Kosiba (2019) New - Digs - Networks - Assemblages - and - The - Di PDF

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
New Digs: Networks, Assemblages, and the Dissolution

of Binary Categories in Anthropological Archaeology
Steve Kosiba
ABSTRACT Anthropological archaeology has long been a process of categorization. The history of the subdiscipline
could be rendered in terms of an ongoing project to create, critique, and then refashion the categories by which
archaeologists understand and explain social and ecological processes. Despite ever-changing theoretical tides, many
archaeologists have continued to adhere to a lingua franca that demarcates their object of study, whether “the past,”
“nature,” complexity, material culture, or historical knowledge. In 2018, strong currents in archaeological scholarship
have both challenged and washed out the boundaries of many of these epistemological mainstays. This was more
than a postmodern exercise to question metanarratives of history or to destabilize supposed social universals. The
recent scholarship develops innovative theoretical perspectives and sophisticated methodological tools to shed light
on the varied human interactions, practices, and projects that were previously occluded by research too sharply
focused on bounded categories such as periods, polities, adaptations, and meanings. Furthermore, archaeologists are
now more than ever critically examining the colonial institutions that they perpetuate and seeking to establish new
common ground with Indigenous communities. A decidedly archaeological perspective seems to be taking shape.
This is a view that sees social life from the ground up in terms of complicated relationships between people, things,
and other organisms that cannot be reduced to catchall categories. [year in review, archaeology, archaeological
theory, current issues, Indigenous archaeology, environmental anthropology]
RESUMEN La arqueologı́a antropológica ha sido durante mucho tiempo un proceso de categorización. La historia
de la subdisciplina podrı́a ser descrita en términos de un proyecto continuo de crear, criticar y luego rehacer las cat-
egorı́as a través de las cuales los arqueólogos entienden y explican los procesos sociales y ecológicos. A pesar de las
mareas teóricas siempre cambiantes, muchos arqueólogos han continuado adhiriéndose a una lengua franca que de-
marca su objeto de estudio, ya sea “el pasado”, “naturaleza”, complejidad, cultura material o conocimiento histórico.
En 2018, corrientes fuertes en la investigación arqueológica han tanto retado como difuminado los lı́mites de muchos
de los pilares epistemológicos. Esto fue más que un ejercicio posmoderno para cuestionar metanarrativas de la his-
toria o para desestabilizar supuestos universales sociales. La reciente investigación desarrolla perspectivas teóricas
innovadoras y herramientas metodológicas sofisticadas para arrojar luz sobre las variadas interacciones humanas,
prácticas y proyectos que estuvieron previamente ocluidos por investigación excesivamente enfocada en categorı́as
delimitadas tales como perı́odos, unidades polı́ticas, adaptaciones y significados. Además, los arqueólogos ahora
están más que nunca examinando crı́ticamente las instituciones coloniales que perpetúan y buscando establecer
un nuevo terreno común con las comunidades indı́genas. Una perspectiva decididamente arqueológica parece estar
tomando forma. Esta es una perspectiva que ve la vida social desde el principio en términos de relaciones complicadas
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, Vol. 121, No. 2, pp. 447–463, ISSN 0002-7294, online ISSN 1548-1433.
C 2019 by the American Anthropological
Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/aman.13261

448 American Anthropologist • Vol. 121, No. 2 • May 2019
entre las personas, las cosas y otros organismos que no pueden ser reducidos a categorı́as generales. [año en re-
visión, arqueologı́a, teorı́a arqueológica, cuestiones actuales, arqueologı́a indı́gena, antropologı́a ambiental]
S itting at the intersection of social sciences and the hu-

manities, archaeology has always struggled to define
itself. Earlier, now canonical, writings in the field called
technologies are moving beyond concerns with classifica-
tion and chronology, finding “communities of practice” and
human–thing “assemblages” where archaeologists once saw
for the development of a decidedly archaeological perspec- discrete domains of economic production, ritual expres-
tive that could both complement and add a unique brand sion, or political representation. Finally, discussions regard-
of knowledge to the interpretations of social life forwarded ing archaeological methods—especially advanced in digital
by scholars of anthropology and history. Willey and Phillips data—are blurring the boundaries between field research
(1958), in particular, advocated a distinct and unified body and knowledge production (e.g., Lucas 2018) while cre-
of archaeological theory that would no longer simply borrow ating the infrastructure for collaboration across projects,
its concepts and approaches from other disciplines but would institutions, years, and international boundaries.
develop its own lexicon to understand the geography and In this article, I review the past year’s advances in ar-
temporality of human social life. Their call was answered chaeological theory and practice, placing particular emphasis
by an exhaustive exploration of taxonomy, a discussion that on research that is seeking to rethink and redefine many of
yielded a suite of categories to define space, time, cultural the conceptual binaries and concepts that lay at the founda-
difference, and social complexity that came to be cemented tion of the discipline. In particular, I focus on approaches
into the foundations of the discipline. In subsequent years, to the contemporary world, ecology, nonhierarchical com-
many archaeologists declared their allegiance to seemingly plexity, materiality, and epistemology. Regrettably, I must
incommensurable theoretical stances regarding the very na- leave out numerous new insights, studies, and debates. But
ture of human culture, history, and ecology. By and large, this paper is less a comprehensive review and more a critical
these distinct archaeological approaches shared epistemo- synthesis. It is not as much a list of what has been done as
logical ground because of a common inquiry into particular it is an assessment of where archaeologists are, how they
social, spatial, and temporal categories (e.g., types, periods, are thinking, what they are debating, and where they are
horizons, communities, states, empires). For instance, the heading.
vanguard of processual and postprocessual camps may have
disagreed on the degree to which humans adapt to or concep- CONTEMPORARY POLITICS AND HERITAGE
tually shape nature, but this disagreement was framed by a In recent years, seemingly long-dormant narratives about
mutual understanding of a binary of culture and nature (e.g., the past have found new life in global politics. Nation-
Binford 1983; Hodder 1990). To be sure, specific concepts alism, with its declarations of cultural boundedness and
have appeared and disappeared in the ebb and flow of new its claims to deep antiquity, has been on the rise. In re-
theories and methods. But archaeological mainstays, such as sponse, many archaeologists are exhibiting a profound con-
the distinction between nature and culture or the assump- cern about their roles as producers of historical accounts,
tion of correspondence between complexity and hierarchy, contributors to the reification of heritage, and witnesses
have endured and seemed essential to the discipline. to social injustice and heritage destruction (Bernbeck and
This is changing. Many archaeologists appear increas- Pollock 2018a; Bonacchi, Altaweel, and Krzyzanska 2018;
ingly less comfortable with fixed categories and their as- Hamilakis 2018; Hauser et al. 2018; Klein et al. 2018;
sumptions. Despite differences in theoretical influence, they Shahab and Isakhan 2018). Spurring a debate about ver-
are committed to understanding complicated and fluid so- sions of the past and their corresponding publics, González-
cial relationships, networks of interaction, and assemblages Ruibal, González, and Criado-Boado (2018) challenge schol-
of people and things that often do not correspond to rigid ars to imagine a “new public archaeology” that critically
boundaries of sites, periods, or regions. Accordingly, a fo- responds to different interest groups, in particular by rec-
cus on contemporary politics and heritage calls into question ognizing and countering the reactionary populist voices who
the discipline’s traditional focus on antiquity while also sug- mobilize understandings of the past in service of national-
gesting that archaeological insights can play a crucial role in ism. They argue for a practice and pedagogy that will “make
current debates and struggles. Archaeological research into archaeology political again” (513) by not only uncovering
ecology is challenging long-standing social scientific binaries the story of humanity and its diversity but also provocatively
of nature and culture, affording new perspectives on hu- confronting histories that reproduce prejudice, racism, and
man entanglements with and dependencies on land, things, xenophobia.
and other species. Inquiries into ancient politics have taken Examples of such provocative archaeology might be
a sharp turn away from a concern with ancient state and found in Jason De León’s (2015), Randall McGuire’s (2018),
imperial power to examine nonhierarchical interactions and or Gabriella Soto’s (2018) research on the southern bor-
theories of collective action. Approaches to artifacts and der of the United States. All of these authors employ
Kosiba • Archaeology in 2018 449
archaeological perspectives to lay bare the ways that national camp for Japanese Americans, foregrounding this imprint as
power is embedded in trash, concrete walls, and desert land- an emotional reminder of a life in captivity. Bernbeck and
scapes. Soto (2018) trains our attention on the backpacks and Pollock (2018a, 2018b) confront the human remains from
personal items that migrants leave behind. Projects to re- Nazi experimentation in a pit below the Free University
cover these discarded things only work to whitewash the of Berlin. They advocate a responsibility to recognize the
painful process of migration and obscure evidence of where prerogative of the people of the past to remain anonymous,
people have moved, how they have suffered, and if they to “leave the victims their right to intransparency while still
have survived (De León, Gokee, and Forringer-Beal 2016; shining a light on the perpetrators” (Bernbeck and Pollock
Sundberg 2008). Similarly, McGuire (2018, 542) reveals 2018b, 541).
how constructed barriers on the southern border operate These kinds of public and politically oriented archae-
as both manifestations of state militarism and as means of ology are particularly significant in North America and
creative expression. One barrier made of military landing Europe, where certain often-conservative political groups
mats provided a blank canvas for graffiti and artistic expres- have voiced new claims to the past. The archaeological con-
sion. Another made of vertical steel tubes created a space for cern about the politics of the past is certainly nothing new.
people on both sides to talk and hold mass. Similar to Soto’s It recalls the distinction put forth by several theorists, chief
examination of the migrants’ discards, McGuire affords an among them Michel-Rolph Trouillot (1995), that narra-
archaeological perspective of the objects and built spaces that tives of the past always reflect political positions (Skrede
define a contemporary political struggle. and Hølleland 2018). However, some authors contend that
These things left behind and these barriers bespeak so- what is new about the current moment is the rapid rate at
cial violence. They manifest and materialize the abstractions which discourses put forth as “facts” about the deep history
(e.g., citizen, nation, legality; immigrant, “Other,” illegal- of a people are circulating via electronic media. Bonacchi,
ity) that lay at the basis of modern power relations and in- Altaweel, and Krzyzanska (2018) analyze more than 1.4
equalities. Reflecting on such present-day artifacts of social million Facebook page messages to reveal patterns in how
struggle, Mark Hauser (2018a, 2018b) and several others Brexit supporters cast aspersions on continental Europe by
suggest that archaeologists rethink their discipline, casting it recounting tales of Roman or French conquerors bent on
as a means to “bear witness” to the workings of power and taking away Britons’ freedom. The past has also been mobi-
its systemic and structural inequalities (Atalay 2018; Battle- lized to further nationalist claims in Denmark and Sweden,
Baptiste 2018; Bernbeck and Pollock 2018a; Hernandez where interest groups who strive to protect archaeological
2018; Lau-Ozawa 2018; McGuire 2018; Rizvi 2018; Voss materials (e.g., historical wooden ships, stone monuments)
2018a). They build on the example of anthropologist Paul endeavor to shape a public discourse about the supposed
Farmer (2003, 25), who wrote of bearing witness as a material and cultural decay of the nation and a quintessen-
method to reveal the myriad and interconnected ways that tial Scandinavian “culture” (Niklasson and Hølleland 2018).
people suffer and withstand social disparities and economic Much like the heated exchanges about Confederate Civil
imbalances (see also González-Tennant 2018; Roller 2018). War monuments in the United States (Rizvi 2018; see also
In a series of interconnected articles, Barbara Voss (2018a, Joyce 2017), such instances raise challenges for archaeolo-
2018b; Voss et al. 2018) presents a historical archaeology gists who strive to safeguard and learn from the materials
of Chinese immigrant workers within the United States, re- of the past, often without seeking to be caught up in such
vealing deep fractures in the country’s foundation. She tells Herderian discussions of Volk and cultural continuity. These
of the indomitable resilience by which immigrants endured struggles over the politics of the past remind us that archae-
racism and arson in San Jose’s Chinatown and of the things ology is not conducted in a vacuum or an academic ivory
that railroad workers carried and used in an effort to build a tower. Archaeologists continue to enjoin discussions about
sense of “home.” But in so doing, she also reflects on her own how they might work to engage diverse publics and stake-
position and destabilizes structures of power by recounting holders, and also remain vigilant of the populist interests
that the privileges enjoyed by Stanford University founders that they can inadvertently support or exclude while making
and professors were in part built through profits derived claims to an expertise about the past (Luke 2018; Smith and
from oppressive and underpaid Chinese immigrant labor Campbell 2018; Thiaw and Wait 2018; Zimmerman 2018).
