Society for American Archaeology

Behavioral Archaeology and the Study of TechnologyAuthor(s): Michael Brian Schiffer, James M. Skibo, Janet L. Griffitts, Kacy L. Hollenback,William A. LongacreSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 2001), pp. 729-737Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694186Accessed: 17/12/2009 20:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

BEHAVIORAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF TECHNOLOGY

Michael Brian Schiffer, James M. Skibo, Janet L. Griffitts,

Kacy L. Hollenback, and William A. Longacre

Loney's (2000) recent paper claims that American archaeologists have paid scant attention to the study of technological, espe? cially ceramic, change. We argue that, infact, interest in such change processes has grown greatly in recent decades and that Loney has overlooked much relevant literature. We support our general argument with a catalog of recent behavioral research on technological change.

El articulo escrito por Loney (2000) arguye que la arqueologia americana ha prestado muy poca atencidn al estudio de cambio

tecnoldgico, especialmente en material cerdmico. Nosotros sugerimos que de hecho el interes en estos procesos de cambio ha cre- cido mucho en decadas recientes y que Loney ha ignorado la literatura relevante. Apoyamos nuestro argumento general con un

catdlogo de la reciente investigacion conductual sobre cambio tecnoldgico.

We

read with great interest Loney's (2000) recent paper on ceramic studies in Europe and America. Although we appreciate

Loney's attempt to initiate international discussion, and admire her chutzpah for challenging an entire

hemisphere, we are troubled by her negative assess?

ment of American ceramic research: "European stud?

ies of ceramic change are undergoing a period of

vitality and innovation, [whereas] American studies

have been less fruitful" (p. 647). On the contrary, a

great many American scholars, following the lead of

Frederick Matson (1965) and other ceramic ecolo-

gists (e.g., Arnold 1985; Kolb 1988), have toiled for

decades to understand the dynamic and multifaceted

relationships between pottery and people; this large and theoretically diverse body of research should not

be summarily dismissed. Although we dispute sev?

eral of Loney's problematic claims, our paper mainly illustrates the fruitfulness of American ceramic

research by focusing on how technology and tech?

nological change are explored by behavioral archae?

ologists?the theoretical orientation we know best.

(In contrast to Loney's usage, by "America" we

include the United States, Canada, Mexico, and

nations of the Caribbean, and Central and South

America.)

Are All American Ceramic

Scholars Evolutionists?

Because evolutionists have been so articulate and

prolific, one could get the impression that they speak for all American archaeologists. That Loney seems

to have formed such an impression is betrayed by her insistence that the lack of vitality and innovation

in American ceramic studies stems from our dogged insistence on using the concept of evolution. How?

ever, the majority of ceramic specialists are not evo?

lutionists, and they do not equate ceramic change with "evolution." (Loney has also misrepresented

evolutionary arguments, as Hector Neff points out

elsewhere in this volume.) We agree with Loney that the use of "progress"

as an underlying assumption in ceramic studies

imposes views of change that are unidirectional.

However, she neglects to mention that most Ameri?

can scholars do not use value-laden terms like

"progress" in their studies of ceramic change, nor do

they invoke Darwinian or any other kind of evolu-

Michael Brian Schiffer ? Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 James M. Skibo ? 4640 Anthropology Program, Illinois State University, Normal-Bloomington, IL 61761-6901 Janet L. Griffitts ? Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

Kacy L. Hollenback ? Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 William A. Longacre ? Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

AmericanAntiquity, 66(4), 2001, pp. 729-738

Copyright? 2001 by the Society for American Archaeology

729

730 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 4,2001]

tionary theory. Rather, they employ diverse social and

behavioral theories to provide richly contextualized

accounts of empirically documented sequences of

technological change. American ceramic theory is

not circumscribed by evolutionism, but has received

contributions from practitioners of many theoretical

programs. That these programs are not merely vari?

ations on an evolutionary theme should be evident

to anyone who compares, for example, Dobres and

Hoffman (1994), Kuhn (1994), O'Brien et al. (1998), and Schiffer and Skibo (1997). (For a discussion of

specific differences, even incompatibilities, between

behavioral and evolutionary archaeologies, see P.

Arnold [1999]; O'Brien et al. [1998]; Schiffer

[1996]; and Wylie [1995].)

Following the Scholarly Trail

We do not believe that behavioral studies of ceramic

change make tracks that are difficult to find. Yet

Loney fails to follow the intellectual trail for many ofthe concepts she discusses. In the section "Anthro?

pology of Technology," Loney does mention some

of our work, but places it among the Shipibo. Ship- ibo-Conibo pottery and the research of Warren

DeBoer are indeed important, but our ethnoarchae?

ological investigations have taken place mainly

among the Kalinga and other Philippine groups (e.g., Graves 1994; Longacre 1981; Longacre and Skibo

1994; Longacre and Stark 1992; Longacre et al.

