Behavioral Archaeology and the Study of Technology

Author(s): Michael Brian Schiffer, James M. Skibo, Janet L. Griffitts, Kacy L.

Hollenback and William A. Longacre
Source: American Antiquity , Oct., 2001, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 2001), pp. 729-737
Published by: Cambridge University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2694186

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.com/stable/2694186?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to American Antiquity

This content downloaded from

200.24.17.12 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 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) recent paper claims that American archaeologists have paid scant attention to the study of
cially ceramic, change. We argue that, infact, interest in such change processes has grown greatly in rec
Loney has overlooked much relevant literature. We support our general argument with a catalog of recen
on technological change.

El articulo escrito por Loney (2000) arguye que la arqueologia americana ha prestado muy poca atencid
tecnoldgico, especialmente en material cerdmico. Nosotros sugerimos que de hecho el interes en estos pro
cido mucho en decadas recientes y que Loney ha ignorado la literatura relevante. Apoyamos nuestro argum
catdlogo de la reciente investigacion conductual sobre cambio tecnoldgico.

nations of the Caribbean, and Central and South

recent paper on ceramic studies in Europe America.)
We read with great interest Loney's (2000)
and America. Although we appreciate
Are All American Ceramic
Loney's attempt to initiate international discussion,
Scholars Evolutionists?
and admire her chutzpah for challenging an entire
hemisphere, we are troubled by her negative assess? Because evolutionists have been so articulate and
ment of American ceramic research: "European stud? prolific, one could get the impression that they speak
ies of ceramic change are undergoing a period of for all American archaeologists. That Loney seems
vitality and innovation, [whereas] American studies to have formed such an impression is betrayed by
have been less fruitful" (p. 647). On the contrary, a her insistence that the lack of vitality and innovation
great many American scholars, following the lead of in American ceramic studies stems from our dogged
Frederick Matson (1965) and other ceramic ecolo- insistence on using the concept of evolution. How?
gists (e.g., Arnold 1985; Kolb 1988), have toiled for ever, the majority of ceramic specialists are not evo?
decades to understand the dynamic and multifaceted lutionists, and they do not equate ceramic change
relationships between pottery and people; this large with "evolution." (Loney has also misrepresented
and theoretically diverse body of research should not evolutionary arguments, as Hector Neff points out
be summarily dismissed. Although we dispute sev? elsewhere in this volume.)
We agree with Loney that the use of "progress"
eral of Loney's problematic claims, our paper mainly
illustrates the fruitfulness of American ceramic
as an underlying assumption in ceramic studies
imposes views of change that are unidirectional.
research by focusing on how technology and tech?
nological change are explored by behavioral archae?
However, she neglects to mention that most Ameri?
can scholars do not use value-laden terms like
ologists?the theoretical orientation we know best.
(In contrast to Loney's usage, by "America""progress"
we in their studies of ceramic change, nor do
include the United States, Canada, Mexico, and
they invoke Darwinian or any other kind of evolu-

Michael Brian Schiffer ? Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

James M. Skibo ? 4640 Anthropology Program, Illinois State University, Normal-Bloomington, IL 61761-6901
Janet L. Griffitts ? Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Kacy L. Hollenback ? Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
William A. Longacre ? Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

AmericanAntiquity, 66(4), 2001, pp. 729-738

Copyright? 2001 by the Society for American Archaeology

729

This content downloaded from

200.24.17.12 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
730 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 4,2001]