(Voss 2018b). The study accords with a growing archaeolog- These critical discussions of heritage resonate with a dia-
ical concern with and focus on politics in the contemporary logue about “decolonizing” anthropology and archaeology—
world and with archaeologists’ positions relative to the pub- that is, critically rethinking Western social scientific cate-
lic and to descendent communities (González-Ruibal 2018). gories, philosophies of history, and claims to cultural artifacts
Similar to Soto’s documentation of the migrants’ dis- and knowledge (Hamilakis 2018; Pullman 2018; Thomas
carded backpacks and clothes, archaeology is affording views 2018). Joining a chorus of voices regarding North Amer-
of the hidden stories, the undocumented lives, and the acts of ican Indigenous archaeology (e.g., Atalay, 2006, 2008;
perseverance that lay beneath the structures of the modern Cipolla 2018; Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al. 2010; Laluk
world. Lau-Ozawa (2018) focuses our attention on a child’s 2017), some researchers insist we see non-Western prac-
footprint in the concrete of a World War II–era internment tices of knowing and knowledge production in terms that are
radically different from the taxonomies of modern science. In significance of the concept of the Anthropocene. The term
particular, Porr (2018) and Bloch (2018) advocate a renewed refers to a perceived shift in the Earth’s climate state and
attention to the importance of the places that constitute abo- system, in large part due to human industrial production
riginal Australian or Indigenous American landscapes, and (e.g., the use of fossil fuels) and land engineering (e.g.,
how native people know their past through experiences and the construction of dams) since the mid-twentieth century
stories of a panoply of places in the present, rather than in (Steffen et al. 2016; Steffen, Crutzen, and McNeill 2007;
historicist tales that imply linear causal connections among Waters et al. 2016a; Zalasiewicz et al. 2018). Some ar-
events, actions, and dates (see also Nelson and Shilling 2018). chaeologists argue that the term Anthropocene might be
In attending to non-Western systems of knowledge, archae- ill-considered because it suggests that all humans are re-
ologists are challenging common presuppositions about the sponsible for changes to the Earth’s system, despite vast
very nature of history. They are demonstrating, for exam- international and historical differences in pollution and pro-
ple, that temporal distinctions between “past” and “present” duction (Bauer and Bhan 2018; Morrison 2018; see also
are not universals and can instead be considered within a Malm and Hornborg 2014; Sayre 2012). They and other
range of social constructions or ontological dispositions that scholars support an alternative narrative of global ecological
do not accord with ideas of historicism or evolution (e.g., history, which would emphasize that human actions, such as
Souvatzi, Baysal, and Baysal 2018; Swenson and Roddick forest clearing, have always contributed to global environ-
2018). mental processes and would take into account the onset of
Others have integrated decolonizing critiques into the large-scale agriculture and industrialization in Europe and
practices through which they interact with descendant and North America (e.g., a “Capitalocene”) that played a lead-
living communities, cultivating a dialogue and laying the ing role in reorienting Earth systems (e.g., Bauer and Ellis
foundation for a more inclusive engagements with, and 2018; Moore, 2015, 2016). Other archaeologists contend
multivocal narratives about, the past. In this regard, Ata- that the major problem with the Anthropocene designation
lay (2018) relates a moving account of the hurtful moment is that it obscures how the current planetary environment
during which she and elders from her Native American com- consists of monstrous entanglements of people and things—
munity encountered their ancestors—the bones of 122 indi- “hyperobjects” such as the Great Pacific garbage patch that
viduals callously distributed among the 9,000 boxes in which are beyond human design or control (Pétursdóttir 2018; see
they had been shipped for purposes of repatriation. She shares also Haraway 2016; Morton 2013; cf. Ion 2018).
the creative practice by which she and her community coun- Those who defend the concept of the Anthropocene in-
tered this indignity as they softly read aloud their ancestors’ sist on its empirical validity and its educational value. Some
“inventory numbers,” gathered together their bones, and point to measurable changes to Earth’s system behavior in the
prepared them for a proper burial. Such close engagement mid-twentieth century (e.g., Zalasiewicz et al. 2018, 222).
with descendent and living communities is essential to decol- Others recall that the concept provides a way to raise aware-
onizing the knowledge production process. It has led some ness about human impact on the environment (Braje 2018,
archaeologists to design projects and innovate field work- 216). Still others suggest that critique of the Anthropocene
flows that include a plurality of native experts and heritage provides yet another example of academics “dithering while
interpreters in research, from “the trowel’s edge” to the the planet burns” (Hornborg 2017).
formulation of a narrative about the past (Perry 2018; Van The debate about the Anthropocene might end in an
der Linde et al. 2018). impasse. Focused as it is on chronological markers and def-
Archaeologists are also conducting research with initions of human agency, the debate too often precludes
contemporary Indigenous communities. For instance, an inquiry into the long-term ecological histories and the
O’Rourke (2018) works with the Inuvialuit people of Kug- ideologies of economic growth and accumulation that have
mallit Bay in northern Canada to develop an “activist ar- produced the current environment (Bauer and Ellis, 223;
chaeology” that combines qualitative geographic information Morehart 2018, 110; Morrison 2018). As Morrison (2018,
systems (GIS) and ethnographic methods to establish coastal 196) suggests, part of the problem may be that environ-
conservation strategies based on local values. This and other mental historians and natural scientists have not yet agreed
projects suggest a growing concern with activist research on an “analytical vocabulary” that adequately describes the
(sensu Hale 2008) oriented in a way such that archaeology processes that they study (also Given 2018). Perhaps now
and its procedures become the basis of a public dialogue and more than ever, humans find that they are entangled with
debate regarding the nature of landscape and its history. and dependent on other species, machines, and environ-
ments, leading many social scientists and other scholars
SOCIONATURE AND POLITICAL ECOLOGY to reject binaries of nature and culture and to introduce
Environmental change is at the forefront of global poli- new terms to understand human–environmental interac-
tics and concern. Archaeologists in recent years have of- tion. Though a bit clunky, the term “socionature” does well
fered new insights on anthropogenic ecological transforma- to describe how many archaeologists are seeing the envi-
tion, land degradation, and concepts for “natural” processes. ronment as a dynamic process that both reflects past human
Current academic debate centers on the meaning and the projects and affords future human actions (Morrison 2018a).
Archaeological studies of socionatural histories are shedding sustainable ecologies and more balanced renderings of the
light on the long-term legacies of human land-modification intertwined human and natural actions that constitute envi-
projects, such as terrace construction or reservoir excava- ronmental history (d’Alpoim Guedes and Hein 2018; Garcin
tion (Morehart 2018; Rosenzweig and Marston 2018; see et al. 2018; Gilligan 2018; Kintigh and Ingram 2018; Malhi
also Håkansson and Widgren 2016). For instance, Morehart 2018; Sanchez et al. 2018; Snitker 2018).
(2018) details the landscapes that Aztec and then Spanish em- Contrasting niche construction theory’s focus on sub-
pires inherited from antecedent peoples in central Mexico, sistence and adaptation (see critiques in Hodder 2018;
in part to argue against facile representations of traditional Morrison 2018a), research oriented toward political ecology
premodern and extractive European political ecologies. He examines the practices and discourses by which the environ-
demonstrates that such representations often overlook the ment can become the stakes of social struggle (Rosenzweig
complex and highly situated interplay of past investment and and Marston 2018). Such scholarship often explicitly rec-
land infrastructure that might obstruct even the most ambi- ognizes that agricultural production and land modification
tious forms of ecological imperialism. This and other archae- can be political tactics to defend autonomy, declare rights
ological research are moving beyond studies of adaptation to locality, or realize social objectives (Comstock and Cook
to a “natural” environment and instead are seeking to under- 2018; Kosiba 2018; Kosiba and Hunter 2017; Langlie 2018;
stand how those who strive to shape the environment must Morrison 2018). For instance, Acabado’s (2018) account of
work with the materials and the problems—the terraces, inland terrace complexes in the Philippines demonstrates
the imported soils, the arrays of infrastructure, the concepts that Indigenous people built these mountain-slope agri-
of “resources”—that they inherit from the past (Carson and cultural systems in response to Spanish colonization, per-
Hung 2018; Johansen and Bauer 2018; Quintus 2018; Vining haps to avoid the surveillance and hegemonic reach of the
2017; Wilkinson 2018a). Other studies are going further, state through the development of self-governing commu-
challenging environmental histories that cast humanity in a nities and economies. Castillo et al.’s (2018) research in
central role by imagining and implementing a “multispecies Cambodia demonstrates how it was the people of lower so-
archaeology” that comprises nonhumans, plants, soils, mi- cial stations who largely experienced the effects of two suc-
crobes, and DNA (S. Birch 2018; Given 2018). cessive state projects to increase wet-rice production. They
Many ecological archaeologists echo a concern with show that those in privileged positions reaped benefits from a
interactions between humans, other organisms, and the ritual regime rooted in rice symbolism, while farmers in the
built environment by applying principles and insights de- fields suffered from the diseases (e.g., malaria) and parasites
rived from niche construction theory. Developed in biology (e.g., bilharzia) of flooded fields. The study reminds us that
and evolutionary ecology (Lewontin 2000; see also Odling- many ecological and health effects of land modification may
Smee, Laland, and Feldman 2003), niche construction refers not be visible in the traditional archaeological record and
to the coevolution of organism and environment. It denotes that, much like the architectural monuments of the ancient
a process of “reciprocal causation” that unfolds as an or- world, large-scale programs of environmental management
ganism’s actions shape its surroundings and establish the could have grounded both social progress and oppression.
grounds for selective pressures that will, in time, affect their Such studies add archaeological insights to a body of
offspring’s bodies and adaptive strategies (Laland, Matthews, research that is revealing the tragedies that can result
and Feldman 2016; see also Quintus and Cochrane 2018; when those in power—whether corporations, regimes, or
Watling, Mayle, and Schaan 2018). Adopting this approach, states—seek to impose inflexible plans of socionatural order.
Yerkes and Koldehoff (2018) explain that people living in Indeed, Lentz et al. (2018) analyze socionatural degradation
North America during the Middle-Late Holocene (8000– and collapse at Tikal, in the Maya lowlands. providing a
1050 BP) created a sustainable environment for a gathering, chilling reminder of how humans tend to overburden their
hunting, and fishing subsistence. In crafting new tools, such environment. The authors demonstrate that Tikal’s down-
as the Dalton adze and the dugout canoe, these Native Amer- fall, which has often been attributed in part to a period of in-
icans created a forest and riverine niche that their descen- creased aridity, was also a consequence of a hydraulic system
dants maintained for more than seven thousand years. Such dependent on rainfall and controlled by a rigid governmen-
evidence demonstrates how humans have long affected and tal hierarchy. As in the now-classic treatise of James Scott
shaped the environment, setting the terms for later genera- (1998), the Maya case offers another caveat regarding the
tions. It calls to mind a caveat of the Anthropocene debate perils of rigid environmental management, suggesting that,
that we should be careful to not conflate anthropogenic land over the long term, locally controlled water and agricultural
modification, which has been happening for millennia, with systems often prove to be more sustainable and flexible than
the recent shift in Earth’s complex systems, which might centrally controlled ecological schemes. These dire and all-
be attributable to industrialization in Europe and the spread too-familiar insights from the Maya lowlands find an echo in
of a fossil-fuel economy. Such research also highlights the archaeological studies of political complexity, the majority
ways that archaeology is uniquely positioned to register the of which are identifying the practices of social cooperation
degree to which humans have shaped themselves as they and collective action that sustain communities without the
have created the current world, providing lessons for more state.
