Critical Archaeology LEONE

Toward a Critical Archaeology [and Comments and Reply]
Author(s): Mark P. Leone, Parker B. Potter, Jr., Paul A. Shackel, Michael L. Blakey, Richard
Bradley, Brian Durrans, Joan M. Gero, G. P. Grigoriev, Ian Hodder, Jose Luis Lanata, Thomas E.
Levy, Neil A. Silberman, Robert Paynter, Mario A. Rivera and Alison Wylie
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jun., 1987), pp. 283-302
Published by: University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743240
Accessed: 01-12-2015 19:11 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:11:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Volume 28, Number 3, JuneI987

ANTHROPOLOGY
CURRENT
FoundationforAnthropological
Research.All rightsreserved
? 1987 byThe Wenner-Gren
OOII-3204/87/2803-OOOI$2.00
University
ofArizona(M.A.,I965; Ph.D., I968). He has taughtat
Princeton
University
HopkinsUniversity
(I968-76) and at Johns
His researchinterests
areNorthAmericanprehistory,
his(I979).
toricalarchaeology,
Mormons,andoutdoorhistorymuseums.He
has editedContemporary
Archaeology
(Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversity
Press,I972) and,withI. I. Zaretzky,
Religious
Movementsin Contemporary
America(Princeton:
Princeton
UniversityPress,I974) and is theauthorofRootsofModernMormonism(Cambridge:
HarvardUniversity
Press,ig80).
PARKER B. POTTER, JR., is a Ph.D. candidate
at BrownUniversity
anddirector
of"Archaeology
in Public"forHistoricAnnapolis,
Inc.Bornin I957, he receivedhis B.A.fromWashington
andLee
in I979 andhis M.A. fromBrownUniversity
University
in i982.
WithMarkP. Leone,he has publishedArchaeological
Annapolis
(Annapolis:HistoricAnnapolis,Inc.,I984), "Liberation
Not Replication:'Archaeology
in Annapolis'Analyzed"(Journal
ofthe
Washington
Academyof Sciences76[21:97-IO5), "Archaeology
in
Publicin Annapolis"(AmericanArchaeology,
in press),andthe
editedvolumeRecovering
Meaning:HistoricalArchaeology
on
theEast Coast ofthe UnitedStates(Washington,
D.C.: SmithsoCriticaltheory,
to exploreandadd to Marx's
essentiallyan effort
nianInstitution,
in press).
insightsintothenatureofknowledgeofhumansociety,is inPAUL A. SHACKEL is a Ph.D. candidate
at theStateUniversity
of
creasingly
beingappliedto thehumansciences.Archaeologists
New Yorkat Buffalo
andfieldarchaeologist
forthe"Archaeology
areinvitedto considercriticaltheorybyevidencethatarchaeolin Annapolis"program.
Bornin I959, he was educatedat SUNY
is used to servepoliticalendsandby
ogyin someenvironments
Buffalo(B.A.,I98I; M.A., I984) andhas published"Conspicuous
thegrowing
controversy
overtheownership
andcontrolofreand Class Maintenance:An Examplefromthe
Consumption
ofthepast.The claimofa critical
mainsandinterpretations
Nicoll House Excavations,"in TheHistoricalArchaeology
of
is thatseeingtheinterrelationship
archaeology
betweenarchaeLongIsland,editedbyG. Stone,D. Ottusch-Kianka,
and S.
to achieveless contin- Baugher(Suffolk
ologyandpoliticswill allow archaeologists
CountyArchaeological
Association/Nassau
gentknowledge.
The wayin whichcriticaltheorycan be applied
CountyArchaeological
Committee,
in press),and,withMarkP.
to archaeology
is hereillustrated
byan analysisofdatafroma
Leone,"Forks,Clocks,and Power,"in Mirrorand Metaphor,
citywideprojectconductedin Annapolis,Maryland-a project
editedbyD. Ingersoll(Lanham,Md.: University
Pressof
aimedat demystifying
thewaya pastis constructed.
America),and "The GeorgianOrderin Annapolis"(Maryland
in press).
Archaeologist,
MARK P. LEONE iS AssociateProfessor
ofAnthropology
at theUniThe presentpaperwas submitted
versityofMaryland(CollegePark,Md. 20742, U.S.A.).Bornin
in finalform2i Ix 86.
I940, he was educatedat TuftsCollege(B.A.,I959i andat the
Towarda Critical
Archaeology'
by Mark P. Leone,
ParkerB. Potter,Jr.,
and Paul A. Shackel
i. This paperis based on the resultsof excavationsand/orinterpretiveprogramsat five archaeologicalsites in Annapolis.All

have been conductedby "Archaeologyin Annapolis,"which is Criticaltheoryis a set of variedattemptsto adapt ideas
of Maryland,College fromMarx to the understandingof events and circumcodirectedby RichardJ.Dent (University
Park),Mark P. Leone,and Anne E. Yentsch(HistoricAnnapolis, stances of 20th-century
life that Marx did not know. It
sponsored
Inc.).The projectis a Io-year,citywideresearchprogram
with
the
Frankfurt
school of philosophyin the
began
jointlybytheUniversity
ofMarylandandHistoricAnnapolis,Inc.,
to exploreand add
organization
forAn- I920S and was in largepartan effort
a 35-year-old
private,nonprofit
preservation
napolisandAnneArundelCounty.In additionto theirsupportand to Marx's insightsinto the natureof knowledgeof huin Annapolis"re- man society. Members of the Frankfurt
fundsfromthe cityofAnnapolis,"Archaeology
groupinclude
ceivedgrantsfrommanysourcesfortheexcavationandinterpreta- Adorno,Horkheimer,Benjamin, and Marcuse; Lukacs
tionofthesesites.The VictuallingWarehousesiteis ownedbythe
ofthe school,
stateofMarylandand managedbyHistoricAnnapolis,Inc.; funds and Gramsci,althoughnot representatives
forits excavationand interpretation
came fromthe Maryland are also important.Criticaltheoryhas been applied to a
HumanitiesCouncil(Grants546,6oi-E, 738-F).Workat theHam- varietyof human sciences and humanistic disciplines
mond-Harwood
House was conductedbyHistoricAnnapolis,Inc., and is now having an impact on archaeologyin Britain
House Association,
under contractto the Hammond-Harwood
owneroftheproperty.
The StateHouse Innis ownedbyPaul Pear- and the United States.
An importantissue in criticaltheoryis epistemology.
son and HistoricInnsofAnnapolis,and worktherewas fundedin
partbytheNationalGeographic
Society(Grant3Ii6-85). The Ship- As Geuss (I98I:I)
argues,
lap House is ownedby Donald 0. Jackson,and worktherewas
Marx's theoryof society,ifproperlyconstrued,does
supportedby the MarylandHumanitiesCouncil (Grant780-G).
headedby Paul
The Main Streetsite is owned by a partnership
clearlygive us knowledgeof society,but does not easPearson,and thispartnership
and theMarylandHumanitiesCounily fitinto any ofthe accepted categoriesof "knowlcil (Grant842-G) supportedthe work there.Otherinterpretive edge." It
obviouslyisn't a formalscience like logic or
developedin thispaper,has
work,whichhas led to theperspectives
mathematicsor a practicalskill ... yetneitherwould
beensupported
by theMarylandHeritageCommitteeand theNait seem to be correctlyinterpreted
as a strictlyempirtionalEndowmentforthe Humanities(GrantGM-2i645-83).AleducationalandpresthoughHistoricAnnapolis,Inc.,a nonprofit
ical theory like those in natural science.... Rather
ervationorganizationfoundedin i952 to preservethe present
Marxismis a radicallynew kind oftheory;to give a
NationalHistoricLandmarkDistrictofAnnapolisand its history,
properphilosophicaccount ofits salientfeaturesrewith"Arhas providedfunding
forand sharedits researchfindings
quires drasticrevisionsin traditionalviews about the
chaeologyin Annapolis,"theopinionsand theoriesoftheauthors
do notnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofHistoricAnnapolis,Inc.
natureofknowledge.
283
284
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
Critical theoryaims at "producingenlightenment...

enablingthosewho hold [it]to determinewhat theirtrue
interestsare." Its goal is emancipationfromcoercion,
includingcoercionthatis self-imposed.To thisend,it is
"reflective"
(Geussi98i:2).
Criticaltheoryhas had substantialimpactin law (Unger I976); it has been applied in history(EagletonI98586; LowenthalI985; Wallacei98i, i984), thedecorative
arts (St. George I985, Sweeney i984), literature(Car-
(Hay I979; Peet I975,

ravettai984), geography
I977;
Peet and Lyons i98i), and museum studies (Baraniket

al. I977) and,ofcourse,has been a partofthehistoryand
I970,
I98I, Feyerabend
philosophy
ofscience(Brannigan
Latourand WoolgarI979). Almostinvariably,one ofthe

reasonsgivenforemployingcriticaltheoryis to describe
and deal with factors-social, economic, political, and
psychological-that have been observed to influence
conclusions and theirsocial uses but that,undermany
ordinaryrules of scholarship,should not be present.
Archaeologistsare invited to considercriticaltheory
by,forone thing,the factthatarchaeologicalinterpretations presentedto the public may acquire a meaning
unintendedby the archaeologistand not to be foundin
the data. Leone's (Ig8Ia, b) analysis of the use of archaeologyand historyat Colonial Williamsburgand at
Shakertownis partofa bodyofwork(Clarke I973, Gero
et al. I983, HandsmanI98I, HandsmanandLeonen.d.,

Kehoe I984, Landau I984, LowenthalI985, Meltzer
I98I, Perperand SchrireI977, Wyliei985a) showing
that,in contrastto the generalperceptionamongAmerican archaeologists,archaeologyin some environments

in the United States is used to serve political aims. A
furtherencouragementto explorea reflexiveepistemolin archaeologyoverownogyis the growingcontroversy
of the
ershipand controlof remainsand interpretations
past. The reburialof human remainsand "repatriation"
of some artifactsto native groupsmay be a political issue as well as a scientificone,as maybe theuse ofpreservation, including archaeology,to change the value of
propertyin towns and cities in connectionwith changwealth and ethnic groups.
ing the locales of different
Beyondthese,and bothless visibleand morecomplex,is
the effort
by archaeologistsin federaland state agencies
in the United States to controlthe use and preservation
ofarchaeologicalremainsin evergreaterareas,including
privateland. Ostensiblya neutraleffortto protecta resource uncriticallyregardedas valuable, this inevitably
raises concernsabout monopolizingaccess to data and
It is clear, then,that the practiceof arinterpretations.
chaeologyis affectedby political, economic, and social
decisions.The claim ofa criticalarchaeologyis thatseebetween archaeologyand poliing the interrelationship
tics will allow archaeologiststo achieve less contingent
knowledge.
A centralconcept foraddressingthe relationshipbetweenknowledgeofthe past and the social and political
contextofits productionis ideology.Criticaltheoryuses
"ideology"in manysenses (see Geuss i98i). We use it as
it has been employed by Althusser (I97ia) and intro-
duced into anthropology

by Barnettand Silverman(I979).
Ideologyin this sense comprisesthe givens of everyday
life, unnoticed, taken for granted,and activated and
reproducedin use. It is the means by which inequality, bondage, frustration,etc., are made acceptable,
rationalized,or hidden.Ideologyservesto reproducesociety intact; knowledge,or consciousness of ideology,
may lead to illuminationor emancipation.
The concept of ideology has been employed in archaeologybyTilley (1982), Miller (i982a, b), Shanksand
Tilley (i 982), Shennan (I982), Miller and Tilley (I984),
Shanks and Tilley (n.d.), and others in describinginequality.Inequalityimplies the alienationoflabor-the
use ofgoods or serviceswithouta fullreturnofvalue to
theirproducers.One word for this asymmetricalrelationshipis exploitation.Ideology hides and masks exploitation or rationalizes by naturalizing or supernaturalizingit. Ideologyacts withina stratifiedor class
society to reproduceinequality without serious resistance, violence, or revolution. In various senses, the
term"ideology" has been applied to the Bronze Age of
northwesternEurope by Shanks and Tilley (i982) and
Thorpe(I98I), to theInca byPatterson
(I984), to i8thand igth-centurywestern Connecticut by Handsman
(ig80, i98i, i982), to the Harappan civilizationby Miller (i985), and to igth-and 20th-century
industrialcommunitiesin Binghamton,New York,by McGuire (n.d.).
All these examples are stratifiedsocietieswith changing
relations of wealth holding. In all cases, the resulting
analyses orderthe data in a novel way and account for
aspects thathave sometimesbeen overlookedor considered puzzling.
Ideology,presupposingas it does contradiction,
potential conflict,or periodicviolence in society,is partof a
set ofassumptionsthatmay be stronglyat odds withthe
finishedproductsoffunctionalism,systemstheory,and
much of ecological theory.The concernis not smooth
functioningper se but how conflictand contradiction
are masked or naturalized.The reconstructionof ideology in prehistoric,protoliterate,or extinctsocieties is
possible, and it is valuable for addressingsome archaeologicaldata heretofore
unexplained.Ideologyis relevant to class stratification,
wealth holding,and power
relations,and, in general,its studymay illuminatewhat
is alreadyknown ofpast societies. We arguethatthis is
an extensioninto archaeologyof criticaltheory.
Critical theoryasks of any set of conclusions from
whatpointofview theyare constructed.The questionis
intendedto help establish their degreeof validity.To
require that studies of the past provide knowledge of
currentcircumstancesor illuminate obscure relationshipstodaywould riskthe subordinationofthepast,but
Lukacs(I97I)
doesprovideusefulinstruction
on bridg-
ing the gap betweenhistoricalknowledge,oftendisembodied, and his vision of the historian's obligation
within the frameworkof criticaltheory.As he sees it,
the task of the historianis to illuminate the roots of
modem ideology-to identifythemystifiedrelationsbetween classes and agents,to show how that mystifica-
LEONE,
POTTER,
tion is maintainedthroughideology,and to give a historyto the ideas used in its maintenance.These ideas
include,forexample,the idea of an objectivelyseparate
past and the idea of the person as an individual or as
possessingpersonalfreedom.Ideas like thesehave active
power.Once theyare seen as ideological,notionsof the
past, of the individual,or of personal freedomcan no
longerbe taken as timeless givens.They can be givena
history,placed in context,and shown to be politically
active, and this proceduremay produce illumination.
We feelthatthislogic can be workedout in a convincing
way forsome of historicalarchaeology;whetherit can
be done forprehistoryis an open question.
A criticalarchaeologyretainsand reaffirms
the discipline's commitmentto understanding
thepast,butwhat
past to constructbecomes a matterof conscious choice
thatinevitablyinvolvesan understanding
ofcontextand
meaning.These terms,now so much used in symbolic
anthropology
and byHodder(I982, I984, i985), do not
mean the same thingto everyone.For the criticaltheorist,ideologyprovidesmuch ofthe meaningin a society,
although not all meaning is necessarilyideology. Because it is not epiphenomenal,a merereflectionofother
realities,but central to maintainingthe status quo in
stratifiedsocieties, it is consideredactive or recursive,
analogous to language in its formativequalities. This
mayadd an importantdimensionto theNew Archaeology'sdefinitionofmaterialculture.Criticaltheoryis materialist,but our use of it rejects the ranked orderof
causal relationshipsof White, Harris,and Vayda. The
philosopherswho initiatedcriticaltheorysoughtto integratethe notionof consciousnessinto epistemologyand
thus to create both a convincingand an active link between materialrealityand an awareness of it.
Our explorationof a critical approachtakes place in
the context of a broaderunderstandingof the role of
positivism in the discipline. Positivism, an approach
thatseeks morereliableknowledgeofthe past by stressing the relationshipbetween scientificstatementsand
their testing,has come under criticismforfrequently
producingknowledge so narrowas to seem irrelevant
(see, e.g., Hodder I984, I985; Wylie I985b). For Wylie,
whose lead we tendto follow,positivismis not therefore
to be abandonedbut ratherto be adjustedto the realities
of archaeologicaldata. We acknowledgethatpositivism
and criticaltheoryin archaeologyhave not yetbeen synthesized,and we do not attempta synthesishere.We do
suggestthat a critical archaeologymay produce more
reliable knowledge of the past by exploringthe social
and political contextsof its production.
The way in which critical theorycan be applied to
archaeologymay be illustratedby an analysis of i8th-,
igth-, and 20th-centurydata froma citywide project
conductedin Annapolis,Maryland.Fromits inception,
this project,called "Archaeologyin Annapolis," aimed
at demystifying
archaeology,teachingabout how a past
is constructed,and discoveringhow the past was used
locally so as to understandlocal ideologyand identify
the aspects of it thatneed illuminating.
AND
SHACKEL
Toward a CriticalArchaeology| 285
Critical Theoryand the Ethnography

