Ann. Rer. Anthrpl. 1981.

10:89118
Copyrght 1981 by Annual Reviews Inc. All right reserved
MATERIALIST APPROACHES
IN PREHISTORY
P L. Kohl
Department of Anthropology, Wellesley College, . Wellesley,
Massachusetts 02181
. . . h0 8h0ud 00 hr0hg h lhhKhg lh0l 0 hum0h 80c0lyj00d8 0h hh0l lh0 8uN0uhdhg
0hd8008l 8ul0d l0 r0duc0. 0c0l]80 r80h0r0jr0clc08 0880d 0hjmg0h0r0l0h
l0g0h0r0l0h 0hd 0l0r0d 0h] hlh d@0uly . . . h0 h8l0r0h h08 l0 hP08lg0l0 lh080 l0
00gh hlh hheh 800khg l0 d08cr00 0grculur0 r0clc08 h lh0 08l.
L. Duby (41, p. 17)
0 j00 lh0l lh0 0l0hl0 r0h0rd8 0j000hd0hhg 0Xcu8P0 j0cu8 0h lh0 0d0l0l0h8l
r0gr0mm0 0r0 P0Q gr00l hd00d. 0 d0 h0l 0g0r 0 c0uhc 0jd080r, 08 0d0l0l0hIl8
h0P0 ch0@0d,j0r h0h-0d0lr0 d008 h0l m00h h0h-hl0ug00.
S. J. Gould and R. C. Lwontin (6, p. 597)
+9672
The concept materia
l
sm is laden with subtle and contradictory political
and philosophical connotations. For some a materialist approach suggests
rigorous empirical research or a highly inductive, as opposed to deductive,
methodology; for others the term signifes a philosophical view of reality
that accords greater causal weight to a society'S behavior than to its
thoughts, refections, or justifications for its behavior. This essay uses the
terms materialism and materia
l
st approaches in this latter sense and at
tempts to show how diferent schools of materialism dominate contempo
rary reconstructions in prehistory. The historical development of
materialist interpretations of history in philosophy cannot be reviewed.
Sufce it to note that the modem roots of materialist accounts of cultural
evolution extend back to the Enlightenment, particularly to Scottish
philosophers such as Ferguson and Millar (65, pp. 29-33, 48-52), and that
materialism became inextricably linked with the idea of social progress
during the nineteenth century when fundamentally diferent materialist
89
084-6570/81/1015-089$01.0
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Quick links to online content
Further
ANNUAL
REVIEWS
90 KOHL
schools, infl uence by the writings of Comte, Darwin, and Marx, emerged
which shared little in common save for the basic assumption that the real
was more knowable than the ideal. Awareness of the philosophical and
political diferences among these diferent schools is important for under
standing the distinctive forms of materialism that characterize contempo
rary archaeology.
Archaeology's association with materialism is basic; by the very nature
of their data, archaeologists must at least believe that the material remains
of a past society allow for its reconstruction, that the society's tangible,
discarded products provide sufcient information to reconstruct its activi
ties and history plausibly. In other words, archaeologists consciously or
unconsciously adopt the materialist premise that there is a significant corre
lation between what a society produced and how it functioned. Correlations
are not equivalent to causes, and acceptance of this premise need not imply
adherence to a conception of history that denies or minimizes the signif
cance of ideas and beliefs. This essay, however, argues that contemporary
anthropological archaeology implicitly or explicitly accepts some form of
materialism or treats as fundamental the activities performed in a society.
