The archaeology of traditions: agency and history before and after Columbus 9780813026596, 9780813027456, 9780813021126

Citation preview

_. The Archaeology of Traditions | | The Ripley P. Bullen Series an a ae Florida Museum of Natural History a Co Bee

~~ Florida A&M University, Tallahassee ae | a os .

Florida Atlantic University, BocaRaton 7 , , | Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers a a oO nee Florida International University, Miami | cee, so | 7 ,

Florida State University, Tallahassee a _ oo Se, |

University of Central Florida, Orlando ee SO : University of Florida, Gainesville - , re a - | Se, University of North Florida, Jacksonville | | an a

~ University of South Florida, Tampa an , University of West Florida, Pensacola. ee - | : | oe

BLANK PAGE

The Archaeology of Traditions Agency and History Before and After Columbus

Edited by Timothy R. Pauketat

Foreword by Jerald T. Milanich, Series Editor

University Press of Florida Gainesville - Tallahassee - Tampa - Boca Raton

Pensacola - Orlando - Miami - Jacksonville - Ft. Myers

Copyright 2001 by Timothy R. Pauketat = - oo

All rights reserved , | Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

06 05 04 03 02 01 654321

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The archaeology of traditions: agency and history before and after Columbus / edited by Timothy R. Pauketat; foreword by Jerald T. Milanich. |

p. cm. — (The Ripley P. Bullen series) a , . , , Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8130-2112-X (alk. paper) 1. Indians of North America—Southern States—Antiquities. 2. Social archaeology—Southern States. 3. Southern States—Antiquities. I. Pauketat, _

) Timothy R. II. Series E78.S65 A79 2001 975'.01—dc21 00-066785 The University Press of Florida is the scholarly publishing agency for the State University System of Florida, comprising Florida A&¢M University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida Gulf Coast University, Florida International University, Florida State University, University of Central Florida, University of Florida, University of North Florida, University of South Florida, and University of West Florida. University Press of Florida 15 Northwest 15th Street Gainesville, FL 32611-2079 http://www.upf.com

Dedicated to an earlier generation of hard-working archaeologists

hell out of it. |

who dug up history, tradition, and ethnicity, and who enjoyed the

BLANK PAGE

Contents

List of Figures ix List of Tables x

Foreword xi Preface xiii 1. A New Tradition in Archaeology, by Timothy R. Pauketat 1 2. African-American Tradition and Community in

the Antebellum South, by Brian W. Thomas 17 }

3. Resistance and Accommodation in Apalachee Province,

| by John FE. Scarry 34 4. Manipulating Bodies and Emerging Traditions at the Los Adaes Presidio, by Diana DiPaolo Loren 58 5. Negotiated Tradition? Native American Pottery in the Mission Period in La Florida, by Rebecca Saunders 77

6. Creek and Pre-Creek Revisited, by Cameron B. Wesson 94 7. Gender, Tradition, and the Negotiation of Power Relationships in Southern Appalachian Chiefdoms, by Lynne P. Sullivan and

Christopher B. Rodning 107 8. Historical Science or Silence? Toward a Historical Anthropology of Mississippian Political Culture, by Mark A. Rees 121

9. Cahokian Change and the Authority of Tradition, by Susan

M. Alt 141 10. The Historical-Processual Development of Late Woodland Societies, by Michael S. Nassaney 157 11. A Tradition of Discontinuity: American Bottom Early and Middle Woodland Culture History Reexamined, by Andrew C. Fortier 174

12. Interpreting Discontinuity and Historical Process in Midcontinental Late Archaic and Early Woodland Societies, by Thomas E. Emerson and Dale L. McElrath 195 13. Hunter-Gatherers and Traditions of Resistance, by Kenneth E.