of Annapolis
When "Archaeologyin Annapolis" began in I98I, as a
collaborationbetween the Universityof Marylandand
Historic Annapolis, Inc. (a private,state-chartered
research-orientedpreservationorganization founded in
it was recognizedthatAnnapolis was not just an
I952),
old and well-preservedcity but also a historicone. Because Annapolis had considereditselfhistoricsince at
least the i88os, it was possible to do an anthropological
analysis of its histories,and this efforthas shown how
political factorshave been embeddedin the city's presentationofitselfoverthe last I00 years.Given this,we
assumed thatarchaeologicalfindingswould not exist in
a vacuum but would be assimilated into the community'sunderstanding
ofits own past. Forthisreason,and
because of our critical approach,the researchprogram
and the associatedmuseum program2
had to be rootedin
the interestsand conflictsof the communityin which
theywere to take place. Consequently,the projecthas
had an ethnographiccomponentfromthe outset.
The ethnographicresearch, conducted by Potter,
flowedfromthe assumption that,foras long as it has
considered itself historic,Annapolis has structureda
past foritselfthataids and legitimizesits contemporary
activities. Potter's firststep was an examination of a
wide varietyof presentationsof the past in Annapolis.3
Particularattentionwas paid to the separations(Barnett
and Silverman I979) imposed on the past that were
treatednot as constructscontemporary
withthe composition of a historybut as given or quasi-naturalcategories. Many of these separationsplay strategicroles in
underpinningthe balance of power in Annapolis today.
2. "Archaeology
in Public,"the programofpublicinterpretation
for"Archaeology
in Annapolis,"consistsoffourelements,in four
media,which may be experiencedin any order:(i) "Annapolis:
Reflectionsfromthe Age of Reason,"a 2o-minute,i2-projector,
computer-synchronized
audiovisualproduction,
(2)Archaeological
Annapolis:A Guideto Seeingand Understanding
ThreeCenturies
of Change (Leone and Potter I984), a 24-page guidebookto one part
of the HistoricDistrictof Annapolis,(3) a is-minutetourof a
workingarchaeologicalsitegivenbyan archaeologist,
and(4)three
smallarchaeologicalexhibitslocatedin museumbuildingsaround
thedistrict.The audiovisualpresentation
is aboutwaysofunderstandingtheincreasingsegmentation
and standardization
ofmaterialculturein i8th-century
Annapolisas thesearerelatedto profit
making.The guidebookleads thereaderto eightspotsand at each
showshow historicalinterpretations
in Annapolishavechangedand continueto change-with changingpoliticalconcems.The
sitetour,discussedin detailbelow(andsee Leone I983; Potterand
Leone I986, n.d.),focuseson archaeological
logicormethodandon
theconnectionsbetweentheaims ofthearchaeological
workand
politicalissuesin Annapolistoday.The artifact
exhibits(see n. I3)
displayourunderstanding
ofmaterialcultureas recursive.
3. Potter'sethnographic
databaseincludes4 book-length
histories
of Annapolis,2o historicalguidebooksand picturebooks,a halfdozenmajorhistoricalreenactments
and specialtours,two dozen
historicaltalks,tours,andminorevents,a half-dozen
formalinterviews,the productsof participantobservationin the downtown
HistoricDistrictforoverthreeyears,and severalhundredhoursof
informal
butintensiveand engagedinteraction
in thelocal historical preservation
community.
286
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 28, Number 3, fune I987
Annapolis is a small (pop. ca. 32,000) but complex

is the seat ofAnne
city.It has a municipal government,
ArundelCounty,is the capital of Maryland,and is the
location of the United States Naval Academy,a federal
institution.Its economy revolves around state government,the Naval Academy,tourism,and yachting,categoriesthat are not mutuallyexclusive.
The city was foundedaround I650; Marylanditself
was foundedin I634. The capital of Marylandwas removed fromSt. Mary's City,in the southernpartof the
colony,to Annapolisin I695, and the citywas chartered
in I708. It experiencedwhat it calls a "golden age" of
wealth and fame fromabout I760 until the end of the
AmericanRevolution.During this periodit was the social, political, and economic centerof the Chesapeake
Bay. The end of its "golden age" coincided with two
events that took place in the MarylandState House at
Annapolis: on December 23, I783, GeorgeWashington
resignedhis commandofthe ContinentalArmy(a move
designedto subordinatemilitaryto civil authority),
and
on JanuaryI4, I784, theTreatyofPariswithBritainwas
ratified,officiallyendingthe AmericanRevolution.Afterthe Revolution,Annapolis remainedthe capital but
became a regionalmarkettownas manyofits wealthiest
residentsmoved to Baltimoreand investedin thatcity's
rapid expansion into an internationalcommercial and
industrialport.
In I845 the United States Naval Academy was
foundedin Annapolis,but forthe most partthroughout
the i gthcenturythe citywas in what one writertermed
"gentleeclipse" (NorrisI925). The I95OS saw the beginningofa commercialrevivalbased on yachting,tourism,
and new highwaysthat made Annapolis an attractive
suburbforWashington,D.C., less than 30 miles away.
Historic preservationhas played a major role in Annapolis's commercial renaissance. It is this basic outline, or partof it, thatis conveyedto the public by tour
guides,guidebooks,and historic-housemuseums as the
historyof Annapolis.
Potter'sinitial lead was his sense that the historyof
Annapolis as presentedto touristsin the citytodayis a
seriesoffragments.
Historyis recountedbya wide range
of groups and institutions,some overlapping,some in
competition, some in cooperation. More important,
thereis no historyof Annapolis that demonstrateshow
all the different
partsofthe cityfittogether.The cityis
presentedas a collectionofunconnectedunits (timeperiods and institutions).Leftunconnectedare the black
and the whitepopulations,on the one hand,and the city
and the United States Naval Academy,on the other.
In Annapolis, black historyis presentedseparately
fromwhite history.By segregatingthe races temporally
(whitehistoryis i 8th-century
historyand black history
is igth-centuryhistory),historyin Annapolis,written
almost exclusivelyby whites,imposes a frameof reference thatignorestheprincipalhistoricalrelationshipbetweenblacks and whitesin Marylandand the restofthe
southernUnited States: slavery.This in turnmakes it
difficult
forslaveryto be seen as antecedentto relations
between the groupstoday.It also preventsblacks from
using slavery as a referencepoint in comparingtheir

presentwith theirpast.
The same kind of logic works with the relationship
betweenthe cityand the United StatesNaval Academy.
There is ample basis for presentingthe city and the
academy eitheras historicallyconnectedor as historicallyseparate.The choice ofthecity'shistoriansis made
clear by the title of one influentialhistory:Annapolis:
Its Colonial and Naval Story(NorrisI925). The mixing
of categoriesin the title is instructive.Norris'ssubtitle
could have been Its i8th- and 19th-Century
Historyor
The Historyof the City and the Naval Academy. By
mixingtemporaland institutionalterms,he reinforces
the identitybetween city and i8th century,academy
and igth century.Detailed analysis shows a consistent
presentationof the city as i8th-century(or,as its residents say, "ancient"), brick,small, slow, evocative,and
associated with white residents and the academy as
i gth-and 20th-century,
granite,fast,scientific,and associatedwiththewhitetransientswho are its studentsand
theblack residentsit employs.Againsttheseseparations
are the extensivehistoricaland contemporaryconnections between the city and the academy, among them
the city'seconomic dependenceon the academyand the
academy's numerousexpansionsinto the city.
Separations representedas accurate historical interpretationsof the past are presentedto residentsand
visitorsas data about the past, but theyconceal politically live conflictsbetween institutionsand groupsin
the contemporarycity. It is our hypothesisthat these
conflicts,should theybe discoveredin thehistoricalpresentations and used as a basis for action, would pose
threatsto competingpolitical forces:city government,
Naval Academy,preservationists,
and minorities.These
forcesand the separationsthat hide theirreal relationships are importantand meaningfulto contemporary
Annapolis.
To summarize,the majorseparationsin Annapolisare
white:black, Historic Disi8th-century:igth-century,
trict:NavalAcademy,residents:visitors.
An overarching
separationwhich unifiesthe rest is insiders:outsiders.4
This separation,too, is groundedin history.The history
of the city's relationshipto the outside world is one of
self-imposedsubservience.Annapolis worked hard to
4. The classificationof people associatedwith the academyas
"visitors"is obvious;some teachers,mostadministrators,
and all
studentspass throughtheacademyon toursofdutylastingabout
in the description
fouryears.Further,
ofcontemporary
Annapolis
thatbeginshis influential
historyofthe city,Stevens(I937) says
that the best time to visit Annapolisis duringNaval Academy
Commissioning
Week,theacademy'sgraduation,
becausethenthe
old towncomesto life.He saysit is at its bestwhenit is filledup
withthe familiesand girlfriends
of graduating
midshipmen.
The
transformation
of black residentsinto "visitors"is less obvious,
butStevenspointstheway.In thecourseofonlyabout30 pages,he
to a blackneighborhood
refers
as "Ethiopia"anda blacktaxidriver
as "an ancientSenegambian."The effect,
ifnottheintent,oflinking blacksto Africancountriesis to make them"visitors,"or at
leastnotoriginalresidentsofAnnapolis.Bymakinggroupsassociatedwiththeacademyandblacksinto"visitors,"thosewhowrote
and used historyin the cityattemptedto definethemselvesas
"residents,"
thusstrengthening
theirclaimtolocalpoliticalpower.
LEONE,
POTTER,
have itself made the capital of Maryland (Riley I976

[i887]:57). It triedand failedto become the permanent
capital of the United States just afterthe Revolution
(Riley I976[i887]:i98-200).
The Naval Academy was
foundedthere afterthe city had carriedon a 2o-year
courtshipto get it (Riley I976[i887]:264).
In the late
igth centurythe city mounted a largelyunsuccessful
campaign to lure business and industryto Annapolis
(Riley I976[i887]:323-24;
I897; I90I;
i906).
Finally,
Annapolis in the I98os works to promote itself as a
yachtingand touristcenter,a partbeingplayedin thisby
the historic preservationmovement. In each of these
cases, Annapolishas invitedoutsidersin and profitedby
doing so while presentingitselfas a stable,historically
significantresourcenot especiallydependenton outsiders.
While the analysis of the white:black and city:
academy separationsis based primarilyon how history
is presented in Annapolis, the analysis of the resident:visitorseparation depends more on what is presented.Much has been made ofGeorgeWashington's20some visits (BaldridgeI928; Historic Annapolis, Inc.
n.d.; Norris I925:I9I-224;
Riley I976[i887]:200-207,
Thomas I 952), and in presentationsofhis con2i8-20;
nectionsto the cityWashingtonthe FatherofHis Countryis overshadowedby Washingtonthe horse fancier,
patronof the arts,and partygoer,in short,Washington
the tourist.Potter'shunch is that fromthe example of
Washingtonvisitorsleam how Annapolis wishes them
to conductthemselvesduringtheirstayin the city.They
should be wealthy,fashionable,considerate,and social,
and theyshouldreturnhome leavingjust enoughoftheir
"aura" to attractotherslike themselves.Washingtonis a
model of the perfectoutsider.
The ethnography
just summarizedservesas a guideto
what an archaeologicalprogrambased on criticaltheory
should teach the 5,000-I0,000
people a year who visit
the open archaeologicalsites in Annapolis. Since i982,
"Archaeologyin Annapolis" has addressedtwo of the
separations identifiedthrough archaeological excavations open to the public.
In the springof i985, archaeologistsconducteda tour
of the State House Inn site.5The purposeof the excavation was to gatherfine-grainedinformationabout the
city's 2go-year-oldstreetpattern,called the Nicholson
plan, and the historyofchangesin it. Participantsin the
tourwere told,to beginwith,thatthereare two ways of
looking at the city's baroque streetplan of two circles
and radiating streets laid out by Governor Francis
Nicholson in I695: as a work of art,an unchangedrelic
of the i 600s, or as continuallyaltered and adjusted to
meet the needs of people living and workingin Annapolis over the centuries.The reason fordiggingat the
StateHouse Inn,it was explained,was thatcomparisons
AND
SHACKEL
Toward a Critical Archaeology| 287
betweenthe earliestknownmap ofAnnapolis(theStoddertsurveyof I 7 8) and modernmaps showedthatState