2000; Neupert 2000; Skibo 1992; Stark 1999).

Beyond geography are problems in the attribu-

tion of key concepts. We do not wish to bicker about

who originated the notion of "technological choice," which Loney clearly likes and attributes solely to

Lemonnier (1993), but the concept?also labeled as

"technical choice"?has long been central to behav?

ioral discussions of ceramic change. For example, we have used "technical choice" since 1987 in stud?

ies that employ various data bases?experimental

(e.g., Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Schiffer et al. 1994),

ethnoarchaeological (e.g., Longacre et al. 2000; Skibo 1992, 1994), and prehistoric (e.g., Schiffer

and Skibo 1987; Skibo andBlinman 1999; Skibo and

Walker 2002). What is more, the basic idea that the

explanation of any technological change should be

based on a rigorous comparison among alternatives, in terms of their behavioral capabilities, goes back

at least to Schiffer (1979), and is doubtless present much earlier in the American literature.

Remarkably, Loney also contends that American

archaeologists have shown little interest in contex-

tualized studies of technological change in general and ceramic change in particular: "This intense inter?

est [in Europe] in the relationship between technol?

ogy and society, and the resulting interest in how they

change over time, has not been followed by Ameri?

can ceramic analysts" (p. 647). We are mystified by this sweeping statement, which seems to be based

on an incomplete familiarity with the American lit?

erature. We realize, of course, that this latter phrase is usually a euphemism for "the author did not cite

me." And, in this case, it is exactly what we mean.

At the risk of appearing like people jumping up and

down yelling, "nobody wants to play with us," we

forge ahead and apologize now for our self-indul-

gence.

Trends in the Study of Technological Change

The most cursory reading ofthe American literature

would indicate that interest in studying technologi? cal change has grown steadily over the past several

decades. This trend is evident in the many papers

published since 1980 by major American periodicals,

including Archaeological Method and Theory, Jour?

nal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Journal

of Anthropological Archaeology, and American

Antiquity, as well as in general monographs and

books?some focused entirely on ceramics (e.g.,

Bronitsky 1989; Kingery 1990,1993; Nelson 1984;

Plog 1980; Rice 1987; Sassaman 1993; Sinopoli 1991; Skibo and Feinman 1999). A recent review by Rice (1996a, 1996b) should also disabuse any one of

the belief that Americans have not been active in

studies of ceramic change. Although there is as yet no in-depth history of American research on tech?

nology, telescoped discussions can be found in the

introductory sections of several recent volumes

(Chilton 1999; Dobres and Hoffman 1999; Stark

1998). Research on technological change has been car?

ried out by many American investigators working under the umbrellas of processual, postprocessual,

evolutionary, and behavioral programs. Here we call

attention only to relevant behavioral studies carried

out in America, for representatives of other programs can more ably prepare their own responses. (The citations below include works that would not have

been available yet to Loney; we include these

anachronisms in order to make this paper more use?

ful to people desiring to learn about the theoretical

COMMENTS 731

resources available for behavioral research on tech?

nological change. On the other hand, for obvious rea-

sons we exclude references to the countless

behavioral studies done by non-Americans.)

Core Concepts and Principles

At the core of behavioral archaeology is a set of

highly general formulations, both concepts and prin?

ciples, useful for technological studies. For exam?

ple, attention has been called to the four dimensions

of artifact variability?formal, spatial, quantitative, and relational (Rathje and Schiffer 1982, chapter 4; Schiffer 1992, chapter 1), which assist in formulat-

ing research questions and in evaluating the perti- nence and weight of evidence. Behavioralists have

also stressed the myriad utilitarian and symbolic functions of artifacts, coining the terms "techno-

function," "socio-function," and "ideo-function"

(Rathje and Schiffer 1982, chapter 4; Schiffer 1992,

chapter 1). (These functional categories are merely research tools that serve to focus the investigator's attention on the complex relationships between peo?

ple and artifacts; they would not be expected to cor?

respond to distinctions made by past peoples.) We

have also underscored the vital contributions of tech?

nologies to the conduct of all human activities (Rathje and Schiffer 1982; Walker et al. 1995; Zedeno 1997,

2000), including communication (Schiffer and Miller

1999a, 1999b) and ritual and religion (LaMotta and

Schiffer 2001; Skibo and Walker 2002; Walker 1995,

2001). In addition, several versions ofthe life-his-

tory framework?now employed by virtually all seri-

ous students of technology?have been developed,

including flow models (Schiffer 1972, 1976) and

behavioral chains (Schiffer 1975,1976). These mod?