Sassaman 218 14. Traditions as Cultural Production: Implications for Contemporary Archaeological Research, by Kent G. Lightfoot 237 15. Concluding Thoughts on Tradition, History, and Archaeology,

by Timothy R. Pauketat 253

Bibliography 257 | List of Contributors 337

Index 343. SS |

Figures 7 1.1. Locator map 2 . _ 1.2. Pre-Columbian pottery bottle from Arkansas 7 a 1.3. Wall-trench building floor, ca. A.D. 1100, southwestern Illinois 9 :

1.4. Plains Indian pow-wow dance ground 11 :

continuum 14: ; |

1.5. Positions taken by volume authors along the tradition-building —

2.1. Purse clasp found at slave cabin site at the Hermitage 22 . 2.2. Gold 1853 U.S. dollar recovered at slave cabin site 23 2.3. Map of the Hermitage Plantation showing slave housing areas 31 4.1. De Espanol y Morisca, Albino, ca. 1760-1770 65 4.2. De Indio y Mestiza, Coyote, ca. 1760-1770 65 5.1. Location of Native American groups and missions, ca. 1660 80

5.2. Design motifs 83 7.1. Selected archaeological sites in the greater southern Appalachians 113

7.2. Archaeological map, Overhill Cherokee settlement, A.D. —

1700-1800 116 7.3. Archaeological map, Coweeta Creek site, A.D. 1600-1700 117 8.1. Winged-serpent motif on a Moundville engraved bottle 135 8.2. Fish effigy vessel from the Campbell site 137 9.1. Select sites within the greater Cahokia region 142 9.2. Upland Mississippian site plans 147 9.3. Comparison of structure type and size 148 9.4. Selected vessel type mean-diameter sizes 152 10.1. Distribution of Baytown—Coles Creek Period sites by type 165

10.2. Rank-size relation of Baytown—Coles Creek period sites 167 11.1. Revised time scale for the Early and Late Woodland periods of the

| American Bottom 179 11.2. Early Woodland ceramic traditions 181 11.3. Middle Woodland bifacial chert tool assemblage 184 11.4. Middle Woodland blade tool tradition 185 11.5. Middle Woodland ceramic design formats 191

Tables

2.1. Marriages by occupation at the Hermitage, 1829-1855 30 4.1. Dress artifacts from Los Adaes houses 69 4.2. Ceramics from Los Adaes houses 71 4.3. Trade goods from Los Adaes houses 71 4.4. Faunal remains from Los Adaes structures 73 11.1. Hallmarks of American Bottom Middle Woodland assemblages 188

Foreword | Archaeologists long have divided themselves into two camps, historical archaeologists and nonhistorical archaeologists, those who studied preColumbian cultures. As Timothy R. Pauketat of the University of Illinois notes, historical archaeologists, blessed with written records as a source of data, had the luxury of examining documents to help them document _ historical processes and determine “what regularities owe their origins to common historical linkages.” On the other hand, archaeologists studying the pre-Columbian past searched for those common processes that ex-

plain “all people in all places.” | In recent years the theoretical schism between historical and “prehistorical” archaeologists has begun to blur as a new paradigm dubbed “historical processualism” has emerged, one which recognizes that we can

better understand the past in terms of history, defined here as “cultural construction through practice.” What people and groups did in the past is best understood within the context of their histories and cultures, within their traditions. History defined in this fashion is not the purview solely of historians or of historical archaeologists, and the archaeology of historical process becomes an important guide to explaining the past. In his introductory chapter, Pauketat offers a cogent discussion of this theoretical approach, which is then amplified and demonstrated in twelve

case studies, each penned by an archaeological scholar working in the southeastern United States.

Kent Lightfoot supplies a commentary that assesses how well the volume’s individual authors accomplished their task, focusing in part on their multiple uses and multiscalar approaches to cultural/historical traditions. He also examines the concepts of traditions and historical processes beyond the Southeast. Archaeology continues to evolve as a discipline, refining new theoretical approaches that help us to model the past in novel ways. These are exciting times that are providing fresh tools for understanding all of human history and the dynamics that have made the world what it is today. The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After

xii | Foreword Columbus is at the forefront of applying this paradigm shift to archaeological data sets. Iam pleased that the University Press of Florida and the Ripley P. Bullen Series can share in what is certainly an important challenge for the discipline of archaeology.

