Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The postprocessual condition

  • 407 Accesses

  • 27 Citations

Abstract

Previous evaluations of postprocessual archaeology have regarded it more as a critique of processual archaeology than as a viable research program. Today this statement needs to be modified to account for the diversity of frameworks that have grown up within and adjacent to the early postprocessual formulations. These new approaches include various admixtures of structural Marxism, poststructuralism, critical theory, and feminism. Significant philosophical differences separate some of these positions, but rather than being debilitating, the active exploration of these areas holds out new possibilities and prospects both for linking archaeology more securely to the other social sciences and for making unique contributions to the nature of social theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References cited

  1. Appadurai, A. (ed.) (1986).The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  2. Arnold, B. (1990). The past as propaganda: Totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany.Antiquity 64: 464–478.

  3. Baker, F. (1990). Archaeology, Habermas and the pathologies of modernity. In Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.),Writing the Past in the Present, St. David's University College, Lampeter, pp. 54–62.

  4. Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.) (1990).Writing the Past in the Present, St. David's University College, Lampeter, Wales.

  5. Baker, F., Taylor, S., and Thomas, J. (1990). Writing the past in the present: An introductory dialogue. In Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.),Writing the Past in the Present, St. David's University College, Lampeter, pp. 1–11.

  6. Bapty, I. (1990).Nietzsche, Derrida and Foucault: Re-excavating the meaning of archaeology. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 240–276.

  7. Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.) (1990).Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, Routledge, London.

  8. Barrett, J. C. (1987). Contextual archaeology.Antiquity 61: 468–473.

  9. Barrett, J. C. (1988a). Fields of discourse: Reconstituting a social archaeology.Critique of Anthropology 7: 5–16.

  10. Barrett, J. C. (1988b). The living, the dead, and the ancestors: Neolithic and Early Bronze Age mortuary practices. In Barrett, J. C., and Kinnes, I. A. (eds.),The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, Sheffield University, Sheffield, pp. 30–41.

  11. Barrett, J. C. (1989). Time and tradition: The rituals of everyday life. In Nordstrom, H.-A., and Knape, A. (eds.),Bronze Age Studies, Statens Historiiska Museum, Stockholm.

  12. Barrett, J. C. (1990a). Archaeology in the age of uncertainty.Scottish Archaeology Review 7: 31–36.

  13. Barrett, J. C. (1990b). The monumentality of death: The character of Early Bronze Age mortuary mounds in Southern Britain.World Archaeology 22: 179–189.

  14. Bender, B. (1985a). Emergent tribal formations in the American Midcontinent.American Antiquity 50: 52–62.

  15. Bender, B. (1985b). Prehistoric developments in the American Midcontinent and in Brittany. In Price, T. D., and Brown, J. A. (eds.),Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, Academic Press, New York, pp. 21–57.

  16. Binford, L. R. (1987). Data, relativism and archaeological science.Man 22: 391–404.

  17. Binford, L. R. (1989). The “new archaeology” then and now. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (ed.),Archaeological Thought in America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge pp. 50–62.

  18. Bintliff, J. (1991). Post-modernism, rhetoric and scholasticism at TAG: The current state of British archaeological theory.Antiquity 65: 274–278.

  19. Brumfiel, E. (1991). Weaving and cooking: Women's production in Aztec Mexico. In Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 132–162.

  20. Brumfiel, E. (1992). Breaking and entering the ecosystem—gender, class, and faction steal the show.American Anthropologist 94: 551–567.

  21. Claassen, C. (ed.) (1992).Exploring Gender Through Archaeology: Selected Papers of the 1991 Boone Conference, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

  22. Cobb, C. R. (1991). Social reproduction and thelongue durée in the prehistory of the midcontinental United States. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 168–182.

  23. Cobb, C. R. (1993). Archaeological approaches to the political economy of nonstratified societies.Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 43–100.

  24. Conkey, M. W., and Spector, J. (1984). Archaeology and the study of gender.Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1–38.

  25. Conkey, M. W., with Williams, S. H. (1991). Original narratives: The political economy of gender in archaeology. In di Leonardo, M. (ed.),Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 102–139.

  26. Cowgill, G. (1993). Beyond criticizing new archaeology.American Anthropologist 95: 551–573.

  27. Duke, P. (1991).Points in Time: Structure and Event in a Late Period Northern Plains Hunting Society, University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

  28. Duke, P. (1992). Braudel and North American archaeology. In Knapp, A. B. (ed.),Archaeology, Annales and Ethnohistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99–111.

  29. Earle, T. K., and Preucel, R. W. (1987). Processual archaeology and the radical critique.Current Anthropology 28: 501–538.

  30. Englestad, E. (1991). Feminist theory and postprocessual archaeology. In Walde, D., and Willows, N. D. (eds.),The Archaeology of Gender, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference, University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary.

  31. Ferguson, T. J. (1981). Rebuttal report, prepared for the Pueblo of Zuni,Zuni Indian Tribe v.United States, Docket No. 161-79L, before the United States Court of Claims, Vol. I.