Circle,on which the inn was situated,had been reduced
by 30-60 feet without any recordof the changes. The
archaeologicalevidenceforthe shrinkageofState Circle
was thenpointedout: two cuts into the naturalsubsoil
that may representedges of earlier,largercircle diametersand a row ofpostholesnearone ofthe cuts thatmay
have been the line of a fenceservingas a boundarybetween a largerState Circle and a yard (Hopkins i986).
It was suggestedthat data fromthe State House Inn
site would be combined with informationfromother
sites around the circle, such as the Calvert House site
(Yentschi983), to producea morecompleteand cumulative pictureof all the small alterationsthathave added
up to a wholesale differencebetween the i8th-century
State Circle and the State Circle of today.From smallscale alterationsto the Nicholson plan such as this one,
the presentationwent on to a descriptionof the largest
alterationto the i8th-centurystreetpattern,which was
made by the United States Naval Academy in I906
when it walled itselfofffromthe rest of the city and
createdits own streetplan. It was pointedout thatroads
and town plans carryinformationintendedto directthe
behavior and thought of people who use them. The
academy's replacementof the i8th-centuryelementsof
the city with a plan of its own was part of a largerattempt to make the academy appear separate fromthe
restof the citywhile in facttherewere many powerful
connectionsbetweenthetwo. The tourshowedhow one
may see the streetsofAnnapolisas ideology,as masking
a significantand potentreality.
To illuminate the separationbetween residentsand
visitorsand at the same time to process archaeological
data in a way that revealed the details of i8th-century
life,materialsfromthe VictuallingWarehousesite, the
Hammond-HarwoodHouse site, and the Thomas Hyde
House site (I93 Main Street)have been analyzed6and
incorporatedinto the presentationat the last, an i8thcenturyworkand domesticlocale. We hypothesizedthat
the increasingvariation found in the ceramic assemblages at the i8th- and early igth-centurysites in Annapolis is a reflectionof increasingparticipationin the
culture associated with mercantilecapitalism.A colonial city characterizedby importing,exporting,merand consumptionof a
chants,planters,manufacturing,
wide rangeofmass-producedgoods should be character-
6. The VictuallingWarehousesitewas excavatedunderthedirecof California,Berkeley)

tion of ConstanceA. Crosby(University
duringthe summersof i982 and I983. The excavationsat the
byRichardJ.Dent
Hammond-Harwood
House siteweresupervised
of Maryland,College Park)duringthe springof I983
(University
and thespringof I984, assistedin thesecondseasonbyRobertC.
Sonderman.Excavationsof the Thomas Hyde House site in the
winterof i985-86 and in the summerof I986 weredirectedby
State
S. Excavationsat the State House Inn site were supervisedby Paul A. Shackel,assistedby DorothyHumpf(Pennsylvania
andLynnClark(StateUniversity
ofNew Yorkat BingofMaryland,CollegePark),as- University)
JosephW. Hopkins,III (University
ofceramic
of Maryland,College hamton)duringthesummerofI986. The measurement
sistedby Donald K. Creveling(University
Park)and Paul A. Shackel.The sitetourwas conductedbyPamela sherdson which the analysiswas based was done by Raymond
ofMaryHendersonandKristenPetersformorethan4,300visitorsbetween Tubby,Diana Kehne,and TheresaChurchill(University
land,CollegePark).
April22 and Junei, i985.
288
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
ized by increasingsegmentationand standardizationof

many aspects of daily activity (Braudel I979a:207;
I979b:377-78; Deetz I977, I983; Detweiler i982:24We postulate that the
25; Smith I937[I776]:3-I3).
growthof mercantilecapitalism that we know characterizedAnnapolis in the i8th century(Carr and Walsh
I986, Papenfuse I975, Middleton I953) is associated
with the standardizationof life's domains, on the one
hand, and the increasinginterchangeability
of things,
acts,and persons,on the other.We arguethatsegmentation and standardizationin ceramic use in Annapolis
accompanyan etiquetteassociated with the accumulation of profit.Both segmentationand standardization
will be reflectedin the material cultureused in many
aspects of daily life,includingthe table and its setting,
as people are incorporatedinto the life of capitalism
(BraudelI979a:203-9).
Deetz (I977) and Carr and Walsh (n.d.; Walsh i983)
have argued that during the I7th centurypeople in
Anglo-Americalived a less differentiated
way oflife,one
characterizedby mechanical solidarityin Durkheim's
sense. Eating, sleeping,and other activities tended to
occur in a single room. Members of a familywould eat
sittingon beds, chests,or benches drawnup to a table.
One trencheror one mug was used by several persons.
Table forks,spices, and importedceramicswere luxury
items seen only in wealthierhouseholds. In the i8th
centurythe parts of everydaylife became more differentiated fromeach other,with performancebeing defined by place, rules, tools, and audience. New rules
forbehaviorthat separatedpeople developed and were
writtendown (Braudel1979a; Deetz 1977,I983; Glassie
1975).Braudel(I979a:2o3-9) cites Les delices dela campagne (The Pleasuresofthe Countryside)byNicholas de
Bonnefons,publishedin i 654, as one example.It recommendsthatplaces at thetable be spaced at a distanceofa
chair's width and specifiesthe numberof courses to be
served,the changingofplates at the end of each course,
and the replacementofnapkinsaftereverytwo courses.
This trendis observedin probate inventoriesof i8thcentury Annapolis (Shackel i986a). Items of dining
definedby rules that segmentedthe dinnertable into
many parts (salad dishes, tureens, dish covers, plate
warmers,puddingand custardcups,bottlesor cruetsfor
servingcondiments,butterboats, and wineglasses)7occurredexclusively among the wealthy until the third
quarterof the i8th century.At this point,consumption
TABLE
Variationin a HypotheticalCeramic Assemblage

Plate Diameter (Inches)
Ceramic Type
Porcelain
Pearlware
Whiteware
x
x
lifein Annapolis in the course of the i8th century.Archaeologically,we know that work was firstseparated
fromdomesticactivitiesin the home space, thenmoved
to a differentbuilding or area, then transferred
to an
entirelydifferent
part of Annapolis by the early igth
century.Braudel(I979b:377-78) suggeststhatsuch segmentationaccompanies a profit-making
order.We argue
that greatervarietyin sizes and typesof dishes,which
measuresboth segmentationofpeople while eatingand
segmentationof food in courses and by type,is also a
measureofthe largerprocessat workin mercantilesociety.
The threesites we examinedvariedin socioeconomic
characteristics.The Victualling Warehouse site was a
middle-wealth-group
commercial-residentialstructure,
the Hammond-HarwoodHouse site an upper-wealthgrouphome, and the Thomas Hyde House site a merchant's business and home, owned by a man who had
climbed fromthe lowest wealth groupin the 1740S to
the upperwealth groupby the thirdquarterof the i8th
century.9To determinewhethera new orderofbehavior
was visible archaeologically,we examinedthevarietyof
recoveredceramictypesand plate diametersovertime.'0
The formula(type-sizes/types)(sizes)=index
value was
developedto quantifythe variationin each ceramicassemblage. "Types" is the number of standardceramic
9. The VictuallingWarehousesitelies withinthecommercialdistrictofAnnapolisclose to theharbor.Fromthemiddleofthei8th

century
untilI 790, thesitecontainedtwostructures
usedforcommercialand residentialpurposes.Bothstructures
bumedon January2i, I790. One was rebuiltshortlythereafter,
while the other
was demolishedat aboutthesametime(CrosbyI982: I-3). The fire
provideda firmchronological
controlforouranalysis.
The Hammond-Harwood
House is a five-part
Georgianmansion
designedandbuiltbyWilliamBucklandbetweenI774 and1775 for
pattemschangeddrastically
(Carrand Walsh1977:32MathiasHammond.This sitewas excavatedin stratigraphic
layers
33; Walsh i983:1 ii), and manysegmentingitemsbegan (Dent i985) thatprovidedthebasis forchronological
control.
to be used on all wealth levels exceptforthe lowest.8
The Thomas HydeHouse was a Georgian-style
brickstructure
Segmentationof tasks, standardizationof products builtin the I 760S in theheartofthesocial and politicalcenterof
throughmass production,and standardizationofproduc- the city.The site containednumerousoutbuildingsincludinga
summerkitchen,a milkhouse,and privies.The house had been
tive behaviorthroughrules came to permeateeveryday constructedupon an earlierstructuredatingto the firstquarter
ofthe i8th century.This site was also excavatedin stratigraphic
7. This inventory
ofelementsofleisurelydiningwas compiledby layers (Shackel i986b), allowingfor chronologicalcontroland
comparisonwithothersites.
LorenaWalshoftheColonialWilliamsburg
Foundation.Its use in facilitating
and preliminary.
Because
Shackel's analysiswas suggestedby Lois GreenCarr of the St. io. Our analysisis both experimental
minimumvesselcountshavenotyetbeendoneforthesesites,the
Mary'sCityCommission.
of
8. These changingconsumptionpattemswere productsof im- dataarein termsofsherdsonly.EzraZubrow(StateUniversity
provedtransportation,
marketing,
and technology
(CarrandWalsh New York at Buffalo)helped writethe formulathat measures
1977; Walsh I983:II3)
as well as a new,routinizedtypeoflabor. variation.
LEONE,
TABLE
POTTER,
AND
SHACKEL
Variationin Ceramic Assemblages fromThreeAnnapolis Sites,Earlyi8th to

Mid-igth Century
Period
Site
Earlyi8th
Victualling
Warehouse
Hammond-Harwood
House
ThomasHydeHouse
n.a.
n.a.
i.o (n
Mid-Latei8th Late i8th-Earlyigth Mid-igth

3.6 (n =
22)
types(e.g.,porcelain,pearlware,creamware),"sizes" the
numberofdifferent
plate diameters(roundedto the nearest half-inch),and "type-sizes"the numberof type-andsize combinations represented.Therefore,in the hypotheticalassemblage of table i, with a 7-inchand a 9inch pearlwareplate, a 4-inch and a 9-inchwhiteware
plate, and an 8-inch porcelain plate, there are three
types,foursizes, and five type-sizes.Accordingto our
formula,(5/3)(4)=20/3 or 6.67 as a measureofvariation.
Values ofthiskindfromdifferent
sites or different
strata
at the same site can be comparedto measure changes
over time and differencesbetween wealth groups. A
value close to I.O indicates low variation,greatervalues increasingvariation.The data fromthe threesites
were divided into early-i8th-century,
mid-to-late-i8thcentury,late-i8th-to-early-igth-century,
and mid-igthcentury,and the indices ofvariationcalculated foreach
set suggestthatthe residentsof all threesites were participatingincreasinglyin a standardizedand segmented
way oflife(table 2). The greatervarietyofdish sizes and
wares in the archaeological recordreflectsa new etiquette, an increasing segmentationat the table that
servedbothas a traininggroundforthenew orderand as
reinforcement
forit.
An ArchaeologicalSite Tour Informed

by Critical Theory
572)
2.o (n = 122)
2.o (n = 37)
12.o
(n =
i,698)
(n = 926)
24-S (n = 76)
27.0
n.a.
n.a.
73.1 (n = 368)
tion of the archaeologist-guide,

(3) introductionof the
archaeologicalteam, (4) introductionof the project,including sources of funding,(5) introductionof the
specificsite, (6) discussionofarchaeologicaltechniques,
(7) anthropologicalcontentor argument,(8) conclusion,
and (9) question period (see Leone I983; Potter and
Leone I986, n.d.).
During the summer of I986, excavations were conducted in a parkinglot on Main Street'2that until the
1930S had contained the two-and-a-half-story
house of
Thomas Hyde. The argumentat the site was as follows:
Now thatI've told you about who we are and how we
dig,I'd like to tell you about whywe're digginghere.
As I mentioneda fewminutesago, one important
class ofarchaeologicalfindsis ceramics.Most
ceramictablewareused in this countrythroughthe
firsthalfofthe i9th centurywas made in England,
and since we know when these itemswere made,we
can use fragments
ofthemto help us date archaeological sites.
But ceramicsare usefulformorethandating.There
was a revolutionin the manufactureand marketing
ofEnglishearthenwareceramicsled byJosiahWedg-
woodin themiddleofthe1700S. Wedgwood

and
othersdevelopedmaterialsand techniquesthatallowed the mass manufactureofrelativelyinexpensive

tablewarein matchedsets. Beforethe middleofthe
I700S ceramicitemsusually didn'tcome in sets and
were generallyused communally,severalpeople eating fromone vessel and sharinganotherfordrinking.
The Wedgwoodrevolutionchangedall that.Wedgwood introducedplates thatallowed each dinerto
have his or her own plate identicalto those ofthe
otherdiners.He also createdsets ofdisheswhich included manydifferent
sizes and shapes ofvessels for
different
courses.A properset ofdishes had soup
plates and breakfastplates and dessertplates and
butterplates,in additionto regulardinnerplates.
And so on.
Visitorsto Annapolis interactdirectlywith archaeologistsinvolvedin excavatingmaterialsrelatedto the past.