Jerald T. Milanich } Series Editor

Preface SO ae This book spotlights a part of the world, southeastern North America, as

a means to an end. That end can be summed up.as the search for how history happened, a search with considerable relevance beyond the Southeast. Figuring out how change in human identities and relations happened, more than why change may have happened, is the guts of American archaeology at the beginning of the twenty-first century. In point of fact, I

am not altogether certain that why questions can be resolved without

bringing a truckload of metaphysical baggage to the table. - 7 In archaeology, answers to such why questions have tended to do little © more than reify their initial assumptions about how human beings “behave.” How, in that case, is an unchanging quality of humanity that whyresearchers believe to be true. It is not the subject of investigation, and that is a mistake. Permit me a brief digression to explain what I mean. Someone

at a Southeastern Archaeological Conference recently asked me why people built pyramids of earth, stone, or mud brick around the world throughout history. My response went something like this: perhaps there is some innate human tendency to build toward the sky, but that’s a question of human nature, not human culture. It is a question for a psychologist, a biologist, perhaps a theologian, but not an archaeologist. What do

we learn from this answer that we didn’t already accept or reject in the ,

beginning? Not much. |

It is more satisfying to compare how cultural phenomena happened at various points in time and across space. That is what this book is all about. The Southeast is well suited to the investigation of what we label “historical processes” and exemplifies a direction in which archaeology in general must move. Perhaps, if we try to figure out how history happened, we may one day be able to answer the ultimate metaphysical questions of our day (emphasis on “our day”). However, this will come only after dealing with the proximate how questions that archaeology has asked too infrequently and too timidly. Moreover, the relevance of those why questions may have faded before we get a chance to answer them.

xiv | Preface

This volume is an outgrowth of a symposium titled “Resistant Traditions and Historical Processes in Southeastern North America” at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Chicago, ~ March 1999. I would like to thank the original participants of that ses-

sion, all of whom are represented in the present volume except for Kathleen Deagan, who served as a discussant alongside Kent Lightfoot. The original idea for the session was the study of resistance before and after Columbus. However, that theme began to drift almost immediately toward a broader focus on tradition and tradition making. In this regard, the Southeast and all things traditional go together remarkably well. Archaeologists in the Southeast are fortunate to have a wealth of data that speaks directly to issues of an archaeology of traditions, and for this many individuals, private foundations, and public organizations are owed debts of gratitude. Of those directly supportive of my own research (spilt into this volume just a little), I would like to thank the National Science Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, the University of Illinois, the Illinois Department of Transportation, the Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, and Cahokia Mounds Museum Society.

|

A New Tradition in Archaeology Timothy R. Pauketat

People have always had traditions, practiced traditions, resisted traditions, or created traditions. Archaeologists cannot avoid dealing with the concept. Broken potsherds, stone tools, and the remains of houses, farms, and fields virtually scream “tradition!” But this seemingly simple concept is not as straightforward as one might assume. Power, plurality, and human agency are all a part of how traditions come about. Traditions do not simply exist without people and their struggles involved every step of the way. This book reexamines that human involvement by analyzing a series of historically divergent and yet interrelated traditions from one macroregional “tradition”: the American Southeast (see fig. 1.1). In everyday parlance, “tradition” means something learned from the past, something persistent or unchanging, or something old-fashioned. As

commonly understood, traditions impede change by constraining what can be done by the people living with them. Believing this, an earlier gen-

eration of archaeologists isolated different traditions and attempted to explain why they were where they were (see Caldwell 1958; Haury 1956; Willey and Phillips 1958). A later generation of “processual” archaeologists adopted a more utilitarian view; traditions, as learned ways of doing or making things, allowed a group to survive (see Binford 1965).

The earlier generation’s theories of cultural change and those of the processual archaeologists, not to mention time-honored methods of sequencing cultural remains, rest on taken-for-granted notions of tradition (cf. Marquardt 1978). Sometimes stated, but often unstated, they adhere to a deeply engrained view that ideas, cultures, or styles change gradually and slowly while political and economic spheres change rapidly. For them, traditions are conservative and cultures are seen to lag behind the times, retaining vestiges of earlier periods. This adherence, which cannot be assigned to a specific school of thought, is increasingly called into question

ey, fe ey : , , Ga en ~ Le ey ° : " ” ee . ‘ :.;:..:7::..;.:.3 tear een . : . po . ne ian ites ’ate SS * Roos Ey . ‘ 3 : 7 i : re . — t : Sacro . . E t eee H i Sines . Fi $ ot B Sa : eo . 4 Soe aed : 1 Been ‘ : . 5 : res ; . ; ; ; ; : 4 ; co) 5 es . . . ‘ OE SH ) ) / : . : . : : , ee) mn ES : . cEl R { t : ; MN Yne ees ; : : . oy ee { . fF ee y ee | hy R. Pauketat ,

ieanatiennanee : .