  32. Ferguson, T. J. (1984). Archaeological ethics and values in a tribal cultural resource management program at the Pueblo of Zuni. In Greene, E. L. (ed.),Ethics and Values in Archaeology, Free Press, New York, pp. 224–235.

  33. Flannery, K. V. (1982). The golden Marshalltown: A parable for the archaeology of the 1980s.American Anthropologist 84: 265–278.

  34. Flannery, K. V., and Marcus, J. (1993). Cognitive archaeology.Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3: 260–270.

  35. Frankenstein, S., and Rowlands, M. J. (1978). The internal structure and regional context of early Iron Age society in south-west Germany.Bulletin of the Institute of archaeology, London 15: 73–112.

  36. Friedman, J., and Rowlands, M. J. (1978). Notes towards an epigenetic model of the evolution of “civilization.” In Friedman, J., and Rowlands, M. J. (eds.),The Evolution of Social Systems, Duckworth, London, pp. 201–276.

  37. Gable, E., Handler, R., and Lawson, A. (1992). On the uses of relativism: Fact, conjecture, and black and white histories at Colonial Williamsburg.American Ethnologist 19: 791–805.

  38. Gero, J. (1983). Gender bias in archaeology: A cross cultural perspective. In Gero, J., Lacy, D., and Blakey, M. (eds.),The Socio-politics of Archaeology, University of Massachusetts Department of Anthropology Research Report 23, pp. 51–57.

  39. Gero, J. (1985). Socio-politics of archaeology and the woman-at-home ideology.American Antiquity 50: 342–350.

  40. Gero, J. (1991). Who experienced what in prehistory? A narrative explanation from Queyash, Peru. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Southern Illinois University Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 126–141.

  41. Gero, J. (1992). Feasts and females: Gender ideology and political meals in the Andes.Norwegian Archaeological Review 25: 15–30.

  42. Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.) (1991).Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

  43. Gero, J., and Root, D. (1990). Public presentations and private concerns: Archaeology in the pages of National Geographic. In Gathercole, P., and Lowenthal, D. (eds.),The Politics of the Past, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 19–37.

  44. Gilman, A. (1981). The development of social stratification in Bronze Age Europe.Current Anthropology 22: 1–23.

  45. Gilman, A. (1984). Explaining the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. In Spriggs, M. (ed.),Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 115–126.

  46. Gilman, A. (1989). Marxism in American archaeology. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (ed.),Archaeological Thought in America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 63–73.

  47. Gledhill, J., and Rowlands, M. J. (1982). Materialism and socio-economic process in multilinear evolution. In Renfrew, C., and Shennan, S. (eds.),Ranking, Resource, and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 144–149.

  48. Hall, M. (1984). The burden of tribalism: The social context of southern African Iron Age Studies.American Antiquity 49: 455–467.

  49. Handsman, R. G. (1987). Stop making sense: Towards an anti-catalogue of woodsplint basketry. In McMullen, A., and Handsman, R. G. (eds.),A Key into the Language of Woodsplint Baskets, American Indian Archaeological Institute, Washington, CT, pp. 144–163.

  50. Handsman, R. G. (1988). Algonkian women resist colonialism.Artifacts 16: 29–31.

  51. Handsman, R. G. (1989). Native Americans and an archaeology of living traditions.Artifacts 17(2): 3–5.

  52. Handsman, R. G. (1990). The Weantinock Indian homeland was not a “desert.”Artifacts 18(2): 3–7.

  53. Handsman, R. G. (1991a). What happened to the heritage of the Weantinock people.Artifacts 19(1): 3–9.

  54. Handsman, R. G. (1991b). Illuminating history's silences in the “Pioneer Valley.”Artifacts 19(2): 14–25.

  55. Handsman, R. G., and Maymon, J. H. (1987). The Weantinoge site and an archaeology of ten centuries of native history.Artifacts 15(4): 4–11.

  56. Handsman, R. G., and Williamson, L. (1993). As we tell our stories: Living traditions and the Algonkian peoples of Indian New England.Artifacts 17(4): 4–34.

  57. Hastorf, C. A. (1991). Gender, space, and food in prehistory. In Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 132–162.

  58. Hodder, I. (1982a).Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  59. Hodder, I. (1982b). Theoretical archaeology: A reactionary view. In Hodder, I. (ed.),Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–16.

  60. Hodder, I. (1982c). Sequences of structural change in the Dutch Neolithic. In Hodder, I. (ed.),Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 162–177.

  61. Hodder, I. (1984a). Archaeology in 1984.Antiquity 58: 25–32.

  62. Hodder, I. (1984b). Burials, houses, women and men in the European Neolithic. In Miller, D., and Tilley, C. (eds.),Ideology, Power and Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 51–68.

  63. Hodder, I. (1986).Reading the Past, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  64. Hodder, I. (1988a). Material culture “texts” and social change: A theoretical discussion and some archaeological examples.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54: 67–75.

  65. Hodder, I. (1988b). This is not an article about material culture as text.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 250–269.

  66. Hodder, I. (1989). Writing archaeology: Site reports in context.Antiquity 63: 268–274.

  67. Hodder, I. (1990).The Domestication of Europe, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

  68. Hodder, I. (1991a). Postprocessual archaeology and the current debate. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 30–41.

