Schiffer Et Al 01

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694186?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694186?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam



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



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



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-



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



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)




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



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.




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.



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.

Schiffer Et Al 01

Documents

Transcript of Schiffer Et Al 01