" ane Pan ne rn ne wan ee ng Ne wan gee 08 PORES Spinone aoeeeen sy oo . .

weantee amen E.|.| : . mel y* Lo eevee ;am: cae ,ine | gen iS 2, ..-we ;:::E;BEBBRE i.~§p eeDa : oe wes aes ant vac nae ie oy ‘ytM > RES an A ‘;Jseket See, ,tne i ean $‘O ; amore ::N \ ieee _. Fees

. a . :.:A . Yana vere 44: os y.aof*X SEE | |..Hfs i. :inf j°:wig fom . :Sake EON antares t icant Sreateenensan Ropes 3 . eg < Wet uo ’ . at er eA: : ee a mo : . :.. .{:: ;:{|::AS er, . ‘ . . ‘ ON seine Seed ;. 7|:*Po vei Meee OS ; f By es FY Se NE vhs SaGeN de of ' ET > ‘awrenat FE ESS “a fs SARS Sig 5eeSf seem : .oat .yg $“> zs SRR aeons See :A et ad SC ocr Bet Pap Sees 7Soe :AR RO: fe .Fe : s°.;agica .;nite ;:io;os g.eet . i 7 Moan ae FORT | T é Rk nS PEE es ee :ba a ; . \ , ; fo Sie ee etcunnceemersnte iss Re ae :oe, .":vod “4:nes ”: ..°;Ry . ef eS Rats ey : .. : a | . : ; a i : Os. oe .}ee ee ‘ . Lo : fie ara . an ; Sf~— ) : ? ie Se eS . ieae“dead ane fey Benes Seemed H . cea an eee ee ane tnt e cre mente pettus nen ponent Lon concen cern : tO Seabemeohaahes ve — aw See tes. ye ..}.i+oO |: tweens oltec OO ¢oh ;anBy ees fe ES H veenn ates 7 eae ae her, Os eee hen ca ene 7 og fi A . .' i::C) be concn see & m Les ES:. . e n 4 aan eee ee fo pains . : , cn 3 fiers REC UNAS Bauer a a4 os _ f . i Pistons So Syl. . : { ) H eee SOE eC ; : “ vo an 9 ; } ees oe : :.‘Pp “\. j ;C ,-Mie: roe ASS eS So rece nenea : . : fm AEE EES es ; veh Q . H . 4 Poa eects SESS See ee . -: oe _a > ¢ 7 AEE ee Se a : : rae ho, § {Ee eae ee . . ao: 5 t Fee ee Ee ee . ”. 5::.seer . : eo . : GES eS SE : {-— doe be an eerecc aoe desneneeoee re se un vil fe ee eres ne ‘ : : y Oo YTD (ee ee es of:ivot. no SCORERS Batters PSRs iene Sea een ree . cay o rSe ee OE a: woo i i \ } y, ( foe ee ie =Ee :.mn SEES eB roi %)jet xos Siaeae ee.. . a 7: io. Bae SOOT See ae © f—~I 7pte % seat eee: Opes: ee *. ;.:.‘aO :.es .Ad ”:Ware Cone Sones semen rooaSee gsos Se :° ae fog DEL ; ows Eee 87 :: aa5:aOSs yee aes . . : a, ; wae “ C) PES Cl ee ft ‘ XN :-.—=CSO—isOCsCs es Bo es we . PLE is. oe _ we x. : es eee ee eo : 3 : : s f Aisi eens acres Banat ES teste ES ae) : : . : : Ao ry : os mos : , : : pee Eg es — ee : ks cogs ‘ : : Bee SOR oe ee ' zeh :.°asoe acee ":as ec sree neeawn manera Recess teens reiccapanet esiLL SEE eet RNR 7-gon oy ae an : Soares ee :at: ; Be : Oe : jrere ee me RS oie ne 3sgtitin og .eee peso eC oe ee .;: :vO ss :oaeo F :np :an oe cp ee 2we oY Sears aCO Uae come »ere aF‘ney ;.wa .{ :rae :JFoioafs .4:.ee =m ee ee es : :wo ;:;. winnie : wee ae . arf ve nth’ masremues ee Beat 5 . er va i * a tae Om . Cee eee sss an Pang . . ae : hog Siete HERES Se ys ¢ z aa t ct Sain poy cs : : Same ~~ es : ypoe ane 7 .Sehaa Beiom Aoe .Co :ae Ea wn een nae eeeee Sess - .eons ss eaEU :a: >:.aboo < ie SO a a sc CC eee eo . :.:S . .kySERRE 7:.::NERS .ba(om }vigSe ee eeae. ov ae SRR ee ce ....:.,bibs : Som Ry a : , . oe a aaa : Bie RO iim : an: © i Cys Bia S ee eee Ee veH Srna3— sane beeen eee uls . gee sero AS %BY FEE 8:28BROS 3 sure San eon SORE ee Kee gLSRESEROD :BESS :PSOE 6) apes oo 2ao Ae eT ET SED .: —=—es—ses— Ses -— Ce as :. :; Ce : ee :eC Serene % a$e, r—“ ‘EO ‘.— AVe Seen ioe ee T° : iconaacctne = Pe a= fence oo PE Beers oes Sei = Oe . oo. 7 ee : | ee pee . oS — ee _ ee oremats rie oo CP . -2:> _SRR /:% >: shee S|_ = : ee Ce Sere pater RO Se Res :. eee ee : Sraans _ —— Bes 3san Pesca: arn ——— PR Hs 4-= -ee ee — .pies Se cae CCSee Seats eeSoe earn e eee —se oe Ee — ee = : Bee: a oe — : SEES Benet — ps . pees eo SSS seari ee Seererpeas Sas Serene Ce 2 ee eee iSaZ as Lee eeoo Ce er ooPe Bis Cs oS ;Sea Cs % : 5 es | ss Po ;-aa , J — _— perce eM — eee seco aese OCS ~~ Se iss sone —r—e ee —=—s _ SS ee Cs oe ee Sere _— ¢ | ee re ne _—=SOSse ser ti -. Cs Se Cs mee SS Beer ee ¥. : : Le _ . Sue cane . SN as rs A : sats seared see rr ee ee Se Betrise ee oe BOs _—e sso = ee er ae eS Oe See _ Po ger ae ne _ . ee — oF oe _ So RES Sa — OF oe CC eee _. . Saeres ee oe ae ieeee:.BeaCC ae ie e _ og ae ..ooSES aoeee.ee pe Pao — — oe —SOese ee eran Cs Beau oe oo —— eee Se Gee ee Peay S . a ee ee nee — ae Se _ee ee Dre 7Se Saas — ee ee _— ee ass Co ;a7. _ = Co oo Pas ae eee _ Eee ge See | — ee . ee oe — oe yee Romane ee —e Peeve oa a . es sees . Cl ee _ . ~fe CCFL. + Seoo oe - See. _- ee ae _ a _ — co oe ee aoe ee es ae za v ] fa 3 0 nN n A ch > e 0 0