archaeologists
tionary theory. Rather, they employ have shown littlediverse
interest in contex-
social
behavioral theories totualized
providestudies of technological
richly change in general
contextua
accounts of empirically documented
and ceramic sequence
change in particular: "This intense inter?
technological change. est
American ceramic
[in Europe] in the relationship theor
between technol?
not circumscribed by ogy
evolutionism,
and society, and the resulting but
interest inhas rece
how they
change over time, has notof
contributions from practitioners been followed
many by Ameri?
theor
can ceramic analysts" (p.
programs. That these programs are647). We
notare mystified
merely by
this sweeping
ations on an evolutionary statement, which
theme seems to be
should bebasedevi
to anyone who compares, for
on an incomplete example,
familiarity Dobres
with the American lit?
Hoffman (1994), Kuhn (1994),
erature. We realize, ofO'Brien et phrase
course, that this latter al. (1
and Schiffer and Skibo (1997).
is usually a euphemism(For a discussio
for "the author did not cite
me." And,incompatibilities,
specific differences, even in this case, it is exactly what we mean.
bet
behavioral and evolutionary archaeologies,
At the risk of appearing like people jumping up and se
Arnold [1999]; O'Brien et "nobody
down yelling, al. wants
[1998];to play withSchiff
us," we
forge ahead and apologize now for our self-indul-
[1996]; and Wylie [1995].)
gence.
Following the Scholarly Trail
Trends in the Study studies
We do not believe that behavioral of Technological
of Change
ceram
change make tracks that are reading
The most cursory difficult
ofthe Americanto find
literature
would indicate
Loney fails to follow the that interest in studying
intellectual trailtechnologi?
for m
cal change has grown
ofthe concepts she discusses. In thesteadily section
over the past several
"Ant
decades.Loney
pology of Technology," This trend is evident
does in the many papers
mention s
published
of our work, but places it since 1980 by major
among theAmerican periodicals,
Shipibo. S
ibo-Conibo pottery and
includingthe research
Archaeological ofJour?
Method and Theory, War
nal of Archaeological
DeBoer are indeed important, butMethodour
and Theory, Journal
ethnoar
ological investigations have Archaeology,
of Anthropological takenand
place
American ma
Antiquity,
among the Kalinga and other as well as in general monographs
Philippine groupsand
Graves 1994; Longacre books?some
1981; focused entirely on ceramics
Longacre and (e.g., Sk
1994; Longacre and Bronitsky
Stark 1989;1992; Longacre
Kingery 1990,1993; Nelson 1984; e
Plog 1980; Rice
2000; Neupert 2000; Skibo 1987; Sassaman
1992; Stark 1993; Sinopoli
1999).
Beyond geography are1991; Skibo and Feinman 1999).
problems inA recent
the review by
attrib
Rice (1996a,
tion of key concepts. We do 1996b)
not should also disabuse
wish to any one of
bicker
the belief that
who originated the notion of Americans have not been active in
"technological cho
studies of ceramic
which Loney clearly likes and change. Although there is as
attributes yet
solel
Lemonnier (1993), but thehistory
no in-depth concept?also
of American research onlabel
tech?
"technical choice"?has long
nology, been
telescoped central
discussions can be found to
in thebe
introductory sections
ioral discussions of ceramic of several recent
change. For volumes
exam
we have used "technical choice" since 1987 in stud? (Chilton 1999; Dobres and Hoffman 1999; Stark
ies that employ various data bases?experimental1998).
(e.g., Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Schiffer et al. 1994), Research on technological change has been car?
ethnoarchaeological (e.g., Longacre et al. 2000; ried out by many American investigators working
Skibo 1992, 1994), and prehistoric (e.g., Schifferunder the umbrellas of processual, postprocessual,
and Skibo 1987; Skibo andBlinman 1999; Skibo and evolutionary, and behavioral programs. Here we call
Walker 2002). What is more, the basic idea that the
attention only to relevant behavioral studies carried
explanation of any technological change should be
out in America, for representatives of other programs
can more ably prepare their own responses. (The
based on a rigorous comparison among alternatives,
citations below include works that would not have
in terms of their behavioral capabilities, goes back
been available yet to Loney; we include these
at least to Schiffer (1979), and is doubtless present
much earlier in the American literature. anachronisms in order to make this paper more use?
ful to people desiring to learn about the theoretical
Remarkably, Loney also contends that American