DECENTRALIZED COMPLEXITY AND COLLECTIVE Many studies of nonhierarchical and decentralized com-
ACTION plexity draw theoretical influence from collective action
The king is dead. Long live the decentralized network of theory, as well as a broader interdisciplinary concern with
negotiating subjects and communities. Similar to the em- the “evolution of human cooperation” (Blanton and Fargher,
phasis on socionatures, there are strong currents within the 2008, 2009; Carballo 2012; DeMarrais and Earle 2017;
scholarly literature that are dissolving the categories (e.g., Fargher and Heredia Espinoza 2016; Jennings and Earle
chiefdoms, states, horizons) that have long been the main- 2016; Stanish 2017). Though collective action and coop-
stays of political archaeology. Contemporary archaeologists eration theories are often grouped together, it is important
have grown uncomfortable with approaches that assume bi- to note that collective action can also entail coercion and
naries of king and commoner, colonizer and colonized, core competition (Kantner 2018, 851). Hence, archaeologists
and periphery, and even change and continuity (Baitzel 2018; often seek to understand collective action in the past by
Brown 2018; Garrido and Salazar 2017; Gron and Sørensen modeling the circumstances under which people resolved
2018; Jaffe, Wei, and Zhao 2018; Kuusela, Nurmi, and perennial problems of social life, such as the mobilization of
Hakamäki 2018). By and large, research is turning from state group labor, the maintenance of shared infrastructure, or the
or imperial politics to shed light on decentralized complex- management of common resources. Efforts of model build-
ity, whether the interactions by which people composed net- ing mirror Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) Nobel Prize–winning
works and communities without the state (e.g., Boivin and research on how people are driven to pool labor and share a
Frachetti 2018; Kristiansen, Lindkvist, and Myrdal 2018), “commons” when they recognize the personal gains or public
the “bottom-up” tactics by which people in rural or periph- goods of doing so—that is, when they think that they are get-
eral environments endured or withstood centralized rule ting “a fair deal” (McAnany 2018, 1112–13). Archaeological
(Düring and Stek 2018; LaViolette and Fleisher 2018), or research into collective action focuses on the conditions that
the “epi-historical” struggles of Indigenous people who un- influence action that is “instrumental, ends-oriented, and
derwent successive colonial projects. Though scholars con- problem solving,” and will mitigate issues of free riding and
tinue to offer significant new insights into the foundations “sustained buy-in” (Blanton and Fargher 2016, 32). Thomp-
of state authority (e.g., Li 2018), much of the new political son et al. (2018) provide a detailed example of this approach
archaeology places added emphasis on the situated practices in their account of the prehistoric Calusa kingdom in Florida.
and negotiations by which subject people contributed to or They demonstrate that prior to the rise of a centralized state,
even set the terms of political interaction (Brown 2018; people in discrete sites responded to environmental change
Ghisleni 2018). by forming “large corporate households” and acting together
Archaeologists are concentrating on the relationships to manage a common fishery (Thompson et al. 2018, 41–
that connected people within separate sites instead of as- 42; see also Pluckhahn and Thompson 2018). People within
suming that differences in site location or extent connote this heterarchical network of households constructed canals
disparities in political standing or economic power. For in- that facilitated the movement of canoes, goods, people, and
stance, Chirikure et al. (2018) shed light on politics in Great ideas—a “lattice-work of community connections” that ulti-
Zimbabwe and Khami in southern Africa, overturning pre- mately became the infrastructure of a hierarchical state. This
vious accounts that saw a hierarchical relationship between and other examples of collective action theory do not stray
these sites solely because of their sizes and architectural far from the tenets of processual archaeology and cultural
styles (see also Sinamai 2018). The authors suggest that ar- ecology, which assume that people in the past were most
chaeologists develop analyses of ancient political landscapes motivated by concerns with the management of resources
that consider multiple and overlapping kinds of authority, and labor. But collective action theory is not reducible to
including heterarchy between towns and hierarchy within economic maximization. Indeed, archaeologists are delin-
them. At a more regional scale, archaeologists are tracing the eating the valued things that operated as “meta-identifiers”
economic trade relationships that fostered regional interac- by de-emphasizing “prior cultural divisions so that groups
tions, in particular by challenging and testing ideas regarding can act collectively in mutual interest” (J. Birch and Hart
the roots and branches of early “world-systems.” Kuusela, 2018, 27).
Nurmi, and Hakamäki (2018) critique classic world-systems Other studies seek to identify the “bridging” materials
theory’s assumption of asymmetrical core-periphery rela- or ties—the shell gorgets worn by Mississippian peoples,
tionships, arguing for a more heterarchical or nonhierar- the feathers that adorned Andean elites, or the pottery de-
chical understanding of regional complexity emerging from signs of Iroquois women—that connected people within net-
reciprocal flows of raw material and manufactured goods works of interactions (J. Birch and Hart 2018; Flache 2018;
between southern and northern towns of the Bothnian Sea Ghisleni 2018; Green and Costion 2018; Habiba, Mills,
(also Kuusela 2018). Likewise, Ling, Earle, and Kristiansen and Brandes 2018; Lulewicz and Coker 2018; Wilkinson
(2018) suggest that the economic transactions that defined 2018b). Though some scholars continue to answer impor-
a “maritime mode of production” in Viking Age northern tant questions regarding the social connections of people in
Europe fostered the development of a decentralized net- discrete areas (e.g., Klaus et al. 2018; Massa and Palmisano
work of interaction and dependency. 2018; Prieto 2018; Sawchuk et al. 2018), a new wave of
network research seeks to not only describe connections SITUATED LEARNING, THINGS, AND
but also model the conditions under which we might expect ASSEMBLAGES
collective action, knowledge sharing, or diffusion to take Archaeologists are also contributing to a robust interdis-
place (Amati, Shafie, and Brandes 2018; Manzo et al. 2018; ciplinary conversation about the social roles of things and
Roux and Manzo 2018; Rubio-Campillo et al. 2018). Most materials. Some are building on theories of situated learn-
archaeologists see network approaches less as explanations ing, which take into account the practices whereby people
in themselves and more as heuristic tools to frame other take on and pass on knowledge and skills (Roddick and
evidence of cultural contact (e.g., Mills 2018). In this light, Stahl 2016; theory derived from Lave and Wenger 1991;
Knappett (2018) explores the process of Minoanization in Wenger 1998). Those who employ this approach exam-
the Aegean Bronze Age, looking into how the spatial con- ine the processes by which people in the past learned to
nectivity of islands and waters in the Cycladian environment make things and how these processes drew them into a
afforded social exchange and mobility. The study suggests group of craftspeople who shared knowledge of materials
that physical distance between settlements, or the mere lo- and how to work them—a “community of practice” (see See-
cation of a site within a broader network, is not an adequate tah 2018). For instance, Castañeda (2018) finds evidence for
predictor of whether and how people will transmit ideas a process of stone-knapping apprenticeship among the flakes
or technologies. Rather, at least in part, the transmission and the “prematurely abandoned” cores of a Neolithic flint
of knowledge appears to have depended on shared religious mine in Spain (see also Coto-Sarmiento, Rubio-Campillo,
symbols that limited “communication costs” and reduced the and Remesal 2018). Likewise, Mills (2018) reveals a di-
“distances” between communities (Knappett 2018, 990). alogue about the production of black-and-white ceramics
Networks operate at multiple scales among and within among women Pueblo potters in the US Southwest who
localities. Archaeologists are applying new approaches to moved to their husbands’ communities after marriage. As
understand Durkheimian questions about social integration, the women moved, they improvised new styles and forms.
especially inquiring into how the built environment can ac- Some styles referenced their home community, while others
cord with and support kinds of behavior and community reflected their new cross-Pueblo relationships. Using these
ethos. Arkush (2018) draws on Kowalewski’s (2006; see insights, Mills (2018) develops an archaeological perspec-
also J. Birch 2013) theory of coalescence—the “work of mak- tive on “boundary objects” (Star 2010; Star and Griesemer
ing community”—to investigate the social pressures of peo- 1989), a linking practice or material that brings people to-
ple living in a fortified town during a time of raiding and gether into a shared field of knowledge (also Di Prado 2018;
warfare (the Andean Late Intermediate Period [ca. 1000– Dorland 2018; Jaffe and Cao 2018; Knappett 2018). As Iles
1400 CE]) (see also Langlie 2018). In Arkush’s (2018, 1) (2018) notes, such a tight focus on technological practice
words, “Defensive interdependence places special demands forces a reappraisal of how archaeologists define the objects
on inhabitants to achieve mutual trust and solidarity. Be- they study, suggesting less a concern with style and aesthet-
cause defensive responsibilities are so critical and so costly, ics and more an objective to see artifacts as their crafters
free-riding is especially offensive, and deviance or suspected did (see also Lechtman 1984). Iles (2018) studies practical
treachery is intolerable.” Comparable studies expand this knowledge regarding iron and copper metallurgy in Uganda
point, but instead of showing how a closely bonded com- and suggests that archaeologists might begin to think like
munity is held together by the walls that define them, they native craftspeople who, for instance, perceived materials
illustrate how people build a broader, supralocal commu- less as individual substances and more as things that interact
nity when they work to prepare for and participate in events, in particular ways with other materials.
celebrations, and great festivals (e.g., Sykes et al. 2018; see Many other studies add to a growing trend of archaeo-
also Green 2018; Lauritsen et al. 2018; Swenson 2018; Ug- logical research focused on how objects not only represent
wuanyi and Schofield 2018). Research on spaces of social but also manifest social claims (Crown 2018; Davies 2018;
gathering is uncovering the practices by which people forge Newman 2018; Wilkinson 2018b). Such studies cast off ear-
social ties as they physically and conceptually construct their lier archaeological presumptions that suggest that material
world, whether these spaces are monumental “megasites” styles simply mark or correspond to political and cultural
(Nebbia et al. 2018), continually used cemeteries (Reynolds entities. For instance, De Lucia (2018) suggests that the
2018), or places where nomadic people engage in trade black-on-orange pottery of the Valley of Mexico was a claim
(González-Ruibal and de Torres 2018). Such studies pro- to Toltec ancestry that was expressed in different ways, over
vide additional lenses with which archaeologists are turning time, among otherwise competing polities. As De Lucia
from an earlier focus on the state monuments and capitals to (2018) points out, what is striking about this argument is
consider instead the kinds of collective politics that emerge in that the black-on-orange style is not found at the Toltec
the fairgrounds and fortresses of local communities. Though capital of Tula. Hence, she offers an intriguing insight into
these accounts pull from different theoretical threads, they archaeological aesthetics in the past, contending that the
share a common interest in developing an archaeology that is innumerable broken ceramic sherds visible on the surface
no longer content to simply repeat tired adages about stages of ruins throughout the valley would have structured how
of political complexity. people perceived and thought about antiquity, time, and
their relationships to the people who preceded them. In “town,” seeing it as an “entangled web of social interac-
similar terms, Davies’s (2018) analysis of the constitution tions” rather than an economic entity or discrete space. He
of identity and community in Late Bronze Age and Early contends that such an approach to the intersections of peo-
Iron Age Britain reveals that these “periods” are not solely ple and materials forcefully shifts “our analytical gaze from
distinguishable in terms of their artifacts and technology but studying the town as an example of a category of place, to
also in terms of the degree to which people sought to create understanding the processes through which that place, as a
distance from abandoned places and discarded things. Other generative bundle of people, things, and materials, emerged,
studies uncover how the deposition of particular objects, was articulated and translated; in other words, from being
such as whetstones used to sharpen everyday tools, marked urban, to becoming urban” (141). This kind of approach also
and manifested a common person’s social relationship to challenges archaeologists to further reconsider the relation-
their residence, connecting the life cycles of a human family ship between economy and ritual. Furthermore, Swenson
to the stone farmhouse (Reniere and De Clercq 2018). Also, (2018) considers how the archaeology of ceremony might
Newman (2018) employs a detailed taphonomic analysis of reveal insights into human constructions of temporality, sug-
objects from an ancient Maya termination rite, demonstrat- gesting that these fleeting moments of reverie not only de-
ing that some of these things were fragments of broken pots fined a Moche ideology regarding proper relationships be-
that had been stored for years prior to their ultimate deposi- tween people, things, and places but also underpinned a vast
tion within the sediments of the royal palace at El Zotz. She landscape of economic production. Hence, Swenson (2018)
suggests that the objects came to be valued, if not “sacred,” suggests that we see the festival as a process of assembly
things precisely because of the practices by which they were with far-reaching social implications that lie “not so much in
kept and then discarded. Newman’s research demonstrates reifying or mystifying social relations by indirectly regulating
that categories of “trash” or “reused” things are culturally domestic economies and life rhythms beyond the confines of
situated, relative to how people generally perceive the life temporary gatherings.” He adds, “the contrast between ‘bac-
histories of materials (cf. Ball and Taschek 2018; Brown chanal and bureaucracy’ is thus often exaggerated, for great
2018; Ng and Swetnam-Burland 2018). festivals depend on sophisticated political economies” (81).