oe tee oo ae ee eee es ae BS ee Ha Be So ee BS. ae oe Be oe ee cs oo ene

ee Sanne eee ORS pater een BesSane oe es Rete —eee —seES Berne aeae ee oe ae ca ey co a0 — Sey -_ OR Pts eeeeee we eryPee oses eeoeaode SSHAp: oe — . ee —_ aaa aeHeEON eee eee LOSES ENS cs _ —oe ae. Ce ee es SSees ene ee oat eSoe Reese

= ‘:ee | :ane “seRe-Ras : Sine _SS _oarsasieaaret ee ensieeeae ore on issPIES oe eee Be aan ee ope ne ee ee a. Pai ares see: oe hee . . -— fh ee ee Sree ess epaieancne gs Ss See Soe as 8 Lee . ‘:/ | Rees Sere sae oon Steemci CER eee eee re Reece enone cnr aees CsiCe - fl ae eet eee athe ee nee RRBs ee Seas Bor ae — EN ers een hig ie eee eer S ieee x Sainte eat LISS asta Recess eas Bee iter see pee Bare ie : _. e , oo |co Bs es oo eee seruner eet one eee Sor oe sae Bees ie | : 2 Sne“5: ee ¢: Z

ee ER .=ee —a. j

Pacer eiage peers pe ae eae SS ses oe ee eee Fe ear - Sees NS pene SON pera Seay oe > ee:

rs eee peseenen Recee Sone papers ey es ee Sa as sess eer oe ee ee SR eran OS - Sania Zette rots Sency me srtceca SS nite Se Si SARE Be Senta — ees Nene Rc Ses aN tn CC Ot ae oe

ee ie ae oe sea ees é Sees seahan ci 5 Ice ons scene Lae 2 _ a

3 a eae cat ee Sete en hae Serie Sue Pees pice een siemens Deon ce iat eancecaaneae ee te RAN ae ence se — _