els differ from chatnes operatoires (e.g., Cresswell

1990) by including all activities and processes that

take place during an artifact's life history, not just

operational sequences of manufacture. Also of con?

cern have been the varied kinds of knowledge, often

tacit, that are embodied in the exercise of technical

skill (e.g., Keller 2001; Keller and Keller 1996; Schif?

fer and Miller 1999a; Schiffer and Skibo 1987; Young and Bonnichsen 1984), as well as learning processes for acquiring knowledge and skill (e.g., Crown 1999,

2001). Behavioral studies have also clarified, in general

terms, the complex relationships among a technol?

ogy's technical choices, material properties, and per- formance characteristics (e.g., Kingery 2001; Rice

1996a; Schiffer and Skibo 1987, 1997; Skibo and

Schiffer 2001). Indeed, the concept of performance characteristic, introduced into archaeology by Braun

(1983), is given special prominence in behavioral

studies, and has been redefined as an interaction- and

activity-specific capability of a person or artifact

(Schiffer and Miller 1999a: 16-20; Schiffer and

Skibo 1997). Performance characteristics enable util-

itarian interactions?e.g., mechanical and thermal?

as well as symbolic ones based on visual, acoustic, or other sensory modes (for further discussion of

sensory-based performance characteristics, see Lon?

gacre et al. 2000; Schiffer and Skibo 1997; Schiffer

and Miller 1999a, chapter 2). The elucidation of

behaviorally relevant performance characteristics, which underlie all interactions in activities, is essen-

tial for behavioral studies of technology.

Finally, behavioral principles and techniques have

enhanced our ability to infer specific activities in the

life histories of pottery and other materials, from

procurement of raw materials to reuse and deposi? tion (for ceramic bibliographies, see Rice 1987,

1996a, 1996b). Such inferences obviously lay a foun?

dation for studying technological change in archae?

ological cases.

Framing Questions

An important move is to frame questions about

"change" in behavioral terms? that is, in relation to

concrete people-artifact interactions in activities.

Indeed, we believe that all "social" processes?as well as all other high-level concepts and abstrac-

tions?should be expressible in behavioral terms, and thus made amenable to rigorous archaeological

study. This move clearly reflects our abiding concern

for understanding the involvement of people in tech?

nologies. Construed in this way, "change" denotes a

large family of diverse behavioral/social processes, from invention to adoption to long-term patterns.

Dealing with such varied processes requires us to for-

mulate and employ a correspondingly varied family of theories and models (Schiffer 1988,1993,2000b).

Behavioral theories, as opposed to experimental laws, are often sufficiently general to encompass all

technologies, from ceramics to electric automobiles.

Perhaps Loney has ignored behavioral theories

because they are often closely juxtaposed with case

studies of industrial technologies, which are unfa-

miliar to most archaeologists. It would be ironic

indeed if behavioral theories, which enable the inves-

732 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 4,2001]

tigator to construct deeply contextualized explana? tions, have been overlooked precisely on account of

their great generality. We now present an overview of some behavioral

theories and models of change processes and call

attention to illustrative case studies. For present pur-

poses, any study that is "behavioral" in fact or spirit is included, without regard to the programmatic com-

mitment of the investigator; we hope that this deci-

sion causes no offense.

Assessing Received Ideas

One requirement of behavioral research is to adopt a critical stance toward prevalent?but often erro-

neous?ideas about technology and technological

change, regardless of source. Discernible as ideol?

ogy, mythology, and indigenous theory, such ideas

permeate academic and nonacademic discourse and

are often adopted implicitly. Investigators who hold

these ideas may be severely hampered in efforts to

achieve a nuanced understanding of technological

processes. Behavioral research has identified several kinds

of technology-related ideational phenomena as well

as offered hypotheses on their functions and some?

times insidious effects. Among these contributions

are analyses of corporate "crypto-history" (Schiffer

1991, chapters 1 and 15; 1992, chapter 6), indige? nous theories about product histories (Schiffer

2000a), myths about garbage and landfill contents

(Rathje 1979, 1989; Rathje et al. 1992; Rathje and

Murphy 1992), and the ideology of "technological revolution" (Schiffer 1992, chapter 5). Although still

at an early stage, such research shows much promise for untangling the strands of ideology and "common

sense" that make their way, usually implicitly, into

archaeological discussions about technological

change.