This content downloaded from

200.24.17.12 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMMENTS 731

resources available for behavioral research on tech? 1996a; Schiffer and Skibo 1987, 1997; Skibo and
nological change. On the other hand, for obvious rea-Schiffer 2001). Indeed, the concept of performan
sons we exclude references to the countless characteristic, introduced into archaeology by Brau
behavioral studies done by non-Americans.)
(1983), is given special prominence in behaviora
studies, and has been redefined as an interaction- an
Core Concepts and Principles
activity-specific capability of a person or artifa
(Schiffer
At the core of behavioral archaeology is a set of and Miller 1999a: 16-20; Schiffer and
Skibo
highly general formulations, both concepts and 1997). Performance characteristics enable uti
prin?
ciples, useful for technological studies. For
itarian
exam?interactions?e.g., mechanical and therma
as well as symbolic ones based on visual, acoustic
ple, attention has been called to the four dimensions
or other sensory modes (for further discussion
of artifact variability?formal, spatial, quantitative,
and relational (Rathje and Schiffer 1982, chapter 4;
sensory-based performance characteristics, see Lon
gacre et al. 2000; Schiffer and Skibo 1997; Schiff
Schiffer 1992, chapter 1), which assist in formulat-
and
ing research questions and in evaluating the Miller 1999a, chapter 2). The elucidation
perti-
nence and weight of evidence. Behavioralists have
behaviorally relevant performance characteristic
which underlie all interactions in activities, is esse
also stressed the myriad utilitarian and symbolic
functions of artifacts, coining the terms "techno-
tial for behavioral studies of technology.
function," "socio-function," and "ideo-function"
Finally, behavioral principles and techniques hav
(Rathje and Schiffer 1982, chapter 4; Schiffer 1992, our ability to infer specific activities in t
enhanced
chapter 1). (These functional categories arelife
merely
histories of pottery and other materials, fro
procurement of raw materials to reuse and depo
research tools that serve to focus the investigator's
tionpeo?
attention on the complex relationships between (for ceramic bibliographies, see Rice 198
ple and artifacts; they would not be expected1996a, 1996b). Such inferences obviously lay a foun
to cor?
respond to distinctions made by past peoples.)
dationWe
for studying technological change in archae
have also underscored the vital contributions of tech? cases.
ological
nologies to the conduct of all human activities (Rathje
Framing Questions
and Schiffer 1982; Walker et al. 1995; Zedeno 1997,
AnMiller
2000), including communication (Schiffer and important move is to frame questions abou
1999a, 1999b) and ritual and religion (LaMotta and in behavioral terms? that is, in relation
"change"
Schiffer 2001; Skibo and Walker 2002; Walker 1995, people-artifact interactions in activitie
concrete
2001). In addition, several versions ofthe life-his-
Indeed, we believe that all "social" processes?
tory framework?now employed by virtuallywell as all other high-level concepts and abstra
all seri-
ous students of technology?have been developed,
tions?should be expressible in behavioral terms
including flow models (Schiffer 1972, 1976)and and
thus made amenable to rigorous archaeologi
behavioral chains (Schiffer 1975,1976). These mod?
study. This move clearly reflects our abiding conce
els differ from chatnes operatoires (e.g., Cresswell
for understanding the involvement of people in tec
nologies.
1990) by including all activities and processes that Construed in this way, "change" denote
take place during an artifact's life history, large family of diverse behavioral/social process
not just
operational sequences of manufacture. Alsofrom
of con?
invention to adoption to long-term patter
cern have been the varied kinds of knowledge, oftenwith such varied processes requires us to f
Dealing
tacit, that are embodied in the exercise of technical
mulate and employ a correspondingly varied fami
ofSchif?
skill (e.g., Keller 2001; Keller and Keller 1996; theories and models (Schiffer 1988,1993,2000
Behavioral theories, as opposed to experiment
fer and Miller 1999a; Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Young
and Bonnichsen 1984), as well as learning processes
laws, are often sufficiently general to encompass
technologies,
for acquiring knowledge and skill (e.g., Crown 1999, from ceramics to electric automobil
2001). Perhaps Loney has ignored behavioral theor
Behavioral studies have also clarified, in because
general they are often closely juxtaposed with c
studies of industrial technologies, which are un
terms, the complex relationships among a technol?
ogy's technical choices, material properties, miliar
and per-to most archaeologists. It would be iron
formance characteristics (e.g., Kingery 2001; indeed if behavioral theories, which enable the inv
Rice

This content downloaded from

200.24.17.12 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
732 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 4,2001]

tigator to construct the investigator to assess

deeply how myriad causal factors
contextualized exp
in the activities along
tions, have been overlooked an artifact's behavioral chain
precisely on accou
their great generality. affected, through feedback, the artisan's technical
We now present an choices.
overviewOne also needs toofassesssome
the influencebehavi
of
theories and models social
ofvariables?e.g.,
change power
processes
differentials, gender,
and
sex, social
attention to illustrative case class, age, and ethnicity?on
studies. For the actual
present
poses, any study that weighting of performance characteristics
is "behavioral" in fact (for spe?or
cific discussions,
is included, without regard to the see, e.g., Ahler and Geib 2000;
programmatic
Arnold 1993; Nielsen
mitment of the investigator; we 1995; Schiffer 1991;
hope that Schiffer
this
sion causes no offense. etal. 1994; Stark 1998, 1999).