Stee sentir Bees| Ponca Co RAG rene se poe speveteeet ee RES Henares ease Recen fas PERNT seenpats Son EE: -— _ — Pasties een see cis Sac snore Sete AREER Se ere Ree ene Sees ie Bene ses Semen coon eect SR Se Peeaen A _5SoeSo : Reo ooRR stae oe Ce 2S ee —r— eeee SSeS ee Sees ee RRS sone senase SNe ee eran a LiSeaa ee ee fe

= Dl ee 32 Rea ais.Sonate eet saeee eeeae pa S. Sears Sec ee pace ay Sa — i s Paes Saree Pee soss ie RRS SeeSse CER ee str Keay ooae Ses .oooe an anes Beate, Be ea ee Pesci eee eese Sra Sane ene Sa a...-. _ .Oe -ves ren Senn ——S seems ier Secras arto esOR oe oePaden _— oe ferns os PONE sities aR eae om reece amen see nces yo ARO oases ‘ Sennen Seer rset poo pen er ce eS ie pera ee Ee rrorcewes nee wiseese Se ea Naas see me oe Neer shee Feta Ses * pane ress Ct ee

ee eyES - —os ae seein aon Dinas Se ent oe ee ee Ferrata ee piesSR Rene oe —% Cs eh roe ganas oe aOeooBEY Nee EERSee esSiren raeeeSine esSa3SCs seers eter at er ae Aes Rane elecea SON Bonne Sone rss sn Sete Sree a So eN ence, par eRe cera Preaptanens Rete eee OREEY Rescue see Rn a ne eats roenere Pans ean eee eo See ee _ : 2 2

a Me .: _7) oe_-oo ee Se ae Se 2

sat _-— oo — x PRs . aa Ses Ra ES EES 2 pare _ a oeenee ooae aunts ee Sia—=—ese coeurEsBes SSeerSie _—Sashes | _— - 2=38 eae — _. eee picsmncrne .—=—e nes esee Oi eRe pees .a Seer Se, Sear : — ee ee ae Sees peter a Aes ess nencannvin a a sae pete ian Se ee reas Sea pea ree oecenas “ahr ee Aoeenre pce SRN srs Cl sees sn sectarian reat ee psiesnin PSR * apie races ees Gennes sine re este en ES ene eos, Ss

ee eases oie ee .Sere %CSOs Sas Sieh ON ener see eeboron ein ERs Reno eemaka ECCS Seen Seenee _—=S—sese Cs Snes Se ee oeae LEE RG re: carta peeany ts . Res pes Ce ee ne Ba Ss eyeaseo EERO ee apont :He - eaten :Pa _ a .oh -__ Sees .IRONS oo Aesees Ns Fane SUNN ee eo ieSON corn =ee: feSeen ee ECR

- Les ee NSS ee ry ce aati eee aaa re oe Ree PN eS Sener oe So ee naan Brn Bae es Hise SECON ea se Sete ae sec Be rerenretn eae pecoetee os aR ores oe aes seas SE sie

fea eeaes teapres ete Re iteessai se eeSci Sseeatohne oe— eePee Sere o See or eee sane e Z Se _ CS Were ees-.Peon a SoeSeine eee Ee saga ee enepee cn ERO SUR Se eee poet

