Randall H. McGuire

A theory of architectural design

Abstract A rudimentary theory to explain the design of vernacular structures is presented. Conceiving of architectural design as a social process, the theory focuses on the influence of utilitarian and symbolic functions as well as on the trade-offs between production and maintenance costs. A particular design is viewed as the outcome of a process of compromise among conflicting goals, influenced by factors of adaptation and social organization. The theory is used to generate an explanatory sketch for why the prehistoric Anasazi of the American Southwest went from being pithouse to pueblo dwellers.

The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology

Despite increasing interest in the archaeological study of ethnic groups few historical archaeologists have addressed the broad question of how such groups form and change. This paper presents a theory of ethnic group formation and change drawn from both anthropological and sociological research. The theory is based on the examination of the relationship of three variables: competition, ethnocentrism, and differential power. Of these variables, the differential distribution of power is given the most weight in determining changes in ethnic boundary maintenance. The development of ethnic boundaries in southern Arizona between 1854 and the early 1900s provides an example of the interrelationships among these variables. Consideration of archaeological material from this time period illustrates the necessity of archeaological data for testing the proposed theory. Further suggestions are made for the testing of the proposed theory, using historical and archaeological data. The history of the United States is in large part a chronicle of ethnic relations. This history reveals that American society has served not so much as a melting pot, reducing ethnic differences to a bland soup, but more as a crucible separating groups and creating an enormous diversity. All ethnic groups have changed in this crucible but not always in the same way. While the Germans and Poles have been largely assimilated into the dominant Anglo-Saxon based society, Mexican-Americans and American Indians have maintained essentially separate societies within the dominant pattern. Explaining why some ethnic groups melt into the mass of society while, at the same time, others increase their separation is fundamental to understanding the development of modern American society. This explanation requires answering broader theoretical questions: why is it that ethnic differences arise, why do they persist, and why do they change? Historical archaeology, through the integration of material culture and historical documentation, offers a unique and valuable strategy for considering these questions. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the archaeological study of ethnicity in historic periods and to propose a general theory of ethnicity. Such discussion first requires a clear defmition of ethnicity and its importance for social life. Beyond defining the subject of interest I consider the

Although they have petty captains, they obey them badly : The dialectics of Prehispanic western Pueblo social organization

Southwestern archaeologists have debated the nature of late Prehispanic western pueblo social organization for nearly a century. Were the fourteenth-century pueblos egalitarian or hierarchical? This issue remains unsettled largely because of the oppositional thinking that has informed most contributions to the debate: that is, the tendency to frame questions about Prehispanic sociopolitical organization in dichotomous “either-or” terms. We critique this approach to the problem and examine one of the most prominent controversies about Prehispanic social organization: the Grasshopper Pueblo-Chavez Pass controversy. We propose an alternative approach rooted in a dialectical epistemology, and a theory of social life that emphasizes the lived experience of people. What impresses us most about late Prehispanic western social organization is not that it was egalitarian or hierarchical, but that it was both. We discuss how this basic contradiction between communal life and hierarchy was a major internal motor driving change in these pueblos.

The premise and promise of indigenous archaeology

Researchers have increasingly promoted an emerging paradigm of Indigenous archaeology, which includes an array of practices conducted by, for, and with Indigenous communities to challenge the disciplines intellectual breadth and political economy. McGhee (2008) argues that Indigenous archaeology is not viable because it depends upon the essentialist concept of “Aboriginalism.” In this reply, we correct McGhees description of Indigenous Archaeology and demonstrate why Indigenous rights are not founded on essentialist imaginings. Rather, the legacies of colonialism, sociopolitical context of scientific inquiry, and insights of traditional knowledge provide a strong foundation for collaborative and community-based archaeology projects that include Indigenous peoples.

The Unromantic West: Labor, Capital, and Struggle

A gang of historians has gunned down the “romantic West.” They have dismissed the notion of the West as a frontier of opportunity for all comers. The American West has been redefined as an arena of struggle involving complex relations of class, gender, ethnicity, and race. Western work camps and company towns existed as extensions of a global economy centered on the eastern United States. From the mid-19th century through the first decades of the 20th century, capital and people flowed into the West from Europe, Asia, and Mexico. In this internal periphery of U.S. capitalism, workers experienced the same type of exploitation and engaged in the same struggles as their brethren in other parts of the United States. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the coalfields of Colorado. The work camps and company towns that archaeologists excavate were loci of struggle, and historians cannot claim to understand them without considering these conflicts.

The Mesoamerican Connection in the Southwest

ABSTRACTThe theory that Mesoamerican pochteca intruded into the Southwest between A.D. 1000 and 1400 and that these pochteca exercised political and economic control of the region during this period is critically considered. Close examination of the data and arguments advanced to support this theory reveal that it cannot be accepted. An alternate interpretation of Mesoamerican-Southwestern interaction is presented. This alternate view is not based on a simple concept of domination of one area by another but on consideration of shifting trade relations through time.

Immaculate Consumption: A Critique of the "Shop till you drop" School of Human Behavior

Consumer behavior and choice models have assumed a major role in historical archaeology. Recent interest in consumption is an honest attempt to move beyond an emphasis on production. Consumer models have clear material referents, making them useful in historical archaeology. These models, however, separate production from consumption, and privilege the autonomous individual as the preferred unit of analysis. They also reinforce and validate ideologies that obscure inequalities and power relations in modern society. For us the important issue is how people reproduce themselves as social beings. Focusing on social reproduction integrates both production and consumption.

THE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF HOHOKAM SHELL EXCHANGE

This paper summarizes what is currently known about Hohokam shell exchange in the U.S. Southwest and attempts to interpret the role of this trade in Hohokam prehistory. Data gathered in the 1970s and 1980s and the application of quantitative methods in exchange analysis form the basis for this new synthesis. This synthesis treats Hohokam shell exchange in terms of regional specialization within a bounded exchange network. We further consider how Hohokam shell exchange changed between the Sedentary and Classic periods and examine the importance of these changes for our interpretations of Hohokam prehistory. Our synthesis is integrated by a social theory that incorporates productive relations, exchange relations, and the social meaning of shell.

Class confrontations in archaeology

Archaeologist not only live class they also study it. Archaeology as a discipline serves class interests and as a profession, or occupation, it has its own class structure. The discipline of archaeology has, since its founding, primarily served middle-class interests. It has formed part of the symbolic capital that has been necessary for membership in the middle class during this century. Archaeology has traditionally reproduced itself in the university using a guild model of apprenticeship and mastery. In both the academy and in cultural resource management today this guild model has become an ideology that obscures the existence of an archaeological proletariat of teaching assistants, adjuncts, and field techs. The ideology justifies denying these archaeologists respect, a living wage, job security, and benefits. A seven step program is proposed to rectify the structural class inequalities of modern archaeology.

The deer hunters: Star Carr reconsidered

Abstract Star Carr, the Mesolithic site excavated thirty years ago, has been considered a classic example of a winter season base camp until recently reinterpreted as a specialized industrial locale. By focusing on site formation processes, we present an alternative interpretation that Star Carr was a hunting and butchering site occupied frequently for very short periods at various times of the year. Our argument considers how recent ethnoarchaeological, taphonomic and site formation studies support this interpretation. We examine seasonality, the length of visits, and major ecofact and artefact classes, including animal bone, flaked stone tools, and antler points. We review previous interpretations.