Assessing Received Ideas Processes oflnvention

Another promising avenue of inquiry centers on

One requirement of behavioral research is to adopt
a critical stance toward prevalent?but often erro-processes of invention, which create new technolo?
neous?ideas about technology and technological gies and new varieties of old technologies. Several
change, regardless of source. Discernible as ideol?behavioral models have been proposed to account for
ogy, mythology, and indigenous theory, such ideas
specific inventions as well as for bursts of inventive
permeate academic and nonacademic discourse andactivities in a given kind of technology. Among these
are often adopted implicitly. Investigators who holdwe mention the aggrandizer model (Hayden 1998),
these ideas may be severely hampered in efforts tothe cultural imperative model (Schiffer 1993), and
achieve a nuanced understanding of technologicalthe stimulated variation model (Schiffer 1996). Addi?
processes. tional models, as yet unnamed, explain the invention
Behavioral research has identified several kinds of specific technologies such as ceramics (e.g., Bar-
of technology-related ideational phenomena as wellnett and Hoopes 1995; Rice 1999). Moreover, the
as offered hypotheses on their functions and some?contingencies surrounding the origin of particular
times insidious effects. Among these contributions industrial technologies have been integrated into
are analyses of corporate "crypto-history" (Schifferdetailed historical narratives (e.g., Mullins 1999;
1991, chapters 1 and 15; 1992, chapter 6), indige?Orser 1996; Schiffer 1991; Schiffer et al. 1994;
nous theories about product histories (Schiffer Shackel 1996).
2000a), myths about garbage and landfill contents
Replication Processes
(Rathje 1979, 1989; Rathje et al. 1992; Rathje and
Murphy 1992), and the ideology of "technologicalOnce invented, technologies may be replicated?
revolution" (Schiffer 1992, chapter 5). Although stilli.e., pass into processes of manufacture and
at an early stage, such research shows much promiseexchange. Questions about replication focus, for
example, on processes of commercialization in the
for untangling the strands of ideology and "common
sense" that make their way, usually implicitly, intoindustrial world and?more generally?on the orga?
archaeological discussions about technological
nization of production and exchange. Regarding the
change. latter processes, there is no dearth of behavioral
research, general and specific (e.g., Arnold 1999;
Design Processes
Bey and Pool 1992; Costin 1991; Graves 1991; Mills
Some questions about technological change can be and Crown 1995; Neupert 2000; Rice 1981, 1996;
fruitfully reformulated as questions about artifact Skibo and Schiffer 1995; Stark 1991,1994; Triadan
design processes, and there have been many behav? 1997; Zedeno 1994).
ioral contributions to design theory in archaeology
Adoption Processes
(e.g., Arnold 1985; Binford 1979; Bleed 1986; Bleed
and Bleed 1987; Carr 1995; Hayden et al. 1996; The adoption process (Plog 1974) is another impor?
Horsfall 1987; Kingery 1984, 1989, 2001; Kuhn tant domain of theoretical activity. These studies fur-
1994; McGuire and Schiffer 1983; Nelson 1991; nish an opportunity for the archaeologist to integrate
Rice 1984; Schiffer and Skibo 1987,1997; Skibo and variables of social class, ethnicity, gender, sex, age,
Schiffer 2001). Behavioral theories of design require ideology, and so forth into explanations of adoption

This content downloaded from

200.24.17.12 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMMENTS 733

decisions Hennig 1972; Deal 1998;Eighmy

(e.g., Gould 1980,1990; Kramer
fer 2001; 1982, 1985, 1997; Longacre 1991; Longacre and
Spencer-Woo
behavioralSkibo 1994), which has yielded hundreds?if not
theories of
their thousands?of process-
infancy, is and technology-specific
that a
ally by sociodemograp
experimental laws, but they have also contributed to
choices on methodology (e.g., Griffitts 1997; Keeley 1980;
comparison
Mobely-Tanaka and Griffitts
characteristics of 1997;comp
Schiffer et al.
to given 1994; Skibo
activities 1992). We have even reached the point
(e.g.,
2000; Schiffer
of establishing correlates 1979,
on the basis of compara? 1
most tive ethnoarchaeological
useful contributio studies, especially in ceram?
matrix," a ics (e.g., D. Arnold 1985;
tool for Henrickson andexpl
McDonald
the 1983; Shott 1996; Varien and
behaviorally Mills 1997).
relevan
of competing technolo
Discussion and Conclusion
1987; Schiffer 1995,200
caveat, Schiffer
The preceding paragraphs have and M
cited a sample of
attention behavioral
to thestudies of technological
problem change; many
on are explicitly
basis the
of concerned with ceramics or present
social-g
general theories and models that subsume ceramics.
Large-Scale, Long-Term
In addition, the behavioral program is only one of
Behavioral several in America that can help anthropologists to
archaeologist
siderable construct deeply contextualized,
effort tonuanced, and nomo-
unde
thetically based
technological explanations of technological
change s
but we are not unmindful of the need to research
change. That said, we find it difficult to sustain the
large-scale, long-term processes (LaMotta and Schif? position that American archaeologists have ignored
fer 2001). In an early paper, for example, Schiffer studies of technological, especially ceramic, change.
(1979; Schiffer 1992, chapter 4) addressed the ques-
Acknowledgments. We thank M. Nieves Zedeno for preparing
tion of how adoption decisions ramify throughout a
the Spanish abstract. Brian R. McKee furnished us with help-
society, affecting over the long term other activities ful comments on earlier drafts.
and technologies. Behavioral models have also been
proposed for studying competitions among large- References Cited

scale technologies (Gould 1981, 2001; Schiffer Adams, J. L.

2001) and for investigating processes of technolog? 1999 Refocusing the Role of Food-Grinding Tools as Corre-
lates for Subsistence Strategies in the U.S. Southwest. Amer?
ical differentiation (Hayden 1981; Schiffer 2002). ican Antiquity 64:475^98.
Needless to say, in no case do we assume that these Ahler, S. A., and P. R. Geib
processes are unidirectional or represent technolog? 2000 Why Flute? Folsom Point Design and Adaptation. Jour?
nal of Archaeological Science 27:799-820.
ical "progress." Indeed, our models can cope with Arnold, D.
instances of technological simplification as well as 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge Uni?
the loss of entire technologies. versity Press, Cambridge.
1993 Ecology and Ceramic Production in an Andean Com?
Actualist Contributions munity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Arnold, P. J. III