Design Processes

Some questions about technological change can be

fruitfully reformulated as questions about artifact

design processes, and there have been many behav?

ioral contributions to design theory in archaeology

(e.g., Arnold 1985; Binford 1979; Bleed 1986; Bleed

and Bleed 1987; Carr 1995; Hayden et al. 1996; Horsfall 1987; Kingery 1984, 1989, 2001; Kuhn

1994; McGuire and Schiffer 1983; Nelson 1991; Rice 1984; Schiffer and Skibo 1987,1997; Skibo and

Schiffer 2001). Behavioral theories of design require

the investigator to assess how myriad causal factors

in the activities along an artifact's behavioral chain

affected, through feedback, the artisan's technical

choices. One also needs to assess the influence of

social variables?e.g., power differentials, gender, sex, social class, age, and ethnicity?on the actual

weighting of performance characteristics (for spe? cific discussions, see, e.g., Ahler and Geib 2000; Arnold 1993; Nielsen 1995; Schiffer 1991; Schiffer

etal. 1994; Stark 1998, 1999).

Processes oflnvention

Another promising avenue of inquiry centers on

processes of invention, which create new technolo?

gies and new varieties of old technologies. Several

behavioral models have been proposed to account for

specific inventions as well as for bursts of inventive

activities in a given kind of technology. Among these

we mention the aggrandizer model (Hayden 1998), the cultural imperative model (Schiffer 1993), and

the stimulated variation model (Schiffer 1996). Addi?

tional models, as yet unnamed, explain the invention

of specific technologies such as ceramics (e.g., Bar-

nett and Hoopes 1995; Rice 1999). Moreover, the

contingencies surrounding the origin of particular industrial technologies have been integrated into

detailed historical narratives (e.g., Mullins 1999; Orser 1996; Schiffer 1991; Schiffer et al. 1994; Shackel 1996).

Replication Processes

Once invented, technologies may be replicated? i.e., pass into processes of manufacture and

exchange. Questions about replication focus, for

example, on processes of commercialization in the

industrial world and?more generally?on the orga? nization of production and exchange. Regarding the

latter processes, there is no dearth of behavioral

research, general and specific (e.g., Arnold 1999;

Bey and Pool 1992; Costin 1991; Graves 1991; Mills

and Crown 1995; Neupert 2000; Rice 1981, 1996; Skibo and Schiffer 1995; Stark 1991,1994; Triadan

1997; Zedeno 1994).

Adoption Processes

The adoption process (Plog 1974) is another impor? tant domain of theoretical activity. These studies fur-

nish an opportunity for the archaeologist to integrate variables of social class, ethnicity, gender, sex, age,

ideology, and so forth into explanations of adoption

COMMENTS 733

decisions (e.g., Eighmy 1981; Majewski and Schif?

fer 2001; Spencer-Wood 1987). The central idea in

behavioral theories of adoption, which are still in

their infancy, is that adopting groups?defined usu?

ally by sociodemographic parameters?base their

choices on comparisons among the performance characteristics of competing technologies in relation

to given activities (e.g., Adams 1999; Longacre et al.

2000; Schiffer 1979, 1995; Skibo 1994). One ofthe

most useful contributions has been the "performance matrix," a tool for explicitly assessing differences in

the behaviorally relevant performance characteristics

of competing technologies (e.g., Schiffer and Skibo

1987; Schiffer 1995,2000a, 2000b). In an important caveat, Schiffer and Miller (1999a: 116-118) call

attention to the problem of stereotyping individuals

on the basis of social-group membership.

Large-Scale, Long-Term Processes

Behavioral archaeologists have thus far devoted con?

siderable effort to understanding micro-processes of

technological change such as design and adoption, but we are not unmindful of the need to research

large-scale, long-term processes (LaMotta and Schif?

fer 2001). In an early paper, for example, Schiffer

(1979; Schiffer 1992, chapter 4) addressed the ques- tion of how adoption decisions ramify throughout a

society, affecting over the long term other activities

and technologies. Behavioral models have also been

proposed for studying competitions among large- scale technologies (Gould 1981, 2001; Schiffer

2001) and for investigating processes of technolog? ical differentiation (Hayden 1981; Schiffer 2002). Needless to say, in no case do we assume that these

processes are unidirectional or represent technolog? ical "progress." Indeed, our models can cope with

instances of technological simplification as well as

the loss of entire technologies.

Actualist Contributions

And, lest we forget, the foundation for many tech?

nology studies?undertaken by behavioral archae?

ologists and others?is knowledge, specific and

general, supplied by ethnoarchaeology and experi? mental archaeology. Both together comprise the actu?

alist strategy of behavioral archaeology (Reid et al.

1975; Schiffer 1976, chapter 1). Not only have Amer?

ican archaeologists, especially behavioralists, been

for decades at the forefront of actualist research (e.g., D. Arnold 1985, 1993; P. Arnold 1991; David and

Hennig 1972; Deal 1998; Gould 1980,1990; Kramer

1982, 1985, 1997; Longacre 1991; Longacre and

Skibo 1994), which has yielded hundreds?if not

thousands?of process- and technology-specific

experimental laws, but they have also contributed to

methodology (e.g., Griffitts 1997; Keeley 1980;

Mobely-Tanaka and Griffitts 1997; Schiffer et al.

