityof New Mexico
Press,Albuquerque.2002 The Studyof TechnologicalDifferentiation.Ms. sub?
mitted orpublication.Schiffer,M. B? T. C. Burts,andK. Grimm
1994 TakingCharge:The Electric Automobile n America.SmithsoniannstitutionPress,WashingtonD.C.
Schiffer,M. B., andA.R. Miller1999a TheMaterialLifeofHumanBeings:Artifacts,Behav?
ior,and Communication. outledge,London.1999b A BehavioralTheoryof Meaning. nPotteryandPeo?
ple: A DynamicInteraction, ditedbyJ. M. Skibo and G.
M.Feinman,pp. 199-217. Universityof Utah Press, Salt
LakeCity.Schiffer,M. B., andJ. M. Skibo
1987 TheoryandExperimentn theStudyof TechnologicalChange.CurrentAnthropology 8:595-622.
1997 TheExplanationf ArtifactVariability.mericanAntiq?uity62:27-50.
Schiffer,M.B., J. M. Skibo,T. C.Boelke,M. A. Neupert,andM.Aronson
1994 New Perspectives n ExperimentalArchaeology:Sur?faceTreatments ndThermalResponsesof theClayCook-
ing Pot.AmericanAntiquity9:197-217.
Shackel,P.A.1996 CultureChangeand the New Technology:AnArchae?
ologyofthe EarlyIndustrialEra.Plenum,New York.
Shott,M.1996 MortalPots:On Use Life and Vessel Size in theFor?
mation of Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity61:463-482.
Sinopoli,C.1991 ApproachesoArchaeologicalCeramics.Plenum,New
York.Skibo,J. M.
1992 Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective.Plenum,New York.
1994 TheKalingaCookingPot:AnEthnoarchaeologicalnd
ExperimentalStudyof TechnologicalChange.In KalingaEthnoarchaeology: xpandingArchaeologicalTheoryand
Method,editedby W. A. Longacreand J. M. Skibo, pp.113-126. Smithsonian nstitutionPress,WashingtonD.C.
Skibo,J.M., and E. Blinman1999 Exploring the Origins of Pottery on the Colorado
Plateau.nPottery ndPeople:ADynamic nteraction,dited
by J. M. Skibo and G.Feinman,pp. 171-183. Universityof
UtahPress,Salt LakeCity.Skibo,J.M., andG. M. Feinman
1999 PotteryandPeople:ADynamic nteraction.Universityof UtahPress,Salt LakeCity.
Skibo,J.M., and M. B. Schiffer1995 The Clay CookingPot: An Explorationof Women's
Technology.In ExpandingArchaeology,edited by J. M.
Skibo,W H. Walker, ndA. E.Nielson,pp.80-91. Univer?
sityof UtahPress,Salt LakeCity.2001 UnderstandingArtifactVariabilityand Change:A
BehavioralFramework.nAnthropological erspectives n
Technology, ditedby M. B. Schiffer,pp. 139- 149. Uni?
versityof New MexicoPress,Albuquerque.Skibo,J.M., andW H. Walker
2002 Ball CourtsandRitualPerformance.n TheJoyceWellSite:On the Frontier fthe Casas GrandesWorld, ditedbyJ. M. Skibo,E. B. McCluney,W H. Walker.UniversityofUtahPress,SaltLakeCity, n press.
Spencer-Wood, . M. (editor)1987 ConsumerChoiceinHistoricalArchaeology.Plenum,
New York.
Stark,M. T.1991 CeramicProduction ndCommunitySpecialization:A
CeramicEthnoarchaeologicalStudy. WorldArchaeology23:64-78.
1994 PotteryExchangeand theRegional System:a DalupaCaseStudy. nKalingaEthnoarchaeology,ditedbyW A.
Longacreand J. M. Skibo,pp. 169-197. Smithsonian nsti?tutionPress,Washington,D.C.1998 TechnicalChoices and Social Boundaries n Material
CulturePatterning: n Introduction.n TheArchaeologyofSocialBoundaries, ditedby M. T.Stark,pp. 1-11. Smith?sonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
7/30/2019 Schiffer Et Al 01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/schiffer-et-al-01 10/10
COMMENTS 737
1999 Social Dimensions of Technical Choice in KalingaCeramic Traditions. In Material Meanings: Critical
Approacheso theInterpretationfMaterialCulture,dited
by E. S. Chilton,pp. 24-43. Universityof UtahPress,SaltLakeCity.
Triadan,D.
1997 CeramicCommoditiesand CommonContainers: ro?duction and Distribution f White MountainRed Ware nthe GrasshopperRegion,Arizona. Universityof Arizona,
Anthropological apers,No. 61.
Varien,M. D., andB. J. Mills1997 AccumulationsResearch:ProblemsandProspects or
EstimatingSite OccupationSpan.JournalofArchaeologi?cal MethodandTheory4:141-191.
Walker,W H.1995 CeremonialTrash? n ExpandingArchaeology, dited
by J.M. Skibo,W H.Walker, ndA. E.Nielsen,pp.67-79.
Universityof UtahPress,Salt LakeCity.2001 RitualTechnologyn anExtranaturalWorld. nAnthro?
pological Perspectives nTechnology,ditedbyM.B. Schif?fer, pp. 87-106. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.Walker,W H., J. M. Skibo,andA. E. Nielsen
1995 Introduction:ExpandingArchaeology.In ExpandingArchaeology,editedby J. M. Skibo,W H. Walker,andA.E. Nielsen, pp. 1-12. Universityof UtahPress,Salt Lake
City.Wylie,A.
1995 AnExpandedBehavioralArchaeology:Transformation
andRedefinition. n ExpandingArchaeology,editedby J.M. Skibo,W H. Walker,andA. E. Nielsen, pp. 198-209.
Universityof UtahPress,Salt LakeCity.Yoffee,N., andA. Sherratt
1993 Introduction:Sources of Archaeological Theory.In
ArchaeologicalTheory:WhoSetstheAgenda?editedbyN.
YoffeeandAndrewSherratt, p. 1-9.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Young,D. E., and R. Bonnichsen1984 UnderstandingtoneTools:A CognitiveApproach.Cen?
terfor theStudyof EarlyMan,Universityof Maine,Orono.
Zedefio,M. N.1994 SourcingPrehistoricCeramicsat ChodistaasPueblo,
Arizona: heCirculationf PeopleandPots n theGrasshop?per Region.AnthropologicalPapers,No. 58. Universityof
Arizona,Tucson.1997 Landscapes,LandUse,and heHistoryofTerritoryor?
mation:AnExample rom he PuebloanSouthwest.Journal
ofArchaeologicalMethodandTheory4:67-103.
2000 On WhatPeople Make of Places:A BehavioralCar-tography.nSocialTheory nArchaeology, ditedby M. B.
Schiffer,pp. 97-111. Universityof UtahPress,Salt Lake
City.
ReceivedApril6, 2001;AcceptedApril10, 2001; RevisedJune
6, 2001.