Not all of the sites being excavatedin Annapolis (about
2o since I 98 I) are open to visitors,but those in theheart
of the touristarea (6 since i982) have been. Tours of
some sites are givenon demand,with as manyas 40 per
day on a busyday at a busy site,and the averagenumber
ofvisitorsper touris about five.The toursare intended
to teach participantshow to question and challenge
theirguides and otherswho create,interpret,and presentthepast. Each open site has its own presentation.In
consultationwith a media expert,11
the followingbasic I12. The publicprogram
at theThomasHydeHousewas directed
by
structurehas been developed: (I) welcome, (2) introduc- PatriciaA. Secreto(Universityof Maryland,College Park) and
ChristineHoepfner(Universityof Pennsylvania).Along with

SamuelT. Brainerd,
LynnClark,TeriHarris,BillHelton,andAnne
oftheTheatre A. Tschirgi,theyconductedthe tourtherefromJulyio through
i i. The mediaconsultant
is PhilipArnoult,
director
Projectin Baltimore.
Augusti6, presenting
it to over3,8oovisitors.
290
1 CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
We feelthatthe use ofa fullyelaboratedset of

dishes,thenas now, was not simplya matterofmanners,unconnectedto the restoflife.In the elaboration of sizes and shapes ofdishes is a dual processof
bothsegmentationand standardization.Separate
plates separatethe dinersat a table fromeach other
alongwith the use ofpropermanners-using the
"rightfork"and so on. Mannersand dishes provided
clear rules and divisionswhich told and showedindividuals how to relateto each other.The meal became
segmentedhereby I750, and the rulesforeatingsegmentedsocietyby separatingpeople.
Meanwhile,the processofsegmentedlaborand
mass productionwhich standardizeddishes standardized manyotherkindsofmanufacturedgoods as well.
The plates whose sherdswe are diggingup here
servedto regularizethe eatingbehaviorof thosewho
used them,and at the same time the regularity
was
theproductofboth a regulatedmanufacturing
process and a regulatedlifeforthe workerswho made
them.Much ofmaterialculturewas beingstandardized, and much ofhuman behavior.These ideas are
worthour attentionbecause, while theywere new in
themiddleoftheI700s, manyofthemarestillwith
us todayand are takenforgrantedas ways we assume

theworldhas always operated.And ifwe take these
thingsas givens,we forfeit
the opportunity
to understandtheirimpacton us or to changethem.This is
how we thinkabout the ceramicswe digup.
These ideas about segmentationdon't just have to
do with dishes. Justas individualplates and specialized servingdishes separatedfoodsand diners,houses
came to have moreand morerooms,with different
activitiesbeingperformed
apartfromeach otherin
separaterooms.BeforeI 700 manywork-related
and
domesticactivitiestook place in the same room of
the house. By I750 people were buildinghouses with
separateroomsforeating,sleeping,cooking,and
working.And the richerfolks,like those in the Paca
and BriceHouses, carriedthis even further
with
music, card,and ballrooms.Dishes and eatingwere
segmented;houses and domesticlifewere segmented;so too were lives segmentedinto worklife,
social life,and familylife.In the early1700S work
and domesticactivitiesusually all went on in the
same place. By i8oo in Annapolispeople divided
workfromhome lifeby preferring
shops,taverns,and
officesin separatebuildingsfromtheirhomes.
Houses like this one we are excavatingwere used
onlyfordomesticlifeby i 8oo. By the time large-scale
manufacturing
began in Baltimorein i 850, workwas
located farfromhome, and the distancegot greater
and greater.
We thinkthatpeople learnedhow to dividetheir
lives and accept the divisionsand the rulesfordivision at home at the table and at all the othertasks
which were also becomingseparate.
So farI've talkedabout severaldifferent
separations
beginningto enterAmericanlifein the I700s. I
would like to turnto one finalseparation,thatbetweenworktime and leisure time.This segmentation

oftime createsthe possibilityofsomethingthat
manyofyou may be involvedwith rightnow, a vacation.Bear in mindforthe nextfewminutes,ifyou
would, thatthisparticularculturalinvention,the
idea ofa vacation,only enteredAmericanlifeabout
ioo yearsago, about ioo yearsafterThomas Hyde
builthis house on this site.
Vacations and tourismare a majorindustryand a
big issue in Annapolis,as in manyothersmall historictowns.Each yearover i,ooo,ooo people visit Annapolis,a cityof onlyabout 32,000 people, so it is
easy to understandthe city'sinterestin payingclose
attentionto tourismhere; the cityworkshardto protectthe thingsabout it thatattractvisitors.As I said,
the need to controla largeinfluxofvisitorsis not at
all unique to Annapolis.What is unique is one partof
Annapolis's solutionto thispotentialproblem.
In some verysubtleways,Annapolisattemptsto
use GeorgeWashingtonto guidevisitorbehavior.For
as long as the townhas considereditselfhistoric,local guidebooksand historieshave includedmanyreferencesto GeorgeWashingtonand his 2o or so visits
to the city.In manyofthese accounts thereis a
strongemphasis on the social and domesticaspectsof
Washington'svisits to the city:his tripsto the racetrack,the balls he attended,the plays he saw, and the
familymembersand friendshe visited.The pictureof
Washingtonthatemergesis verysimilarto theprofile
ofthe kindofvisitorAnnapolishas verypubliclysaid
it wants to attract,the "quality tourist."As defined
duringa local election campaignand since thenin
the local papers,a "quality tourist"is one who
spendssome moneyin town withoutdisruptinganyone or anythingor leavinga mess behind.The effect
ofpresentationsofWashingtonthatmake him look
like the kind ofvisitorthatAnnapolistriesto attract
todayis thatWashingtonends up as a model tourist
or a model fortouristbehavior.What makes this subtle and unawareportrayalofWashingtonas a model
touristso interestingis thattourismand vacations
were not even inventeduntil 8o yearsor moreafter
Washingtondied. GeorgeWashingtoncould never
have been a touristbecause tourismas we know it,
apartfromthe GrandTour, did not exist duringhis
lifetime.
In the last i 5 minutesI've triedto do two things.
By discussingthe originsof some taken-for-granted
aspects of contemporary
life,separationsand segmentation,I have triedto show thatour way oflifeis not
inevitable;it has its originsand its reasons,and it is
open to question and challengeas a result.The second thingthatI've triedto do, throughthe George
Washingtonexample,is to show ways in which historyis oftenmade and presentedforcontemporary
purposes.The next time you see a presentationofhistory,visit a museum,take a tour,watch a television
show about the past, or whatever,you can ask your-
LEONE,
POTTER,
selfwhat thatversionofhistoryis tryingto getyou

to do.13
This is thekindofpresentationgivenat each ofthesix
open archaeologicalsites in Annapolis.'4Each presentation ends with a statementabout the relevance of the
past to the presentby addressingone of the separations,
such as insider:outsider,
thatwas uncoveredby the ethnographyofuses ofthepast in Annapolis.Each presentation also includes a statementof our hope thatthe tour
has helpedpeople become more criticalofpresentations
of the past. This fulfillsone requirementof a critical
archaeology:illuminatingelementsof daily lifethatare
normallyconcealed. Whetherilluminationshould lead
to social action to addressthe contradictionmasked by
ideologyis an open question.
The final step in making the project one of critical
archaeologyis assessmentof the impact of the tourson
participants.There are manyinformalmeasures,mostly
adaptedfrommuseum evaluationprocedures,of the degreeto which messages are understood.One of these is
the numberofquestions asked byvisitorsat the end ofa
tour.We recordvisitors'questions and comments,thus
treatingthe open archaeologicalsite as an ethnographic
context.It is not at all uncommonforvisitorsto return
to sites a second, third,or fourthtime, demonstrating
theirunderstandingof the sites as continuallychanging
educationalenvironments.Visitorssometimesreturnto
a site with friendsforwhom they act as guides; such
visitorshave certainlybeen enfranchised.
Since i982, a one-page evaluative questionnairehas
been distributedto visitorsat the end ofa tour.Respondents are self-selected,and the sample is about io% of
the visitorsto any one site, a large sample compared
with those used in most museum evaluations(Zannieri
In additionto questions that visitorsanswered
I980:7).
I 3. In additionto thetourat theThomasHydeHouse,visitorsin
exhibits,to which
I986 wereinvitedto visitthreearchaeological
recoveredtooththeywere directedby a flier.Archaeologically

brusheswereon displayin theHistoricAnnapolis,Inc.,touroffice
in an exhibitdesignedandwrittenbyPaul A. Shackel.The exhibit
theincreasing
ofthe
standardization
was intendedto demonstrate
whileat the
manufacture
oftoothbrushes
duringthe igthcentury
andother
sametimeexplaining
thatincreasing
use oftoothbrushes
and
self-regulation
itemsofpersonalhygienesignaledan increasing
adherenceto rules forbehavioron the partof Annapolitans.(In
additionto toothbrushes
excavatedin Annapolis,thisexhibitconon loan fromthe BaltimoreCenterfor
tainedthreetoothbrushes
A second exhibit,designedand writtenby
UrbanArchaeology.)
ChristineHoepfner,focusedon tea wares excavatedfromAnnapolissites.A thirdexhibit,also mountedbyChristineHoepfner,
containedceramicsfromtheThomasHydeHouse site and was a
Visitorswere
demonstration
oftheceramicanalysisjustdescribed.
directedfromany one exhibitto the othersby a seriesof fliers
designedand writtenby ChristineHoepfner.Each of thesefliers
themessageoftheexhibitat whichit was
also servedto reinforce
it andpresenting
datathatcould
quantitative
available,rephrasing
be examinedlater.
is preI4. For the purposesof this essay,the site interpretation
sentedas ifarchaeologist-guides
weretheonlysourceofinformaandfour400tion;in fact,it was splitbetweenan oralpresentation
wordplacardspostedon the site.
AND
SHACKEL
Toward a CriticalArchaeology
29I
simplyby selectingresponsesfroma list,we have asked

questions requiringshort writtenanswers. One such
question, used in our evaluation format the Shiplap
House site,15 thatgeneratedmanyinformative
responses
was "What did you learnabout archaeologythatyou did
not know beforeyou visitedthe site?" Responsesto this
question fall into threebroad categories:
i. Responses that show visitors realizing that archaeologistsdigto answerquestions,implyingan understandingthat archaeologicaldata, like any historicalor
scientificdata, are collected froma particularpoint of
view-one of the most importantand most accessible
insightsof criticaltheory.
2. Responses that show visitorsrecognizingthat archaeologyis about morethanexcavation,discovery,and
artifacts.Someone who claims to have learnedabout the
"connectionof archaeologyto behavior"may well have
learnedhow to challengethe traditionalpopularperception that archaeologyis about objects. The ability to
challengea taken-for-granted
understandingis the very
abilitywe hope to cultivate in visitorsand have them
applyto otheraspects of theirlives.
3. Responses that show visitors understandingarchaeology as relevantto today. At one level, such responses are like thosepreviouslydiscussedin suggesting
an abilityto challengetheidea thatarchaeologistsdigup
old thingsunconnectedto todayby anythingotherthan
theircurio value. However,in the contextofour tourof
the Shiplap House site, which deals with the originsof
some typically unexamined aspects of contemporary
life,acknowledgmentof archaeology'srelevance to today may indicatea willingnessto challengethe inevitalife.
bilityof some of the foundationsof contemporary
These characterizationsof visitor responses to our
toursare extractedfromover i,ooo evaluationswe have
collectedin fiveseasons. Severalbroadconclusionsmay
be drawnfromthisbodyofdata. First,we do not have to
talk down to visitors;we can discuss ideas ratherthan
trowels,stratigraphy,
potsherds,or holes in the ground.
In addition,thata surprisingnumberofvisitorsare willing to writelong and detailedresponsesto questionson
the evaluationformmeans thatpeople see the site as an
educationalsettingand are willingto let us teach them
ratherthan simply entertainthem. Moving fromthe
practicalto the theoretical,it seems clear that visitors
see historicalarchaeologyas able to teach them about
the roots of contemporarylife.However,when visitors
say that archaeologyis relevant to today because it
shows "the continuityof evolution into our own day"
i5. Excavationsat the Shiplap House site were supervisedby
DonaldK. Creveling,
assistedbyPaul A. Shackel.The sitetourwas
directed
byNancyJ.Chabot(StateUniversity
ofNew Yorkat Binghamton),assistedbyKristenPeters.They,alongwithSimonColeman,MatthewJohnson,
BarbaraLichock,BarbaraRay,EllenSaintonge,PatriciaA. Secreto,Helen Sydavar,RaymondTubby,and
PatriciaWalker,gave toursto over5,8oovisitors.Alongwiththe
tour,an eight-pagebrochure,designedand editedby Nancy J.
ChabotandParkerB. Potter,Jr.,
was usedtopresenttheinterpretationofthesite.
2921
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
theydemonstrate,in additionto the dawningof critical

awareness,the strengthand embeddednessof the concept of evolution as a culturalmetaphorforlong-term
change.Because the conceptof evolutionmakes change
seem inevitableand its directionbeyondhuman agency,
providinghistoriesforseparationsmay not be enoughto
make local ideologychallengeable.To bringabout the
kind of enlightenmentaimed at by criticaltheory,we
need to pay attentionto how people thinkand not just
what they think. From visitor evaluations we have
learnedboth about the possibilityof impartingto visitors a critical perspectiveand about the obstacles to
theirembracingit. We have not yet solved all the problems ofmountinga publicprogrambased on criticaltheory,but the demonstratedwillingnessof visitorsto let
us teach them and their abilityto learn constitutean
invitationto keep on trying.
Comments
MICHAEL
L. BLAKEY
Departmentof Sociologyand Anthropology,