1994; Skibo 1992). We have even reached the point of establishing correlates on the basis of compara? tive ethnoarchaeological studies, especially in ceram?

ics (e.g., D. Arnold 1985; Henrickson and McDonald

1983; Shott 1996; Varien and Mills 1997).

Discussion and Conclusion

The preceding paragraphs have cited a sample of

behavioral studies of technological change; many are explicitly concerned with ceramics or present

general theories and models that subsume ceramics.

In addition, the behavioral program is only one of

several in America that can help anthropologists to

construct deeply contextualized, nuanced, and nomo-

thetically based explanations of technological

change. That said, we find it difficult to sustain the

position that American archaeologists have ignored studies of technological, especially ceramic, change.

Acknowledgments. We thank M. Nieves Zedeno for preparing the Spanish abstract. Brian R. McKee furnished us with help- ful comments on earlier drafts.

References Cited

Adams, J. L. 1999 Refocusing the Role of Food-Grinding Tools as Corre-

lates for Subsistence Strategies in the U.S. Southwest. Amer? ican Antiquity 64:475^98.

Ahler, S. A., and P. R. Geib 2000 Why Flute? Folsom Point Design and Adaptation. Jour?

nal of Archaeological Science 27:799-820. Arnold, D.

1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge Uni? versity Press, Cambridge.

1993 Ecology and Ceramic Production in an Andean Com? munity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Arnold, P. J. III 1991 Domestic Ceramic Production and Spatial Organiza?

tion: A Mexican Case Study in Ethnoarchaeology. Cam? bridge University Press, Cambridge.

1999 On Typologies, Selection, and Ethnoarchaeology in Ceramic Production Studies. In Material Meanings: Criti- cal Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, edited by E. S. Chilton, pp. 103-177. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Barnett, W. K., and J. W. Hoopes (editors) 1995 The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation

in Ancient Societies. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash? ington, D.C.

Bey, G. J., III, and C. A. Pool (editors)

734 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 4,2001]

1992 Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Binford, L. R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at

Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 32:255-273.

Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintain-

ability or Reliability. AmericanAntiquity 51:737-747. 2001 Artifice Constrained: What Determines Technological

Choice? In Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 151-162. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Bleed, R, and A. Bleed 1987 Energy Efficiency and Hand Tool Design: A Perfor?

mance Comparison of Push and Pull Stroke Saws. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:189-197.

Braun, D. 1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theo?

ries, edited by A. Keene and J. Moore, pp. 107-134. Acad? emic Press, New York.

Bronitsky, G. (editor) 1989 Pottery Technology: Ideas and Approaches. Westview

Press, Boulder, Colorado. Carr,C.

1995 Building a Unified Middle-Range Theory of Artifact Design: Historical Perspectives and Tactics. In Style, Soci? ety, and Person, edited by C. Carr and J. H. E. Neitzel, pp. 151-258. Plenum, New York.

Chilton, E. S. 1999 Material Meanings and Meaningful Materials: An Intro?

duction. In Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, edited by E. S. Chilton, pp. 1-6. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Costin, C. L. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting,

and Explaining the Organization of Production. Archaeo? logical Method and Theory 3:1-56.

Cresswell, R. 1990 "A New Technology" Revisited. Archaeological Review

from Cambridge 9:39-54. Crown, P.

1999 Socialization in American Southwest Pottery Decora? tion. In Pottery and People: a Dynamic Interaction, edited by J. M. Skibo and G. M. Feinman, pp. 25^-3. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2001 Learning to Make Pottery in the Prehispanic American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 57(4), in press.

David, N., and H. Hennig 1972 The Ethnography of Pottery: A Fulani Case Seen in

Archaeological Perspective. Addison-Wesley Modular Pub? lications in Anthropology, No. 21.

Dobres, M.-A., and C. R. Hoffman 1994 Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Tech?

nology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:211-258.

1999 Introduction: A Context for the Present and Future of Technology Studies. In The Social Dynamics of Technology, edited by M.-A. Dobres and C. R. Hoffman, pp. 1- 19. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Eighmy, J. L. 1981 The Use of Material Culture in Diachronic Anthropol?

ogy. In Modern Material Culture Studies: The Archaeology ofUs, edited by R. A. Gould and M. B. Schiffer, pp. 31-^9. Academic Press, New York.

Gould, R. A.

1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cam? bridge.

1981 Brandon Revisited: A New Look at an Old Technology. In Modern Material Culture Studies: The Archaeology ofUs, edited by R. A. GouldandM. B. Schiffer, pp. 269-281. Aca? demic Press, New York.