  69. Hodder, I. (1991b). Interpretive archaeology and its role.American Antiquity 56: 7–18.

  70. Hodder, I. (1992).Theory and Practice in Archaeology, Routledge, London.

  71. Johnson, M. H. (1989). Conceptions of agency in archaeological interpretation.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8: 189–211.

  72. Johnson, M. H. (1991). Enclosure and capitalism: The history of a process. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 159–167.

  73. Joyce, R. A. (1993). Women's work: Images of production and reproduction in pre-Hispanic southern Central America.Current Anthropology 34: 255–274.

  74. Kehoe, A. (1990). Point and lines. In Nelson, S., and Kehoe, A. (eds.),Powers of Observation: Alternative Views in Archaeology, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 2, pp. 23–38.

  75. Kohl, P. (1987a). The ancient economy, transferable technologies and the Bronze Age World System: A view from the northeastern frontier of the ancient Near East. In Rowlands, M. J., Larsen, M., and Kristiansen, K. (eds.),Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13–24.

  76. Kohl, P. (1987b). The use and abuse of World Systems Theory.Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11: 1–35.

  77. Kohl, P. (1989). The use and abuse of World Systems Theory: The case of the “pristine” West Asian State. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (ed.),Archaeological Thought in America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 218–240.

  78. Kristiansen, K. (1978). The consumption of wealth in Bronze Age Denmark: A study in the dynamics of economic processes in tribal societies. In Paludan-Müller, I., and Kristiansen, K. (eds.),New Directions in Scandanavian Archaeology, København.

  79. Kristiansen, K. (1984). Ideology and material culture: An archaeological perspective. In Spriggs, M. (ed.),Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 72–100.

  80. Kristiansen, K. (1988). The black and the red: Shanks and Tilley's programme for a radical archaeology.Antiquity 62: 473–482.

  81. Layton, R. (ed.) (1989).Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, Unwin Hyman, London.

  82. Leone, M. P. (1984). Interpreting ideology in historical archaeology: The William Paca garden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Miller, D., and Tilley, C. (eds.),Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 25–35.

  83. Leone, M. P. (1986). Symbolic, structural and critical archaeology. In Meltzer, D., Fowler, D., and Sabloff, J. (eds.),American Archaeology Past and Future, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 415–438.

  84. Leone, M. P. (1991). Materialist theory and the formation of questions in archaeology. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 235–241.

  85. Leone, M. R., Potter, P. B., and Shackel, P. (1987). Toward a critical archaeology.Current Anthropology 28: 283–302.

  86. Leone, M. P., and Preucel, R. W. (1992). Archaeology in a democratic society: A critical theory approach. In Wandsnider, L. (ed.),Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology's Future, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Occasional Paper, No. 20, pp. 115–135.

  87. McDonald, J. D., Zimmerman, L. J., McDonald, A. L., Tall Bull, W., and Rising Sun, T. (1991). The Northern Cheyenne outbreak of 1897: Using oral history and archaeology as tools of resistance. In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.),The Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 125–150.

  88. McGuire, R. H. (1989). The sanctity of the grave: White concepts and American Indian burials. In Layton, R. (ed.),Conflicts in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 167–184.

  89. McGuire, R. H. (1992a).A Marxist Archaeology, Academic Press, New York.

  90. McGuire, R. H. (1992b). Archaeology and the First Americans.American Anthropologist 94: 816–836.

  91. McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.) (1991).The Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

  92. Merriman, N. (1991).Beyond the Glass Case: The Past, the Heritage and the Public in Britain, Leicester University Press, Leicester.

  93. Miller, D. (1987).Material Culture and Mass Consumption, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

  94. Miller, D., and Tilley, C. (eds.) (1984).Ideology, Power and Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  95. Miller, D., Rowlands, M. J., and Tilley, C. (eds.) (1989).Domination and Resistance, Unwin Hyman, London.

  96. Muller, J. (1991). The new holy family: A polemic on bourgeois idealism in archaeology. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 251–261.

  97. Muller, V. (1987). Kin reproduction and elite accumulation in the Archaic states of northwest Europe. In Patterson, T. C., and Gailey, C. W. (eds.),Power Relations and State Formation, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.

  98. Olsen, B. (1986). Norwegian archaeology and the people without (pre-)history: Or how to create a myth of a uniform past.Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5: 25–42.

  99. Olsen, B. (1991). Metropolises and satellites in archaeology: On power and asymmetry in global archaeological discourse. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 211–224.

  100. Parker Pearson, M. (1982). Mortuary practices, society, and ideology: An ethnoarchaeological study. In Hodder, I. (ed.),Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99–113.

  101. Parker Pearson, M. (1984). Social change, ideology and the archaeological record. In Spriggs, M. (ed.),Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 59–71.

  102. Patterson, T. C. (1985). Pachacamac: An Andean oracle under Inca rule. In Kvietok, D. P., and Sandweiss, D. H. (eds.),Recent Studies in Andean Prehistory and Protohistory, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 155–176.