i ee serenity ERE Sees eS Ce is . anaes ee Sas rae ant . - : = 2

Sirus Resin: Sinn Rees Sean essorcerers RoePee pees ee ae Co Si Paes eeSherrie ane CC ies Sete ee as ea eae a: _: ek ecerreee ey pee noe Rsee eatin Seas Rane SESS Set LS .se eR oo aK Ces pean oer SN Fie annes Canc Ses: Sareea PISess aaah Seen Sean: Steen SRO See eon sana ES Ss scutes Baas Bs areas SrSop siRea ee Roe Baa uni: pee Sasa ees |cS :anee ; eS :ae;Scotts :Saat _aSean ae Se ieee RSet Ri Serraas Se at ~~. eS Serena Serene saan iano: Soe es ee Steere ino. Ce See ee Raia ROSS nates ee reme SCC -BCR :.ce: : ae:Bon Sea Sao PTE ase Siepees eraeras pecan eee eee eeBerea Sreesaes BeeDanan aeSess eee paneise ens eer ee ipneeoney sinsSaree Picea Beene secRee Aa Be eesiran aNear concn SR Serene RS aac moeat ReserSey aers anSaie cnet Sa sate puis si Sree :>RASC |Cases Pi Eee .... Se Paonia espace oe eer Pee Ree ees

Boeae Reese nent Reco 5 —S—eB oo ee ee SESE ee — 7 Bie.Seer RS re eae eSx Sree Sinaia nee eeoNSos Seerties i seee-.eters Sain oeee ie 7: . _.aS ISS PRI Sennen CC oo 5 | ésees ag oF |...ROSS te —repees esas een ener SOs is ee -— ee ~—— _ee Saeeet

TEESE ne Seer =ee aie Re oes saree See eaeaen oe SSS; Pere neeee Biers 2 . ee Se Sa ee Sane Saea aoe ae Baee ae ee pe Cr preree Sea ees es oo sein eas _—ese seme poaces . eos

| pas ees oe i -— eens ee Se ee coc ee tas ee eae ee eee Sees See oon Ce Res Cs ee

seatSaree — BERR Oe Pere ee pe Ueene sear - ..Se:ae | Zerr a aeNia _ —eon cuncanee i ee Rianete Cs ee Piascae ee SALES Sr Seats neie Se See ee acca Serre

es Se: Sas ee Bee Reece: Sener oe ge -Sane Raho ee Seo ae en oi 55 sane aFO /| Sa OES 2 Se eceere eRamer eas Sie ee ee penn es eee .See: oe _-|-Stes isen ee practice see eeSetorene ons rae LoS rtS — pence SUN So neta —Rae. _see _ee .ee on NS ee pes Sanne ee eto fen aes Raa Sass PR ee _ie CC — -_ |oe .—e Scene Ra See ae ats SS Men :a..=|.pea :ee 8aay Sarai abso Biss oe snare: -ee ers pancreas se Ree eRCe Spare en ee 2See SS ss CC one se _iphone ]_“ _iee ::_ ::es 3S ERS aSey arr S Scie Ce | a 3 Rees ae ea Sat Ree ee Sect : :Sees atee *Seaiea aan pees Sosa ee Listas SO 7-Bennie __ ae ee eee BO ets ore ete ae ee srs oo Soe ane eas Ses pe rr . ee Meson RY Sees Bee, ee oo Des -.Cds Stee Re Son Ce enh eke See ea SN fos _ SS eae ae s cit ee pee sees re ee — Sean Ce ceo pan ES us eS ee—sese Bsns _aoe: |._ ene Beesae Deiat—™s /Sse |_ . See Berne saeoneataN aN se Seon peace ee — recone ce ieSeee _— — _eees eae ee .Sse eerere ue aS ee | | 6: : oo CS 2% Se ye-Rasen See oeoeSeesoeeas _—=—se _ oe Ses see ee Silas Moasencanne penSheena eeno a3 esta _eee é aap eee

: ie 43 O e|_ A pies —2_ 7 ee — @ pe 3 l— it Cis _ é ESE _ oo ee spe aoe Ri Reese aS seinen ee iar Si er — sia SOS, eeepeniaans ok

Rasen

a SS Sect oe a enureace ‘ Sees ee

ho UL rs ruct es are enga a KIN : ul C

. . ro 3 | 1T10 | | itica n| ance ato : : Cachi a € S!) )y : i nh | | | @ : ore | SS1O a | on , : 1S1tO e: e

no reso e a : and ose ONndl S Ww th one me : am ima or inst al €al at ones home

rather | a cto most Seem nceonse uentl: er 3 peoS€im : ( e WO] a

@ | | | 1 f er ent | : eo

or ical :

«

6

ln

| 1es ®

im.

imp! n about ot who mM h com nl st tnenes he on : ofuSENO an Ordaina y house U

at

sim ve a ie h cae co one person W have a SMatlier-SCcale ect

: Cr

Ss eSs of an th e speech cart em 3 media e€ ‘ 1 con

r eLa

| en h : pace : 1| pn nh th ; 6Or 2}5 | Ma y |

eCc L & 1€ C||CU S tr|} U |ucO| | |

fects uite dif oh z example O S 1s the sprea Wa Cc

Nn| aifcer t(e€ | C)S volume) an S 110nN arch cect ns e hwit C

esl es mC SCaa C eQ O(see eO g10Nns of the O east A.D s

C on Ma hg m Cu e

ul d

10 | Timothy R. Pauketat = of collective sentiments, values, and meanings, and it may be construction literally, as the physical act of building, production, and manufacture. In this way, the process of tradition making or cultural construction through practice differs little from Giddens’s (1979) sense of “structuration,” except in the insistence on materiality and in the artificiality of “structures” or constraints. Even speech, music, or bodily movements have a spatial and material dimension that is archaeologically visible (see fig. 1.4). This

may be obvious in dance halls or grounds, less obvious in terms of the acoustics of space, and seldom even considered in terms of the proxemics

of talk, body language, or gesture (see Farnell 1999). oe Shennan’s (1993) useful characterization of practices as “surface phenomena” allows us to carry this observation of the manifest qualities of all practice a step further. Arguing against treating institutions, organizations, or cultural meanings as real things, Shennan (1993) and others propose that, in a way, practices embody institutions, organizations, or meanings. The institutions, organizations, and meanings do not exist outside of the doing of them, and people are not necessarily conscious of their supposed deeper meanings. Likewise, traditions exist only in the practicing of them or in the “moments” of construction, even though meaningful referents are rooted in the “genealogies” of traditions (see Clark 1998; Robb 1998; B. W. Thomas 1998). The crux of the matter is that material culture “as a dimension of practice, is itself causal. Its production—while contingent on histories of actions and representations—is an enactment or an embodiment of people’s dispositions—a social negotiation—that brings about changes in mean-

ings, dispositions, identities, and traditions” (Pauketat 2001). Unlike materialist scenarios where material culture merely reflects, expresses, or

correlates with some unseen transformation between constraints, the spaces and artifacts analyzed by archaeologists are themselves the pro-

cesses of tradition making. , This is the essence of the idea of materiality (Conkey 1999; Joyce and Hendon 2000; Pauketat 2002; J. Thomas 2000). Once adopted, the idea of materiality (not materialism) forces anyone seeking to explain the past to shift attention away from interpreting things and toward understand-

ing them as continuously unfolding phenomena. The idea of the chdine opératoire, or technical-operational chain, has been offered as a useful heuristic device for understanding this process in a technological sense (Dobres 1999, 2000; Stark, ed., 1998). That heuristic involves focusing on how tools were made and used by various people through time as a way to

le ee

A New Tradition in Archaeol | 11 |

eta cir ——r—i_‘_OEERRNR eS — 0ee Eee rr Se sc a ice er : DEAN a NgoO AT re EP meme NT AIONSen ON OREO ST men NEY RR ENR ROO sees Cee ere crea en tani senner ac “ea

se ucae Rr in Saga oct aa Guin a i ese a otiantnsnar ae aaa cana Paaennenenercn sia aioe eases ana nai PSR cae eats tre es REN Ouare Me HEM Sra acre on TSE IETS TEENS Bn CECB Ga ENT SS SEER OSS SERGE ERE UY Ua ASSURE: UE nea caine nr eee PS unttenoa ee rr rrr—“‘“iéOCOCOCOCSC*CSCO”™C*C*C*éiéiéiéitiws RE es eee OER REN ea) EOSIN Sadan GND Rae hcaiara Sain en Nie meee at Crs Pea ne ee een er er

rr Ccaeispee eS < eeae EeSOO Sa aRaeeen ReaSeToy EEE So cna Ea AR AITeen BRC Oris RR Oe RU SES LC ce es MEUR ea EG eSBs EUEIC US Se DLLhmrrr—r—r—“‘,:;RLUC acu iy See eaneR OSeeSSaCears Sneet a VE Cen ee lrrrr—“