The aforementioned studies see artifacts in terms of Other archaeologists employ assemblage theory or re-
how they mediate social interactions. But they stop short of lational approaches to examine the practices that constitute
claiming that these things are agentive, as suggested in many landscapes (Harrison-Buck, Runggaldier, and Gantos 2018;
archaeological renderings of assemblage theory or object- Skousen 2018; Van Dyke 2018; Van Pool and Van Pool
oriented ontology (see Bray 2018; Cipolla 2018; Harrison- 2018). Skousen (2018), for example, provides a detailed
Buck and Hendon 2018; Jervis 2018a; for other recent views analysis of the eleventh-century Cahokian pilgrimage center
of material culture and archaeological objects, see Chazan called the Emerald Acropolis. He orients our attention to
2018; Nativ 2018). Though archaeologists who adopt such the practices by which pilgrims layered earth and water onto
theories draw from different philosophical sources (often the mound’s facades during major events of the lunar cycle,
DeLanda 2006, 2016; Deleuze and Guattari 1987), the con- a practice of construction that was also a process of “enchant-
cept “assemblage” remains center stage, typically referring ment” (e.g., Gell 1992), which bundled together people and
to the set of things, people, and organisms that make up a so- things in meaningful ways. Reflecting on Maya pilgrimages,
cial context (e.g., Skousen 2018; Swenson 2018; Van Dyke Harrison-Buck, Runggaldier, and Gantos (2018) draw on
2018). To concentrate on assemblages is to trace situated Ingold’s (2010, S134) concept of “ambulatory knowing” to
interactions and flows of action while also recognizing that suggest that through movement people perceive and come
some things come to act and form assemblages in ways that to know their world (for a comparable recent case, see Porr
exceed human intentions (e.g., Pétursdóttir and Olsen 2018; 2018). Such a form of knowing is built through a person’s
see also Pétursdóttir 2018). Such accounts of assemblages sensory attention to their environment. Building on these
in the ancient world, however, might require more critical premises, Van Dyke (2018) raises an important caveat, ar-
thought, especially with regard to aforementioned indige- guing that archaeologists be careful to not suggest that all
nous archaeologies. Indeed, these accounts of assemblages pilgrims or participants experienced these practices in the
are often written in ways that suggest a very neat correspon- same ways. In other words, it is crucial to recall that these
dence between continental philosophy and Indigenous ways interactions—whether the assembly at a Moche huaca or
of being—an odd and circular argument in which the theo- the pilgrimage to a mound—can both reflect and reproduce
ries of Deleuze, which are entrenched in and the products asymmetrical power relationships.
of Western academic discourse, are claimed to be the keys While these archaeologists see the objects they study in
to understanding non-Western ontologies or materialities. a new light, others are writing new critical perspectives on
Nevertheless, archaeologists who draw on assemblage subjects and identity categories. Subjects of archaeology can
theories are particularly vocal about its promise to unravel fall victim to present-day assumptions about individuality
or destabilize the entrenched conceptual categories that have and identity in the past. Or they are too often cast as noth-
long driven research. For instance, Jervis (2018b) writes of a ing more than “faceless blobs,” as Ruth Tringham (1991)
relational-ontology approach to the medieval European once quipped. For instance, Robb and Harris (2018) note
that archaeologists have long overlooked Neolithic gender An emerging discussion of digital epistemologies
precisely because they could not recognize it. They suggest demonstrates that archaeologists are moving beyond the
a move beyond expectations of binary gender categories to application of technology for the sake of new discovery,
appreciate the complicated, fluid, and multiple gender cat- new data, and new graphics. Many are beginning to think
egories that characterized the Neolithic. In similar ways, ar- about how digital media and computational advances affect
chaeologists are recrafting the lenses through which they see or frame the production of archaeological knowledge. Some
subjectivity, most often by not reducing people in the past to archaeologists are seeking to both disseminate their data and
singular types and instead seeking to understand how people establish a platform for collaborative research and public
constructed and perceived social differences regarding age, engagement by creating open-access and modifiable digital
gender, and ethnicity (e.g., Appleby 2018; Hagerman 2018; databases and archives. Online research infrastructures—
Oras et al. 2018; Velasco 2018). The focus on the subject such as the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) or the Endan-
leads to a “multisited” approach designed to uncover the di- gered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa (EA-
verse roles people played as they entered into and became MENA) project—not only house downloadable and view-
dependent on communities spread across different scales and able data but also provide a mechanism to share past scholar-
spaces (Voss 2018b). ship and future research among archaeologists located in dif-
ferent institutions or countries (Wright and Richards 2018;
METHODOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL Zerbini 2018; see also Jensen 2018; Lercari et al. 2018).
ADVANCES Some archaeologists integrate a “reflexive approach” into ar-
Archaeologists are increasingly employing sophisticated dig- chaeological data frameworks by innovating a “living archive”
ital and chemical methodologies to reveal new perspectives that is a kind of data representation “in which information is
on ancient landscapes and artifacts. In Central America, they permanently open to reinterpretation by both scholars and
have employed airborne laser scanning (LiDAR) to discover the public” (Lukas, Engel, and Mazzucato 2018). Research
archaeological sites beneath the dense forest canopy (Canuto at Çatalhöyük, in central Turkey, has led the way toward
et al. 2018; see also Stenborg, Schaan, and Figueiredo 2018). the realization of this objective, recently through the use
Archaeologists are also realizing the analytical and illustrative of web technologies and relational digital archives that al-
promise of geographic information systems (GIS) and drone low viewers to see and comment on the data, as well as
photogrammetry, employing them in tandem to systemati- the data collection, documentation, and interpretation pro-
cally map architecture, model terrain, and examine relation- cesses (e.g., Lercari et al. 2018). The project’s “semantic
ships between spatial variables (Hixon et al. 2018; Howland web approach” presents and interconnects layers and types of
et al. 2018; for GIS and remote survey, see Franklin and information with the goal of providing a tool for researchers
Hammer 2018; Green and Petrie 2018). At a different ana- and laypersons to critically engage with and produce schol-
lytical scale, archaeologists are continuing to refine isotopic arly knowledge (Lukas, Engel, and Mazzucato 2018). Such
studies in an effort to offer insights into ancient diet, so- digital democratization of knowledge, of course, remains
cial differences, and relatedness among individuals (Alagich severely limited by the degree to which members of the
et al. 2018; Chase et al. 2018; France, Qi, and Kavich 2018; public can access and understand an archive (Opitz 2018).
Hanks et al. 2018; Jacob et al. 2018; Milot, Baron, and Part of the broader methodological discussion has fo-
Poitrasson 2018; Price, Keenleyside, and Schwarcz 2018; cused on whether and how digital methods entail new ways
Ryan et al. 2018). Finally, they are using Bayesian modeling of thinking. Advances in Internet speed and connectivity
in free computer platforms to refine absolute chronologies are making it possible to develop “Web-GIS” as a means
to an unprecedented degree—a second radiocarbon revo- to integrate multiple researchers over space and time into
lution (e.g., Fitzpatrick and Jew 2018; Hamilton and Krus an ongoing project of knowledge creation that does not end
2018; Lulewicz 2018; Miller 2018; Otárola-Castillo et al. with the generation of a map (Galeazzi and Richards-Rissetto
2018). 2018; see also Lock and Pouncett 2017; Richards-Rissetto
Methodological progress is yielding larger and more 2017). Three-dimensional digital models also offer a more
complicated datasets that are often difficult for researchers interactive manner of seeing archaeological objects (Jensen
outside of a project’s network to decipher. Archaeologists 2018). For instance, Galeazzi (2018) suggests that virtual and
are recognizing the need for new collaborative research digital reconstructions of archaeological materials not only
models that tie together and translate data from distinct foster a “perspectiveless view of place” but also facilitate
seasons and projects. Such models are increasingly neces- multiple possible interpretations of their object. In making
sary given digital data’s cost, complexity, and potential for and multiplying virtual reconstructions, archaeologists can
future collaboration and comparison (Huggett 2018; Kansa learn to interpret the past in different ways, and hence,
and Kansa 2018; Kintigh et al. 2018; Lau and Kansa 2018). “with virtual reconstructions we should focus not on the de-
Archaeologists are helping to foster an interdisciplinary dia- lineation of one version from all the others but rather on the
logue that is asserting the importance of new humanities and assemblage of original(s) and virtual copies in our attempt
historical scholarship at a crucial time of academic budget to describe the rewritten biography and transformations of
and university program cuts. the real object. Reconstructing in this way makes it possible
to simulate different pasts rather than just one past and to Amati, Viviana, Termeh Shafie, and Ulrik Brandes. 2018. “Recon-
navigate within this interpreted reality, having an embodied structing Archaeological Networks with Structural Holes.” Jour-
experience with it” (Galeazzi 2018, 269). nal of Archaeological Method and Theory 25 (1): 226–53.
In a way similar to the living archive of the Çatalhöyük Appleby, Jo. 2018. “Ageing and the Body in Archaeology.” Cambridge
project, this is a call to employ digital methods to change Archaeological Journal 28 (1): 145–63.
knowledge production from a staged process by which field Arkush, Elizabeth. 2018. “Coalescence and Defensive Communities:
observations are only exposed when published to a continu- Insights from an Andean Hillfort Town.” Cambridge Archaeological
ous and recursive process in which archaeologists and others Journal 28 (1): 1–22.
consider not only the objects of the past but also the process Atalay, Sonya. 2006. “Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Prac-
by which these objects become categorized and interpreted tice.” American Indian Quarterly 30 (3–4): 280–310.
as kinds of data. Atalay, Sonya. 2008. “Multivocality and Indigenous Archaeologies.”
In Evaluating Multiple Narratives, edited by Junko Habu, Clare
Fawcett, and John M. Matsunaga, 29–44. New York: Springer.
Atalay, Sonya. 2018. “Repatriation and Bearing Witness.” American
CONCLUSIONS
Anthropologist 120 (3): 544–45.