  103. Patterson, T. C. (1986). Ideology, class formation, and resistance in the Inca state.Critique of Anthropology 6: 75–85.

  104. Patterson, T. C. (1989). History and postprocessual archaeology.Man 24: 555–566.

  105. Patterson, T. C. (1990). Some theoretical tensions within and between the processual and postprocessual archaeologies.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 189–200.

  106. Patterson, T. C. (1991).The Inca Empire: The Formation and Disintegration of a Pre-Capitalist State, Berg, Oxford.

  107. Potter, P. B., Jr. (1992). Critical archaeology: In the ground and on the street.Historical Archaeology 26: 117–129.

  108. Preucel, R. W. (ed.) (1991a).Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 10.

  109. Preucel, R. W. (1991b). The philosophy of archaeology. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 17–29.

  110. Redman, C. L. (1991). In defense of the seventies—The adolescence of new archaeology.American Anthropologist 93: 295–307.

  111. Renfrew, C. (1994). Towards a cognitive archaeology. In Renfrew, C., and Zubrow, E. B. W. (eds.),The Ancient Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–12.

  112. Renfrew, C., and Bahn, P. (1991).Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, Thames and Hudson, London.

  113. Rowlands, M. J., Larsen, M., and Kristiansen, K. (eds.) (1987).Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  114. Schiffer, M. B. (1988). The structure of archaeological theory.American Antiquity 53: 461–486.

  115. Seifert, D. J. (ed.) (1991). Gender in historical archaeology.Historical Archaeology 25 (4).

  116. Shanks, M. (1992).Experiencing the Past: On the Character of Archaeology, Routledge, London.

  117. Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1982). Ideology, symbolic power, and ritual communication: A reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In Hodder, I. (ed.),Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 129–154.

  118. Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1987a).Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  119. Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1987b).Social Theory and Archaeology, Polity Press, Cambridge.

  120. Spaulding, A. (1960). The dimensions of archaeology. In Dole, G. E., and Carneiro, R. L. (eds.),Essays in the Science of Culture in Honor of Leslie A. White, Crowell, New York, pp. 437–456.

  121. Spaulding, A. (1988). Archaeology and anthropology.American Anthropologist 90: 263–271.

  122. Spector, J. D. (1991). What this awl means: Toward a feminist archaeology. In Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 388–406.

  123. Spector, J. D. (1993).What this Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village, Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul.

  124. Spriggs, M. (ed.) (1984).Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  125. Thomas, D. H. (1989).Archaeology, 2nd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

  126. Thomas, J. (1990). Archaeology and the notion of ideology. In Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.),Writing the Past in the Present, St. David's University College, Lampeter, pp. 63–68.

  127. Thomas, J. (1991).Rethinking the Neolithic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  128. Thomas, J., and Tilley, C. (1992). TAG and “post-modernism”: A reply to John Bintliff.Antiquity 66: 106–114.

  129. Tilley, C. (1988). Discourse and power: The genre of the Cambridge Inaugural Lecture. In Miller, D., Rowlands, M. J., and Tilley, C. (eds.),Domination and Resistance, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 41–62.

  130. Tilley, C. (1989). Excavation as theater.Antiquity 63: 275–280.

  131. Tilley, C. (ed.) (1990a).Reading Material Culture: Structuralism, Hermeneutics, and Poststructuralism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

  132. Tilley, C. (1990b). Michel Foucault: Towards an archaeology of archaeology. In Tilley, C. (ed.),Reading Material Culture: Structuralism, Hermeneutics, and Poststructuralism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 281–347.

  133. Trigger, B. G. (1989).A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  134. Trigger, B. G. (1990). The 1990s: North American archaeology with a human face?Antiquity 64: 778–787.

  135. Trigger, B. G. (1991). Constraint and freedom: A new synthesis for archaeological explanation.American Anthropologist 93: 551–569.

  136. Tringham, R. (1991). Households with faces: The challenge of gender in prehistoric architectural remains. In Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 93–131.

  137. Victor, K. L., and Beaudry, M. C. (1992). Women's participation in American prehistoric and historic archaeology: A comparative look at the journalsAmerican Antiquity andHistorical Archaeology. In Claassen, C. (ed.),Exploring Gender Through Archaeology: Selected Papers from the 1991 Boone Conference, Monographs in World Archaeology, No. 11, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 11–21.

  138. Walde, D., and Willows, N. D. (eds.) (1991).The Archaeology of Gender, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference, University of Calgary Archaeological Association.

  139. Walsh, K. (1992).The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern World, Routledge, London.

  140. Watson, P. J., and Fotiadis, M. (1990). The razor's edge: Symbolic-structuralist archaeology and the expansion of archaeological inference.American Anthropologist 92: 613–629.

  141. Watson, P. J., and Kennedy, M. C. (1991). The development of horticulture in the eastern woodlands of North America: Women's role. In Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 255–275.

  142. Watson, R. (1990). Ozymandias, king of kings: Postprocessual radical archaeology as critique.American Antiquity 55: 673–689.