Howard
University,Washington,D.C. 20059, U.S.A. 2o XII 86
The relationsdrawnbetween increasingceramic variation and standardization,the creationofnew table mannersor "rules and divisionswhich told and showedindividuals how to relate to each other," and the broader
social divisionsand alienationcreatedby capitalismelegantlydemonstratethe value ofa partiallyMarxianparadigm. Similarly, the dichotomies of city:academy,
black: white,resident:visitorthatemergefromthe critical analysisofAnnapolis"history"by Leone,Potter,and
Shackel show how divisionscontinueto be reflectedand
socialized to those ends.
I question,however,whetherthese resultsare veryfar
fromconclusionsbased on hypothesistestingand replicability.Closely related dichotomieshave been shown
in the historical depictions in the state museums of
nearbyDelaware and thenationalmuseumsin Washington, D.C. (Blakey I983, I986). There, the contextually
disconnected histories of blacks, whites, and Native
Americans obscure exploitativeclass and ethnic relations. As Annapolis history "strengthens" whiteresident"claims to local political power,"the depiction
of Delawareans and Americansas definitivelywhite is
claim-jumpingon the state and national levels.
My criticismof "Toward a Critical Archaeology"is
that it does not accomplish what it sets out to do in
morepowerfullyMarxian terms.As I view Marxiantheory, "emancipation," if you will, is made possible by
with regardto class interestsand exploienlightenment
tation previouslyhidden by a "false consciousness." It
assumes thatthese interestsare also beingplayedout by
scientiststhemselves.I doubt that the authorshave revealed those class interests or exploitation in their
guided tours. They seem to assume that touristswill
discerntheirown (individualistic?)"trueinterests"simply on the basis of theirnew knowledgethat segmentation is being created and that archaeologycan demonstrateit (in fact,sellingarchaeologyto the public seems
to have been more importantthan raising sociopolitical awareness). Will the touristsrecognize that these
alienatingprocesses serve to sustain the profitof those
who own means of productionand the more efficient
exploitationof workingpeople? I do not thinkso. Why
should theynot attributesegmentationto "modernization" or Spencerianevolution?Indeed,the authorssuggest this weakness in theirconcludingcomments,but I
thinkthereis much more to this problemthan inadequate attentionto "how people think." The neglect of
class dialectics, leaving the role of the capitalist class
unexposed,underminesthe attemptat "emancipation."
The problem may also be embedded in underlying
assumptions: the approach (in keeping with Althusser
I969 and I97Ib; also see Schwartzmanand Siddique
I986) is fundamentallypositivistic,aiming at knowledge that is apolitical or neutral,and consequentlyproduces resultsostensiblystrippedoftheirpoliticalmeaning. Althusser falsely opposes science (self-critical,
open-ended,and capable ofproducingreal knowledge)to
ideology(dogmatic,closed, and capable of obscuringreality). Yet intrinsicto science are unnoticed assumptions,closed to critiquepreciselywhen theyappearmost
"real." One could say that
objectivelyand self-evidently
adherenceto empiricismorpositivismhas at timesbeen
ideological,althoughnonethelessscientific.
Critical archaeology,ratherthan showing "real relationships" or producing"less contingentknowledge,"
can only be expected to yield differently
contingent
knowledgeand relationships.How one defines"emancipation" will be reflectedin the kind of awareness one
produces by research intended to create it, and the
sociopolitical perspectiveof the researcherinfluences
that definition.
This article demonstratesthe usefulness of critical
theory under these constraints. It does not follow
throughwith a formulationof clear political implications that might break the bonds of a pervasive
should
bourgeoisideology.Criticaltheory,furthermore,
fostercontinuingcriticismon the part of its own practitioners.Science is most materialistic,I would argue,
when it is most critical,thatis, when it is understoodas
the
subjectivein meaningfulways and when, therefore,
partialsubjectivityof a factcan be exploredand stated.
This is not encouragedby claims to abstractemancipation or the objectiveproceduresrequiredto produceit.
Critical archaeologywould be profoundlycritical if it
came to gripswith the meaningsand applicationsofintrinsicsubjectivityin scientificknowledge.However,I
agreewithWylie (I986) thata means ofobtainingobjective truthin the absolute remainsa persistentlyintriguing ideal that we should continue to explore.
LEONE,
RICHARD
POTTER,
BRADLEY
DepartmentofArchaeology,UniversityofReading,
Reading, U.K. i6 xii 86
There is no reason to quarrelwith the main conclusion
of this paper,that archaeologicalinterpretations
of the
past and in particulartheirpresentationto thepublic are
influencedby the beliefsand attitudesof those proposing them.This has been obvious fromthe historyofthe
subjectand fromthe social settingsin which it emerged
as an independentdiscipline(cf.KristiansenI98I). Critical theoryprovidesa more rigorousbackgroundto this
work,but the basic perspectiveis not entirelynew.
There are certain difficultiesin espousing this position. If all knowledgeof the past is a productofits own
time, it is hard to see how scholars whose work is informedby critical theoryare to escape the hidden assumptionsthat affectotherpeople. Are theyin a position to test theirideas more convincinglythan anyone
else? If so, it is not apparentfromtheirwritingsto date.
If,on the otherhand, theyare makingessentiallypolitical statements,theymay differ
fromotherinvestigators
onlyin thefranknesswithwhichtheyadmitto doingso.
We need to be told quite clearly whethercritical archaeologyis a means of political action and, if so, what
formit should take.
These problemsare not resolvedin the presentpaper,
with the resultthat its tone seems a little patronising.
Why should the visitorsto Annapolis be such chronic
victimsoffalseconsciousness,unable to thinkforthemselves without the aid of archaeologists?Is everyonea
dupe of ideologyexcept the academic? The tone of the
site talk is rather revealing. The account of George
Washington'svisits to Annapolis is fartoo condescending, whilst the discussion of "segmentationand standardisation"is needlesslyobscureto those who are new
to theoreticalarchaeology.
This paperfailsto convincethereaderofthevalue ofa
criticalarchaeology,simplybecause the ideas thatit expresses are hardlyarchaeological at all. They owe their
originto documentaryevidence and to ideas fromthe
greatFrenchhistorianBraudel,and it would have been
revealingto see a case studywhich reliedmore directly
on the archaeologicalrecord.In thispaperarchaeologyis
that
simplyprovidinglocal colour foran interpretation
could be discussed perfectlyadequately on the basis of
writtensources.There is a "credibilitygap" betweenthe
grandtheoreticalframeworkand the displayof historic
toothbrushes.Historicalarchaeologyhas been described
as "an expensive way of findingout what we know already."That commentis usually unfair,but in this case
it has some justification.
AND
SHACKEL
Toward a CriticalArchaeology 2293
In interpreting
partofthe archaeologicalrecordofhistorical Annapolis, they invoke developing industrial
capitalismas a key structuring
process.Their empirical
workinvitescomparisonwith otherbodies of evidence.
For example, the local excavated materialused to suggest a connection between a new patternof domestic
etiquette and cultural incorporationinto capitalism
needs supplementingwith furtherhistoricaldata from
Annapolisand elsewhereifwe are to understand(and,in
turn,generalisefrom)the way these two systemswere
articulatedby specificsocial relationsamong different
classes. Maintainingsocial controlin the transitionto a
new formof economy affectspeople differently
according to theiroccupational and otherroles. In the pioneer
case ofnorthernEngland,it has been arguedthatcontrol
was achievedby blockingpotentiallysubversivesubcultures;with the effectof minimizingthe sense of loss of
controlover theirown labour, workerswere saturated
with the cultural values of their employers (Foster
I974:22-27).
In the absenceof archaeological

data on
the working class of historical Annapolis to indicate

how controlwas handled there,a more comprehensive
view of how the capitalist orderwas established and
maintained by appropriate channelling of political
power requiresan inputfromothersources.
The authors claim that present consumers of archaeological and historicalinformationare encouraged
to question assumptions about theirown lives by perceivingthe link between past changes in domesticculture (such as commensality)and the growthof capitalism.More pertinentto an understanding
ofhistorical
Annapolis is how the local social control system
worked. How it works today is equally pertinentto a
contemporarystrategyof disseminatingnew views of
the past that can potentiallysubvertreceived ideology
and thushelp open up the kind ofemancipationthatthe
authorsseem to favour.
Criticizingwhat theysee as ideologicalbias in the way
capitalism has been obscured in standardrepresentations of local history,Leone et al. substitutea bias of
their own in their inadequate treatmentof political
power.They remarkthatin some environmentsarchaeologyis used to servepolitical aims but failto show how
deeplypolitics is embeddedin archaeologicaland other
cultural practices. This weakens theirresponse to the
ideological distortionof the past. It is relativelyeasy to
demonstratethat particularrepresentationsof the past
are distortionsclearlyor covertlyservingsectionalinterests; decidinghow to respondto this is more difficult.
Since ruling-classinterestsare servedby whole sets of
categoriesas well as by specificargumentswithinthem,
it followsthat counteractingdistortionsof the past entails a more comprehensivecritique of the presentorganisationofknowledgeand ultimatelyofthe systemof
BRIAN
DURRANS
political
power sustainedby it.
Museum ofMankind, BurlingtonGardens,London
Leone
et
al. recognisethat a theoryexposingideologWIX 2EX, England. .24 XII 86
ical distortionsofthe past and situatingthemin a wider
Leone et al. pay insufficient
attentionto thepast orpres- contextamountsto an active social criticism.It is thereent conditionsin which political power is exercised.
foresubjectto a criterionofrelevanceor actionability-
294
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 28, Number 3, fune 1987
that is, a strategyfordecidinghow an otherwiseexpo- claim,even ifit helps accountfortheuse theymake ofit
nential relativism can be avoided and specific goals in presentingapoliticallywhat theyargueare inherently
attained. Introspectivedebate is unlikely to deliver political issues.
much more than a new set of professionalauthorities
whose radicalismconfirmsconventionalnotions of the
advance ofarchaeologicalknowledgeby successivepara- JOAN M. GERO
digmshifts,while leavingunchallengedthe contentious DepartmentofAnthropology,Universityof South
position of this and other subjects in the wider struc- Carolina, Columbia, S.C. 29208, U.S.A. 3I xii 86
archaeology,
turesof society.For most of contemporary
what is treatedas the relevantcontextfordiscussions The strengthof this work is as a clear if abbreviated
about ideologyis made up of theoriesclaiminginspira- example of an applicationof criticaltheoryto archaeoltion fromMarxism,usually by way ofrevisingor reject- ogy. Numerous other researchers,amply reviewed by
ing it, and representationalpracticesaimed at a wider these authors,have alreadypointed out a rangeof conpublic. Exceptthatit is dividedby class and othercrite- textual constraintsthat impinge on the objectivityof
ria and thatdominantpoweris exercisedhegemonically archaeologicalreporting,and Wylie (i985) has offereda
in a Gramsciansense, the characterofthe social context lucid account ofthepreceptsofcriticaltheorywiththeir
in which archaeologyis carriedout is taken forgranted applicationsforarchaeologicalreconstruction.
This artiratherthan analysed in detail (Miller and Tilley I984,
cle supersedesearlierwork by suggestingspecificforms
SpriggsI984, Leone Ig8Ib).
of archaeological analysis that yield "emancipatory"
This implicit definitionof "relevance" evades the understandingand place our presentlives in a new permain problemofpractisinga criticalarchaeology,which spective and showinghow archaeologicalresearchand
is how to advance awarenessofthe past by changingthe the lessons derivedfromit can be used to reeducatethe
institutionalframeworkthat reflectsthe particularso- public, especially in regardto ways in which the past
cial classificationofknowledgeand its associatedactivi- underwritespresent-day
ideology.In bothregards,Leone
ties characteristicof late capitalism,while at the same et al. are successful,and this summaryoftheirarchaeotime recognisingthat criticalarchaeologistscannot op- logical projectprovidesenoughreferencesto morecomerateon ideas alone but need to be employedwithinthat plete explicationsofthe theoreticaland methodological
frameworkin order to project their arguments.This aspects of the work forinterestedreadersto be able to
problem cannot be solved within traditionalformsof followup on them.
scholarship.While agitationhas offand on spiced the
The issue I would like to examinemorecloselyhereis
educationaldiet ofacademic archaeologyoverthe years, whetherideas encompassedby a criticalapproachto arthe close integrationofcultural,political,and economic chaeology are limited to historical archaeology.The
life attained in advanced capitalist countries suggests basis forsuggestingthat perhapsonly historicalframethat only in combinationwith more effectiveand con- works can be approached "critically"is the argument
scious collective organisation can intellectual argu- that studies of the past must provideinsightsinto curmentsacquire an appropriateimpacton thepoliticaland rentcircumstancesor illuminate obscure relationships
economic power which impingeson the discipline.
thatobtain today;presumably,the logic and ideologyof
Even within the frameworkof archaeology,devices the currentsocial systemare too evolved or too remote
like those described by Leone et al. to sensitize site fromprehistoriccontexts to be illuminated by them.
visitorsto the impact of capitalism on materiallife are This view ignores,however,the factthatthe ideological
feebleby comparisonwith the dominantmedia through relationswhich criticalarchaeologycan illuminateand
which ideological views of the past are promotedboth the knowledgeit can producedo not emergein any simwithin the professionand among the general public. ple or straightforward
fashionfroman inspectionofhisThis is certainlynot an argumentforabandoningcurrent toricaldata. Rather,the resultsof such studies are conbut it does raise sharplythequestionofhow even structedin the present,by contemporary
efforts,
archaeologists
a thoroughlyradicalized archaeology-let alone a mi- who match data with theirhypothesesand interpretanoritytendency-mightarticulatewith the largersocial tions. The past, then,can be used to restructure
underconflictsthat envelop it.
standings of the present or to undermine prevailing
school, Lukacs, ideologyand indicate the interestgroupsbest servedby
Leone et al. claim that the Frankfurt
and Gramsci are importantto theirconcept of critical particularreconstructionsonly to the extentthat contheorybut do not say why. As to why they leave out temporaryarchaeologistscan freethemselvesfromsuch
Lenin, a clue is theiropinion that adaptingMarx to the ideologyand formulatetestable,convincingalternative
circumstances of the 2oth century "began with the reconstructions.Moreover,an illuminationof presentFrankfurt
school . . . in the i92os." This is certainly day relationships,even in the most "emancipatory"
incompatiblewith the usual view ofMarxismas a polit- framework,does not in and of itselfconstitutea criteical movementas well as a currentofthought.It would rion for validation of truthclaims about the past, an
of course be unreasonableto expect the authorsto set aspectofcriticaltheorythatis leftunderspecified
in this
out in a shortarticletheirown programmeforarchaeol- piece.
ogy underpresentconditions,but that is no excuse for
A radical reinterpretation
of the archaeologicalpast,
treatingso sketchilythe intellectual inheritancethey especiallyone thatpointsup controloverinterestgroups
LEONE,
POTTER,
at different
scales of operation,depends,then,(i) on the
freedomfroma dominant ideology that allows one to
recognizeotherdimensionsof social dynamicsthat are
reflectedin materialcultureand (2) on appropriatemethodological and analytical archaeologicalskills. Neither
prerequisitepertainsbetterto historicalthan to prehistoricdata. New directionsin the analysis of prehistoric
data such as the verybelated identificationof women
and women's workin prehistoryand the redefinition
of
cultural complexity to include analysis of like constituentpartsinstead of focusingentirelyon hierarchy
must surelybe recognizedas applicationsof a "critical
theory"to prehistoricarchaeology.
G. P. GRIGORIEV
Bukharestskayaul. 39 kor I, kvartira51, Leningrad