And, lest we forget, the foundation for many tech? 1991 Domestic Ceramic Production and Spatial Organiza?
tion: A Mexican Case Study in Ethnoarchaeology. Cam?
nology studies?undertaken by behavioral archae? bridge University Press, Cambridge.
ologists and others?is knowledge, specific and 1999 On Typologies, Selection, and Ethnoarchaeology in
Ceramic Production Studies. In Material Meanings: Criti-
general, supplied by ethnoarchaeology and experi?
cal Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture,
mental archaeology. Both together comprise the actu? edited by E. S. Chilton, pp. 103-177. University of Utah
alist strategy of behavioral archaeology (Reid et al. Press, Salt Lake City.
1975; Schiffer 1976, chapter 1). Not only have Amer?Barnett, W. K., and J. W. Hoopes (editors)
1995 The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation
ican archaeologists, especially behavioralists, been in Ancient Societies. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash?
for decades at the forefront of actualist research (e.g., ington, D.C.
D. Arnold 1985, 1993; P. Arnold 1991; David and Bey, G. J., III, and C. A. Pool (editors)

This content downloaded from

200.24.17.12 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 734 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 4,2001]

1992 Ceramic Production and

1980 Living
Approach. Westview Press, bridge. Boulder, Colorado.
Binford, L. R. 1981 Brandon Revisited: A New Look at an Old Technology.
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at In Modern Material Culture Studies: The Archaeology ofUs,
Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research
32:255-273.
Bleed, P.
1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintain-
ability or Reliability. AmericanAntiquity 51:737-747.
2001 Artifice Constrained: What Determines Technological
Choice? In Anthropological Perspectives on Technology,
edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 151-162. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Bleed, R, and A. Bleed
1987 Energy Efficiency and Hand Tool Design: A Perfor?
mance Comparison of Push and Pull Stroke Saws. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 6:189-197.
Braun, D.
1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theo?
ries, edited by A. Keene and J. Moore, pp. 107-134. Acad?
emic Press, New York.
Bronitsky, G. (editor)
1989 Pottery Technology: Ideas and Approaches. Westview
Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Carr,C.
1995 Building a Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact
Design: Historical Perspectives and Tactics. In Style, Soci?
ety, and Person, edited by C. Carr and J. H. E. Neitzel, pp.
151-258. Plenum, New York.
Chilton, E. S.
1999 Material Meanings and Meaningful Materials: An Intro?
duction. In Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the
Interpretation of Material Culture, edited by E. S. Chilton,
pp. 1-6. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Costin, C. L.
1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting,
and Explaining the Organization of Production. Archaeo?
logical Method and Theory 3:1-56.
Cresswell, R.
1990 "A New Technology" Revisited. Archaeological Review
from Cambridge 9:39-54.
Crown, P.
1999 Socialization in American Southwest Pottery Decora?
tion. In Pottery and People: a Dynamic Interaction, edited
by J. M. Skibo and G. M. Feinman, pp. 25^-3. University
of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2001 Learning to Make Pottery in the Prehispanic American
Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 57(4), in
press.
David, N., and H. Hennig
1972 The Ethnography of Pottery: A Fulani Case Seen in
Archaeological Perspective. Addison-Wesley Modular Pub?
lications in Anthropology, No. 21.
Dobres, M.-A., and C. R. Hoffman
1994 Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Tech?
nology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
1:211-258.
1999 Introduction: A Context for the Present and Future of
Technology Studies. In The Social Dynamics of Technology,
edited by M.-A. Dobres and C. R. Hoffman, pp. 1- 19.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Eighmy, J. L.
1981 The Use of Material Culture in Diachronic Anthropol?
ogy. In Modern Material Culture Studies: The Archaeology
ofUs, edited by R. A. Gould and M. B. Schiffer, pp. 31-^9.
Academic Press, New York.
Gould, R. A.
Distribution:
Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cam? An Inte
edited by R. A. GouldandM. B. Schiffer, pp. 269-281. Aca?
demic Press, New York.
1990 Recovering the Past. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
2001 From Sail to Steam at Sea in the Late 19th Century. In
Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, edited by M.
B. Schiffer, pp. 193-213. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Graves, M.
1991 Pottery Production and Distribution Among the
Kalinga: A Study of Household and Regional Organization
and Differentiation. In Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, edited
by W.A. Longacre, pp. 112-143. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
1994 Kalinga Social and Material Culture Boundaries: A
Case of Spatial Convergence. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology:
Expanding Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by
W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 13^-9. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Griffitts, J. L.
1997 Replication and Analysis of Use-Wear on Bone Tools.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Bone
Modification, 8th Round Table on Taphonomy and Bone
Modification, Sept. 1993, Hot Springs, South Dakota, edited
by L. A. Hannus, L. Rossum, and R. P. Winham, pp. 236-246.
Augustana College, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional
Publication No. 1. Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Hayden, B.
1981 Research and Development in the Stone Age. Current
Anthropology 22:519- 548.
1998 Practical and Prestige Technologies: The Evolution of
Material Systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 5:1-55.
Hayden, B., N. Francis, and J. Spafford
1996 Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria. In
Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory,
edited by G. Odell, pp. 9-^5. Plenum, New York.
Henrickson, E. F., and M. A. McDonald
1983 Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnoarchaeological
Search and an Archaeological Application. American Anthro?
pologist $5:630-643.
Horsfall, G. A.
1987 Design Theory and Grinding. Stones. In Lithic Studies
among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by B. Hay?
den, pp. 332-377. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Keeley, L.
1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Uni?
versity of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Keller, C. M.
2001 Thought and Production: Insights of the Practitioner. In
Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, edited by M.
B. Schiffer, pp. 33-^5. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Keller, C. M., and J. D. Keller
1996 Cognition and Tool Use: The Blacksmith at Work. Cam?
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kingery, W. D.
1984 Interactions of Ceramic Technology with Society. In
Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archae?
ology, edited by P. M. Rice, pp. 171-178. Monograph No.
24, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
1989 Ceramic Materials Science in Society. Annual Review