  143. Watson, R. (1991). What the new archaeology has accomplished.Current Anthropology 32: 275–291.

  144. Willey, G. R., and Sabloff, J. A. (1992).A History of American Archaeology, 3rd ed., Freeman, New York.

  145. Wright, R. (1991). Women's labor and pottery production in prehistory. In Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 194–223.

  146. Wylie, A. (1991). Gender theory and the archaeological record: Why is there no archaeology of gender? In Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 31–56.

  147. Wylie, A. (1992). The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: Recent archaeological research on gender.American Antiquity 57: 15–35.

  148. Wylie, A. (1993). A proliferation of new archaeologies: “Beyond objectivism and relativism.” In Yoffee, N., and Sherratt, A. (ed.),Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 20–26.

  149. Yates, T. (1988). The Cambridge seminar on poststructuralism and archaeology: An organizer's note.Archaeological Review from Cambridge 7: 239–240.

  150. Yates, T. (1990). Archaeology though the looking-glass. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 153–204.

Bibliography of recent literature

  1. Bagnal, R. (1990). The experience and identity of “women”: Feminism after structuralism. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 103–123.

  2. Bapty, I. (1990). The agony and the ecstasy.Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9: 233–242.

  3. Bapty, I. (1990). On modernity and archaeological discourse. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 127–152.

  4. Barrett, J. C. (1987). Food, gender, and metal: Questions of social reproduction. In Stig-Sorenson, M.- L., and Thomas, R. (eds.),The Bronze Age-Iron Age Transition in Europe, BAR (International Series) 483, pp. 304–320.

  5. Barrett, J. C. (1990). Sciencing archaeology: A reply to Lewis Binford. In Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.),Writing the Past in the Present, St. David's University College, Lampeter, pp. 42–48.

  6. Barrett, J. C. (1991). Towards an archaeology of ritual. In Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R., and Toms, J. (eds.),Sacred and Profane: The Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, OUDES, Oxford, pp. 1–9.

  7. Barrett, J. C. (1994).Fragments in Antiquity, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

  8. Beaudry, M. C., Cook, L. J., and Morzowski, S. J. (1991). Artifacts and active voices: Material culture as social discourse. In McGuire, R., and Paynter, R. (eds.),The Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 150–191.

  9. Bender, B. (1978). Gatherer-hunter to farmer: A social perspective.World Archaeology 10: 204–222.

  10. Bender, B. (1986).The Archaeology of Brittany, Normandy, and the Channel Islands, Faber and Faber, London.

  11. Bender, B. (1989). The roots of inequality. In Miller, D., Rowlands, M. J., and Tilley, C. (eds.),Domination and Resistance, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 83–95.

  12. Bender, B. (1990). The dynamics of nonhierarchical societies. In Upham, S. (ed.),The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small Scale Sedentary Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 247–263.

  13. Bender, B. (1992). Theorizing landscapes and the prehistoric landscape of Stonehenge.Man 27: 735–755.

  14. Botscharow, L. J. (1989). Sites as texts: An exploration of Mousterian traces. In Hodder, I. (ed.),The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 50–54.

  15. Boyd, B. (1992). The transformation of knowledge: Natufian mortuary practices at Hayonim, western Galilee.Archaeological Review from Cambridge 11: 19–38.

  16. Burr, G. (1990). The joker is wild, the text untameable: The analytics of Homo Analogicus (anthropology, post-structuralism and post-modernism. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 35–59.

  17. Chippindale, C. (1993). Ambition, deference, discrepancy, consumption: The intellectual background to a post-processual archaeology. In Yoffee, N., and Sherratt, A. (ed.),Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 27–36.

  18. Claassen, C. P. (1991). Gender, shellfishing, and the Shell Mound Archaic. In Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 276–300.

  19. Claassen, C. P. (ed.) (1994).Women and Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

  20. Conkey, M. W. (1991). Contexts of action, contexts for power: Material culture and gender in the Magdalenian. In Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 57–92.

  21. Criado, F. (1989). 'We, the post-megalithic people. ..." In Hodder, I. (ed.),The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 79–87.

  22. Davis, W. (1989). Towards and archaeology of thought. In Hodder, I. (ed.),The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 202–208.

  23. Dommasnes, L. H. (1990). Feminist archaeology: Critique of theory building. In Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.),Writing the Past in the Present, St. David's University College, Lampeter, pp. 24–31.

  24. du Cross, H., and Smith, L. (1993).Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Occasional Papers in Prehistory, No. 23. The Australian National University, Canberra.

  25. Edmunds, M. (1993). Interpreting causeway enclosures in the past and the present. In Tilley, C. (ed.),Interpretive Archaeology, Berg, Oxford, pp. 99–142.

  26. Gilchrist, R. (1989). Community and self: Perceptions and use of space in medieval monestaries.Scottisch Archaeological Review 6: 55–64.

  27. Gilchrist, R. (1991). Women's archaeology? Political feminism, gender theory and historical revision.Antiquity 65: 495–501.

  28. Handsman, R. G. (1980). Studying myth and history in modern America: Perspectives for the past from the continent.Reviews in Anthropology 7: 255–268.