1990 Recovering the Past. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

2001 From Sail to Steam at Sea in the Late 19th Century. In Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 193-213. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Graves, M. 1991 Pottery Production and Distribution Among the

Kalinga: A Study of Household and Regional Organization and Differentiation. In Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W.A. Longacre, pp. 112-143. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1994 Kalinga Social and Material Culture Boundaries: A Case of Spatial Convergence. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology: Expanding Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 13^-9. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Griffitts, J. L. 1997 Replication and Analysis of Use-Wear on Bone Tools.

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Bone Modification, 8th Round Table on Taphonomy and Bone Modification, Sept. 1993, Hot Springs, South Dakota, edited by L. A. Hannus, L. Rossum, and R. P. Winham, pp. 236-246. Augustana College, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Publication No. 1. Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Hayden, B. 1981 Research and Development in the Stone Age. Current

Anthropology 22:519- 548. 1998 Practical and Prestige Technologies: The Evolution of

Material Systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:1-55.

Hayden, B., N. Francis, and J. Spafford 1996 Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria. In

Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. Odell, pp. 9-^5. Plenum, New York.

Henrickson, E. F., and M. A. McDonald 1983 Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnoarchaeological

Search and an Archaeological Application. American Anthro? pologist $5:630-643.

Horsfall, G. A. 1987 Design Theory and Grinding. Stones. In Lithic Studies

among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by B. Hay? den, pp. 332-377. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Keeley, L. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Uni?

versity of Chicago Press, Chicago. Keller, C. M.

2001 Thought and Production: Insights of the Practitioner. In Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 33-^5. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Keller, C. M., and J. D. Keller 1996 Cognition and Tool Use: The Blacksmith at Work. Cam?

bridge University Press, Cambridge. Kingery, W. D.

1984 Interactions of Ceramic Technology with Society. In Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archae? ology, edited by P. M. Rice, pp. 171-178. Monograph No. 24, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

1989 Ceramic Materials Science in Society. Annual Review

COMMENTS 735

of Materials Science 19:1-20. 2001 The Design Process as a Critical Component of the

Anthropology of Technology. In Anthropological Perspec? tives on Technology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 123-138. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Kingery, W. D. (editor) 1990 The Changing Roles of Ceramics in Society: 26,000 B.P.

to the Present. American Ceramic Society, Westerville, Ohio. 1993 The Social and Cultural Contexts ofNew Ceramic Tech?

nologies. Ceramics and Civilization, vol. 6. American Ceramic Society, Westerville, Ohio.

Kolb, C. C. (editor) 1988 Ceramic Ecology Revisited, 1987: The Technology and

Socioeconomics of Pottery. BAR International Series 436(1). British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Kramer, C. 1985 Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthro?

pology 14:77-102. 1997 Pottery in Rajasthan: Ethnoarchaeology in Two Indian

Cities. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Kramer, C. (editor)

1982 Village Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. Kuhn, S. L.

1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59:426^142.

LaMotta, V. M., and M. B. Schiffer 2001 Behavioral Archaeology: Towards a New Synthesis. In

Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 14-64. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Lemonnier, P. (editor) 1993 Technological Choices: Transformation in Material

Cultures Since the Neolithic. Routledge, London. Loney, H. L.

2000 Society and Technological Control: A Critical Review of Models of Technological Change in Ceramic Studies. AmericanAntiquity 65:646-668.

Longacre, W. A. 1981 Kalinga Pottery: An Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Pat?

terns ofthe Past, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Ham- mond, pp. 49-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Longacre, W. A. (editor) 1991 Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. University of Arizona

Press, Tucson. Longacre, W.A., K. L. Kvamme, and M. Kobayashi

1988 Southwestern Pottery Standardization: an Ethnoar? chaeological View from the Philippines. Kiva 53:101-12.

Longacre, W. A., and J. M. Skibo (editors) 1994 Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington, D.C. Longacre, W. A., and M. T. Stark

1992 Ceramics, Kinship and Space: A Kalinga Example. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11:125-136.

Longacre, W. A., J. Xia, and T. Yang 2000 I Want to Buy a Black Pot. Journal of Archaeological

Method and Theory 7:273-293. Majewski, T., and M. B. Schiffer

2001 Beyond Consumption: Toward an Archaeology of Con- sumerism. In Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, edited by V. Buchli and G. Lucas, pp. 26-50. Routledge, Lon? don.

Matson, F. R. 1965 Ceramic Ecology: An Approach to the Study of the

Early Cultures ofthe Near East. In Ceramics and Man, edited by F. R. Matson, pp. 202-217. Aldine, Chicago.

McGuire, R. H., and M. B. Schiffer 1983 A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthro?

pological Archaeology 2:277-303.