This content downloaded from

200.24.17.12 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMMENTS 735

of Materials
Mills, B. J.,Science
and P. L. Crown (editors) 19:1-2
2001 The 1995 Ceramic Production inProcess
Design the American Southwest. Uni? a
Anthropology versity ofof Technolog
Arizona Press, Tucson.
tives on Technology,
Mobely-Tanaka, J. L., and J. L. Griffitts edited
University of1997 SpatulatedNewand Notched Tools fromMexico
the American South?
Kingery, W. D. (editor)
west: A Lesson in Function-Based Typologies. In Proceed?
1990 The Changing Roles
ings ofthe International Conference on Bone Modification, of
to the Present. 8th RoundAmerican
Table on Taphonomy and Bone Modification, Cer
1993 The Social and
Sept. 1993, Hot Cultura
Springs, South Dakota, edited by L. A. Han-
nologies. Ceramics and
nus, L. Rossum, and R. R Winham, pp. 247-255. Augustana C
Ceramic Society, College, ArchaeologyWestervil
Laboratory, Occasional Publication
Kolb, C. C. No. 1. Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
(editor)
1988 Ceramic Mullins, R R.
Ecology Revis
Socioeconomics 1999 Race and of Affluence: An Archaeology of African Amer?
Pottery.
British Archaeological ican Consumer Culture. Plenum, New York. Repo
Kramer, C. Nelson, B. (editor)
1985 Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthro? 1984 Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics. Southern Illinois Uni?
pology 14:77-102. versity Press, Carbondale.
1997 Pottery in Rajasthan: Ethnoarchaeology in Two Indian Nelson, M.
Cities. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. Archaeo?
Kramer, C. (editor) logical Method and Theory 3:57-100.
1982 Village Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. Neupert, M.
Kuhn, S. L. 2000 Clays of Contention: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of
1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Factionalism and Clay Composition. Journal of Archaeo?
Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59:426^142. logical Method and Theory 7:249-272.
LaMotta, V. M., and M. B. Schiffer Nielsen, A. E.
2001 Behavioral Archaeology: Towards a New Synthesis. In 1995 Architectural Performance and the Reproduction of
Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. Social Power. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M.
14-64. Polity Press, Cambridge. Skibo, W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 47-66. Univer?
Lemonnier, P. (editor) sity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
1993 Technological Choices: Transformation in Material O'Brien, M. J., T. D. Holland, R. J. Hoard, and G. L. Fox
Cultures Since the Neolithic. Routledge, London. 1994 Evolutionary Implications of Design and Performance
Loney, H. L. Characteristics of Prehistoric Pottery. Journal of Archaeo?
2000 Society and Technological Control: A Critical Review logical Method and Theory 1:259-304.
of Models of Technological Change in Ceramic Studies. O'Brien, M.J., R. L. Lyman, and R. D. Leonard
AmericanAntiquity 65:646-668. 1998 Basic Incompatibilities Between Evolutionary and
Longacre, W. A. Behavioral Archaeology. AmericanAntiquity 63:485^-98.
1981 Kalinga Pottery: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Pat? Orser, C. E., Jr.
terns ofthe Past, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Ham- 1996 A Historical Archaeology ofthe Modern World. Plenum,
mond, pp. 49-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. New York.
Longacre, W. A. (editor) Plog, F.
1991 Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. University of Arizona 1974 The Study of Prehistoric Change. Academic Press, New
Press, Tucson. York.
Longacre, W.A., K. L. Kvamme, and M. Kobayashi Plog, S.
1988 Southwestern Pottery Standardization: an Ethnoar? 1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. Cambridge
chaeological View from the Philippines. Kiva 53:101-12. University Press, Cambridge.
Longacre, W. A., and J. M. Skibo (editors) Rathje, WL.
1994 Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology. Smithsonian Institution 1979 Modern Material Culture Studies. Advances in Archae?
Press, Washington, D.C. ological Method and Theory 2:1-37.
Longacre, W. A., and M. T. Stark 1989 The Three Faces of Garbage?Measurements, Percep-
1992 Ceramics, Kinship and Space: A Kalinga Example. tions, Behaviors. The Journal of Resource Management and
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11:125-136. Technology 17:61-65.
Longacre, W. A., J. Xia, and T. Yang Rathje, W L., W W Hughes, D. C. Wilson, M. K. Tani, G. H.
2000 I Want to Buy a Black Pot. Journal of Archaeological Archer, R. G. Hunt, and T. W. Jones
Method and Theory 7:273-293. 1992 The Archaeology of Contemporary Landfills. American
Majewski, T., and M. B. Schiffer Antiquity 57:437-537.
2001 Beyond Consumption: Toward an Archaeology of Con- Rathje, W L., and C. Murphy
sumerism. In Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, 1992 Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. HarperCollins,
edited by V. Buchli and G. Lucas, pp. 26-50. Routledge, Lon? New York.
don. Rathje, W L., and M. B. Schiffer
Matson, F. R. 1982 Archaeology. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
1965 Ceramic Ecology: An Approach to the Study of the Reid, J. J., M. B. Schiffer, and W L. Rathje
Early Cultures ofthe Near East. In Ceramics and Man, edited 1975 Behavioral Archaeology: Four Strategies. American
by F. R. Matson, pp. 202-217. Aldine, Chicago. Anthropologist 77:864-869.
McGuire, R. H., and M. B. Schiffer Rice, P. M.
1983 A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthro? 1981 Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial
pological Archaeology 2:277-303. Model. Current Anthropology 22:219-240.