In the fnal analysis, what is important is what physically existed or what
happened within a cultural system, not what was thought or conceptual
ized. The exact relationship between materials and ideas-specifically,
whether or not the latter are treated as epiphenomenal to or in some way
interactive with the former-varies greatly among diferent materialist ap
proaches; this essay hopes to explore and critically evaluate the materialist
approaches currently dominating contemporary archaeology.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALIST
MODELS
A is to be expeted, materialist interpretations in archaeology are as old
as the discipline itself. The Three Age system adopted by C. Thomsen in
the early ninetenth century ordered history through a succession of tech
nological innovations. Worssae's Pimaeval Antiquities of Denmark con
tains passages that strikingly echo the ecological emphases of contemporary
studies and Nilsson ranked societies into discrete stages according to their
mode of subsistence (38). Renfrew (150) recently has resurrected Pitt
Rivers' fascinating essay on "The Evolution of Culture" in which material '
objets evolve in a manner comparable to organic species (136). Perhaps
most important was the close association between developments in geology
and in prehistory throughout most of the nineteenth century; de Morillet's
epochs of prehistory (38, p. 237) were consciously pattered on the geologic
time scale and assume that prehistory advanced through universal stages
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 91
that were comparable to those that defned the history of the earth. The
breakdown of this epochal or "chest of drawers" interpretation of prehis
tory occurred as the result of discoveries that contradicted the model and
culminated in the publication of Childe's Dawn of European Civiliation.
Other materialist approaches gained favor in the first half of the twentieth
century, such as Fox's ecological (53) and Clark's (30) eonomic ap
proaches. Childe attempted to integrate Marxian concepts with a functional
interpretation of society that was derived partially from Durkheim (24-26;
187, pp. 122-123) and tried to discover an order to history while question
ing the reality of general evolutionary formulae or laws of cultural evolution
(27, 29).
New World archaeology developed in close association with institutions
such as the Smithsonian and the Peabody Museum of Harvard that were
interested in the natural history of man; although refements in methods
and difculties in determining the sequence and duration of pre-Columbian
developments led to a proliferation of regional "cultures" and a preoccupa
tion with chronology (204), anthropologists such as Steward (175) and
Barth (1 1) chided their archaeological confreres to adopt a more compara
tive approach ultimately grounded in an ecological interpretation of cul
ture. The earliest respondents to this call, such as Taylor (178) or Willey
& Philips (203), cannot be considered materialists; the former's "conjunc
tive approach" efectively argued for functionalist behavioral explanations
that were indebted to British social anthropology (107), and the latter two
refined concepts that were to promote historical developmental interpreta
tions of New World prehistory. However, the revolution launched by Bin
ford ended this ambiguity by explicitly accepting White's narrow-if
archaeologically reassuring-view of culture "as the extrasomatic means of
adaptation for the human organism." (13, p. 22)
Numerous scholars (38, 90, 143, 145, 146, 150,204) have commented on
recent trends in archaeology such as the shift from a historical to a compar
ative perspective or the widescale utilization of systems models; less recog
nized is the unquestioning acceptance of a materialist interpretation of
culture. This omission is paradoxical since contemporary archaeology is
nothing if not tortuously self-conscious; moreover, its rejection of grades of
reliability in archaeological evidence (71, 131) and its adoption of a holistic
systemic perspective should have helped free the discipline from its artefac
tual base and precipitated idealist, as well as materialist, interpretations of
the past. Instead, explanations that emphasize the role of ideas or the
"symbolic subsystem" (147) are conspicuously rare (45, 98, 99, 158, 201),
associated with archaeologists who are considered old-fashioned or reac
tionary (31, 119), or ridiculed as the last gasp of a misguided humanism
obstructing the advance of science (72, 150).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
92 KOHL
This reaction against nonexplanatory idealist interpretations is under
standable and largely justified. Unquestionably, many idealist concepts for
explaining prehistoric change or stability, such as Piggott's tautologous
distinction (132) between innovating and conserving societies, deserve the
censure they have received. However, other assessments as to the nature
and potential of archaeological evidence, such as Leach's elegant-if de
pressing-- riticisms (103, 104), bear more careful scrutiny. On a more
philosophical level, it must be admitted that the materialist assumption that
ideology only represents "false consciousness" or that the content of ideas
is irrelevant to the manner in which values and beliefs are manipulated for
social ends remains open to serious question (10). This essay, which focuses
on materialist approaches, unfortunately cannot discuss the inadequacies of
idealist interpretations of prehistory and merely notes the decline or passing
of these once popular models for understanding the past.