Mills, B. J., and P. L. Crown (editors) 1995 Ceramic Production in the American Southwest. Uni?

versity of Arizona Press, Tucson. Mobely-Tanaka, J. L., and J. L. Griffitts

1997 Spatulated and Notched Tools from the American South? west: A Lesson in Function-Based Typologies. In Proceed? ings ofthe International Conference on Bone Modification, 8th Round Table on Taphonomy and Bone Modification, Sept. 1993, Hot Springs, South Dakota, edited by L. A. Han- nus, L. Rossum, and R. R Winham, pp. 247-255. Augustana College, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Publication No. 1. Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Mullins, R R. 1999 Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African Amer?

ican Consumer Culture. Plenum, New York. Nelson, B. (editor)

1984 Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics. Southern Illinois Uni? versity Press, Carbondale.

Nelson, M. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. Archaeo?

logical Method and Theory 3:57-100. Neupert, M.

2000 Clays of Contention: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Factionalism and Clay Composition. Journal of Archaeo? logical Method and Theory 7:249-272.

Nielsen, A. E. 1995 Architectural Performance and the Reproduction of

Social Power. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 47-66. Univer? sity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

O'Brien, M. J., T. D. Holland, R. J. Hoard, and G. L. Fox 1994 Evolutionary Implications of Design and Performance

Characteristics of Prehistoric Pottery. Journal of Archaeo? logical Method and Theory 1:259-304.

O'Brien, M.J., R. L. Lyman, and R. D. Leonard 1998 Basic Incompatibilities Between Evolutionary and

Behavioral Archaeology. AmericanAntiquity 63:485^-98. Orser, C. E., Jr.

1996 A Historical Archaeology ofthe Modern World. Plenum, New York.

Plog, F. 1974 The Study of Prehistoric Change. Academic Press, New

York. Plog, S.

1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rathje, WL. 1979 Modern Material Culture Studies. Advances in Archae?

ological Method and Theory 2:1-37. 1989 The Three Faces of Garbage?Measurements, Percep-

tions, Behaviors. The Journal of Resource Management and Technology 17:61-65.

Rathje, W L., W W Hughes, D. C. Wilson, M. K. Tani, G. H. Archer, R. G. Hunt, and T. W. Jones

1992 The Archaeology of Contemporary Landfills. American Antiquity 57:437-537.

Rathje, W L., and C. Murphy 1992 Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. HarperCollins,

New York. Rathje, W L., and M. B. Schiffer

1982 Archaeology. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York. Reid, J. J., M. B. Schiffer, and W L. Rathje

1975 Behavioral Archaeology: Four Strategies. American Anthropologist 77:864-869.

Rice, P. M. 1981 Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial

Model. Current Anthropology 22:219-240.

736 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 4,2001]

1984 Some Reflections on Change in Pottery Producing Sys? tems. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, edited by S. E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard, pp. 231-293. Institute for Pre- and Proto-History, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

19 87 Pottery Analysis: a Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

1996a Recent Ceramic Analysis 1. Function, Style, and Ori? gins. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:133-163.

1996b Recent Ceramic Analysis: 2. Composition, Produc? tion, and Theory. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:165-202.

1999 On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6:1-54.

Sassaman, K. E. 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innova?

tion in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Schiffer, M. B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. Amer?

ican Antiquity 37:156-165. 1975 Behavioral Chain Analysis: Activities, Organization,

and the Use of Space. In Chapters in the Prehistory of East? ern Arizona, IV. Fieldiana: Anthropology Vol. 65, pp. 103-119. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

1976 Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York. 1979 A Preliminary Consideration of Behavioral Change. In

Transformations: Mathematical Approaches to Culture Change, edited by C. Renfrew and K. Cooke, pp. 353-368. Academic Press, New York.

1988 The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American Antiquity 53:461-485.

1991 The Portable Radio in American Life. University of Ari? zona Press, Tucson.

1992 Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change. Uni? versity of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1993 Cultural Imperatives and Product Development: The Case of the Shirt-Pocket Radio. Technology and Culture 34:98-113.

1995 Social Theory and History in Behavioral Archaeology. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 22-35. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

1996 Some Relationships Between Behavioral and Evolu? tionary Archaeologies. American Antiquity 61:643-662.

2000a Indigenous Theories, Scientific Theories and Product Histories. In Matter, Materiality and Modern Culture, edited by P. Graves-Brown, pp. 72-96. Routledge, London.

2000b Social Theory in Archaeology: Building Bridges. In Social Theory in Archaeology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 1-13. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2001 The Explanation of Long-Term Technological Change. In Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 215-235. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

2002 The Study of Technological Differentiation. Ms. sub? mitted for publication.

Schiffer, M. B? T. C. Burts, and K. Grimm 1994 Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Schiffer, M. B., and A.R. Miller

1999a The Material Life of Human Beings: A rtifacts, Behav? ior, and Communication. Routledge, London.

1999b A Behavioral Theory of Meaning. In Pottery and Peo? ple: A Dynamic Interaction, edited byJ. M. Skibo and G. M.Feinman, pp. 199-217. University of Utah Press, Salt

Lake City. Schiffer, M. B., and J. M. Skibo

1987 Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28:595-622.

1997 The Explanation of Artifact Variability. American Antiq? uity 62:27-50.

Schiffer, M. B., J. M. Skibo, T. C. Boelke, M. A. Neupert, and M. Aronson

1994 New Perspectives on Experimental Archaeology: Sur? face Treatments and Thermal Responses of the Clay Cook- ing Pot. AmericanAntiquity 59:197-217.

Shackel, P. A. 1996 Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archae?

ology ofthe Early Industrial Era. Plenum, New York. Shott, M.

1996 Mortal Pots: On Use Life and Vessel Size in the For? mation of Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 61:463-482.

Sinopoli, C. 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Plenum, New

York. Skibo, J. M.

1992 Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. Plenum, New York.

1994 The Kalinga Cooking Pot: An Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Study of Technological Change. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology: Expanding Archaeological Theory and Method, edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 113-126. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Skibo, J. M., and E. Blinman 1999 Exploring the Origins of Pottery on the Colorado

Plateau. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by J. M. Skibo and G. Feinman, pp. 171-183. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Skibo, J. M., and G. M. Feinman 1999 Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. University

of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Skibo, J. M., and M. B. Schiffer

1995 The Clay Cooking Pot: An Exploration of Women's Technology. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W H. Walker, and A. E. Nielson, pp. 80-91. Univer? sity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2001 Understanding Artifact Variability and Change: A Behavioral Framework. In Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 139- 149. Uni? versity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Skibo, J. M., and W H. Walker 2002 Ball Courts and Ritual Performance. In The Joyce Well

Site: On the Frontier ofthe Casas Grandes World, edited by J. M. Skibo, E. B. McCluney, W H. Walker. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, in press.

Spencer-Wood, S. M. (editor) 1987 Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology. Plenum,

New York. Stark, M. T.

1991 Ceramic Production and Community Specialization: A Ceramic Ethnoarchaeological Study. World Archaeology 23:64-78.

1994 Pottery Exchange and the Regional System: a Dalupa Case Study. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 169-197. Smithsonian Insti? tution Press, Washington, D.C.

1998 Technical Choices and Social Boundaries in Material Culture Patterning: An Introduction. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. T. Stark, pp. 1-11. Smith? sonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

COMMENTS 737

1999 Social Dimensions of Technical Choice in Kalinga Ceramic Traditions. In Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, edited by E. S. Chilton, pp. 24-43. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Triadan, D. 1997 Ceramic Commodities and Common Containers: Pro?

duction and Distribution of White Mountain Red Ware in the Grasshopper Region, Arizona. University of Arizona, Anthropological Papers, No. 61.

Varien, M. D., and B. J. Mills 1997 Accumulations Research: Problems and Prospects for

Estimating Site Occupation Span. Journal of Archaeologi? cal Method and Theory 4:141-191.

Walker, W H. 1995 Ceremonial Trash? In Expanding Archaeology, edited

by J. M. Skibo, W H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 67-79. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2001 Ritual Technology in an Extranatural World. In Anthro? pological Perspectives on Technology, edited by M. B. Schif? fer, pp. 87-106. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Walker, W H., J. M. Skibo, and A. E. Nielsen 1995 Introduction: Expanding Archaeology. In Expanding

Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 1-12. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Wylie, A. 1995 An Expanded Behavioral Archaeology: Transformation

and Redefinition. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by J. M. Skibo, W H. Walker, and A. E. Nielsen, pp. 198-209. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Yoffee, N., and A. Sherratt 1993 Introduction: Sources of Archaeological Theory. In

Archaeological Theory: Who Sets theAgenda? edited by N. Yoffee and Andrew Sherratt, pp. 1-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Young, D. E., and R. Bonnichsen 1984 Understanding Stone Tools: A Cognitive Approach. Cen?

ter for the Study of Early Man, University of Maine, Orono. Zedefio, M. N.

1994 Sourcing Prehistoric Ceramics at Chodistaas Pueblo, Arizona: the Circulation of People andPots in the Grasshop? per Region. Anthropological Papers, No. 58. University of Arizona, Tucson.

1997 Landscapes, Land Use, and the History of Territory For? mation: An Example from the Puebloan Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4:67-103.

2000 On What People Make of Places: A Behavioral Car- tography. In Social Theory in Archaeology, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 97-111. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Received April 6, 2001; Accepted April 10, 2001; Revised June 6, 2001.