  29. Handsman, R. G. (1991). Whose art was found at Lepinski Vir? Gender relations and power in archaeology. In Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 329–365.

  30. Handsman, R. G., and Leone, M. P. (1989). Living history and critical archaeology in the reconstruction of the past. In Pinsky, V., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 117–135.

  31. Hertzfield, M. (1992). Metapatterns: Archaeology and the uses of evidential scarcity. In Gardin, G.-C., and Peebles, C. S. (eds.),Representations in Archaeology, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 66–86.

  32. Hewison, R. (1987).The Heritage Industry, Methuen, London.

  33. Hill, J. D. (1989). Rethinking the Iron Age.Scottish Archaeology Review 6: 16–24.

  34. Hill, J. D. (1992). Can we recognize a different European past? A contrastive archaeology of later prehistoric settlements in southern England.Journal of European Archaeology 1: 57–75.

  35. Hodder, I. (1986). Politics and ideology in the World Archaeological Congress 1986.Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5: 113–119.

  36. Hodder, I. (ed.) (1987).Archaeology as Long Term History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  37. Hodder, I. (ed.) (1989).The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, Unwin Hyman, London.

  38. Hodder, I. (1989). Post-modernism, post-structuralism, and post-processual archaeology. In Hodder, I. (ed.),The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 64–78.

  39. Hodder, I. (ed.) (1990).The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  40. Hodder, I. (1990). Archaeology and the postmodern.Anthropology Today 6: 13–15.

  41. Johnson, H., and Olsen, B. (1992). Hermeneutics and archaeology: On the philosophy of contextual archaeology.American Antiquity 57: 419–436.

  42. Johnson, M. H. (1992). Meanings of polite architecture in sixteenth-century England.Historical Archaeology 26: 26–44.

  43. Johnson, M. H. (1993). Notes towards an archaeology of capitalism. In Tilley, C. (ed.),Interpretive Archaeology, Berg, Oxford, pp. 327–356.

  44. Johnson, M. H., and Coleman, S. (1990). Power and passion in archaeological discourse. In Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.),Writing the Past in the Present, St. David's University College, Lampeter, pp. 13–17.

  45. Joyce, R. A. (1992). Images of gender and labor organization in Classic Maya society. In Claassen, C. (ed.),Exploring Gender Through Archaeology: Selected Papers of the 1991 Boone Conference, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 23–32.

  46. Kelly, R. (1991). Toward a reconciliation of processual and postprocessual archaeology. In Wandsnider, L. (ed.),Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology's Future, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 20, pp. 254–265.

  47. Kirk, T. (1990). Post-structuralism: We don't know what it is, but we like it. In Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.),Writing the Past in the Present, St. David's University College, Lampeter, pp. 87–89.

  48. Kirk, T. (1991). Structure, agency, and power relations “Chez les Derniers Chasseurs-Cueillers” of northwestern France. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 108–125.

  49. Kirk, T. (1993). Space, subjectivity, power, and hegemony: Megaliths and long mounds in earlier Neolithic Brittany. In Tilley, C. (ed.),Interpretive Archaeology, Berg, Oxford, pp. 181–224.

  50. Kohl, P. (1984). Force, history, and the evolutionist paradigm. In Spriggs, M. (ed.),Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 127–134.

  51. Kohl, P. (1985). Symbolic, cognitive archaeology: A new loss of innocence.Dialectical Anthropology 9: 105–117.

  52. Kohl, P. (1993). Limits to a post-processual archaeology (or, the dangers of a new scholasticism). In Yoffee, N., and Sherratt, A. (ed.),Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13–19.

  53. Kosso, P. (1991). Method in archaeology: Middle-range theory as hermeneutics.American Antiquity 56: 621–627.

  54. Kristiansen, K. (1982). The formation of tribal systems in Later European prehistory. In Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J., and Seagraves, B. A. (eds.),Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 5–24.

  55. Kristiansen, K. (1989). Value, ranking, and consumption in the European Bronze Age. In Miller, D., Rowlands, M. J., and Tilley, C. (eds.),Domination and Resistance, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 211–214.

  56. Kristiansen, K. (1991). Chiefdoms, states, and systems of social evolution. In Earle, T. K. (ed.),Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 16–43.

  57. Kus, S. (1982). Matters material and ideal. In Hodder, I. (ed.),Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 47–62.

  58. Kus, S. (1984). The spirit and its burden: Archaeology and symbolic activity. In Spriggs, M. (ed.),Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 101–107.

  59. Kus, S. (1989). Sensuous human activity and the state: Toward an archaeology of bread and circuses. In Miller, D., Tilley, C., and Rowlands, M. (eds.),Domination and Resistance, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 140–154.

  60. Layton, R. (ed.) (1989).Who Needs the Past? Unwin Hyman, London.

  61. Leone, M. P. (1981). The relationship between artifacts and the public in Outdoor History Museums.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 376: 301–314.

  62. Leone, M., and Potter, P. B. (1984).Archaeological Annapolis, Archaeology in Annapolis, Annapolis, MD.

  63. Leone, M., and Potter, P. B. (eds.) (1990).The Recovery of Meaning, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  64. Little, B. (ed.) (1993).Text-aided Archaeology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

  65. Maley, W. (1990). Undermining archaeology: From reconstruction to deconstruction. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 61–77.

  66. McGuire, R. H. (1988). Dialogues with the dead: Ideology and the cemetery. In Leone, M. P., and Potter, P. B. (eds.),The Recovery of Meaning, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 435–480.

  67. Melas, E. M. (1989). Etics, emics, and empathy in archaeological theory. In Hodder, I. (ed.),The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 137–154.

  68. Merriman, N. (1988). The social basis of museum and heritage visiting. In Pearce, S. M. (ed.),Museum Studies in Material Culture, Leicester University Press, Leicester.

  69. Miller, D. (1985).Artifacts as Categories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  70. Mizoguchi, K. (1992). A historiography of a linear barrow cemetery: A structurationist's point of view.Archaeological Review from Cambridge 11: 39–49.

  71. Moore, H. L. (1986).Space, Text, and Gender, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  72. Moore, H. L. (1988).Feminism and Anthropology, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

  73. Moran, P., and Hides, D. S. (1990). Writing, authority and the determination of a subject. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 205–220.

  74. Nassaney, M. S. (1989). An epistemological enquiry into some archaeological and historical interpretations of 17th century Native American-European relations. In Shennan, S. (ed.),Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 76–93.

  75. Nelson, S. (1990). Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic “Venus” figurines and archaeological mythology. InPowers of Observation: Alternative Views in Archeology, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 2, pp. 11–22.

  76. Nordbladh, J., and Yates, T. (1990). This perfect body, this virgin text: Between sex and gender in archaeology. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 222–237.

  77. Patterson, T. C., and Gailey, C. (eds.),Power Relations and State Formation, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.

  78. Paynter, R. (1989). The archaeology of equality and inequality.Annual Review of Anthropology 18: 369–399.

  79. Paynter, R., and McGuire, R. (1989). The archaeology of inequality: Material culture, domination and resistance. In McGuire, R., and Paynter, R. (eds.),The Archaeology of Inequality, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1–11.

  80. Potter, P. B., Jr. (1991). Self-reflection in archaeology. In Preucel, R. W. (ed.),Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Occasional Paper, No. 10, pp. 225–234.

  81. Potter, P. B., Jr., and Leone, M. P. (1989). Liberation not replication: Archaeology in Annapolis analyzed.Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 76: 97–105.

  82. Richards, C. (1988). Altered images: A reexamination of Neolithic mortuary practices in Orkney. In Barrett, J. C., and Kinnes, I. A. (eds.),The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, pp. 42–56.

  83. Richards, C. (1993). Monumental choreography: Architecture and spatial representation in Late Neolithic Orkney. In Tilley, C. (ed.),Interpretive Archaeology, Berg, Oxford, pp. 143–178.

  84. Richards, C., and Thomas, J. (1984). Ritual activity and structured deposition in the Later Neolithic Wessex. In Bradley, R., and Gardiner, J. (eds.),Neolithic Studies, BAR British Series 133, Oxford, pp. 189–218.

  85. Rowlands, M. J. (1982). Processual archaeology as historical science. In Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J., and Seagraves, B. A. (eds.),Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 155–174.

  86. Rowlands, M. J. (1984). Objectivity and subjectivity in archaeology. In Spriggs, M. (ed.),Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 108–114.

  87. Rowlands, M. J. (1987). Power and moral order in pre-colonial west-central Africa. In Brumfiel, E., and Earle, T. (eds.),Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 52–63.

  88. Rowlands, M. J. (1989). A question of complexity. In Miller, D., Rowlands, M. J., and Tilley, C. (eds.),Domination and Resistance, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 29–40.

  89. Saitta, D. J., and Keene, A. S. (1990). Politics and surplus flow in prehistoric communal societies. In Upham, S. (ed.),The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 203–224.

  90. Samson, R. (1992) Knowledge, constraint, and power in inaction: The defenseless medieval wall.Historical Archaeology 26: 26–44.

  91. Saunders, T. (1990). Prestige and exchange: Althusser and structural Marxist archaeology. In Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.),Writing the Past in the Present, St. David's University College, Lampeter, pp. 69–78.

  92. Shackel, P. (1992) Modern discipline: Its historical context in the Colonial Chesapeake.Historical Archaeology 26: 73–84.

  93. Shackel, P., and Little, B. J. (1992) Post-processual approaches to meaning and uses of material culture in historical archaeology.Historical Archaeology 26: 5–11.

  94. Shanks, M. (1991). Some recent approaches to style and social reconstruction in classical archaeology.Archaeological Review from Cambridge 10: 164–174.

  95. Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1987). Abstract and substantial time.Archaeological Review from Cambridge 6: 32–41.

  96. Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. (1990). Archaeology into the 1990s.Norwegian Archaeological Review 22: 1–54.

  97. Shennan, S. (1986). Toward a critical archaeology?Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52: 327–338.

  98. Spencer-Wood, S. (1992). A feminist program for non-sexist archaeology. In Wandsnider, L. (ed.),Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology's Future, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 20.

