Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Anthropological Theory
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pauketat, T. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Practice and history in archaeology

An emerging paradigm

Timothy R. Pauketat

University of Illinois

A new paradigm is emerging in archaeology herein dubbed ‘historical processualism’. A review of three contemporary approaches to the study of the past – neo-Darwinism, cognitive-processualism, and agency theory – suggests that the standard notions of ‘behavior’ and ‘evolution’ are being replaced in archaeological explanations by ‘practice’ and ‘history’. Behavioral analogies, commonly used to construct inferences about ‘why’ cultures changed, are problematic. In their place, archaeologists should substitute the study of cultural practices – what people did and how they negotiated their views of others and of their own pasts – as these were and are the actual processes of cultural change. The emphasis on practice entails the elevation of historical explanations, in the process altering the questions that archaeologists ask and the data that they must gather to address those questions. The importance of this paradigmatic shift is exemplified by contrasting contemporary explanations of Mississippian pottery and political change in the pre-Columbian American midcontinent.

Key Words: agency • archaeology • Cahokia • history • Mississippian pottery

Anthropological Theory, Vol. 1, No. 1, 73-98 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/146349960100100105


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Anthropological TheoryHome page
M. J. O'Brien and R. L. Lyman
History and Explanation in Archaeology
Anthropological Theory, June 1, 2004; 4(2): 173 - 197.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Anthropological TheoryHome page
T. R. Pauketat
Archaeology without Alternativs
Anthropological Theory, June 1, 2004; 4(2): 199 - 203.
[PDF]


Home page
Journal of Social ArchaeologyHome page
C. Robin and N. A. Rothschild
Archaeological ethnographies: Social dynamics of outdoor space
Journal of Social Archaeology, June 1, 2002; 2(2): 159 - 172.
[Abstract] [PDF]