The aforementioned trends suggest radical changes are un- Baitzel, Sarah I. 2018. “Cultural Encounter in the Mortuary Landscape
derway with regard to how archaeologists conceptualize and of a Tiwanaku Colony, Moquegua, Peru (AD 650–1100).” Latin
frame their research, in particular with regard to how they American Antiquity 29 (3): 421–38.
define ecology, politics, learning, and materials. Concepts Ball, Joseph W., and Jennifer T. Taschek. 2018. “Aftermath AD
that used to be seen as discrete categories—whether nature, 696—Late 7th and Early 8th Century Special Deposits and Elite
polity, religion, or technology—and treated as if they cor- Main Plaza Burials at Buenavista Del Cayo, Western Belize: A
responded to discrete sets of artifacts are now increasingly Study in Classic Maya ‘Historical Archaeology.’” Journal of Field
seen less as “social facts” and more as heuristics that can Archaeology 43 (6): 472–91.
only partially describe social worlds made up of complex Battle-Baptiste, Whitney. 2018. “Beaches—Past and Present.” Amer-
and intersecting practices and assemblages. This is not to say ican Anthropologist 120 (3): 536–37.
that archaeologists are reducing social life to a postmodern Bauer, Andrew M., and Mona Bhan. 2018. Climate without Nature: A
sea of fluid and relational categories. Rather, it is to em- Critical Anthropology of the Anthropocene. Cambridge: Cambridge
phasize that they are increasingly suspicious and critical of University Press.
reductive approaches that condense social practice or inter- Bauer, Andrew M., and Erle C. Ellis. 2018. “The Anthropocene
action to a general category of analysis (e.g., ceremony and Divide.” Current Anthropology 59 (2): 209.
festival) without seeing connections to a broader landscape, Bernbeck, Reinhard, and Susan Pollock. 2018a. “Witnessing and
task schedule, or series of linked activities (e.g., labor and the Right to Intransparency.” American Anthropologist 120 (3):
production). Research increasingly foregrounds the messi- 540–41.
ness and complexity of social life, in particular the networks Bernbeck, Reinhard, and Susan Pollock. 2018b. “Archaeology’s ‘Peo-
of interconnections and the range of things that together ple.’” Antiquity 92 (362): 516–17.
constitute human communities or landscapes. With these Binford, Louis R. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past. London: Thames and
approaches, it would seem that archaeologists are answer- Hudson.
ing Willey and Phillips’s call for a unique body of theory, Birch, Jennifer. 2013. From Prehistoric Villages to Cities: Settlement Ag-
specifically by uncovering the often inconspicuous materi- gregation and Community Transformation. London: Routledge.
als and relationships that undergird and play a part in the Birch, Jennifer, and John P. Hart. 2018. “Social Networks and North-
constitution of social life. ern Iroquoian Confederacy Dynamics.” American Antiquity 83 (1):
13–33.
Steve Kosiba Department of Anthropology, University of Min- Birch, Suzanne E. Pilaar. 2018. Multispecies Archaeology. London:
nesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA; skosiba@umn.edu Routledge.
Blanton, Richard, and Lane Fargher. 2008. Collective Action in the
Formation of Pre-Modern States. New York: Springer Science &
Business Media.
REFERENCES CITED Blanton, Richard E., and Lane F. Fargher. 2009. “Collective Action
Acabado, Stephen. 2018. “Zones of Refuge: Resisting Conquest in in the Evolution of Pre-Modern States.” Social Evolution & History
the Northern Philippine Highlands through Environmental Prac- 8 (2): 133–66.
tice.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 52:180–95. Blanton, Richard E., and Lane F. Fargher. 2016. How Humans Co-
Alagich, Rudolph, Armelle Gardeisen, Natàlia Alonso, Núria Rovira, operate: Confronting the Challenges of Collective Action. Boulder:
and Amy Bogaard. 2018. “Using Stable Isotopes and Functional University Press of Colorado.
Weed Ecology to Explore Social Differences in Early Urban Bloch, Lee. 2018. “Tales of Esnesv: Indigenous Oral Traditions about
Contexts: The Case of Lattara in Mediterranean France.” Journal Trader-Diplomats in Ancient Southeastern North America.”
of Archaeological Science 93:135–49. American Anthropologist 120 (4): 781–94.
Boivin, Nicole, and Michael D. Frachetti. 2018. Globalization in Comstock, Aaron R., and Robert A. Cook. 2018. “Climate Change
Prehistory: Contact, Exchange, and the “People without History.” and Migration along a Mississippian Periphery: A Fort Ancient
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Example.” American Antiquity 83 (1): 91–108.
Bonacchi, Chiara, Mark Altaweel, and Marta Krzyzanska. 2018. “The Coto-Sarmiento, Maria, Xavier Rubio-Campillo, and José Remesal.
Heritage of Brexit: Roles of the Past in the Construction of Polit- 2018. “Identifying Social Learning between Roman Amphorae
ical Identities through Social Media.” Journal of Social Archaeology Workshops through Morphometric Similarity.” Journal of Archae-
18 (2): 174–92. ological Science 96:117–23.
Braje, Todd J. 2018. “Comment.” Current Anthropology 59 (2): Crown, Patricia L. 2018. “Drinking Performance and Politics in
215–16. Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon.” American Antiquity 83 (3): 387–
Bray, Tamara L. 2018. “Partnering with Pots: The Work of Objects 406.
in the Imperial Inca Project.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 28 d’Alpoim Guedes, Jade, and Anke Hein. 2018. “Landscapes of Pre-
(2): 243–57. historic Northwestern Sichuan: From Early Agriculture to Pas-
Brown, Kaitlin M. 2018. “Crafting Identity: Acquisition, Production, toralist Lifestyles.” Journal of Field Archaeology 43 (2): 121–35.
Use, and Recycling of Soapstone during the Mission Period in Davies, Alex. 2018. “Objects, Place and People: Community Organi-
Alta California.” American Antiquity 83 (2): 244–62. zation in Southern Britain in the First Millennium BC.” Cambridge
Canuto, Marcello A., Francisco Estrada-Belli, Thomas G. Garrison, Archaeological Journal 28 (2): 321–44.
Stephen D. Houston, Mary Jane Acuña, Milan Kováč, Damien DeLanda, Manuel. 2006. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory
Marken, Philippe Nondédéo, Luke Auld-Thomas, and Cyril and Social Complexity. New York: Continuum.
Castanet. 2018. “Ancient Lowland Maya Complexity as Re- DeLanda, Manuel. 2016. Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
vealed by Airborne Laser Scanning of Northern Guatemala.” University Press.
Science 361 (6409): eaau0137. De León, Jason. 2015. The Land of Open Graves: Living and Dying on the
Carballo, David M. 2012. Cooperation and Collective Action: Archaeolog- Migrant Trail. Oakland: University of California Press.
ical Perspectives. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. De León, Jason, Cameron Gokee, and Anna Forringer-Beal. 2016.
Carson, Mike T., and Hsiao-chun Hung. 2018. “Learning from “‘Disruption,’ Use Wear, and Migrant Habitus in the Sonoran
Paleo-Landscapes: Defining the Land-Use Systems of the An- Desert.” In Migrations and Disruptions: Toward a Unifying Theory of
cient Malayo-Polynesian Homeland.” Current Anthropology 59 (6): Ancient and Contemporary Migrations, edited by B. J. Baker and T.
790–813. Tsuda, 145–78. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Castañeda, Nuria. 2018. “Apprenticeship in Early Neolithic Societies: Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capital-
The Transmission of Technological Knowledge at the Flint Mine ism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis:
of Casa Montero (Madrid, Spain), Ca. 5300–5200 Cal BC.” University of Minnesota Press.
Current Anthropology 59 (6): 716–40. De Lucia, Kristin. 2018. “Style, Memory, and the Production of His-
Castillo, Cristina C., Charles F. W. Higham, Katie Miller, Nigel tory: Aztec Pottery and the Materialization of a Toltec Legacy.”
Chang, Katerina Douka, Thomas F. G. Higham, and Dorian Q. Current Anthropology 59 (6): 741–64.
Fuller. 2018. “Social Responses to Climate Change in Iron Age DeMarrais, Elizabeth, and Timothy Earle. 2017. “Collective Action
North-East Thailand: New Archaeobotanical Evidence.” Antiq- Theory and the Dynamics of Complex Societies.” Annual Review
uity 92 (365): 1274–91. of Anthropology 46:183–201.
Chase, Brad, David Meiggs, P. Ajithprasad, and Philip A. Slater. 2018. Di Prado, Violeta. 2018. “Prácticas alfareras prehispánicas y proce-
“What Is Left Behind: Advancing Interpretation of Pastoral Land- sos de interacción social en el centro-este de Argentina durante
Use in Harappan Gujarat Using Herbivore Dung to Examine el Holoceno Tardı́o” [Prehispanic ceramic practices and pro-
Biosphere Strontium Isotope (87sr/86sr) Variation.” Journal of cesses of interaction in eastern central Argentina during the Late
Archaeological Science 92 (1): 1–12. Holocene]. Latin American Antiquity 29 (3): 552–71.
Chazan, Michael. 2018. The Reality of Artifacts: An Archaeological Per- Dorland, Steven G. H. 2018. “Maintaining Traditions: A Study
spective. London: Routledge. of Southern Ontario Late Woodland Ceramics through a
Chirikure, Shadreck, Tawanda Mukwende, Abigail J. Moffett, Robert Communities-of-Practice Approach.” Journal of Archaeological
T. Nyamushosho, Foreman Bandama, and Michelle House. Method and Theory 25 (3): 892–910.
2018. “No Big Brother Here: Heterarchy, Shona Political Suc- Düring, Bleda S., and Tesse D. Stek. 2018. The Archaeology of Imperial
cession and the Relationship between Great Zimbabwe and Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Empires in the Ancient near East and
Khami, Southern Africa.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 28 (1): Mediterranean World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45–66. Fargher, Lane F., and Verenice Y. Heredia Espinoza. 2016. Alterna-
Cipolla, Craig N. 2018. “Earth Flows and Lively Stone. What Differ- tive Pathways to Complexity: A Collection of Essays on Architecture,
ences Does ‘Vibrant’ Matter Make?” Archaeological Dialogues 25 Economics, Power, and Cross-Cultural Analysis. Boulder: University
(1): 49–70. Press of Colorado.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, Thomas J. Ferguson, Dorothy Lip- Farmer, Paul. 2003. Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the
pert, Randall H. McGuire, George P. Nicholas, Joe E. Watkins, New War on the Poor. Berkeley: University of California Press.
and Larry J. Zimmerman. 2010. “The Premise and Promise of Fitzpatrick, Scott M., and Nicholas P. Jew. 2018. “Radiocarbon
Indigenous Archaeology.” American Antiquity 75 (2): 228–38. Dating and Bayesian Modelling of One of Remote Oceania’s
Oldest Cemeteries at Chelechol Ra Orrak, Palau.” Antiquity 92 Green, Adam S., and Cameron A. Petrie. 2018. “Landscapes of
(361): 149–64. Urbanization and De-Urbanization: A Large-Scale Approach to
Flache, Andreas. 2018. “Between Monoculture and Cultural Polariza- Investigating the Indus Civilization’s Settlement Distributions in
tion: Agent-Based Models of the Interplay of Social Influence and Northwest India.” Journal of Field Archaeology 43 (4): 284–99.
Cultural Diversity.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 25 Green, Ulrike Matthies, and Kirk E. Costion. 2018. Modeling Cross-
(4): 996–1023. Cultural Interaction in Ancient Borderlands. Gainesville: University
France, Christine A. M., Haiping Qi, and Gwénaëlle M. Kavich. Press of Florida.