This content downloaded from

200.24.17.12 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
736 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 4,2001]

1984 Some Reflections on Change

Lake City. in Pottery Producing
Schiffer, M. B., and J. M.of
tems. In The Many Dimensions Skibo Pottery: Ceramic
Archaeology and Anthropology, edited
1987 Theory and Experiment in the Study ofby S. E. van
Technological
Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard,Change.
pp. Current Anthropology 28:595-622.
231-293. Institute for P
and Proto-History, University
1997 The Explanation
of Amsterdam,
of Artifact Variability. American Antiq?
Amsterdam
uity 62:27-50.
19 87 Pottery Analysis: a Sourcebook. University of Ch
Press, Chicago. Schiffer, M. B., J. M. Skibo, T. C. Boelke, M. A. Neupert, and M.
1996a Recent Ceramic Analysis Aronson 1. Function, Style, and
gins. Journal of Archaeological
1994 New Perspectives
Research on Experimental4:133-163.
Archaeology: Sur?
1996b Recent Ceramic Analysis: face Treatments and 2. Composition,
Thermal Responses of the Clay Cook- Pro
tion, and Theory. Journal ing Pot.of Archaeological
AmericanAntiquity 59:197-217. Resear
4:165-202. Shackel, P. A.
1999 On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of Archaeological1996 Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archae?
Method and Theory 6:1-54. ology ofthe Early Industrial Era. Plenum, New York.
Sassaman, K. E. Shott, M.
1996 Mortal Pots: On Use Life and Vessel Size in the For?
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innova?
tion in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, mation of Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity
Tuscaloosa. 61:463-482.
Schiffer, M. B. Sinopoli, C.
1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Plenum, New
1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. Amer?
ican Antiquity 37:156-165. York.
Skibo, J. M.
1975 Behavioral Chain Analysis: Activities, Organization,
1992 Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective.
and the Use of Space. In Chapters in the Prehistory of East?
ern Arizona, IV. Fieldiana: Anthropology Vol. 65, pp. Plenum, New York.
103-119. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. 1994 The Kalinga Cooking Pot: An Ethnoarchaeological and
1976 Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York. Experimental Study of Technological Change. In Kalinga
1979 A Preliminary Consideration of Behavioral Change. In Ethnoarchaeology: Expanding Archaeological Theory and
Transformations: Mathematical Approaches to Culture Method, edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp.
Change, edited by C. Renfrew and K. Cooke, pp. 353-368.113-126. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Academic Press, New York. Skibo, J. M., and E. Blinman
1988 The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American
1999 Exploring the Origins of Pottery on the Colorado
Antiquity 53:461-485. Plateau. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited
1991 The Portable Radio in American Life. University of Ari?by J. M. Skibo and G. Feinman, pp. 171-183. University of
zona Press, Tucson. Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
1992 Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change.Skibo,
Uni?J. M., and G. M. Feinman
versity of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1999 Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. University
1993 Cultural Imperatives and Product Development: The of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Skibo, J. M., and M. B. Schiffer
Case of the Shirt-Pocket Radio. Technology and Culture
34:98-113. 1995 The Clay Cooking Pot: An Exploration of Women's
1995 Social Theory and History in Behavioral Archaeology. Technology. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M.
In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Skibo, W H. Walker, and A. E. Nielson, pp. 80-91. Univer?
Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 22-35. University of Utah sity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Press, Salt Lake City. 2001 Understanding Artifact Variability and Change: A
1996 Some Relationships Between Behavioral and Evolu? Behavioral Framework. In Anthropological Perspectives on
tionary Archaeologies. American Antiquity 61:643-662. Technology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 139- 149. Uni?
2000a Indigenous Theories, Scientific Theories and Product versity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Skibo, J. M., and W H. Walker
Histories. In Matter, Materiality and Modern Culture, edited
by P. Graves-Brown, pp. 72-96. Routledge, London. 2002 Ball Courts and Ritual Performance. In The Joyce Well
2000b Social Theory in Archaeology: Building Bridges. In Site: On the Frontier ofthe Casas Grandes World, edited by
Social Theory in Archaeology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. J. M. Skibo, E. B. McCluney, W H. Walker. University of
1-13. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Utah Press, Salt Lake City, in press.
2001 The Explanation of Long-Term Technological Change. Spencer-Wood, S. M. (editor)
In Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, edited by 1987 Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology. Plenum,
M. B. Schiffer, pp. 215-235. University of New Mexico New York.
Press, Albuquerque. Stark, M. T.
2002 The Study of Technological Differentiation. Ms. sub? 1991 Ceramic Production and Community Specialization: A
mitted for publication. Ceramic Ethnoarchaeological Study. World Archaeology
Schiffer, M. B? T. C. Burts, and K. Grimm 23:64-78.
1994 Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America. 1994 Pottery Exchange and the Regional System: a Dalupa
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Case Study. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W A.
Schiffer, M. B., and A.R. Miller Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 169-197. Smithsonian Insti?
1999a The Material Life of Human Beings: A rtifacts, Behav? tution Press, Washington, D.C.
ior, and Communication. Routledge, London. 1998 Technical Choices and Social Boundaries in Material
1999b A Behavioral Theory of Meaning. In Pottery and Peo? Culture Patterning: An Introduction. In The Archaeology of
ple: A Dynamic Interaction, edited byJ. M. Skibo and G. Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark, pp. 1-11. Smith?
M.Feinman, pp. 199-217. University of Utah Press, Salt sonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

This content downloaded from

200.24.17.12 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMMENTS 737

1999 Social andDimensions

Redefinition. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J.
Ceramic Traditions.
M. Skibo, W H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 198-209. In
Approaches to University oftheUtah Press, Salt LakeInterpre
City.
by E. S. Yoffee, N., and A. Sherratt
Chilton, pp. 24-43
Lake City. 1993 Introduction: Sources of Archaeological Theory. In
Triadan, D. Archaeological Theory: Who Sets theAgenda? edited by N.
1997 Ceramic Commodities and Common Containers: Pro? Yoffee and Andrew Sherratt, pp. 1-9. Cambridge University
duction and Distribution of White Mountain Red Ware in Press, Cambridge.
the Grasshopper Region, Arizona. University of Arizona, Young, D. E., and R. Bonnichsen
Anthropological Papers, No. 61. 1984 Understanding Stone Tools: A Cognitive Approach. Cen?
Varien, M. D., and B. J. Mills ter for the Study of Early Man, University of Maine, Orono.
1997 Accumulations Research: Problems and Prospects forZedefio, M. N.
Estimating Site Occupation Span. Journal of Archaeologi? 1994 Sourcing Prehistoric Ceramics at Chodistaas Pueblo,
cal Method and Theory 4:141-191. Arizona: the Circulation of People andPots in the Grasshop?
Walker, W H. per Region. Anthropological Papers, No. 58. University of
1995 Ceremonial Trash? In Expanding Archaeology, edited Arizona, Tucson.
by J. M. Skibo, W H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 67-79. 1997 Landscapes, Land Use, and the History of Territory For?
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. mation: An Example from the Puebloan Southwest. Journal
2001 Ritual Technology in an Extranatural World. In Anthro? of Archaeological Method and Theory 4:67-103.
pological Perspectives on Technology, edited by M. B. Schif? 2000 On What People Make of Places: A Behavioral Car-
fer, pp. 87-106. University of New Mexico Press, tography. In Social Theory in Archaeology, edited by M. B.
Albuquerque. Schiffer, pp. 97-111. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
Walker, W H., J. M. Skibo, and A. E. Nielsen City.
1995 Introduction: Expanding Archaeology. In Expanding
Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W H. Walker, and A.
E. Nielsen, pp. 1-12. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Wylie, A. Received April 6, 2001; Accepted April 10, 2001; Revised June
1995 An Expanded Behavioral Archaeology: Transformation 6, 2001.

This content downloaded from

200.24.17.12 on Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms