Interpreting Michigan Archaeology: How and Why Social Theories Can Be Utilized to Assess Michigan's Unexamined Agents

By Bober, Timothy L. | Michigan Academician, Winter 2003 | Go to article overview

Interpreting Michigan Archaeology: How and Why Social Theories Can Be Utilized to Assess Michigan's Unexamined Agents


Bober, Timothy L., Michigan Academician


INTRODUCTION

Professional archaeology has been influenced by different paradigms since the inception of the field. Over the past 80 years, archaeology has been dominated by Culture History and Processualism (for an overview of these paradigms, see Trigger 1989). Michigan is no exception to either of the previous statements (e.g., Brashler 1978; Fitting 1965, 1970; Fitting et al. 1963; Griffin 1961; Griffin et al. 1970; 1930; Halsey 1999; Holman et al. 1995; Krakker 1983; Luedke 1976; White et al. 1963). However, there is a different body of theory being utilized by contemporary archaeologists around the world that has not been operationalized in Michigan.

The merits and shortcomings of Interpretive Archaeology (the preferred positive term for Post-Processual Archaeology; see Hodder 1991; Shanks and Hodder 1998) have been debated for the last 15 years (e.g., Preucel 1991a; Kosso 1991). Recently, it has produced informative archaeological conclusions that have culminated in edited volumes such as Chilton (1999), Dobres and Robb (2000a), Stark (1998a) and Thomas (1993). Research in these volumes often uses very similar types of data as those found in Michigan, but these approaches have yet to be applied here.

I intend to suggest that new interpretations in Michigan archaeology begin with alternative views of technology (in general), style (in particular), and by incorporating social theory (e.g., practice theory) into archaeological research, can make it possible to highlight the activities, experiences, and decisionmaking processes of past people. I will summarize a few case studies (e.g., Chilton 1996, 1998; Dietler and Herbich 1998; Dobres 1999a) that will exemplify how this type of research has already been carried out in other areas of the world, why these studies can be analogous to Michigan archaeology, and how I operationalized it in my own research. I am not suggesting that this is the "right" or only way to do archaeology; rather, it can provide different conclusions that complement preexisting approaches.

TECHNOLOGY

Technology has been viewed in many different ways. It is often considered a boundary between people and things; however, this boundary is artificial and has compromised technological studies (Dobres 2000; Ingold 1999). Technology is more than just materials and production processes because people construct more than mere objects through practices that are reflexively constructed and reconstructed (Dobres and Hoffman 1994; Hoffman and Dobres 1999). They simultaneously construct social relations that are made meaningful only through their interaction with people.

All material culture represents technology, which is composed of learned technical gestures and knowledge that tacitly express identities like ethnicity, gender, age, ideology, and class (Sinclair 2000). Technology is also politically and symbolically charged and central to human existence including the way human beings experience and make sense of their world (Dobres and Hoffman 1999). It needs to be situated in the performative contexts of its use by skilled human agents if its meaning is to be anthropologically understood (i.e., an artifact's morphology or use-wear cannot be examined in isolation from its provenience, social relations of production, and the local dynamics of social interaction) (Ingold 1999). Technology is materially grounded, but is an intrinsically social phenomenon that extends beyond hardware and represents "social activities made meaningful and enacted through social agency" (Dobres and Hoffman 1994, 247; Hoffman and Dobres 1999). Technological studies that ignore the people that inte racted with it fail to recognize critical aspects of its production and use. Generally, technology also exhibits style (Lechtman 1977), but how that style has been interpreted has been the subject of debate.

STYLE IN ARCHAEOLOGY

Style has been difficult to define even though "most archaeologists think they know what they mean by the term" (Hegmon 1998, 265).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Interpreting Michigan Archaeology: How and Why Social Theories Can Be Utilized to Assess Michigan's Unexamined Agents
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.