2018. “Combined Influence of Meteoric Water and Protein In- Gron, K. J., and L. Sørensen. 2018. “Cultural and Economic Ne-
take on Hydrogen Isotope Values in Archaeological Human Bone gotiation: A New Perspective on the Neolithisation of South-
Collagen.” Journal of Archaeological Science 96:33–44. ern Scandinavia.” Antiquity 92 (364): 958–74. http://doi.org/
Franklin, Kathryn, and Emily Hammer. 2018. “Untangling Palimpsest 10.15184/aqy.2018.71.
Landscapes in Conflict Zones: A ‘Remote Survey’ in Spin Boldak, Habiba, Jan C. Athenstädt, Barbara J. Mills, and Ulrik Brandes. 2018.
Southeast Afghanistan.” Journal of Field Archaeology 43 (1): 58–73. “Social Networks and Similarity of Site Assemblages.” Journal of
Galeazzi, Fabrizio. 2018. “3-D Virtual Replicas and Simulations of Archaeological Science 92: 63–72.
the Past: ‘Real’ or ‘Fake’ Representations?” Current Anthropology Hagerman, Kiri. 2018. “Transformations in Representations of Gen-
59 (3): 268–86. der during the Emergence of the Teotihuacan State: A Regional
Galeazzi, Fabrizio, and Heather Richards-Rissetto. 2018. “Editorial Case Study of Ceramic Figurines from the Basin of Mexico.”
Introduction: Web-Based Archaeology and Collaborative Re- Cambridge Archaeological Journal 28 (4): 689–711.
search.” Journal of Field Archaeology 43 (S1): S1–8. Håkansson, N. Thomas, and Mats Widgren. 2016. Landesque Capital:
Garcin, Yannick, Pierre Deschamps, Guillemette Ménot, Geoffroy The Historical Ecology of Enduring Landscape Modifications. New
De Saulieu, Enno Schefuß, David Sebag, Lydie M. Dupont, York: Routledge.
Richard Oslisly, Brian Brademann, and Kevin G. Mbusnum. Hale, Charles R. 2008. Engaging Contradictions: Theory, Politics, and
2018. “Early Anthropogenic Impact on Western Central African Methods of Activist Scholarship. Berkeley: University of California
Rainforests 2,600 Y Ago.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Press.
Sciences 115 (13): 3261–66. Hamilakis, Yannis. 2018. “Decolonial Archaeology as Social Justice.”
Garrido, Francisco, and Diego Salazar. 2017. “Imperial Expansion Antiquity 92 (362): 518–20.
and Local Agency: A Case Study of Labor Organization under Hamilton, W. Derek, and Anthony M. Krus. 2018. “The Myths
Inca Rule.” American Anthropologist 119 (4): 631–44. and Realities of Bayesian Chronological Modeling Revealed.”
Gell, Alfred. 1992. “The Technology of Enchantment and the En- American Antiquity 83 (2): 187–203.
chantment of Technology.” In Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics, Hanks, Bryan, Alicia Ventresca Miller, Margaret Judd, Andrey Epi-
edited by Jeremy Coote and Anthony Shelton, 40–67. Oxford: makhov, Dmitry Razhev, and Karen Privat. 2018. “Bronze Age
Oxford University Press. Diet and Economy: New Stable Isotope Data from the Cen-
Ghisleni, Lara. 2018. “Contingent Persistence: Continuity, Change, tral Eurasian Steppes (2100–1700 BC).” Journal of Archaeological
and Identity in the Romanization Debate.” Current Anthropology Science 97:14–25.
59 (2): 138–66. Haraway, Donna J. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the
Gilligan, Ian. 2018. Climate, Clothing, and Agriculture in Prehistory: Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Linking Evidence, Causes, and Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Harrison-Buck, Eleanor, and Julia A. Hendon. 2018. Relational Iden-
versity Press. tities and Other-than-Human Agency in Archaeology. Boulder: Uni-
Given, Michael. 2018. “Conviviality and the Life of Soil.” Cambridge versity Press of Colorado.
Archaeological Journal 28 (1): 127–43. Harrison-Buck, Eleanor, Astrid Runggaldier, and Alex Gantos. 2018.
González-Ruibal, Alfredo. 2018. An Archaeology of the Contemporary “It’s the Journey Not the Destination: Maya New Year’s Pilgrim-
Era: The Age of Destruction. London: Routledge. age and Self-Sacrifice as Regenerative Power.” Journal of Social
González-Ruibal, Alfredo, and Jorge de Torres. 2018. “The Fair Archaeology 18 (3): 325–47.
and the Sanctuary: Gathering Places in a Nomadic Landscape Hauser, Mark W. 2018a. “Concluding Thoughts.” American Anthro-
(Somaliland, 1000–1850 AD).” World Archaeology 50 (1): 23– pologist 120 (3): 545–46.
40. Hauser, Mark W. 2018b. “Introduction.” American Anthropologist 120
González-Ruibal, Alfredo, Pablo Alonso González, and Felipe Criado- (3): 535–36.
Boado. 2018. “Against Reactionary Populism: Towards a New Hauser, Mark W., Whitney Battle-Baptiste, Koji Lau-Ozawa, Bar-
Public Archaeology.” Antiquity 92 (362): 507–15. bara L. Voss, Reinhard Bernbeck, Susan Pollock, Randall H.
González-Tennant, Edward. 2018. The Rosewood Massacre: An Archae- McGuire, Uzma Z. Rizvi, Christopher Hernandez, and Sonya
ology and History of Intersectional Violence. Gainesville: University Atalay. 2018. “Archaeology as Bearing Witness.” American An-
Press of Florida. thropologist 120 (3): 535–48.
Green, Adam S. 2018. “Mohenjo-Daro’s Small Public Structures: Hernandez, Christopher. 2018. “Is Bearing Witness Enough?” Ameri-
Heterarchy, Collective Action and a Re-Visitation of Old Inter- can Anthropologist 120 (3): 543–44.
pretations with GIS and 3D Modelling.” Cambridge Archaeological Hixon, Sean W., Carl P. Lipo, Terry L. Hunt, and Christopher Lee.
Journal 28 (2): 205–23. 2018. “Using Structure from Motion Mapping to Record and
Analyze Details of the Colossal Hats (Pukao) of Monumental Joyce, Rosemary. 2017. “Losing the Past or Changing the Fu-
Statues on Rapa Nui (Easter Island).” Advances in Archaeological ture? Archaeologists and Modern Monuments.” Berkeley
Practice 6 (1): 42–57. blog, August 16. https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2017/08/16/
Hodder, Ian. 1990. The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contin- losing-the-past-or-changing-the-future-archaeologists-and-mod
gency in Neolithic Societies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. ern-monuments/.
Hodder, Ian. 2018. “Things and the Slow Neolithic: The Middle Kansa, Sarah Whitcher, and Eric C. Kansa. 2018. “Data Beyond the
Eastern Transformation.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Archive in Digital Archaeology: An Introduction to the Special
Theory 25 (1): 155–77. Section.” Advances in Archaeological Practice 6 (2): 89–92.
Hornborg, Alf. 2017. “Dithering while the Planet Burns: Anthropol- Kantner, John. 2018. “Is Collective Action Cooperative? (Review of
ogists’ Approaches to the Anthropocene.” Reviews in Anthropology Blanton and Fargher’s How Humans Cooperate: Confronting
46 (2–3): 61–77. the Challenges of Collective Action).” Current Anthropology 59
Howland, Matthew D., Ian W. N. Jones, Mohammad Najjar, and (6): 850–51.
Thomas E. Levy. 2018. “Quantifying the Effects of Erosion Kintigh, Keith W., Katherine A. Spielmann, Adam Brin, K. Selçuk
on Archaeological Sites with Low-Altitude Aerial Photography, Candan, Tiffany C. Clark, and Matthew Peeples. 2018. “Data
Structure from Motion, and GIS: A Case Study from Southern Integration in the Service of Synthetic Research.” Advances in
Jordan.” Journal of Archaeological Science 90: 62–70. Archaeological Practice 6 (1): 30–41.
Huggett, Jeremy. 2018. “Reuse Remix Recycle: Repurposing Ar- Kintigh, Keith W., and Scott E. Ingram. 2018. “Was the Drought
chaeological Digital Data.” Advances in Archaeological Practice 6 Really Responsible? Assessing Statistical Relationships between
(2): 93–104. Climate Extremes and Cultural Transitions.” Journal of Archaeo-
Iles, Louise. 2018. “Forging Networks and Mixing Ores: Rethinking logical Science 89:25–31.
the Social Landscapes of Iron Metallurgy.” Journal of Anthropolog- Klaus, Haagen D., Walter Alva, Steve Bourget, and Luis Chero.
ical Archaeology 49:88–99. 2018. “Biological Distance Patterns among the Northern Moche
Ingold, Tim. 2010. “Footprints through the Weather-World: Walk- Lords: Dental Phenotypes and Political Organization in Ancient
ing, Breathing, Knowing.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Peru.” Latin American Antiquity 29 (4): 696–717.
Institute 16 (S1): S121–39. Klein, Terry H., Lynne Goldstein, Deborah Gangloff, William B.
Ion, Alexandra. 2018. “A Taphonomy of a Dark Anthropocene. A Lees, Krysta Ryzewski, Bonnie W. Styles, and Alice P. Wright.
Response to Þóra Pétursdóttir’s Ooo-Inspired ‘Archaeology and 2018. “The Future of American Archaeology: Engage the Voting
Anthropocene.’” Archaeological Dialogues 25 (2): 191–203. Public or Kiss Your Research Goodbye!” Advances in Archaeological
Jacob, Eileen, Diletta Querci, Miguel Caparros, Cecilio Barroso Ruiz, Practice 6 (1): 1–18.
Thomas Higham, and Thibaut Devièse. 2018. “Nitrogen Con- Knappett, Carl. 2018. “From Network Connectivity to Human Mo-
tent Variation in Archaeological Bone and Its Implications for bility: Models for Minoanization.” Journal of Archaeological Method
Stable Isotope Analysis and Radiocarbon Dating.” Journal of Ar- and Theory 25 (4): 974–95.
chaeological Science 93: 68–73. Kosiba, Steve. 2018. “Cultivating Empire: Inka Intensive Agricul-
Jaffe, Yitzchak, and Bin Cao. 2018. “Communities of Mortuary Prac- tural Strategies.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Incas, edited by
tice: A Renewed Study of the Tianma-Qucun Western Zhou Sonia Alconini and R. Alan Covey, 227–46. Oxford: Oxford
Cemetery.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 28 (1): 23–44. University Press.
Jaffe, Yitzchak, Qiaowei Wei, and Yichao Zhao. 2018. “Foodways and Kosiba, Steve, and R. Alexander Hunter. 2017. “Fields of Conflict: A
the Archaeology of Colonial Contact: Rethinking the Western Political Ecology Approach to Land and Social Transformation
Zhou Expansion in Shandong.” American Anthropologist 120 (1): in the Colonial Andes (Cuzco, Peru).” Journal of Archaeological
55–71. Science 84:40–53.
Jennings, Justin, and Timothy K. Earle. 2016. “Urbanization, State Kowalewski, Stephen A. 2006. “Coalescent Societies.” In Light on
Formation, and Cooperation: A Reappraisal.” Current Anthropol- the Path: The Anthropology and History of the Southeastern Indians,
ogy 57 (4): 474–93. edited by T. J. Pluckhahn and R. Ethridge, 94–122. Tuscaloosa:
Jensen, Peter. 2018. “Semantically Enhanced 3D: A Web-Based Plat- University of Alabama Press.
form for Spatial Integration of Excavation Documentation at Kristiansen, Kristian, Thomas Lindkvist, and Janken Myrdal. 2018.