  99. Spriggs, M. (1991). Facing the nation: Archaeologists and Hawaiians in the era of sovereignty.The Contemporary Pacific 3: 379–392.

  100. Spriggs, M. (1992). Alternative prehistories for Bougainville: Regional, national, or micronational.The Contemporary Pacific 4: 269–298.

  101. Taylor, S. (1990). “Brothers” in arms? Feminism, post-structuralism and the “rise of civilisation.” In Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.),Writing the Past in the Present, St. David's University College, Lampeter, pp. 32–41.

  102. Thomas, J. (1987). Relations of production and social change in the Neolithic of northwest Europe.Man 22: 405–430.

  103. Thomas, J. (1988). Neolithic explanations revisited: The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and southern Scandinavia.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54: 59–66.

  104. Thomas, J. (1988). The social significance of Cotswold-Severn burial rites.Man 23: 540–559.

  105. Thomas, J. (1989). Technologies of the self and the constitution of the subject.Archaeological Review from Cambridge 8: 101–107.

  106. Thomas, J. (1990). Same, other, analogue: Writing the past. In Baker, F., and Thomas, J. (eds.),Writing the Past in the Present, St. David's University College, Lampeter, pp. 18–23.

  107. Thomas, J. (1990). Monuments from the outside: The case of the Irish megalithic tombs.World Archaeology 22: 168–178.

  108. Thomas, J. (1991). Silent running: The ills of environmental archaeology.Scottish Archaeology Review 7: 2–7.

  109. Thomas, J. (1991). Science versus anti-science.Archaeological Review from Cambridge 10: 27–36.

  110. Thomas, J. (1992). Monuments, movement, and the context of megalithic art. In Sharples, N., and Sheridan, A. (eds.),Vessels for the Ancestors: Essays on the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 143–155.

  111. Thomas, J. (1993). The hermeneutics of Megalithic space. In Tilley, C. (ed.),Interpretive Archaeology, Berg, Oxford, pp. 73–98.

  112. Thomas, J. (1993). Discourse, totalization and “The Neolithic.” In Tilley, C. (ed.),Interpretive Archaeology, Berg, Oxford, pp. 357–394.

  113. Thomas, J., and Tilley, C. (1993). The axe and the torso: Symbolic structures in the Neolithic of Brittany. In Tilley, C. (ed.), Interpretive Archaeology, Berg, Oxford, pp. 225–324.

  114. Tilley, C. (1989). Interpreting material culture. In Hodder, I. (ed.),The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 185–194.

  115. Tilley, C. (1990). On modernity and archaeological discourse. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 127–152.

  116. Tilley, C. (1991). Materialism and an archaeology of dissonance.Scottish Archaeology Review 8: 14–22.

  117. Tilley, C. (1991).Material Culture and Text: The Art of Ambiguity, Routledge, London.

  118. Tilley, C. (ed.) (1993).Interpretive Archaeology, Berg, Oxford.

  119. Tilley, C. (1993). Introduction: Interpretation and a poetics of the past. In Tilley, C. (ed.),Interpretive Archaeology, Berg, Oxford, pp. 1–27.

  120. Tilley, C. (1993). Prospecting archaeology. In Tilley, C. (ed.),Interpretive Archaeology, Berg, Oxford, pp. 395–416.

  121. Trigger, B. (1984). Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist.Man 19: 355–370.

  122. Trigger, B. G. (1984). Archaeology at the cross-roads: What's new?Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 275–300.

  123. Trigger, B. G. (1990). Hyperrelativism, responsibility, and the social sciences.Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26: 776–777.

  124. Trigger, B. G. (1991). Post-processual developments in Anglo-American Archaeology.Norwegian Archaeological Review 24: 65–76.

  125. Walsh, K. (1990). The Post-Modern threat to the past. In Bapty, I., and Yates, T. (eds.),Archaeology After Structuralism: Post-structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 278–293.

  126. Wylie, A. (1985). Putting Shakertown back together: Critical theory in archaeology.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 133–147.

  127. Wylie, A. (1989). The interpretive dilemma. In Pinsky, V., and Wylie, A. (eds.),Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 18–27.

  128. Wylie, A. (1989). Archeological cables and tacking: The implications of practice for Bernstein's “options beyond objectivism and relativism.”Philosophy of Social Science 19: 1–18.

  129. Yates, T. (1988). Michael Schiffer and processualism as science with a capital S.Archaeological Review from Cambridge 7: 235–238.

  130. Yates, T. (1989). Habitus and social space: Some suggestions about meaning in the Saami (Lapp) tent ca. 1700–1900. In Hodder, I. (ed.),The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 249–261.

  131. Yates, T. (1993). Frameworks for an archaeology of the body. In Tilley, C. (ed.),Interpretive Archaeology, Berg, Oxford, pp. 31–72.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Preucel, R.W. The postprocessual condition. J Archaeol Res 3, 147–175 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02231436

Download citation

Key words

  • postprocessual archaeologies
  • hermeneutics
  • structural Marxism
  • neo-Marxism
  • poststructuralism
  • critical theory, feminism