F-71, U.S.S.R. 20 xii 86
FromLeone, Potter,and Shackel's paper I have learned
much about both the segmentationofpeople eatingand
the segmentationof food in courses and by type,less
about threesocial stratain Annapolis in the thirdquarter of the I8th century,and nothingat all about the
possibilityof seeing a new orderof behaviourfromthe
point of view of (noncritical)archaeology.The description ofthe handlingofvisitorsto open archaeological(?)
sites is of greatinterest,but threelines about typesand
plate diametersover time are not enough. I thinkthat
we are not farfromthe period of gestationof a critical
archaeology.'
IAN
HODDER
DepartmentofArchaeology,Universityof Cambridge,
Downing St., CambridgeCA2 3DZ, England. I7 XII 86
The authors are to be congratulatedforbreakingnew
ground in the analysis of the ideologies used by archaeologistsand fortryingout new ways of presenting
the past to the general public. Whetherthe approach
theyare using should be describedas "criticaltheory"is
perhapsunimportant,but it is worthpointingout that
theirdefinitionofcriticaltheoryis generous.At timesit
seems to include most of contemporary
Marxisttheory,
and in theirassessment of participantresponsesto the
tours the authorsmake threepoints with which most
contemporaryarchaeologists and museum curators
would probablyagree.Whateverthe approachshould be
called, it is a thoughtfuland welcome one.
One problemthatis raised,however,concernsthe degreeof self-reflexivity
involved.An approachwhich examines the work of archaeologistsas ideological might
be expectedto turnitselfinwardsand examine itselfas
ideological.In factthe authorspreferto avoid thisissue,
which is certainlydifficultand head-spinning,and they
grasp a materialism and positivism closely similar to
I. Copyright
is retainedbyVsesoyusnoye
Agentsvopo Avtorskim
Pravam(6a, B. Bronnaya,
K-IO4Moscow I03670, U.S.S.R.).
AND
SHACKEL
2295
thatused by the New Archaeology.Certainlya new orthodoxy-one based on Marxism-is proposed,but to

replace one set of "agreed-upon"criteriaforanotheris
hardlyvery critical. The ideological basis of the new
Marxistorthodoxyis neverexposed.It certainlydoes not
seem to be laid beforethe Annapolis tourists.
The underlyingissue is whetherrealitycan be separated fromideology. The authors make their position
plain in theircommitmentto materialismand to an "adjusted" positivism.They argue that archaeologistscan
move towards "less contingentknowledge"-that is,
knowledgethat is less politicallymotivatedthan much
archaeologicalwritingtoday.They discuss the degreeof
validity that can be attributedto the past. A proper
In
evaluationofthatvalidityconstitutesenlightenment.
both the past and the present,ideologyis seen as masking the objective reality.Thus, in the past, mercantile
capitalismled to segmentedand standardisedeatingbehaviour,and in the present,the desire fora particular
typeof touristat Annapolis has led to a particularpresentationof GeorgeWashington.
But what is this objective reality?What is this sure
basis againstwhich ideologycan be criticallyevaluated?
If it is itselfcriticallyevaluated,it appearsto slip away
into the ideological.Forexample,the authorsarguethat
the use by the U.S. Naval Academyofwalls and streets
was ideological in that it "appeared" to separate the
academy from the rest of the city. In "reality" the
academy and city were powerfullyconnected.Yet it is
difficultto imagine anythingmore real than walls and
streets.Perhaps they formthe realityand the authors'
hypothesisof powerfulconnectionsis ideological?
Is it "really" the case that changesin eatingetiquette
can be seen as productsof the rise of mercantilecapitalism? The link is not immediatelyobvious, and one
could argue formore complex relationships.Does the
authors' interpretationinvolve enlightenment,or is it
simply a new ideology? Similarly, the notion that
GeorgeWashingtonhas been presentedin Annapolis as
an ideal model for the "quality tourist" is clever but
it could easilybe readas ideological.
perhapsfar-fetched;
The authorsmake no attemptto examine the historical basis oftheirown theories.Theirworkthusremains
uncritical. They do not uncover the social strategies
theyare followingin arguingforpowerfulconnections
between the various segments of Annapolis society.
Why do they want to see contemporarycustoms and
linked to the rise of capitalism?Why
taken-for-granteds
do theywish to embracematerialismand positivism?
In an academic circle,the authorsat least declaretheir
allegiances,even iftheydo not examinethem.Butin the
presentationsto thepublic theyappearto giveno indication of "where theyare comingfrom."The on-sitetalk
reads as a new orthodoxy,itselfbeyondcriticism.
Fortunately,I would imaginethatmany tourists(perhaps more than their academic counterparts,who are
caught within an established mode of discourse) will
make up their own minds about what they are told.
They will "read" the "real" events,includingtheon-site
talks,in theirown ways. Thus theymay "read" the evi-
296
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
dence of increased cultural and social segregationto

reinforcea view that the contemporaryworld has escaped, by hard work,froman awful earliercommunal
socialism. Or they may even question that the use of
standardisedplace settingsis verydifferent
fromthe use
of communal bowls. One may hope that they will be
able to place the academic specialists in an ideological
context-"savers ofour heritage,""reds,""cleverscientists," "wallies," or whatever.If they cannot,then the
need forself-criticalanalysis is urgent.
JOSE
LUIS
LANATA
Programade Estudios Prehistoricos,UBA-CONICET,

BartolomeMitre I970, 5A, I039 Buenos Aires,
Argentina.I9 XII 86
The firstcriticismthat can be leveled at a critical archaeologyis that it can be applied only to time periods
forwhich we have writtensources.It is in thesethatwe
can see or attemptto see somethingof the ideologiesof
thegroupson which we are working.I cannotsee how it
could be applied to, forexample, a groupof American
hunter-gatherers
of 8oo, I,500, or io,ooo years ago or
even a Mochica group.In fact,I get the impressionthat
thewrittendatumis uncriticallybeingconsidered"confirmed"by the archaeologicalone, withoutthe slightest
attemptto comparethe two records.It seems to me that
a critical archaeology cannot explain anythingmore
than it chooses to see.
The guided tours and the questionnairesforparticipants are an interestingidea, but I suspect that there
were manyotherresponsesthathave been omittedhere
forreasonsofspace. Visitors'responsescan oftenbe very
helpful,sometimes,perhapswithoutour wishingit,giving us ideas forour work. We must, however,keep in
mind thatin explainingthe site in termsof a particular
theory the tour guide is undoubtedly inducing the
visitors to respond in similar terms,all the more so
when the majorityofparticipantsin a tourmay be little
accustomed to theoreticaldiscussion.
Adoptingan approachsuch as Leone et al. proposein
different
studies mightbe interesting,bearingin mind
the limitationsthat I have pointedout, but I do not see
at the moment how critical theorycan help us understand the past with which we are workingdirectly.It
can, of course,help us to understandcertaineventsthat
are occurringtoday, especially in the countriesof the
ThirdWorld.
considerthe political implicationsand embeddedideologyin archaeologicalinterpretations,

it may perhapsbe
asked if, in contrastto positivist archaeology,critical
theorycan reallyprovide "less contingentknowledge"
or whetherit, in fact,providesan alternativeideology.
By takinga criticalapproachto the ethnographyand
social history of Annapolis, Maryland, Leone et al.
have obviously made a significantcontributionto the
methodologyand social involvementof historical archaeologistsin the United States.The questionremains,
however,whetherthe educational and scholarlyagenda
of critical theoryin a relativelyplacid place like Annapolis can be easily tranferred
to less peacefulregions.
What,forinstance,would the authorsconsiderto be the
ultimate implications of the use of critical theoryin
such archaeologicalminefieldsas southernAfricaor the
Middle East?
ROBERT
PAYNTER
DepartmentofAnthropology,Universityof
Massachusetts,Amherst,Mass. OI003, U.S.A. 2 I 87
Leone and colleagues challenge us to take archeology

seriouslyas a science ofand forsociety.Theirfocusis on
the human relations, meanings, and material objects
thatU.S. culturetakes forgranted.They probea science
ofsocietybystudyingseparations,includingthosefound
in AnnapolisbetweenBlack and white,visitorsand residents,and the cityand the Naval Academyand themore
generallyinterestingseparationof the scientistfromsociety.
In detailingmaterialchangein Annapolis,Leone et al.
identifymaterialpatternsfamiliarin the recordof historical North America-exponential increase in material cultureand hierarchyand symmetryin the orderof
these objects. In short,historicalarcheologyhas documented,in Foucault's terms,a disciplinedgrowthin the
materialworld.As well as addingAnnapolis to the now
familiar cases of Middle Virginia and New England,
Leone et al. bringa distinctiveinterpretive
angle. In the
systemof relations,meanings,and objects, objects are
usually conceived as passive, the fallout from deep
structuresor the by-productsof human behavior. For
Leone et al., objectsresultfromand, importantly,
create
meaningand behavior.That foodis consumedin a disciplinedmannerand thattravelproceedsin a well-ordered
arenacontributeto the creationofa new,bindingoverall
sense of the world.This new sense also enables workto
be disciplinedand a different
view of genderto emerge.
Ratherthan stimulatingresistanceand cultural stasis,
THOMAS
these new work routines and human relations make
E. LEVY AND NEIL A. SILBERMAN
W. F. AlbrightInstituteofArchaeologicalResearch
sense to people, and the result is compliance and culturalchange.In short,Leone et al. have produceda seri(Levy), P.O.B. I9096, 9I iio Jerusalem,Israel. I4 I 87
ous theoreticaland empiricalstudyof AmericanmateLeone and his colleagues are to be commendedforpre- rial cultureand its relationsto culturalchange.
Two lines of furtherdevelopmentcome to mind. I
senting an extremelyuseful and coherent statement
concerningthe natureof criticaltheoryand its applica- would like to hear more about agents-dissenters and
tion to the discipline of archaeology.While theyhave elites. The separationsdescribedseem to be those that
properlychallengedarchaeologistsall overthe world to the new elite would have liked to have make sense. Es-
LEONE,
POTTER,
pecially in the early periods,when this orderwas not

fullydeveloped or manifest,theremust have been dissent. What was the dissenters'order,and how did they
make use of (or abuse) material objects? A second
thoughtconcerns diversityindices; this article shows
why we ought to use them and suggeststhat someone
should take the time to reviewthe significantliterature
in informationtheoryand ecology so thatwe can avoid
reinventingthe wheel.
The most importantseparationforall anthropologists
is the separation of social scientist fromsociety. The
naive notion that scientists stand apart fromsociety,
observingwithout participating,is still too prevalent
and is especiallydiscouragingwhen encounteredin people trainedin the holism of anthropology.Critical theory, as an approach to understandinghow scientists
interactwith society, has the potential for producing
an enlightenedand empowered scientificcommunity.
Much in interpretiveethnographyand symbolic and
structuralarcheologyrecognizesthisrelation.Whatcritical theorydistinctivelysuggestsis that a responsible
scientist should seek to empower nonscientificmembers of society. Leone et al. neatly delineate how archeology in Annapolis can be used to empower the
public regardingthe constructionand controlofknowledge about the past and the present. Their carefully
of archeolthought-outand implementedinterpretation
ogyin Annapolis is a challengeto the professionto discover how to empower the public in other arenas. A
liberatingcontractarcheologyor an emancipatinginarcheologycourse deservesthe same lengthy
troductory
and careful thought that Leone et al. have given to
museum work.By presentingthis challengethe authors
have contributedto a seriousand self-consciousarcheology that is forsocietyas well as about it.
MARIO
A. RIVERA
Institutode Antropologiay Arqueologia, Universidad

de Tarapacal,Casilla i6ii, Arica, Chile. 24 xii 86
In commentingon Leone et al.'s work,one cannotfailto
emphasize that,throughexamples like this one, archaeology acquires consequence and complexityof human
outlooks that,in becomingnot the past but events,assume relevance and force. This sense of archaeology,
which rigorouslyand methodicallyemployedmay lead
to a differentor at least an alternativeway of doing
science, is appropriatelyhighlightedas one of the developmentsofveryrecenttimes. Criticalarchaeologyis
indeed a currentthat may produce importantcontribuand application.
tions to the fieldof interpretation
Fromwhat I have learnedabout Andean archaeology,I
agreewith the authorsabout rejectinga rankedorderof
causal relationsand about creatinglinks betweenmaterial reality and an awareness of it. Emphasizing the
"how" and methodically investigatingdevelopmental
processes is fundamental.However much information
we have, as is the case in theAndeanworld,forexample,
fromwithinthetrueculturalvalues of
forunderstanding
AND
SHACKEL
experience,
groupsthatare the depositoriesofa different
the relation between this creative or (in the authors'
words) "illuminating" contributionand any particular
social and/orideological action remains an open question. Therefore,this task must be verywell understood
as to its basic objectives.Explaininga culturalrealityin
termsof political and ideological aspects that originate
outside it would tend to reduce the authenticityof the
process,while managingto discovervalues and ideologies frominside it would contributeto an alternative
explanation.Ideology certainlysupposes contradiction,
but to be creativeit must be soughtfromwithin.It is,
obviously,in the interpretationof the historyof ideas
that the futuredevelopmentof archaeologyand anthropologylies, and Leone et al.'s article,withits exampleof
Annapolis, contributesmagnificentlyto the theoryof
the problem.
ALISON
WYLIE
DepartmentofPhilosophy,Universityof Western
Ontario,London, Ont., Canada N6A 3K7. i8 xii 86
Critical theory is construed in very broad terms in
Leone, Potter,and Shackel's discussion. It is not restricted to the "critical theory" associated with the
Frankfurt
school or, latterly,with Habermas. It encompasses any researchprogramthatadoptsa criticallyselfconscious attitude toward its constituentpresuppositions: as theydescribeit, "criticaltheoryasks ofany set
of conclusions fromwhat point of view they are constructed."To press for such reflexivenessis crucially
important,but a numberofimportantthingsdropout or
are leftunspecifiedwhen "critical theory"is construed
this broadly.For example,what is the standpointof the
criticaltheorist,and to what criteriaof acceptabilityis
the exercise of unmasking answerable? What sort of
commentarydoes the unmaskingprovideon contemporarycontexts,and how is one to determinewhen it is
accuratein what it reveals about the conditionsand interestsinforming
practice?Leone et al. stop at the point
wherethe most interestingand difficult
questions arise.
This is not to faulttheiranalysis or theirrecommendationsbut to suggestwhat seem some importantavenues
fordevelopmentoftheircriticalinitiativethatremainto
be explored.
Leone et al.'s standpointofcritiqueturnson the rejection of objectivism in a very broad sense, along lines
recentlysuggestedby Bernstein(I983:8), among others:
theycentrallydenythe plausibilityof any positionthat
ahistorpresumesthe existenceofcontext-transcendent,
ical principlesof rationalityor acceptabilityin termsof
which the efficacyof competingknowledgeclaims can
be adjudicated.Bernsteincharacterisesrelativismas any
position that,in rejectingobjectivism,acknowledgesa
pluralityof legitimateprinciplesof method,rationality,
or theorychoice; relativismon this account would include his own hermeneuticoption,which, he suggests,
promises a way "beyond objectivismand relativism."
298
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
Reply
He presses this conception of relativismin contradistinctionto a narrowdefinitionwhich presumesthatthe

entailsan anarchistic
rejectionofa categorialframework
standardsor principlesof
lack of any action-governing
theorychoice; this is the sortof relativistconsequence MARK P. LEONE, PARKER B. POTTER, JR.,
that standardlyfuels the search forfoundationsin the AND PAUL A. SHACKEL
face of repeatedfailuressuggestingthe futilityof any Annapolis,Md. 2I40I, U.S.A. 6 ii 87
such enterprise.
Bernstein'spoint and that of a numberof commen- We thankall ofthe commentatorsfortakingourworkin
tatorson the demise of Enlightenmentprojectsis that the spiritin which it was intended.It is not our goal to
abandonment of the search for absolute foundations offerthe last wordon the applicationofcriticaltheoryto
does not precludecritical,even principledassessmentof archaeology,and the comments-most supportive,all
action and knowledgeclaims. It must simplybe recog- constructive-serveadmirablyto make thepiece a startnized thatthevalidityoftheprinciplesinvolvedis inter- ingpointin thearchaeologicalapplicationofcriticalthenal to a particularcontextand thattheyare themselves ory.In additionto acknowledgingour pleasurewith the
tentative,evolving,and a properobjectofcriticalassess- positivetone of most responses,we would like to make
ment. This seems to capturethe positionarticulatedin severalpoints.
Lanata doubts the utilityof criticaltheoryforprehisthe presentpaper. Given it, Leone et al.'s proposalsfor
practicalactionfollowdirectly.Consumersofhistorical, toricarchaeology.We leave thematteran open question,
archaeologicalaccounts of the past must be made fully, and our clear preferenceis that it be resolved in the
explicitlyaware that these are indeed constructswhose affirmative
throughthe creationof criticalprehistories.
credibilityis contingenton a particularframeof refer- Gero providesa responseto Lanata on thispoint,and to
ence: standardsof rationality,"interest,""standpoint." her argumentsmay be added the work of Handsman
But to stop with this is to leave archaeologistsand, (I983, I985, I986) and Keene(I986), amongothers.
Lanata raises a second issue answeredbya fellowcomindeed,consumersof theirconstructswithoutany clear
evolving) mentator:he wonders whethervisitorsare able to reidea what broader(albeit,still context-specific,
principlesunderpinthe standpointofcritique.The anal- spondto a presentationin any termsotherthanthe ones
yses developedfromthis standpoint(e.g.,ofhistoricAn- used in it,suggestingthatwe createthepossibilityofour
napolis) are not offeredas arbitraryopinion,despitebe- overestimatingthe learningthat takes place. We agree
ingopen to reassessment.Leone et al. do not endorsethe that it is difficultto determinehow much learningocnihilism associated with the narrowdefinitionof rela- curs when visitors simply repeat some of what they
tivism,a nihilismthatfeedspolitical apathyas surelyas have just heard. But, like Blakey,we are farmore conit does dogmatism.They seem to respondto this con- cernedwhen visitorsturntheinformation
theyhearinto
cern when theysuggestthat criticalpracticeengage in evidence fora position antitheticalto the point ofview
an "adjustment"ofpositiviststandardsto the "realities thatinformsa presentation,which illustratesthe power
ofarchaeologicaldata." Positivismis, however,a theory of late capitalism to absorb,transform,
and use even a
of science and knowledgethat is fundamentallyobjec- radical critiqueof itself.
tivistand thereforeantitheticalto the critical,reflexive An area ofconcernto Wylie,Hodder,Blakey,and Levy
awarenessofpluralpossibilitiesforconstructingknowl- and Silberman is the relationshipbetween critical aredge that Leone et al. endorse.
chaeologyand traditionalpositivistarchaeology.Wylie
An alternativemay be to appropriatesome of the discusses the relationshipbetweenrelativismand objecmethodsdevelopedin theunreflexiveempiricalsciences tivismwhile Hodderdiscusses ideologyand reality."Arthatpositivistshave takento defineall legitimatescien- chaeologyin Annapolis" is not positivistin the conventificpractice(analytic-empirical
methods,as Habermas tional sense, and it may not be so in any sense. Our
describesthem)and press them into the serviceof criti- conclusions are arrivedat by techniques and methods
cal, emancipatoryobjectives. This will not, however, thatare continuallyavailable forexamination.They can
leave such methodsunaltered;if theyare genuinelyto be challenged and deconstructed,and sometimes they
serve emancipatoryobjectives, their own contingent are by the more articulateand resistantmembersof our
status must be explicitlyrecognized,and theymust be audience. Thus the rationalityof using a set of arsubject to revision,restrictionsin scope of application, chaeological techniques to examine or "test" a set of
and correctionin light of other(e.g.,hermeneutic,his- descriptionsor "hypotheses" about mercantile capievolv- talism is tentativeand has evolved over fiveand a half
torical)methods.The resultwill be a diversified,
ingformofpracticeinimical to positivistconceptionsof years.Challengesare as much a partofthegrowthofthe
science. If the methods of existing,analytic-empirical projectas are the methodsforhandlingthe data.
science are not to subvertthe aims ofreflexivepractice, Both Wylie and Hodder comment on our broad
it would seem essentialthatthe standpointofcritique- definitionof critical theoryand its implicationsfora
its tentativeand essentially pragmaticobjectives and researchprogram.We agreewith themand acknowledge
criteriaof adequacy-be clearlyarticulated.This would that our individual standpointsare oftenunspecified,
seem, in any case, a centralrequirementofthe commit- that unmasking is not oriented to class interestsdiment to criticalself-consciousness.
rectly,and that the apparatus of archaeologicalproce-
LEONE,
POTTER,
AND
SHACKEL
2
299
dure is relativelyconventional. We are public about to fundingagencies and academic employers.The most
costs and sponsorship,academic statuses,and the some- pressingquestions facingcritical archaeologistsare, as
times inconsequentialarchaeologicalresultsof our im- Durransunderstands,questions of practice.
mediate work.
Paynter,Durrans,and Blakey all point out, correctly,
the lack of a class analysis in our study of Annapolis.
Russell Handsman has also made this point to us on
severaloccasions in severaldifferent
contexts.'To push
LOUIS.
in the directionindicatedby manycriticaltheorists,the ALTHUSSER,
I969. ForMarx. New York: Vintage. [MLB]
best start would be to analyze race relations in Annapolis. Annapolis has slaveryas a part of its colonial
. Ig7Ia. "Ideologyand ideologicalstate apparatuses," in Lenin and philosophy.Translatedfromthe
heritage;Alex Haley's ancestorKunta Kinte was sold at
the Annapolis City Dock. The cityhad in the i8th and
FrenchbyBen Brewster.New York: MonthlyReview
Press.
igth centuries a significantfree black population.
Within the last two years the city redrewits internal
. I 97 I b. Lenin and philosophy.New York:
MonthlyReview Press. [MLB]
political boundariesto createan additionalward with a
HARRY A. I928. Washington'svisits to
black majority.The cityis still in litigationwith black BALDRIDGE,
colonial Annapolis.Naval InstituteProceedings,
membersofits police forceoveradvancementand other
issues. In earlyi 987 black employeesofthe Anne ArunFebruary.
del General Hospital in Annapolis staged a demonstra- BARANIK, RUDOLF,
S. BROMBERG,
S. CHARLESWORTH,
S. COHEN,
C. DUNCAN,
tionchargingthehospitalwithracial discriminationin a
ET AL. I977. An
numberofareas. All ofthis is simplyto suggestthatthe
anti-catalog.New York: Catalog Committee,Artists
relationbetween blacks and whites is a lively political
MeetingforCultural Change.
issue in Annapolis with a historystretchingback to co- BARNETT,
STEVE,
AND MARTIN
G. SILVERMAN.
I979. Ideology and everydaylife.Ann Arbor:Univerlonial days. The question is how to create an archaeolsityofMichigan Press.
ogy that illuminates significantfacetsof the historyof
race relations(andpresumablywhitedomination)in An- BERNSTEIN,
J. I983. Beyondobjectivism
RICHARD
and relativism.Philadelphia:Universityof Pennsylnapolis, and forthat question we have as yet no firm
answer.
vania Press. [AW]
L. I983. "Socio-politicalbias and
Finally,we find ourselves in Annapolis in an inter- BLAKEY, MICHAEL
estingposition.While manyacademic commentatorson
ideologicalproductionin historicalarchaeology,"in
"Archaeologyin Annapolis" findour analyses,interpre- The socio-politicsof archaeology.Editedby JoanM.
tations,and presentations"soft"when measuredagainst
Gero,David M. Lacy, and Michael L. Blakey,pp. 5i6. DepartmentofAnthropology,
the requirementsof critical theory, some observers
UniversityofMaswithinAnnapolis findwhat we have to say too strident sachusetts,Amherst,ResearchReport23. [MLB]
and political. This bringsup the crucial issue cited by
. I986. Americannationalityand ethnicityin the
depictedpast. Paperpresentedat the WorldArchaeoWylie,Paynter,Hodder,Durrans,and Bradley,namely,
thematterofself-reflexivity.
logical Congress,Southamptonand London. [MLB]
We agreethatin the article
we are not adequatelyself-reflexive.
AUGUSTINE.
Durransarticulates BRANNIGAN,
I98I.
The social basis of
scientificdiscoveries.Cambridge:CambridgeUniverquite clearly the position in which we findourselves,
sityPress.
dependentforemploymenton a systemwe wish to criFERNAND.
tique. Specifically,"Archaeologyin Annapolis" is spon- BRAUDEL,
I979a. The structureof everysored and partiallyfundedby a local, privatepreserva- day life: Civilization and capitalism,I5th-i8th cention organizationwith some opponentsand detractors. tury.New York: Harperand Row.
That organizationwould neglectits own duties and in. I979b. The wheels of commerce:Civilization
and capitalism, I5th-i8th century.New York: Harterestsifit did not keep a watchfuleye on "Archaeology
in Annapolis" to make sure that the projectproduces
perand Row.
nothingof use to its opponents.On the whole, Historic CARR, LOIS GREEN, AND LORENA S. WALSH. I977. InAnnapolis, Inc., is far more tolerant of self-criticism ventoriesand the analysis ofwealth and consumption
than most other well-known preservationgroups and
patternsin St. Mary's County,Maryland,I658-I777.
has a greatercapacityto understandand sometimeseven
Paperpresentedat the NewberryLibraryConference
on Quantitativeand Social Science Approachesin
In needingto heed the circumappreciateself-criticism.
stances in which it operates, "Archaeology in AnEarlyAmericanHistory,October6-8.
napolis" is not at all unique. Any projectin criticalar. n.d. Changinglifestylesand consumerbehavior
in the colonial Chesapeake. MS, MarylandHall of
chaeology-and in factany archaeologicalproject-is at
the centerof a set of contextsincludingbut not limited
Records.
PETER.
CARRAVETTA,
I984. An interviewwithWilliam Spanos. Critical Texts 3 (I): I 0-27.
in thinkingout the logicof
i. Handsmanhelpedus considerably
our article.The suggestionthat it be writtenforCURRENT AN- CLARKE, DAVID L. I973. The past and the presentin
the present.AmericanAntiquity50:52-62.
came fromHenryWright.
THROPOLOGY
ReferencesCited
300
CURRENT
CROSBY,
ANTHROPOLOGY
CONSTANCE.
i982.
Excavations at the Vict-
uallingWarehouseSite,AN I4,
i982:
Preliminary
report.MS, HistoricAnnapolis,Inc.
I 977. In small thingsforgotten:
The archaeologyof earlyAmericanlife.New York: Doubleday.
1.I983. Scientifichumanismand humanisticscience: A plea forparadigmaticpluralismin historical
archaeology.Geoscience and Man 23(April29):2734.
RICHARD
J.I985. Archaeologicalexcavationsat
DENT,
the Hammond-HarwoodHouse, Annapolis,Maryland. Reportpreparedby HistoricAnnapolis,Inc., for
theHammond-HarwoodHouse Association.MS, His,
toricAnnapolis,Inc.
SUSAN
DETWEILER,
GRAY. i982. GeorgeWashington's chinaware.New York: HarryN. Abrams.
EAGLETON,
TERRY.
i985-86. Marxismand the past.
Salmagundi,no. 68-69, pp. 27I-90.
FEYERABEND,
P. K. I970. "Consolation forthe specialist," in Criticismand the wantingofknowledge.
Editedby ImreLakatos and Alan Musgrave.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
FOSTER,
JOHN. I974.
Class struggleand theindustrial
revolution:Earlyindustrialcapitalismin threeEnglish towns.London: Methuen. [BD]
D E E T Z, JA M E S.
ER, IAN. Editor.I 9 82. Symbolicand structural

