Advertisement

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 213–237 | Cite as

Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the Archaeology of Culture-Making

  • Timothy R. PauketatEmail author
  • Susan M. Alt
Article

Abstract

Architecture embodies human agency in all of its dimensions and effective scales. Specifically, the wooden posts of Mississippian peoples in the American mid-continent were simultaneously spatial, material, and corporeal dimensions of the process of cultural construction and contestation. Our reconsideration of the lowly postmold is based on the principle of physicality that, in turn, alters the ways in which we pose research questions and interpret archaeological data. A historical-processual methodology involves three procedural fundamentals: identifying practical variability, comparing genealogies of practices, and tacking between lines of evidence at multiple scales of analysis.

Keywords

agency practice architecture Mississippian 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alt, S. M. (2001). Cahokian change and the authority of tradition. In Pauketat, T. R. (ed.), The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 141–156.Google Scholar
  2. Alt, S. M. (2002a). Identities, traditions, and diversity in Cahokia’s uplands. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 27: 217–235.Google Scholar
  3. Alt, S. M. (2002b). The Knoebel Site: Tradition and Change in the Cahokian Suburbs. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  4. Archer, M. S. (1996). Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Ashmore, W. (2002). Decisions and dispositions: Socializing spatial archaeology. American Anthropologist 104: 1172–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashmore, W., and Knapp, A. B. (1999). Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Bareis, C. J., and Porter, J. W. (eds.) (1984). American Bottom Archaeology: A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
  9. Bradley, R. (1998). The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  10. Bradley, R. (2000). An Archaeology of Natural Places, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  11. Bradley, R. (2003). A life less ordinary: The ritualization of the domestic sphere in later prehistoric Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13: 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brumfiel, E. M. (2000). On the archaeology of choice: Agency studies as a research strategem. In Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 249–255.Google Scholar
  13. Chappell, S. A. K. (2002). Cahokia: Mirror of the Cosmos, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Cowgill, G. L. (2000). “Rationality” and contexts in agency theory. In Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 51–60.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, J. M. (1990). The Archaeology of the Cahokia Mounds ICT-II: Site Structure, Illinois Cultural Resources Study 10, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.Google Scholar
  16. Collins, J. M. (1997). Cahokia settlement and social structures as viewed from the ICT-II. In Pauketat, T. R., and Emerson, T. E. (eds.), Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 124–140.Google Scholar
  17. Dalan, R. A., Holley, G. R., Woods, W. I., Watters, H., Jr., and Koepke, J. A. (2003). Envisioning Cahokia: A Landscape Perspective, Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb.Google Scholar
  18. Dobres, M.-A. (2000). Technology and Social Agency, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. (2000). Agency in archaeology: Paradigm or platitude. In Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, G., and Loren, D. D. (2003). Introduction: embodying identity in archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13: 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fletcher, A. C., and La Flesche, F. (1992). The Omaha Tribe (2 vols.), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
  22. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: An Outline of the Theory of Structuration, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  23. Gillespie, S. D. (2001). Personhood, agency, and mortuary ritual: A case study from the ancient Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 73–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hester, T. R., Shafer, H. J., and Feder, K. L. (1997). Field Methods in Archaeology, (7th edn.) Mayfield, Mountain View, California.Google Scholar
  25. Hodder, I., and Cessford, C. (2004). Daily practice and social memory at çatalhöyük. American Antiquity 69: 17–40.Google Scholar
  26. Joyce, R. A. (1998). Performing the body in pre-Hispanic Central America. Res 33: 147–165.Google Scholar
  27. Joyce, R. A. (2000). Heirlooms and houses: Materiality and social memory. In Joyce, R. A., and Gillespie, S. D. (eds.), Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 189–212.Google Scholar
  28. Joyce, R. A. (2003). Concrete memories: Fragments of the past in the Classic Maya present (500–1000 AD). In Van Dyke, R., and Alcock, S. (eds.), Archaeologies of Memory, Blackwell Press, Oxford, pp. 104–125.Google Scholar
  29. Joyce, R. A. (2004). Unintended consequences? monumentality as a novel experience in Formative Mesoamerica. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11: 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Joyce, R. A., and Hendon, J. A. (2000). Heterarchy, history, and material reality: “Communities” in Late Classic Honduras. In Canuto, M. A., and Yaeger, J. (eds.), The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, Routledge, London, pp. 143–160.Google Scholar
  31. Kelly, J. E. (1997). Stirling-phase sociopolitical activity at East St. Louis and Cahokia. In Pauketat, T. R., and Emerson, T. E. (eds.), Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 141–166.Google Scholar
  32. Kus, S. M. (1983). The social representation of space: Dimensioning the cosmological and the quotidian. In Moore, J. A., and Keene, A. S. (eds.), Archaeological Hammers and Theories, Academic Press, New York, pp. 277–298.Google Scholar
  33. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  34. Lewis, T. M. N., and Kneberg, M. (1946). Hiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  35. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of Perception (Smith, C., transl.), Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  36. Meskell, L. (1996). The somatisation of archaeology: Institutions, discourses, corporeality. Norwegian Archaeological Review 29: 1–16.Google Scholar
  37. Meskell, L. (1999). Archaeologies of Social Life, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  38. Meskell, L. (2004). Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material Biographies Past and Present, Berg, Oxford.Google Scholar
  39. Meskell, L., and Joyce, R. A. (2003). Embodied Lives: Figuring Ancient Maya and Egyptian Experience, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  40. Mills, B. (2004). The establishment and defeat of hierarchy: Inalienable possessions and the history of collective prestige structures in the Pueblo Southwest. American Anthropologist 106: 238–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morse, D. F., and Morse, P. A. (1983). Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Pauketat, T. R. (1993). Temples for Cahokia Lords: Preston Holder’s 1955–1956 Excavations of Kunnemann Mound, Museum of Anthropology, Memoir No. 26, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  43. Pauketat, T. R. (1994). The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
  44. Pauketat, T. R. (1997). Cahokian political economy. In Pauketat, T. R., and Emerson, T. E. (eds.), Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, pp. 30–51.Google Scholar
  45. Pauketat, T. R. (1998a). The Archaeology of Downtown Cahokia: The Tract 15A and Dunham Tract Excavations, Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Studies in Archaeology 1, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  46. Pauketat, T. R. (1998b). Refiguring the archaeology of greater Cahokia. Journal of Archaeological Research 6: 45–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pauketat, T. R. (2000). The tragedy of the commoners. In Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 113–129.Google Scholar
  48. Pauketat, T. R. (2001). Practice and history in archaeology: An emerging paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1: 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pauketat, T. R. (2003a). Materiality and the immaterial in historical-processual archaeology. In VanPool, T. L., and VanPool, C. S. (eds.), Essential Tensions in Archaeological Method and Theory, The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 41–53.Google Scholar
  50. Pauketat, T. R. (2003b). Resettled farmers and the making of a Mississippian polity. American Antiquity 68: 39–66.Google Scholar
  51. Pauketat, T. R. (2004a). Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  52. Pauketat, T. R. (2004b). The economy of the moment: Cultural practices and Mississippian chiefdoms. In Feinman, G. M., and Nicholas, L. M. (eds.), Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 25–39.Google Scholar
  53. Pauketat, T. R. (ed.) (2005a). The Archaeology of the East St. Louis Mound Center: The Southside Excavations, Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Research Reports No. 85, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  54. Pauketat, T. R. (2005b). The forgotten history of the Mississippians. In Pauketat, T. R., and Loren, D. D. (eds.), North American Archaeology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 187–211.Google Scholar
  55. Pauketat, T. R., and Alt, S. M. (2003). Mounds, memory, and contested Mississippian history. In Van Dyke, R., and Alcock, S. (eds.), Archaeologies of Memory, Blackwell Press, Oxford, pp. 151–179.Google Scholar
  56. Pauketat, T. R., and Alt, S. M. (2005). The making and meaning of a Mississippian axehead cache. Antiquity 78:779–797.Google Scholar
  57. Pauketat, T. R., and Emerson, T. E. (1999). The representation of hegemony as community at Cahokia. In Robb, J. (ed.), Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, Occasional Paper No. 26, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 302–317.Google Scholar
  58. Pauketat, T. R., Kelly, L. S., Fritz, G. J., Lopinot, N. H., Elias, S., and Hargrave, E. (2002). The residues of feasting and public ritual at early Cahokia. American Antiquity 67: 257–279.Google Scholar
  59. Pauketat, T. R., and Woods, W. I. (1986). Middle Mississippian structure analysis: The Lawrence Primas site in the American Bottom. Wisconsin Archeologist 67: 104–127.Google Scholar
  60. Paynter, R., and McGuire, R. H. (1991). The archaeology of inequality: Material culture, domination, and resistance. In McGuire, R. H., and Paynter, R. (eds.), The Archaeology of Inequality, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  61. Phillips, P., and Brown, J. A. (1978). Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, Peabody Museum Press, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  62. Porter, J. W. (1974). Cahokia Archaeology as Viewed from the Mitchell Site: A Satellite Community at A.D. 1150–1200. Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, PhD dissertation, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  63. Sassaman, K. E. (2000). Agents of change in hunter-gatherer technology. In Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 148–168.Google Scholar
  64. Schiffer, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. (1997). The explanation of artifact variability. American Antiquity 62: 27–50.Google Scholar
  65. Shennan, S. J. (1993). After social evolution: A new archaeological agenda? In Yoffee, N., and Sherratt, A. (eds.), Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 53–59.Google Scholar
  66. Skibo, J. M., and Schiffer, M. B. (2001). Understanding artifact variability and change: A behavioral framework. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 139–149.Google Scholar
  67. Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory, Verso, London.Google Scholar
  68. Spielmann, K. A. (2002). Feasting, craft specialization, and the ritual mode of production in small-scale societies. American Anthropologist 104: 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thomas, J. (1996). Time, Culture and Identity: An Interpretive Archaeology, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  70. Thomas, J. (2001). Archaeologies of place and landscape. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 165–186.Google Scholar
  71. Trouillot, M.-R. (1995). Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  72. Van Dyke, R., and Alcock, S. (eds.) (2003). Archaeologies of Memory, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  73. Walker, W. H. (2002). Stratigraphy and practical reason. American Anthropologist 104: 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walker, W. H., and Lucero, L. J. (2000). The depositional history of ritual and power. In Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 130–147.Google Scholar
  75. Walthall, J., Farnsworth, K., and Emerson, T. E. (1997). Constructing (on) the past. Common Ground 2: 26–33.Google Scholar
  76. Wesselmann, J. (2000). The politics of family: Implications of courtyard construction and group movement in the uplands. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Macon, Georgia.Google Scholar
  77. Wilson, G. D. (1998). An Investigation of Early Mississippian Resistance in the American Bottom. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman.Google Scholar
  78. Wylie, A. (1989). Archaeological cables and tacking: The implications of practice for Bernstein’s “Options Beyond Objectivism and Relativism.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19: 1–18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of IllinoisUrbana

Personalised recommendations