Alken Enge, Denmark.” Journal of Field Archaeology 43 (S1): Trade and Civilisation: Economic Networks and Cultural Ties, from Pre-
S31–44. history to the Early Modern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Jervis, Ben. 2018a. Assemblage Thought and Archaeology. London: Rout- Press.
ledge. Kuusela, Jari-Matti. 2018. “Food and Tension: Feasting as Means to
Jervis, Ben. 2018b. “Assemblage Urbanism. Becoming Urban in Late Alleviate Social Tension in the Fourteenth–Fifteenth Century
Medieval Southampton.” Archaeological Dialogues 25 (2): 135–60. Trading Places of the Bothnian Bay Region.” World Archaeology
Johansen, Peter G., and Andrew M. Bauer. 2018. “On the Matter 50 (2): 323–36.
of Resources and Techno-Politics: The Case of Water and Iron Kuusela, Jari-Matti, Risto Nurmi, and Ville Hakamäki. 2018. “Un-
in the South Indian Iron Age.” American Anthropologist 120 (3): hierarchical and Hierarchical Core-Periphery Relations: North
412–28. Fennoscandian Trade Network from the Middle Ages to the
Post-Sixteenth Century.” American Anthropologist 120 (4): 765– Luke, Christina. 2018. “Heritage Interests: Americanism, Euro-
80. peanism and Neo-Ottomanism.” Journal of Social Archaeology 18
Laland, Kevin, Blake Matthews, and Marcus W. Feldman. 2016. (2): 234–57.
“An Introduction to Niche Construction Theory.” Evolutionary Lulewicz, Jacob. 2018. “Radiocarbon Data, Bayesian Modeling, and
Ecology 30 (2): 191–202. Alternative Historical Frameworks: A Case Study from the US
Laluk, Nicholas C. 2017. “The Indivisibility of Land and Mind: Indige- Southeast.” Advances in Archaeological Practice 6 (1): 58–71.
nous Knowledge and Collaborative Archaeology within Apache Lulewicz, Jacob, and Adam B. Coker. 2018. “The Structure of the
Contexts.” Journal of Social Archaeology 17 (1): 92–112. Mississippian World: A Social Network Approach to the Orga-
Langlie, BrieAnna S. 2018. “Building Ecological Resistance: Late In- nization of Sociopolitical Interactions.” Journal of Anthropological
termediate Period Farming in the South-Central Highland Andes Archaeology 50:113–27.
(Ce 1100–1450).” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 52:167– Malhi, Yadvinder. 2018. “Ancient Deforestation in the Green Heart
79. of Africa.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (13):
Lau, Hannah, and Sarah Whitcher Kansa. 2018. “Zooarchaeology in 3202–4.
the Era of Big Data: Contending with Interanalyst Variation and Malm, Andreas, and Alf Hornborg. 2014. “The Geology of Mankind?
Best Practices for Contextualizing Data for Informed Reuse.” A Critique of the Anthropocene Narrative.” The Anthropocene
Journal of Archaeological Science 95:33–39. Review 1 (1): 62–69.
Lau-Ozawa, Koji. 2018. “Bearing Witness to the Injustices of Mass Manzo, Gianluca, Simone Gabbriellini, Valentine Roux, and Freda
Incarceration.” American Anthropologist 120 (3): 537–39. Nkirote M’Mbogori. 2018. “Complex Contagions and the Dif-
Lauritsen, Malene, Richard Allen, Joel M. Alves, Carly Ameen, Tom fusion of Innovations: Evidence from a Small-N Study.” Journal
Fowler, Evan Irving-Pease, Greger Larson, Luke John Murphy, of Archaeological Method and Theory 25 (4): 1109–54.
Alan K. Outram, and Esther Pilgrim. 2018. “Celebrating Easter, Massa, Michele, and Alessio Palmisano. 2018. “Change and Con-
Christmas and Their Associated Alien Fauna.” World Archaeology tinuity in the Long-Distance Exchange Networks between
50 (2): 285–99. Western/Central Anatolia, Northern Levant and Northern
Lave, Jean, and Étienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Mesopotamia, C. 3200–1600 BCE.” Journal of Anthropological
Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archaeology 49: 65–87.
LaViolette, Adria, and Jeffrey B. Fleisher. 2018. “Developments in McAnany, Patricia A. 2018. “Approaching the Archaeopolitical.” An-
Rural Life on the Eastern African Coast, AD 700–1500.” Journal tiquity 92 (364): 1112–14.
of Field Archaeology 43 (5): 380–98. McGuire, Randall H. 2018. “Bearing Witness on the US–Mexico
Lechtman, Heather. 1984. “Andean Value Systems and the Develop- Border.” American Anthropologist 120 (3): 541–42.
ment of Prehistoric Metallurgy.” Technology and Culture 25 (1): Miller, G. Logan. 2018. “Hopewell Bladelets: A Bayesian Radiocar-
1–36. bon Analysis.” American Antiquity 83 (2): 224–43.
Lentz, David L., Nicholas P. Dunning, Vernon L. Scarborough, and Mills, Barbara J. 2018. “Intermarriage, Technological Diffusion, and
Liwy Grazioso. 2018. “Imperial Resource Management at the Boundary Objects in the US Southwest.” Journal of Archaeological
Ancient Maya City of Tikal: A Resilience Model of Sustainability Method and Theory 25 (4): 1051–86.
and Collapse.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 52: 113–22. Milot, Jean, Sandrine Baron, and Franck Poitrasson. 2018. “Potential
Lercari, Nicola, Emmanuel Shiferaw, Maurizio Forte, and Regis Use of Fe Isotopes for Ancient Non-Ferrous Metals Tracing
Kopper. 2018. “Immersive Visualization and Curation of Ar- through the Example of a Lead-Silver Production Site (Imiter
chaeological Heritage Data: Çatalhöyük and the Dig@It App.” Mine, Anti-Atlas, Morocco).” Journal of Archaeological Science 98:
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 25 (2): 368–92. 22–33.
Lewontin, Richard C. 2000. The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Moore, Jason W. 2015. Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the
Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Accumulation of Capital. New York: Verso Books.
Li, Min. 2018. Social Memory and State Formation in Early China. Moore, Jason W., ed. 2016. Anthropocene or Capitalocene: Nature,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. History and the Crisis of Capitalism. Oakland: PM Press.
Ling, Johan, Timothy K. Earle, and Kristian Kristiansen. 2018. “Mar- Morehart, Christopher T. 2018. “Inherited Legacies of Ecological
itime Mode of Production: Raiding and Trading in Seafaring Imperialism in Central Mexico.” Journal of Anthropological Ar-
Chiefdoms.” Current Anthropology 59 (5): 488–524. chaeology 52: 103–12.
Lock, Gary, and John Pouncett. 2017. “Spatial Thinking in Archaeol- Morrison, Kathleen D. 2018. “Empires as Ecosystem Engineers: To-
ogy: Is GIS the Answer?” Journal of Archaeological Science 84:129– ward a Nonbinary Political Ecology.” Journal of Anthropological
35. Archaeology 52: 196–203.
Lucas, Gavin. 2018. Writing the Past: Knowledge and Literary Production Morton, Timothy. 2013. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the
in Archaeology. London: Routledge. End of the World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lukas, Dominik, Claudia Engel, and Camilla Mazzucato. 2018. “To- Nativ, Assaf. 2018. “On the Object of Archaeology.” Archaeological
wards a Living Archive: Making Multi Layered Research Data Dialogues 25 (1): 1–21.
and Knowledge Generation Transparent.” Journal of Field Archae- Nebbia, Marco, Bisserka Gaydarska, Andrew Millard, and John
ology 43 (S1): S19–30. Chapman. 2018. “The Making of Chalcolithic Assembly Places:
Trypillia Megasites as Materialized Consensus among Equal Price, Samantha D. R., Anne Keenleyside, and Henry P. Schwarcz.
Strangers?” World Archaeology 50 (1): 41–61. 2018. “Testing the Validity of Stable Isotope Analyses of Dental
Nelson, Melissa K., and Daniel Shilling. 2018. Traditional Ecologi- Calculus as a Proxy in Paleodietary Studies.” Journal of Archaeo-
cal Knowledge: Learning from Indigenous Practices for Environmental logical Science 91: 92–103.
Sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prieto, Gabriel. 2018. “The Social Dynamics and Economic Interac-
Newman, Sarah. 2018. “Rubbish, Reuse, and Ritual at the An- tions of the Households at Gramalote, a Small-Scale Residential
cient Maya Site of El Zotz, Guatemala.” Journal of Archaeologi- Settlement during the Second Millennium BC on the North
cal Method and Theory: 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816- Coast of Peru.” Latin American Antiquity 29 (3): 532–51.
018-9388-9. Pullman, Daryl. 2018. “Bioarchaeology, Bioethics, and the Beothuk.”
Ng, Diana Y., and Molly Swetnam-Burland. 2018. Reuse and Renova- American Anthropologist 120 (1): 11–23.
tion in Roman Material Culture: Functions, Aesthetics, Interpretations. Quintus, Seth. 2018. “Historicizing Food Production in Polynesia: A
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Case Study of 2700 Years of Land Use on Ofu Island, American
Niklasson, Elisabeth, and Herdis Hølleland. 2018. “The Scandinavian Samoa.” Journal of Field Archaeology 43 (3): 222–35.
Far-Right and the New Politicisation of Heritage.” Journal of Quintus, Seth, and Ethan E. Cochrane. 2018. “The Prevalence and
Social Archaeology 18 (2): 121–48. Importance of Niche Construction in Agricultural Development
O’Rourke, Michael J. E. 2018. “The Map Is Not the Territory: in Polynesia.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 51: 173–86.
Applying Qualitative Geographic Information Systems in the Reniere, Sibrecht, and Wim De Clercq. 2018. “Gallo-Roman Whet-
Practice of Activist Archaeology.” Journal of Social Archaeology 18 stone Building Deposits. The Cultural Biography of the Domestic
(2): 149–73. Sphere in Northern Gaul.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Odling-Smee, F. John, Kevin N. Laland, and Marcus W. Feldman. 51: 67–76.
2003. Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Prince- Reynolds, Andrew. 2018. “Lineage, Genealogy and Landscape: A
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press. High-Resolution Archaeological Model for the Emergence of
Opitz, Rachel. 2018. “Publishing Archaeological Excavations at the Supra-Local Society from Early Medieval England.” World Ar-
Digital Turn.” Journal of Field Archaeology 43 (S1): S68–82. chaeology 50 (1): 121–36.
Oras, Ester, Mari Tõrv, Tõnno Jonuks, Martin Malve, Anita Radini, Richards-Rissetto, Heather. 2017. “What Can GIS+ 3D Mean for
Sven Isaksson, Andy Gledhill, Ott Kekišev, Signe Vahur, and Landscape Archaeology?” Journal of Archaeological Science 84: 10–
Ivo Leito. 2018. “Social Food Here and Hereafter: Multiproxy 21.
Analysis of Gender-Specific Food Consumption in Conversion Rizvi, Uzma Z. 2018. “Ambivalent Fields: On the Work of Negative
Period Inhumation Cemetery at Kukruse, NE-Estonia.” Journal Monuments.” American Anthropologist 120 (3): 542–43.
of Archaeological Science 97: 90–101. Robb, John, and Oliver J. T. Harris. 2018. “Becoming Gendered
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of In- in European Prehistory: Was Neolithic Gender Fundamentally
stitutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Different?” American Antiquity 83 (1): 128–47.