archaeology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
I1984. Archaeologyin I984. Antiquity58:25-
HODD
32.
" in A dvances in
i 985. "Processual archaeology,
archaeologicalmethod and theory,vol. 8. Editedby
Michael B. Schiffer,
pp. I-26. Orlando,Fla.: Academic Press.
HOPKINS,
JOSEPH W. I986. Preliminary
reporton excavationsat the State House Inn,Annapolis,Maryland, i985. MS, HistoricAnnapolis,Inc.
KEENE, ARTHUR S. i986. Storieswe tell: Gathererhuntersas ideology.Paperpresentedat the 4th International Conferenceon Huntingand GatheringSocieties,London,England.
KEHOE,
ALICE
B. i984. The mythof the given.Paper
presentedto the SocietyforAmericanArchaeology,
Portland,Ore., April.
KRISTIANSEN,
K. i98i. "A social historyofDanish archaeology(i80S-I97S)," in Towards a historyofarchaeology.Editedby G. Daniel, pp. 20-44. London:
Thames and Hudson. [RB]
LANDAU,
MISIA.
i984. Human evolutionas narrative.
AmericanScientist72:262-68.
AND
LATOUR,
STEVE
BRUNO,
WOOLGAR.
I979. LabL.
M. LACY, AND MICHAEL
GERO, JOAN M., DAVID
oratorylife: The social constructionofscientific
BLAKEY.
I983. The socio-politicsofarchaeology.Unifacts.BeverlyHills: Sage.
versityofMassachusettsDepartmentofAnthropolLEONE, MARK P. I98 ia. "Archaeology's materialreogyResearchReport23.
lationshipto the presentand the past," in Modern
RAYMOND.
The idea of a criticaltheory.
material culture.Editedby RichardA. Gould and
GEUSS,
I98I.
Michael B. Schiffer,
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
pp. 5-I4. New York: Academic
GLAS SIE, HENRY.
I975. Folk housingin Middle VirPress.
ginia: A structuralanalysis ofhistoricartifacts.
. ig8Ib. "The relationshipbetweenartifactsand
Knoxville:UniversityofTennessee Press.
the public in outdoorhistorymuseums," in The reRUSSELL
G. I980. The domainsofkinHANDSMAN,
searchpotential ofanthropologicalmuseum collecship and settlementin historicGoshen: Signsofa
tions.Editedby A. M. Cantwell,Nan Rothschild,and
past culturalorder.Artifacts9:2-7.
pp.30I-I3. New York: New York
JamesB. Griffen,
--i.1I98I.
Earlycapitalismand the centervillage of
Academyof Sciences.
Canaan, Connecticut:A studyoftransformations
. I983. Methodas message.MuseumNews
and
separations Artifacts9:I-2I.
62(I):35-4I.
. I98^. The hot and cold ofGoshen's history.Ar- LEONE, MARK P., AND PARKER B. POTTER,
JR. I984.
tifacts3: II -20.
ArchaeologicalAnnapolis: A guide to seeing and
. I983. Toward archaeologicalhistoriesofRobunderstandingthreecenturiesofchange.Annapolis:
bins Swamp. ArtifactsII (3):I-20.
HistoricAnnapolis,Inc.
. I985. Historyand communalclass struggles
DAVID. I985. Thepastis a foreign
LOWENTHAL,
among earlygatherer-hunters.
Paperread at the ancountry.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
nual meetingofthe AmericanAnthropologicalAsso- LUKACS, GEORG. I97I. "Reification and the conciation,Washington,D.C.
sciousness ofthe proletariat,"in Historyand class
. I986. How historieswere made by hunterconsciousness.Translatedby RodneyLivingstone,pp.
gatherers,thendisciplined,and finallymade to disap83-222. Cambridge:M.I.T. Press.
pear by us. Paperpresentedat the 4th International
MC GUIRE, RANDALL.
n.d. "The dead need not speak:
Conferenceon Huntingand GatheringSocieties,LonIdeologyand the cemetery,"in The recoveryofmeandon,England.
ing in historicalarchaeology.Editedby Mark P.
RUSSELL
n.d.
HANDSMAN,
G., AND MARK P. LEONE.
Leone and ParkerB. Potter,Jr.Washington,D.C.:
"Livinghistoryand criticalarchaeologyand the reSmithsonianInstitutionPress.In press.
constructionofthe past," in Criticaltraditionsin
MELTZER, DAVID. I98I. "Ideology
andmaterialculcontemporaryarchaeology.Editedby ValeriePinsky
ture,"in Modernmaterial culture.Editedby Richard
and Alison Wylie.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
A. Gould and Michael B. Schiffer.
New York: AcaPress.In press.
demic Press.
LEONE,
POTTER,
PIERCE.
ARTHUR
I953.
Tobacco coast:
A maritimehistoryof Chesapeake Bay in the colonial era. Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UniversityPress.
MILLER,
DANIEL.
i982a. "Artifactsas productsofhuman categorizationprocess,"in Symbolicand structuralarchaeology.Editedby Ian Hodder,pp. 89-98.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
. i982b. "Explanationand social theoryin archaeologicalpractice,"in Theoryand explanationin
archaeology.Editedby Colin Renfrew,Michael J.
Rowlands,and BarbaraAbbottSegraves.New York:
Academic Press.
. I985. Ideologyand the Harappan civilization.
JournalofAnthropologicalAnthropology4: I-38.
MIDDLETON,
MILLER,
DANIEL,
AND
CHRISTOPHER
TILLEY.
Editors.I984. Ideology,power,and prehistory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

B. I925. Annapolis: Its colonial and
WALTER
NORRIS,
naval story. New York: Crowell.
EDWARD.
I975. In pursuitofprofit:The
Annapolis merchantin an era of theAmericanRevolution, 1763-1805. Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UniversityPress.
PATTERSON,
THOMAS
C. I984. Explorationand class
formationin the Inca state. Paperpresentedto the
Canadian EthnologicalSociety,Montreal,May.
PEET, RICHARD
J. I975. Inequalityand poverty:A
Marxist-geographic
theory.Annals of the Association
ofAmerican Geographers65:564-7I.
. I977. The developmentofradicalgeographyin
the United States.Progressin Human Geography
PAPENFUSE,
I:240-63.
RICHARD
J., AND J. V. LYONS.
I98I.
"Marxism:
Dialectical materialism,social formation,and geographicrelations,"in Themes in geographicthought.
Editedby M. E. Harveyand B. P. Holly,pp. i87-205.
London: Croom Helm.
PEET,
PERPER,
TIMOTHY,
POTTER,
PARKER
AND
CARMEL
SCHRIRE.
I977.
"The Nimrodconnection:Mythand science in the

huntingmodel," in The chemical senses and nutrition.Editedby MorleyKare and Owen Maller. New
York: Academic Press.
B., JR., AND
MARK
P. LEONE.
I986.
"Historyin museums: A criticalcapacityin museums versusrepeatingtradition,"in Education: The

spiritof theAmericanmuseum. Editedby MaryEllen
Munley and Carol Stapp. Journalofthe Washington
Academyof Sciences 75(3).
. n.d. Archaeologyin public in Annapolis: Four
seasons, six sites,seven tours,and 32,000 visitors.
AmericanArchaeologist.In press.
ELIHU.
RILEY,
I897. Souvenirvolume of the state conventionofMarylandfiremenheld at Annapolis,June
9, 1897. Annapolis.
. I9OI. Annapolis: "Ye ancient capital ofMaryland." Annapolis: AnnapolisPublishingCompany.
. I906. PictorialAnnapolis,Anne Arundel,and
the Naval Academy. Baltimore:KingBrothers.
. I976 (i887). "The ancient city":A historyof
Annapolis in Maryland,1 649- I 887. Annapolis: Rec-
AND
Toward a Critical ArchaeologyI 30I
SHACKEL
ordPrintingOffice(Anne Arundel-AnnapolisBicentennialCommittee).
ofreROBERT
BLAIR.
ST. GEORGE,
I985. "Artifacts
gionalconsciousness,
I700-I780,"
in Thegreatriver:
Artand societyof the ConnecticutValley,1635 WadsworthAtheneum.

1820, pp. 29-39. Hartford:
DAVID
SCHWARTZMAN,
W., AND
MOHSIN
SID-
I986. How ideologyrelatesto naturalscience
DIQUE.
with examples fromgeologyand cosmogony.Science
and Nature7/8:ioi-Ii.
SHAC
PAUL
KEL,
A.
[MLBJ
i986a. The creationofbehavioral
standardizationand social segmentationin AngloAmerica.Paperpresentedat the NortheasternAnthropologicalMeetings,Buffalo,N.Y., March 2I.

. I986b. Archaeologicaltestingat the Thomas
Hyde House, I93 Main StreetSite, i8 Ap 44, Annapolis, Maryland.MS.
SHANKS,
AND
MICHAEL,
CHRISTOPHER
TILLEY.
"Ideology,symbolicpower,and ritualcomofNeolithic mortuary

munication:A reinterpretation
practices,"in Symbolicand structuralarchaeology.
Editedby Ian Hodder,pp. I29-54. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
. n.d. Studies in archaeological theorypractices.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.In press.
i982.
STEPHEN.
SHENNAN,
changes,
"Ideology,
i982.
and the European EarlyBronzeAge," in Symbolic

and structuralarchaeology.Edited by Ian Hodder,
pp. i 55-6 i. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
ADAM.
SMITH,
I937
(I776).
An inquiryintothena-
tureand causes of the wealth ofnations. Edited by

Edwin Canaan. New York: (ModernLibrary)Random House.
MATTHEW.
SPRIGGS,
Editor.I984. Marxistperspectivesin archaeology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. [BDI
0. I937. Annapolis: Anne ArunWILLIAM
STEVENS,
del's town.New York: Dodd, Mead.
KEVIN
M. I984. Mansion people. WinterSWEENEY,
thurPortfolio
I9:23I-5
5.
ROGER.
THOMAS,
I952. Washington'slettersin Annapolis.PicketPost37 (JulY):4o-4I.
THORPE,
I. j. I98I.
orientations
on asAnthropological
tronomyin complex societies. Paperread at the Third

TheoreticalArchaeologicalGroup Conference,Reading,U.K.
CHRISTOPHER.
soTILLEY,
i982. "Social formation,
cial structures,and social change,"in Symbolicand
structuralarchaeology.Editedby Ian Hodder,pp. 2638. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
ROBERTO
MANGABIERA.
UNGER,
I976. Law in modernsociety: Toward a criticismofsocial theory.New
York: Free Press.
MICHAEL.
WALLACE,
I98I. Visitingthe past: History
museums in the United States. Radical HistoryReview25:63-96.
.
I984.
RadicalHistory
MickeyMousehistory.
Review32:33-57.
WALSH,
LORENA
S. I983.
Urban amenitiesand rural
302
1 CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 28, Number 3, June1987
Livingstandardsand consumerbehavior
sufficiency:
JournalofEco-
in colonialChesapeake,I643-I777.
nomicHistory43:8I-I04.
ALIS ON. I985. PuttingShakertownback together:Criticaltheoryin archaeology.JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology4: I 3 3-47.

. I986. Mattersoffactand mattersofinterest.
Paperpresentedat the WorldArchaeologicalCongress,Southamptonand London. [MLBs
. Ig8sb. "The reactionagainstanalogy,"in Ad-
WYLIE,
vances in archaeologicalmethod and theory,vol. 8.

Editedby Michael B. Schiffer,
pp. 63-I i i. New York:
Academic Press.
YENTSCH,
ANN E. I983. Salvagingthe CalvertHouse
site. Final reportforthe N.E.H. GrantRO-2o600-83.
MS, HistoricAnnapolis,Inc.
ZANNIERI,
PAULA
A. 1980. Dancing pilgrims:The dynamics ofmuseum interpretation.
M.A. paper,DepartmentofAnthropology,
BrownUniversity,Providence, R.I.
Folklore
Whatpeoplebelieveand say aboutthemselves
and theirenvironments;
whatgames
theyplay;whatstoriestheytell;whatritualstheyobserve:
Folklore, the journalof the FolkloreSociety,coversall thisand more.For all its
variety-itscontentsshade into anthropology,
the historyof religions,
ethnology,
literature,
history-Folkloreretainsthe sharp focus of a vigorous,independent
discipline.Folklore was foundedin 1878.
Folklore is editedbyJacqueline
Simpson,andpublishedtwiceyearly,
?5.00 ($10) per
issue(128 pp.)
Forthcoming
articlesin 1986 include:
* Roy Judge,'May Morningand MagdalenCollege,Oxford'.
* Peter Dinzelbacher, 'The Wayto theOtherworld
in MedievalLiterature
and Art'
* Venetia Newall, 'Folkloreand Homosexuality'
* Mishael Maswari Caspi, 'My Brother,
VeinofmyHeart:ArabLamentsfortheDead in Israel'
* Andrew Duff-Cooper, 'AndrewLang: Aspectsof his Workin Relationto CurrentSocial
Anthropology'
* Frank Parker and JohnThormeyer,'AnalogizingfromLinguisticsto Folklore'
FurtherdetailsfromtheHonorarySecretary,
The FolkloreSociety,c/oUniversity
College,GowerStreet,London,WC1E 6BT, England.

Critical Archaeology LEONE

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Critical Archaeology LEONE

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Toward a Critical Archaeology [and Comments and Reply]

Volume 28, Number 3, JuneI987

i. This paperis based on the resultsof excavationsand/orinterpretiveprogramsat five archaeologicalsites in Annapolis.All

Volume 28, Number 3, JuneI987

Critical theoryaims at "producingenlightenment...

(Hay I979; Peet I975,

Peet and Lyons i98i), and museum studies (Baraniket

Latourand WoolgarI979). Almostinvariably,one ofthe

et al. I983, HandsmanI98I, HandsmanandLeonen.d.,

that,in contrastto the generalperceptionamongAmerican archaeologists,archaeologyin some environments

duced into anthropology

Toward a CriticalArchaeology| 285

Critical Theoryand the Ethnography

Volume 28, Number 3, fune I987

Annapolis is a small (pop. ca. 32,000) but complex

using slavery as a referencepoint in comparingtheir

have itself made the capital of Maryland (Riley I976

Toward a Critical Archaeology| 287

betweenthe earliestknownmap ofAnnapolis(theStoddertsurveyof I 7 8) and modernmaps showedthatState

6. The VictuallingWarehousesitewas excavatedunderthedirecof California,Berkeley)

Volume 28, Number 3, JuneI987

ized by increasingsegmentationand standardizationof

Variationin a HypotheticalCeramic Assemblage

9. The VictuallingWarehousesitelies withinthecommercialdistrictofAnnapolisclose to theharbor.Fromthemiddleofthei8th

Toward a CriticalArchaeology| 289

Variationin Ceramic Assemblages fromThreeAnnapolis Sites,Earlyi8th to

Mid-Latei8th Late i8th-Earlyigth Mid-igth

An ArchaeologicalSite Tour Informed

tion of the archaeologist-guide,

woodin themiddleofthe1700S. Wedgwood

othersdevelopedmaterialsand techniquesthatallowed the mass manufactureofrelativelyinexpensive

Visitorsto Annapolis interactdirectlywith archaeologistsinvolvedin excavatingmaterialsrelatedto the past.

ChristineHoepfner(Universityof Pennsylvania).Along with

Volume 28, Number 3, JuneI987

We feelthatthe use ofa fullyelaboratedset of

us todayand are takenforgrantedas ways we assume

would like to turnto one finalseparation,thatbetweenworktime and leisure time.This segmentation

selfwhat thatversionofhistoryis tryingto getyou

recoveredtooththeywere directedby a flier.Archaeologically

simplyby selectingresponsesfroma list,we have asked

Volume 28, Number 3, fune I987

theydemonstrate,in additionto the dawningof critical

Departmentof Sociologyand Anthropology,

Toward a CriticalArchaeology 2293

In the absenceof archaeological

the working class of historical Annapolis to indicate

Volume 28, Number 3, fune 1987

Bukharestskayaul. 39 kor I, kvartira51, Leningrad

thatused by the New Archaeology.Certainlya new orthodoxy-one based on Marxism-is proposed,but to

Volume 28, Number 3, JuneI987

dence of increased cultural and social segregationto

Programade Estudios Prehistoricos,UBA-CONICET,

considerthe political implicationsand embeddedideologyin archaeologicalinterpretations,

Leone and colleagues challenge us to take archeology

pecially in the early periods,when this orderwas not

Institutode Antropologiay Arqueologia, Universidad

Toward a CriticalArchaeology| 297

Volume 28, Number 3, JuneI987

He presses this conception of relativismin contradistinctionto a narrowdefinitionwhich presumesthatthe

Volume 28, Number 3, fune I987

Excavations at the Vict-

ER, IAN. Editor.I 9 82. Symbolicand structural

Editors.I984. Ideology,power,and prehistory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

"The Nimrodconnection:Mythand science in the