Where is Lowland Maya archaeology headed?

This article isolates three important trends in Lowland Maya archaeology during the last decade: (1) increased use of the conjunctive approach, with renewed appreciation of context and provenience; (2) waning use of the label unique to describe the Maya; and (3) an effort to use the Lowland Maya as a case study in social evolution.     

Protrusion, Bioturbation, and Settlement Detection during Surface Survey: The Lowland Maya Case

In upland settings in humid and semihumid temperate and tropical environments, bioturbation is a major factor in the burial of modest architectural remains, which are abundant components of the settlement systems of complex societies. Surface survey, favored by archaeologists of complex societies as a settlement detection method, seldom is appropriate for discovering architectural remains buried through bioturbation. Where the focus of analysis includes settlement represented by architectural remains, surface survey is appropriate only where all or a representative sample of all types of architectural remains are protrusive. Protrusion describes a relationship (affected by climate, environment, topography, and cultural variables) between the height of a ruined building and the depth of the biomantle, which is the zone of bioturbation. To enable archaeologists to assess the appropriateness of settlement detection procedures, including surface survey, I propose a scheme that classifies architectural remains in terms of their protrusion, building height, and visibility characteristics. The scheme can be employed to determine if and why architectural remains are protrusive in particular study areas. To demonstrate its analytical utility, I apply the scheme and the model of building burial through bioturbation that underlies it to the problem of Maya invisible settlement. I conclude that in the Maya lowlands of Mesoamerica, building remains buried through bioturbation are a more abundant settlement category than many archaeologists have supposed.     

An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions

This review calls for the definition of a landscape approach in archaeology. After tracing the development of the landscape idea over its history in the social sciences and examining the compatibility between this concept and traditional archaeological practice, we suggest that archaeology is particularly well suited among the social sciences for defining and applying a landscape approach. If archaeologists are to use the landscape paradigm as a pattern which connects human behavior with particular places and times, however, we need a common terminology and methodology to build a construct paradigm. We suggest that settlement ecology, ritual landscapes, and ethnic landscapes will contribute toward the definition of such a broadly encompassing paradigm that also will facilitate dialogue between archaeologists and traditional communities.     

Stirrings at the Periphery: History, Archaeology, and the Study of Dian

Early Chinese texts speak of the Han state conquering the kingdom of Dian in southwest China in 109 B.C. The limited historical record is complemented by archaeolgical discoveries pointing to the presence in Yunnan province of a complex Bronze Age society whose association with the historical Dian has been generally accepted. Historiographic and nonprocessual in nature, archaeology in Yunnan has yet to generate the data needed for a deeper understanding of Dian social structure and change. Whatever its shortcomings, however, Dian archaeology plays a consistent and important role within a system of thought which gives preeminence to the historical record.     

Americanist Stratigraphic Excavation and the Measurement of Culture Change

Many versions of the history of Americanist archaeology suggest there was a stratigraphic revolution during the second decade of the twentieth century—the implication being that prior to about 1915 most archaeologists did not excavate stratigraphically. However, articles and reports published during the late nineteenth century and first decade of the twentieth century indicate clearly that many Americanists in fact did excavate stratigraphically. What they did not do was attempt to measure the passage of time and hence culture change. The real revolution in Americanist archaeology comprised an analytical shift from studying synchronic variation to tracking changes in frequencies of artifact types or styles—a shift pioneered by A. V. Kidder, A. L. Kroeber, Nels C. Nelson, and Leslie Spier. The temporal implications of the analytical techniques they developed—frequency seriation and percentage stratigraphy—were initially confirmed by stratigraphic excavation. Within a few decades, however, most archaeologists had begun using stratigraphic excavation as a creational strategy—that is, as a strategy aimed at recovering superposed sets of artifacts that were viewed as representing occupations and distinct cultures. The myth that there was a stratigraphic revolution was initiated in the writings of the innovators of frequency seriation and percentage stratigraphy.     

Struggling with the Past

Many postprocessual archaeologists have argued that active individuals make history. The apotheosis of the individual has been achieved under the rubric identity, the most pervasive theoretical term of the last few years. This focus obscures the fundamental idea that individuals do not exist in isolation. The relational concept of struggle will help us past this theoretical impasse. This concept has many components including real struggles in the past, our struggles to know the past, and using the past to struggle in the present. Our goal is to struggle past identity politics and the individual by focusing on peoples' real struggles in real cases.     

One Hundred Years of Archaeology in Niger

This paper considers, under rough chronological headings, work undertaken in Niger in the past century. Sites relevant to the Pleistocene occupation of the Sahara, to the adoption of elements of a Neolithic package, to the (perhaps misleadingly late) occupation of the Sahel, to alleged metalworking 3000 years ago, and to social complexity, are described and discussed. These data carry a relevance far beyond their immediate area, and the most fruitful application of the archaeology of Niger is to be found in theoretical rethinking.     

Philosophy of archaeology: Current issues

Recent literature reflects continuing concern with problems such as explanation, skepticism, and objective knowledge. Some authors urge archaeologists to abandon positivism in favor of new philosophical approaches, such as feminism, Marxism, hermeneutics, and critical theory. Ethical issues have received increased attention as archaeologists have become involved in determining public policy with regard to disposition of artifacts and uncovering of human burials.     

A History of Normative Theory in Americanist Archaeology

Efforts in the 1960s to demonstrate the value of the new archaeology involved showing that the competing culture-history paradigm was inferior. One allegedly weak plank in that paradigm had to do with how culture historians viewed culture—as a set of ideas transmitted in the form of ideal norms or mental templates. Lewis Binford referred to this view as normative theory. In archaeology that view was manifest in the equation of artifact types with prehistoric norms—an equation that, according to Binford, the culture historians had made so that they could track the flow of ideas through time and thus write culture history. Culture historians regularly subscribed to cultural transmission as the theoretical backdrop for their artifact-based chronometers such as seriation and the direct historical approach, but with few exceptions they perceived only a weak relationship between norms and artifact types. It was not until 1960, in a paper by James Gifford, that what Binford labeled as normative theory appeared in anything approaching a complete form. Ironically, the first applications of normative theory were products of the new archaeologists, not the culture historians.     

Recent Advances in Maya Archaeology

This paper focuses on the discoveries of the last decade in Maya archaeology, and assesses their impact on previous models and synthetic frameworks. Although the bibliography includes 700 items published during the last 10 years, it is not exhaustive; on the contrary, a frustratingly large number of discoveries had to be omitted. Two areas exploding with new research are (1) the elicitation of a greater variety of data from hieroglyphic texts, and (2) a series of chemical and biological breakthroughs in the analysis of human burials. The former make it easier to assess the role of elite actors or agents in processes of sociopolitical change. The latter hold out the hope of documenting warfare (through skeletal trauma), migration (by tracing tooth enamel isotopes to ground water), status or gender differences in diet (through bone chemistry), and biological connections of individuals to each other and to earlier populations (through DNA). By combining these new data, we are on our way to integrating humanism and science, and to treating Maya polities as case studies in primary or secondary state formation.     

Working Without a Net: Recent Trends in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology

This paper reviews ceramic ethnoarchaeological research conducted subsequent to Kramer's (1985) seminal stock-taking. Among current trends are a continued interest in the relationship between ceramics and economic specialization, the degree to which manufacture constitutes a technological style, and the link between pots and formation processes as represented in assemblage sizes, use-lives, and recycling. At the same time, some pesky theoretical issues continue to be sidestepped in the current literature. Despite its reputation as a pleasant break from the real business of archaeology, this paper argues that ceramic ethnoarchaeology can and should play a more substantial role in archaeological investigations.     

Household Archaeology in the Southeastern United States: History,Trends, and Challenges

This review highlights archaeological investigations of prehistoric and historic households in southeastern North America. There are a number of inherent challenges to the archaeology of households in the region, including generally poor preservation and a long history of relatively insubstantial domestic architecture. An appraisal of the historical development of household archaeology developed slowly in the Southeast, largely in reaction to trends in other areas of the world. Over the last decade, however, southeastern archaeologists have been at the vanguard of the application of new approaches to households. From an early focus on generalizable patterns of domestic activities and behavior, researchers increasingly view households as historical constructs situated within larger landscapes. Prominent areas of concern include enduring issues such as status variation, production, and consumption but also newer themes such as gender, identity and ethnicity, agency and power, and ritual and symbolism. Some of the most innovative studies explore the intersections of these topics. Conceptual and methodological challenges remain, but the household endures as a practical and productive focus of analysis and interpretation for southeastern archaeologists more than 30 years after household research in the area began.     

The prehistory of Cyprus: Problems and prospects

The archaeological record of prehistoric Cyprus is rich, diverse, well-published, and frequently enigmatic. Regarded by many as a bridge between western Asia and the Aegean, Cyprus and its past are frequently seen from scholarly perspectives prevalent in one of those two cultural areas. Its material culture, however, differs radically from that of either area. Apart from the early colonization episodes on the island (perhaps three during the pre-Neolithic and Neolithic), evidence of foreign contact remains limited until the Bronze Age (post-2500 B. C.). This study seeks to present the prehistory of Cyprus from an indigenous perspective, and to examine a series of archaeological problems that foreground Cyprus within its eastern Mediterranean context. The study begins with an overview of time, place, and the nature of fieldwork on the island, continues with a presentation and discussion of several significant issues in Cypriot prehistory (e.g., insularity, colonization, subsistence, regionalism, interaction, social complexity, economic diversity), and concludes with a brief discussion of prospects for the archaeology of Cyprus up to and beyond 2000.     

The Conservation of Maya Cultural Heritage: Searching for Solutions in a Troubled Region

Abstract

Maya archaeological heritage continues to be a victim of looting, urbanization, and development despite the increased visibility of the issue within the field of archaeology. This article provides a generalized network analysis of the destruction of Maya cultural heritage in southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, western Honduras, and EI Salvador based on interviews conducted in 2006 by the Maya Area Cultural Heritage Initiative (MACHI) with archaeologists, government officials, non-governmental organizations, and Maya leaders. According to informants, interest among local people to conserve archaeological sites has been deeply affected by a lack of education about both Maya archaeology and the national and international laws assuring protection of cultural heritage; many local people, including members of modern Maya groups, see little value in the conservation of the Precolumbian past. MACHI suggests that an effective way to mitigate looting and the wanton destruction of Maya cultural heritage is through the promotion of a variety of educational initiatives (ranging from informal to institutional, for both children and adults) that seek to combine the knowledge of Western archaeological science with indigenous ways of knowing the past. Such initiatives could encourage the construction of positive relationships between indigenous and other local peoples and archaeological remains.     

Re-visiting the field: Collaborative archaeology as paradigm shift

Abstract

The emphasis of the JFA on field methods resonates strongly with current disciplinary interest in multivocality and participatory research. In this new epistemology of inclusiveness, communities play an active role in the production of archaeological knowledge as well as in the conservation of cultural heritage. From the perspective of archaeologists trained in the U.S. who conduct research in Latin America, we historicize changes in the triadic relationship among archaeologists, contemporary communities, and things of the past. This examination focuses on the evolving social context of archaeological practice. The social milieu within which archaeology is conducted is explored further by reference to a recent survey of archaeologists that elicited comments on grand challenges to archaeology. A few examples of the many forms that an engaged archaeology might take are offered from the Maya region. Although collaborative research poses challenges that emerge as communities entangled with archaeological practice become research partners, we suggest that the enhanced relevance that accompanies this transformation is well worth the effort.     

Against War! Regional Identity Across a National Border in Late Medieval and Early Modern Scandinavia

During every war between Denmark and Sweden from at least 1505 to 1676 popular peace treaties were concluded by common men on both sides of the national border. These treaties were negotiated in contrast to the aggressive policy of the political leaders and to the nationalistic discourse of the elite. The aim of this article is to use archaeology to give an economic, social, and mental background to these treaties, and to the regional identity across the border that they presuppose. Above all a specific building tradition seems to have given the peasants a mental affinity across the border.     

Iron Age temperate Europe: Some current research issues

The Iron Age designates the 800 years preceding the Roman conquest of Europe. This period represents the latest social and cultural development of indigenous European societies before the annexation of much of temperate Europe into the Roman Empire and the final phase of cultural change before the beginning of local traditions of written history north of the Alps. Our understanding of the Iron Age has changed substantially over the past 30 years, as a result both of recent discoveries and of new perspectives. Much recent research has focused on specific themes such as changing social structure and patterns of ritual behavior. I attempt here to provide an overview of current understanding and debate on some of these topics in Iron Age archaeology. The subject and its literature are vast, and my treatment is selective. The references will guide the interested reader to the wider literature.     

Beyond the identification of formation processes: Behavioral inference based on traces left by cultural formation processes

Formation processes are generally considered as a negative factor for behavioral inference in archaeology. The concept of formation processes, however, can potentially be far more useful for behavioral inference in archaeology than simply identifying spurious variability in the archaeological record. Physical traces left by cultural formation processes convey a certain kind of behavioral information which may not be otherwise available. Variables related to site occupation, such as the occupation span, the number of occupation episodes, and the location of activities, can be inferred from characteristics of refuse deposits, or refuse structure.     

The corporate group as an archaeological unit

Although corporate groups have featured in the anthropological literature for a century, and have more recently been proposed as a potentially useful unit for archaeological analysis (L. Freeman, 1968, In Man the hunter, edited by R. Lee and I. De Vore, pp. 262–267. Aldine, Chicago), application of the concept in archaeology has largely remained hypothetical, and little theoretical modeling has been attempted. In spite of this neglect, it is argued here that the corporate group is potentially one of the most useful and important aspects of the archaeological record that can be dealt with. This conclusion is derived from a detailed ethnoar-chaeological analysis of over 150 households in the Maya Highlands, in which it became apparent that social, economic, and demographic characteristics of households were only loosely associated with a wide variety of material culture expressions. In contrast, such inferences seemed to be much more reliable when households were grouped into “hypothetical corporate groups” and group averages were compared. In addition, theoretical considerations based on economics and on interactions also indicate that the analysis of corporate groups shold be more rewarding and potentially more accurate than the analysis of individual households. Archaeologically, corporate groups can be defined where residential coherency and internal hierarchies are demonstrable. Because corporate groups can be viewed as signaling major changes in the structuring of society, and in the evolution of social and political complexity, the investigation of conditions under which corporate groups emerge should be of major theoretical significance to the entire discipline of archaeology. Moreover, because of the close logical links to material culture and the environment, theoretical modeling should be particularly amenable to archaeological testing. In sum, corporate groups provide an unusually fertile problem area which archaeologists can hope to attack with at least a promising degree of success.     

The Archaeology of the Disenfranchised

The question of multivocality has been much explored and debated in recent archaeological publications. Clearly, the objective of such work is to assure the inclusion of the views of disadvantaged minorities and disenfranchised peoples in the presentation of their own pasts. This objective has not been achieved with much success, however, partly because mainstream archaeologists have had some difficulties in grappling with what appear to be a proliferation of alternative archaeological theories. Few discussions have approached alternative archaeologies as constituting a definable archaeological paradigm that might be termed The Archaeology of the Disenfranchised. Four different models within this paradigm are discussed and a strategy for a more widespread inclusion of alternative archaeological discussions and projects is suggested.