Press. Roddick, Andrew P., and Ann B. Stahl. 2016. Knowledge in Motion:
Otárola-Castillo, Erik, Melissa G. Torquato, Hannah C. Hawkins, Constellations of Learning across Time and Place. Tucson: University
Emma James, Jacob A. Harris, Curtis W. Marean, Shan- of Arizona Press.
non P. McPherron, and Jessica C. Thompson. 2018. “Dif- Roller, Michael P. 2018. An Archaeology of Structural Violence: Life in
ferentiating between Cutting Actions on Bone Using 3D Ge- a Twentieth-Century Coal Town. Gainesville: University Press of
ometric Morphometrics and Bayesian Analyses with Implica- Florida.
tions to Human Evolution.” Journal of Archaeological Science 89: Rosenzweig, Melissa S., and John M. Marston. 2018. “Archaeologies
56–67. of Empire and Environment.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeol-
Perry, Sara Elizabeth. 2018. “Why Are Heritage Interpreters Voice- ogy 52:87–102.
less at the Trowel’s Edge? A Plea for Rewriting the Archaeolog- Roux, Valentine, and Gianluca Manzo. 2018. “Social Boundaries and
ical Workflow.” Advances in Archaeological Practice 6: 212–27. Networks in the Diffusion of Innovations: A Short Introduction.”
Pétursdóttir, Þóra. 2018. “Lyrics for a Duskier Enlightenment. In Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 25 (4): 967–73.
Response to Alexandra Ion.” Archaeological Dialogues 25 (2): 205– Rubio-Campillo, Xavier, Jean-Marc Montanier, Guillem Rull, Juan
13. Manuel Bermúdez Lorenzo, Juan Moros Dı́az, Jordi Pérez
Pétursdóttir, Þóra, and Bjørnar Olsen. 2018. “Theory Adrift: The González, and José Remesal Rodrı́guez. 2018. “The Ecology
Matter of Archaeological Theorizing.” Journal of Social Archaeology of Roman Trade. Reconstructing Provincial Connectivity with
18 (1): 97–117. Similarity Measures.” Journal of Archaeological Science 92: 37–47.
Pluckhahn, Thomas J., and Victor D. Thompson. 2018. New Histories Ryan, Saskia E., Linda M. Reynard, Quentin G. Crowley, Christophe
of Village Life at Crystal River. Gainesville: University Press of Snoeck, and Noreen Tuross. 2018. “Early Medieval Reliance
Florida. on the Land and the Local: An Integrated Multi-Isotope Study
Porr, Martin. 2018. “Country and Relational Ontology in the Kim- (87sr/86sr, 18o, 13c, 15n) of Diet and Migration in Co.
berley, Northwest Australia: Implications for Understanding and Meath, Ireland.” Journal of Archaeological Science 98: 59–71.
Representing Archaeological Evidence.” Cambridge Archaeological Sanchez, Gabriel M., Kenneth W. Gobalet, Roberta Jewett, Rob Q.
Journal 28 (3):1–15. Cuthrell, Michael Grone, Paul M. Engel, and Kent G. Lightfoot.
2018. “The Historical Ecology of Central California Coast Fish- “Stratigraphic and Earth System Approaches to Defining the
ing: Perspectives from Point Reyes National Seashore.” Journal Anthropocene.” Earth’s Future 4 (8): 324–45.
of Archaeological Science 100: 1–15. Stenborg, Per, Denise P. Schaan, and Camila G. Figueiredo. 2018.
Sawchuk, Elizabeth A., Steven T. Goldstein, Katherine M. Grillo, and “Contours of the Past: Lidar Data Expands the Limits of Late Pre-
Elisabeth A. Hildebrand. 2018. “Cemeteries on a Moving Fron- Columbian Human Settlement in the Santarém Region, Lower
tier: Mortuary Practices and the Spread of Pastoralism from the Amazon.” Journal of Field Archaeology 43 (1): 44–57.
Sahara into Eastern Africa.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Sundberg, Juanita. 2008. “‘Trash-Talk’ and the Production of Quotid-
51: 187–205. ian Geopolitical Boundaries in the USA–Mexico Borderlands.”
Sayre, Nathan F. 2012. “The Politics of the Anthropogenic.” Annual Social & Cultural Geography 9 (8): 871–90.
Review of Anthropology 41: 57–70. Swenson, Edward R. 2018. “Assembling the Moche: The Power
Scott, James. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the of Temporary Gatherings on the North Coast of Peru.” World
Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Archaeology 50 (1): 62–85.
Press. Swenson, Edward R., and Andrew Roddick. 2018. Constructions of
Seetah, Krish. 2018. Humans, Animals, and the Craft of Slaughter Time and History in the Pre-Columbian Andes. Boulder: University
in Archaeo-Historic Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press of Colorado.
Press. Sykes, Naomi, Chantal Conneller, John Schofield, Sarah Semple,
Shahab, Sofya, and Benjamin Isakhan. 2018. “The Ritualization of and Matthew Spriggs. 2018. “Celebrating Archaeology and the
Heritage Destruction under the Islamic State.” Journal of Social Archaeology of Celebrations.” World Archaeology 50 (2): 201–09.
Archaeology 18 (2): 212–33. Thiaw, Ibrahima, and Gerry Wait. 2018. “Presenting Archaeology
Sinamai, Ashton. 2018. Memory and Cultural Landscape at the Khami and Heritage at a UNESCO World Heritage Site: Gorée Island,
World Heritage Site, Zimbabwe: An Un-Inherited Past. London: Rout- Senegal.” Advances in Archaeological Practice 6 (3): 238–47.
ledge. Thomas, Deborah A. 2018. “Decolonizing Disciplines.” American An-
Skousen, Jacob B. 2018. “Rethinking Archaeologies of Pilgrimage.” thropologist 120 (3): 393–97.
Journal of Social Archaeology 18 (3): 261–83. Thompson, Victor D., William H. Marquardt, Karen J. Walker,
Skrede, Joar, and Herdis Hølleland. 2018. “Uses of Heritage and Amanda D. Roberts Thompson, and Lee A. Newsom. 2018.
Beyond: Heritage Studies Viewed through the Lens of Criti- “Collective Action, State Building, and the Rise of the Calusa,
cal Discourse Analysis and Critical Realism.” Journal of Social Southwest Florida, USA.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Archaeology 18 (1): 77–96. 51:28–44.
Smith, Laurajane, and Gary Campbell. 2018. “It’s Not All about Tringham, Ruth. 1991. “Households with Faces: The Challenge of
Archaeology.” Antiquity 92 (362): 521–22. Gender in Prehistoric Archaeological Remains.” In Engendering
Snitker, Grant. 2018. “Identifying Natural and Anthropogenic Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J. Gero and M.
Drivers of Prehistoric Fire Regimes through Simulated Char- Conkey, 93–131. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
coal Records.” Journal of Archaeological Science 95:1–15. Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 1995. Silencing the Past: Power and the Pro-
Soto, Gabriella. 2018. “Object Afterlives and the Burden of His- duction of History. Boston: Beacon Press.
tory: Between ‘Trash’ and ‘Heritage’ in the Steps of Migrants.” Ugwuanyi, John Kelechi, and John Schofield. 2018. “Permanence,
American Anthropologist 120 (3): 460–73. Temporality and the Rhythms of Life: Exploring Significance of
Souvatzi, Stella, Adnan Baysal, and Emma L. Baysal. 2018. Time and the Village Arena in Igbo Culture.” World Archaeology 50 (1):
History in Prehistory. London: Routledge. 7–22.
Stanish, Charles. 2017. The Evolution of Human Co-Operation: Ritual Van der Linde, Sjoerd J., Monique H. van den Dries, and Gerry
and Social Complexity in Stateless Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge Wait. 2018. “Putting the Soul into Archaeology—Integrating
University Press. Interpretation into Practice.” Advances in Archaeological Practice 6
Star, Susan Leigh. 2010. “This Is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections (3): 181–86.
on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Technology, & Human Values Van Dyke, Ruth M. 2018. “From Enchantment to Agencement:
35 (5): 601–17. Archaeological Engagements with Pilgrimage.” Journal of Social
Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecol- Archaeology 18 (3): 348–59.
ogy, Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Profes- VanPool, Todd L., and Christine S. VanPool. 2018. “Visiting the
sionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907– Horned Serpent’s Home: A Relational Analysis of Paquimé as
1939.” Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420. a Pilgrimage Site in the North American Southwest.” Journal of
Steffen, Will, Paul J. Crutzen, and John R. McNeill. 2007. “The An- Social Archaeology 18 (3): 306–24.
thropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces Velasco, Matthew C. 2018. “Ethnogenesis and Social Difference in
of Nature.” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36 (8): the Andean Late Intermediate Period (AD 1100–1450): A Bioar-
614–21. chaeological Study of Cranial Modification in the Colca Valley,
Steffen, Will, Reinhold Leinfelder, Jan Zalasiewicz, Colin N. Waters, Peru.” Current Anthropology 59 (1): 98–106.
Mark Williams, Colin Summerhayes, Anthony D. Barnosky, Vining, Benjamin R. 2017. “Cultural Niche Construction and Remote
Alejandro Cearreta, Paul Crutzen, and Matt Edgeworth. 2016. Sensing of Ancient Anthropogenic Environmental Change in the
North Coast of Peru.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Wilkinson, Darryl. 2018a. “Towards an Archaeological Theory of
25 (2): 559–86. Infrastructure.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 1–
Voss, Barbara L. 2018a. “Archaeology Is Not Enough: Witnessing 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-018-9410-2.
the Labor of Heritage Stakeholders.” American Anthropologist 120 Wilkinson, Darryl. 2018b. “The Influence of Amazonia on State
(3): 536–37. Formation in the Ancient Andes.” Antiquity 92: 1362–76.
Voss, Barbara L. 2018b. “The Archaeology of Precarious Lives: Chi- Willey, Gordon, and Phillip Phillips. 1958. Method and Theory in
nese Railroad Workers in Nineteenth-Century North America.” American Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Current Anthropology 59 (3): 287–313. Wright, Holly, and Julian D. Richards. 2018. “Reflections on Col-
Voss, Barbara L., J. Ryan Kennedy, Jinhua Selia Tan, and Laura W. laborative Archaeology and Large-Scale Online Research Infras-
Ng. 2018. “The Archaeology of Home: Qiaoxiang and Nonstate tructures.” Journal of Field Archaeology 43 (S1): S60–67.
Actors in the Archaeology of the Chinese Diaspora.” American Yerkes, Richard W., and Brad H. Koldehoff. 2018. “New Tools, New
Antiquity 83 (3): 407–26. Human Niches: The Significance of the Dalton Adze and the
Waters, Colin N., Jan Zalasiewicz, Colin Summerhayes, Anthony Origin of Heavy-Duty Woodworking in the Middle Mississippi
D. Barnosky, Clément Poirier, Agnieszka Gałuszka, Alejandro Valley of North America.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Cearreta, Matt Edgeworth, Erle C. Ellis, and Michael Ellis. 50: 69–84.
2016. “The Anthropocene Is Functionally and Stratigraphically Zalasiewicz, Jan, Colin Waters, Martin J. Head, Will Steffen, J. P.
Distinct from the Holocene.” Science 351 (6269): aad2622. Syvitski, Davor Vidas, Colin Summerhayes, and Mark Williams.
Watling, Jennifer, Francis E. Mayle, and Denise Schaan. 2018. “His- 2018. “Comments: The Geological and Earth System Reality of
torical Ecology, Human Niche Construction and Landscape the Anthropocene.” Current Anthropology 59 (2): 220–23.
in Pre-Columbian Amazonia: A Case Study of the Geoglyph Zerbini, Andrea. 2018. “Developing a Heritage Database for the
Builders of Acre, Brazil.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Middle East and North Africa.” Journal of Field Archaeology 43
50:128–39. (S1): S9–18.
Wenger, Étienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, Zimmerman, Larry J. 2018. “Changing Archaeology’s ‘Brand’ would
and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Be Helpful.” Antiquity 92 (362): 523–24.

Kosiba (2019) New - Digs - Networks - Assemblages - and - The - Di PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

Kosiba (2019) New - Digs - Networks - Assemblages - and - The - Di PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

New Digs: Networks, Assemblages, and the Dissolution

Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/aman.13261

S itting at the intersection of social sciences and the hu-

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen