Abstract
We argue that since agency and structure are indivisible parts of a single process through which society is continuously created over time, everything that persists or changes in archaeological sites is evidence of agency. The challenge is to adopt appropriate descriptive levels and language to avoid falsely dividing agency and structure. Successful archaeological studies use networks and chains as models or metaphors for connections in sequences of action over time. We argue that models must also link micro-scale actions to outcomes on the macroscale. Because theories of agency differ in the degree of freedom of action they assume, archaeologists must also clearly identify their own position with respect to constraints on action.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice, Nice, R. (trans.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Butler, J. (1997). The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Clark, J. E. (2000).Towards a better explanation of hereditary inequality: a critical assessment of natural and historic agents. In Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 92–112.
Cobb, C., and King, A. (2005). Reinventing tradition at Etowah, Georgia, JAMT 12(3): 167–192.
de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life, Rendall, S. F. (trans.), University of California Press, Berkeley.
Dobres, M.-A. (2000). Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology, Blackwell, Oxford.
Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. E. (2000). Agency in archaeology: Paradigm or platitude? In Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 3–17.
Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. (2005). “Doing” agency: Introductory remarks on methodology, JAMT 12(3): 159–166.
Dornan, J. L. (2002). Agency and archaeology: Past, present, and future directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9: 303–329.
Flannery, K. V. (1999). Process and agency in early state formation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9: 3–21.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Sheridan, A. (trans.), Vintage Books, New York.
Foucault, M. (1982). Afterword: the subject and power. In Dreyfus, H. L., and Rabinow, P. (eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 208–226.
Gamble, C. (1998). Palaeolithic society and the release from proximity: A network approach to intimate relations. World Archaeology 29: 426–449.
Gell, A. (1998). Art and Agency: Towards a New Anthropological Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gillespie, S. D. (1999). Olmec thrones as ancestral altars: the two sides of power. In Robb, J. E. (ed.), Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 224–253.
Gosden, C. (2005). What do objects want? JAMT 12(3): 193–213.
Hegmon, M., and Kulow, S. (2005). Painting as agency, style as structure: Innovations in Mimbres pottery from Southwest New Mexico, JAMT 12(4): in press.
Joyce, R. A. (2003a). Concrete memories: Fragments of the past in the Classic Maya present (500–1000 AD). In Van Dyke, R. M., and Alcock, S. E. (eds.), Archaeologies of Memory, Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 104–125.
Joyce, R. A. (2003b). Making something of herself: embodiment in life and death at Playa de los Muertos, Honduras. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13: 248–261.
Joyce, R. A. (2004a). Embodied subjectivity: gender, femininity, masculinity, sexuality. In Meskell, L. M., and Preucel, R. W. (eds.), A Companion to Social Archaeology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 82–95.
Joyce, R. A. (2004b). Unintended consequences? Monumentality as a novel experience in Formative Mesoamerica. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11: 5–29.
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.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lopiparo, J. (2003). Household Ceramic Production and the Crafting of Society in the Terminal Classic Ulúa Valley Honduras. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Lopiparo, J. (in press). Crafting children: materiality, social memory, and the (re)production of Terminal Classic house societies in the Ulúa Valley, Honduras. In Ardren, T., and Hutson, S. (eds.), The Social Experience of Childhood in Ancient Mesoamerica, University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Love, M. W. (1999). Ideology, material culture, and daily practice in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. In Grove, D. C., and Joyce, R. A. (eds.), Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 127–153.
Martin, A. (2005). Agents in inter-action: Bruno Latour and agency, JAMT 12(4): in press.
Moore, H. (2000). Ethics and ontology: Why agents and agency matter. In Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 259–263.
Ortner, S. B. (2001). Commentary: Practice, power and the past. Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 271–278.
Owoc, M. A. (2005). From the ground up: Agency, practice, and community in the southwestern British Bronze Age, JAMT 12(4): in press.
Pauketat, T. R. (2001a). A new tradition in archaeology. In Pauketat, T. R. (ed.), The Archaeology of Tradition, The University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 1–16.
Pauketat, T. R. (2001b). Practice and history in archaeology: An emerging paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1: 73–98.
Pauketat, T. R., and Alt, S. M. (2003). Mounds, memory and contested Mississippian history. In Van Dyke, R. M. and Alcock, S. E. (eds.), Archaeologies of Memory, Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 151–179.
Pauketat, T. R., and Alt, S. M. (2005). Agency in a postmold? Physicality and the archaeology of culture-making, JAMT 12(3): 213–236.
Perry, E. M., and Joyce, R. A. (2001). Providing a past for Bodies that Matter: Judith Butler's impact on the archaeology of gender. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies 6: 63–76.
Pred, A. (1990). Making Histories and Constructing Human Geographies: The Local Transformation of Practice, Power Relations, and Consciousness, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Preucel, R. W., and Bauer, A. A. (2001). Archaeological pragmatics. Norwegian Archaeological Review 34: 85–96.
Robin, C. R. (2002). Outside of houses: The practices of everyday life at Chan Nóohol, Belize. Journal of Social Archaeology 2: 245–268.
Sahlins, M. (1981). Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structures in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Sassaman, K. (2005). Proverty point as structure, event, process, JAMT 12(4): in press.
Silliman, S. (2001). Agency, practical politics and the archaeology of culture contact. Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 190–209.
Smith, A. T. (2001). The limitations of doxa: Agency and subjectivity from an archaeological point of view. Journal of Social Archaeology 1: 155–171.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Joyce, R.A., Lopiparo, J. PostScript: Doing Agency in Archaeology. J Archaeol Method Theory 12, 365–374 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-005-8461-3
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-005-8461-3