In order to understand why materialist interpretations are so popular, it
is necessary to consider briefly structural changes within the discipline
during the last 30 years. At the same time, since the theories or models in
any social science never develop solely as the product of an evolution of
ideas within a particular discipline, it is essential to trace the refection of
broader concers of late twentieth century Wester society within the
dominant materialist models in archaeology. For example, historians of
archaeology (70; 187, pp. 4- 55) have shown how the popular hyperdifu
sionist theories of the early twentieth century, which ofen degenerated into
scarcely disguised racist accounts of national supremacy, clearly reflected
growing competition among European nation-states and the rise of fascism.
So today, the dominant materialist models stressing environmental mis
management (e.g. 37) or the inevitability of long-term population growth
(32) mirror the difculties of the contemporary world as advanced nations
attempt to obtain scarce resources and control the numbers of people resid
ing on spaceship Earth. The New Archaeology emerged during America's
post-Sputnik phase when Science, stimulated by fear, was called upon to
solve social as well as technical problems. It passed its youth during the
years of protest against the Vietnam war by insisting upon the discipline's
relevance for explaining past and possibly directing future social change (54,
194). However, it is a curious fact that while other social sciences and
history, strongly influenced by the civil rights movement and Vietnam, were
rediscovering their earlier traditions and questioning the possibility of im
partial, value-free social science research, archaeologists were advocating
vehemently the positivist goals of hypothesis testing and objectivity as the
salvation of their discipline. While social anthropologists were widening
their spatial and temporal horizons (168), acknowledging their discipline's
unsavory relationship to colonialism (7), and rediscovering history and
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 93
Marx (163), archaeologists were pursuing the admirable goals of refning
their methodological skills and establishing generalizations or "laws" of
cultural processes.
This disparity in development can be explained partially by basic changes
in the ways in which archaeological research was conducted. Sources of
funding shifed to public agencies, the richest of which supported scientifc,
not humanistic or historical, investigtions. Archaeology's association with
natural and physical sciences became much closer with the widescale adop
tion of techniques as indispensable as radiocarbon dating and trace element
analyses. Problems, such as the beginnings of domestication, were ad
dressed which required active collaboration with specialists from the natu
ral sciences. That these problems contained by their very nature a strong
materialist component to bias is undeniable. Why they were frst systemat
ically addressed after World War II is a more complicated question which
in part simply refected the state of knowledge at the time (18). Once such
collaboration occurred, however, multidisciplinary research quickly
became a standardized. procedure which stimulated and fostered ecological
interpretations of the past. Archaeology, which developed during the nine
teenth century in association with natural sciences like geology, retured
to them in the mid-twentieth century to forge a new, more sophisticated
naturalistic ordering of prehistory. The adoption of data processing tech
niques and employment of quantitative methods likewise has profoundly
infuenced the discipline; while such methods may or may not b used to
support a materialist view of culture, the attempt to specify quantitatively
the nature of a problem implies, at least, the acceptance of a tangible,
concrete reality to culture that is capable of statistical manipulation.
Archaeology, particularly in the United States, has always responded
selectively to developments in its sister (or parental) discipline, an
thropology (110). Cultural ecology or ecological anthropology has enjoyed
considerable prominence during the past decade (63, 128, 141, 191), and its
findings and literature have been widely cited by archaeologists. The cul
tural materialism that Harris (65, 66) and his colleagues (e.g. 96) advocate
has infuenced archaeology perhaps more than any other school; its archae
ological appeal undoubtedly can be explained by its rigorous and consistent
adherence to a strategy that by defnition has material correlates. An
thropologists (22, 125, 205, 206) and ethnohistorians (88) who work on the
beginnings of civilization in the New World from a more critical social and
historical perspective have infuenced their archaeological colleagues; simi
larly, Assyriologists interested in the reconstruction of social structure,
particularly the Soviet school headed by Diakonof (39), have helped ar
chaeologists understand the emergence of complex society in Southwest
Asia (2, 93, 211). Dependency theories of development, particularly the
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
94 KOHL
world-system model of Wallerstein (193) and the "total history" ofBraudel
and the historians of the Annates school (176), are beginning to be cited in
the archaeological literature (94, 114, 155). Finally, explicitly Marxist ap
proaches to archaelogy (56, 91, 171, 172, 183) have appeared that are
indebted both to Childe and to more recent structural Marxists such as
Godelier (58, 59) Terray (179), and Friedman (51).
It also is worth noting which approaches in anthropology have only
slightly influence the course of contemporary archaeology. Specifcally,
the discipline has largely igored the perspectives provided by structural
ism, cognitive or behavioral and acculturational approaches (137, pp. 28-
30), culture and personality studies, and symbolic and aethetic
anthropology. Their absence simply cannot be explained by the fact that
such schools are les closely associated with the etic reality that produces
the hard arefactual dt of archaeology. Symbolic and aesthetic an
throplogy, for example, are concered directly with materials: their style
and cultural signifcance. Lechtman (106) forcefully argues that technologi
cal systems ca b completely reconstructed through the laboratory analy
sis of artifacts and believes that such systems encapsulate a shared cultural
code that conveys meaning. But her call largely has fallen on ears deaf to
the sigcance of distinctive cultural styles. The description of "archaeolo
gical culture" or the elaboration of the so-called normative approach once
constitute a major focus of archaeological research; today such studies are
dismisse as partiCUlarizing and unscientifc. Acceptable research has been
redefed. Nonmaterialist approaches in anthropology have not been inte
grated into contemporary archaeology, not because they stress intangible
features of society that do not fossilize nor because the adoption of these
approaches to the silent remains of archaeology is difcult; rather, they have
been ignored simply beause they do not regard culture as man's ex
trsomatic means of adaptation to his environment or do not share the
materialist perspective that pervades the discipline.
Two related features of contemporary archaeology must be mentioned:
ft, the nearly universal acceptance of a comparative evolutionary perspec
tive; and seond, the equally widespread utilization of systems theory.
Strictly speaking, the adoption of an evolutionary or systems approach does
not imply the acceptance of a materialist interpretation of culture. Cultures
can evolve for a variety of reasons, and, depending upon one's data and/or
philosophical and political beliefs, ideas can be invoked as primary agents
of cultural evolution. At most, it can be argued that evolutionary studies
usually stress the natural character of the processe they describe; the thesis
that given enough time Polynesians wilevolve into Englishmen is material
ist only in the broad sense that it postulates a shared human nature ex
periencing a common course of development. The rebirth of cultural evolu-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIst APPROACHES 95
tionism in archaeology (121, 164) must be distinguished from materialist
interpretations purporting to explain this evolution. That is, despite the
historical association from Morgan to White of evolution with materialism,
there is no necessary correspondence between them (65, p. 635), and several
of the most ardent proponents of the new, expanded multilinear evolution,
such as Renfrew, cannot be considered materialists.
If one simply considers the utilization of systems theory in the social
sciences by Parsons and his followers (177), it is obvious that there is no
necessary link between materialism and systems analysis. Most systemic
models divide culture arbitrarily into subsystems, each of which by defini
tion can upset the culture's sensitive homeostatic state and induce change.
As already noted, it is paradoxical that acceptance of a systemic framework
of analysis has not led to a rejection of materialism in that the latter explains
development primarily as the product of changes in those speifc subsys
tems related to the society's material or economic base. In other words, so
pervasive has been the acceptance of both systemic and materialist models
that their logical incompatibility has been scarcely recognized. It also
should be noted that even systems adherents such as Hill (76) now recognize
that societies may or may not seek some defined state of equilibrium, that
confict between social groups somehow must be incorporated into systemic
models, and that all change is not gradual but may be sudden and cata
strophic. Sufce it to add that the assumption that cultural change is always
multifactorial may tell us little more than that such change is a complex
process.
Accompanying the rise of materialist interpretations in prehistory has
been a corresponding deemphasis on the significance of variability and
diferences among archaeological assemblages. Studies (97, 167) have prop
erly criticized facile identifications of pots with peoples and questioned the
validity of concepts as basic as the archaeological culture. Yet for our
purposes such studies again illustrate the materialist orientation of the
discipline. A specific cultural trait or style cannot be explained on its own
terms as the product of a unique historical development, but must be related
to the material base or somehow interpreted as adaptive in an evolutionary
sense. Even the variability in Upper Palaeolithic assemblages that cannot
be explained functionally is considered evidence for the natural evolution
of Homo sapiens sapiens and his successful response to adaptational stress;
humans, lke mountain sheep, evolved means of defining and maintaining
boundaries "in a precarious periglacial environment" (33, pp. 76-78). The
point is not to question the validity of Conkey's stimulating essay but to
observe how the argument is marshalled, the intellectual arena in which it
is set. The most elaborate cultural practices, such as the ritual slaughter of
pigs in New Guinea [Rappaport's study (141) is cited approvingly], repre-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
96 KOHL
sent adaptations to the e
n
vironment; style and symbols are reduced to their
material base. One cannot argue that in its unwillingness to admit the
importance of archaeologically detectable cultural diferences the discipline
has retured to a natural epochal vision of prehistory comparable to that
advanced by de Mortillet in the nineteenth century ; today ' s materialism is
more sophisticat" ed and flexible. One can suggest, however, that the most
productive avenues of investigation in the near future will focus, not on
similarities, but on diferences in adaptation and will recognize-as both
Childe and Boas acknowledged-that cultures also define themselves in
relation to other cultures and produce their own history.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES
If it is granted that materialist interpretations dominate contemporary re
constructions of the prehistoric past, it also must be admitted that these
interpretations assume a variety of forms ranging from a crude determinism
in which societies only respon to environmental changes or inexorable
demographic pressures to a sophisticated ecology in which cultures con
sciously and selectively adapt to exteral stimuli. The remainder of this
essay will review diferent materialist models for explaining the past and
explore the archaeological potential of a powerful but scarcely tapped mate
rialist approach: historical or dialectical materialism. We will proceed in the
classic manner of the discipline by establishing a typology of materialist
schools and reviewing their representative works. Such pigeonholing, of
course, is arbitrary and can be misleading. Few scholars' works are easily
classified, and the divisions separating diferent approaches, such as cultural
materialism from cultural ecology or economic from historical materialism,
are subtle and frequently difcult to determine.
The following review is highly selective and does not pretend to be
complete. Materialist approaches are so ubiquitous in archaeology that no
single review could hope to be inclusive. More specifically , this essay wil
largely cover the English literature, particulatly that written in the United
States; this
i
initation is regrettable but reflects the author's competence and
the nature and length of this review. It is particularly unfortunate that space
considerations prevent a treatment of materialist approaches in socialist
countries, especially the Soviet Union. Sufce it to say that with few notable
exceptions (90, 116), archaeology in the Soviet Union and, presumably, the
People's Republic of China is dominated by descriptive concers; their
reports may or may not attempt to integrate the cultural and ecological
remains with a conventional evolutionary schema questionably attributed
to Marx.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Cultural Materialism
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 97
A dominant form of materialism in anthropological archaeology is asso
ciated with the approach popularized by Harris (65, 66) and his disciples
(e.g. 64, 96, 153). Although one may quibble over the appropriateness of
the adjective cultural to characterize this approach, one must admit that
Harris has been explicit and consistent in his definition. For Harris the
strategy of cultural materialism is based upon the "principle of techno
environmental and techno-economic (and now also demographic) deter
minism":
This principle holds that similar technologies applied to similar environments tend to
prouce similar arrangements of labor i production and distribution, and that these in
tur call forth similar kinds of social groupings, which justify and coordinate their
activities by means of similar systems of values and beliefs .... the principle of techno
environmental, techno-economic determinism assigns priority to the study of the mate
rial conditions of sociocultural life, much as the principle of natural seletion assigns
priority to the study of diferential reproductive success (65, p. 4).
In other words, the properties of the infrastructure or base determine the
features of the superstructure. Peculiar idiosyncratic cultural practices,
such as Aztec cannibalism or Hindu taboos on cattle consumption, ulti
mately are to be explained by reference to the technological, environmental,
or demographic features of the system in question. Exotic practices are not
accidental or the bizarre products of an uncontrollable historical process
but are specific forms of adaptation to a functioning cultural system. The
difculties and limitations of this approach have been discussed extensively
in the anthropological literature (51, 105, 156). Here it is just worth noting
how consonant in style and substance the principles of this strategy are with
those current in contemporary archaeology. Harris's approach is explicitly
(and stridently) scientific (66, pp. 5-28); rigorous testing and falsification of
hypotheses provide the only means by which anthropology can become a
generalizing, nomothetic discipline; less rigorous historical approaches are
at best soft and eclectic, at worst obscurantist. Cultural materialism adopts
systems terminology and is concered not only with the relationship among
diferent subsystems of the culture but also with their evolution over time
(66, p. 47). The priority of etic reality over erie behavior is 'perfectly
congruent with a definition of culture as man's extrasomatic means of
adaptation to his environment; the ideas that people carry around in their
heads-an alterative pithy definition (186)-are inadequate since these
ideas can be reduced and explained by the etic or extrasomatic base.
Cultural materialist studies abound in contemporary archaeology. The
highly successful Tehuacan Valley project, directed by MacNeish (111,
112), assumed and demonstrated that domestication in pre-Columbian
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
98 KOHL
Meoamerica began in those zones where wild maize or teosinte could be
found. Microenvironments were defned, settlement patters and their sea
sonal shifs observed, and subsistence activities reconstructed to defne the
culture history of the valley. Explanation, not description, was the aim of
the study and shifs from one phase to another were believed to be triggered
by some agent-or in MacNeish's idiosyncratic use of the term-some
sufcient condition, such as environmental change (Ajureado to EI Riego)
or population increase (I Riego to Coxcatlan) (111). For the later phases
such conditions may take the less tangible form of "ceremonial exchange
systems," but these represent "new energy expenditures" and are concere
with "the transfer of emic information" (112, p. 169). Evolution is such a
natural process that one can defne a series of microenvironments for
Meoamerica, Peru, and the Near East and show how the settlement patter
system in each area passed through the same deVelopmental sequence in
response to identical "sufcient conditions." (112, pp. 222-35)
The studies of Sanders and Price also are concered with the evolution
of culture in Mesoamerica; both adopt an explicitly cultural materialist
strategy with the former emphasizing technology, particularly irrigation
agriculture (159, p. 245), and the latter population growth and pressure
(139, p. 209; 140, p. 162) as prime movers. In their seminal study
Mesoamerca: Te Evolution o/a Civilzation (160, pp. 71-73), they expand
Steward's concept of a culture core by postulating a series of ecological
principles goverg cultural evolution. Culture is "the complex of tech
niques adaptive to the problems of survival in a particular geographical
region"; their model purports to be an extension of Darwin's principle of
natural selection to human societies and is explicitly based upon cultural
materialist principles. What is signifcant is intensifcation of the mode of
production, which is defned not in Marxian terms as the combination of
the forces and social relations of production, but a a technoeconomic
regime; progressive shifs in this base are decisive and more important than
secondary variables responsible for change, such as trade, because they
allow more people to be fed and increase the carrying capacity of the system
(139, p. 215). Despite Millon's persuasive arguments and data to the con
trary (120) and convincing evidence for intensive forms of agriculture in the
Mayan lowlands (188,189), the State arose in highland Mesoamerica as the
product of increasingly complex water management systems. Wittfogel is
resurrected, suitably attired in fashionable ecosystemic clothes.
Although les consciously supportive of cultural materialist concepts,
such as the emic/etic distinction, countless other studies emphasize the
determining role of the environment for cultural development. Plog's so
phisticated demonstration (138) of a correlation between environmental
feature and subsistence practices on the one hand, and features of soial
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 99
organization on the other, for Pueblo Indians shares a similar perspective
and distrust of cultural-historical explanations; four "connections" -irriga
tion, land use, crop practices, and demography-link environmental varia
tion to social organizational diferences between Wester and Easter
Pueblo and obviate explanations based upon historical migrations into the
area. Redman's useful synthesis (144) of the development of civilization in
Mesopotamia explicitly adopts an "ecological view of culture (14, pp. 17,
112);" he argues that the technology of the Near Easter Palaeolithic was
a "means of adaptation to the prevailing ecological setting" (p. 59) and that
agrculture was introduced because of its "adaptive advantage" (p. 93).
Jochim begins to construct his general model for the location and fnction
of settlements of hunters and gatherers by recognizing "that the exploited
natural environment is culturally defned" (83, p. 9) but then proceeds as
if this fact were unimportant. For any given area sites can be located and
their function specified as long as one considers the relevant environmental
elements of topography, vegetation, and animal resources (p. 187). As a
fnal example, Isbell's turgid account of the origins of the Andean state in
eosystemic terms accepts a more rigid, neofunctionalist perspective:
Any eosystem, including a human one, is self-regulating by virtue of its ability to adopt,
and remain in, diferent states. In time, it will come to adopt the most stable statethat
in which the numbr of spializ participating elements and individuals is most con
stant. The most stable state i one with the greatet diversity, or number of spi
elements that facilitate the most efcient use of available energy (82, p. 305).
The major problem, of course, is that cultures do not exist in the best of
all possible worlds and that by their very presence represent a more or les
successful adaptation to any given environment. Although suitably en
riched with references to energy fows, carrying capacities, and regulatory
laws, such a study tautologously describes the phenomena it purports to
explain.
A crude environmental determinism lurks behind many recent studies
(e.g. 9, 15, 89, 161) that can be classifed as cultural materialist. Many of
these are embellished by the omnipresent and inevitable condition of in
creased population growth. The dometication of plants and animals oc
curre beause it provided more food for the increased number of people
that existed at the end of the Pleistocene (14, 32, 130, 170). A few propo
nents of this demographic model (212, 213) recognize that it is unappealing
or, better, politically fatalistic, but are not deterred since the processes of
history are inexorable; whether one adopts a Boserupian or Malthusian
view, the basic fact remains that man must eat or starve. The incredible
methodological difculties of estimating prehistoric populations and the
near insuperable problem of distinguishing cause from efect when popula-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
10 KOHL
,tion changes can be detected are glossed over with a series of assumptions
that obscure the circularity of the arguments. Excellent critiques (20, 35,
36, 68, 69) of popUlation as the independent variable in cultural evolution
have appeared which make the obvious point that cultures or classes within
cultural systems can curtail their numbers by instituting a variety of birth
control techniques and are more likely to do so when they perceive it to be
in their best interest (cf also 113). Appeals to the cumulative efect of
population growth over evolutionary time should not disguise the fact that
population growth today as in the past was marked by frequent and some
times violent reversals and oscillations that had profound signifcance for
the history of specifc areas. It also should be mentioned that both archaeol
ogical [e.g. Kelteminar culture (192)] and ethnographic [e.g. Califoria
Indians (98)] counterexamples exist that document dense, non-nucleated
concentrations of people living at relatively simple or at least pre-State (89)
levels of cultural development. More importantly, it should be recognized
that population growth models may b attractive precisely because they are
politically neutral. If culture evolves primarily as a result of our insatiable
desire to self-propagate, we might as well follow the divine injunction to
Noah and enjoy ourselves. The complexity of development in the contempo
rary world and the real problem, not of absolute numbers of people but of
the unequal distribution of socially determined wealth, are obscured by
references to an innate human tendency eterally fxed by a "law" of
cultural evolution.
Some recent British writings assume an even cruder materialist approach.
Specifcally, the British Academy's Major Research Project on the Early
History of Agriculture (73, 74), a project which has achieved several notable
advances in the development of techniques for the retrieval -of archaeologi
cal remains, asserts that insights into prehistoric behavior are best gleaned
from ethological literature and equates man's palaeoeconomy exclusively
with his subsistence activities. For example, Higgs and Jarman argue that:
... it is reveling to observe how similar many of the cqncers, concepts, and even the
language of much of animal ecology and ethology is to that of simple economics [a point
also note by Sahlins i his devastating critique of sociobiology (157)]. The ethological
Cncepts of territory and home range c usefully be applied to man. Nor should we b
concered myopically only with studies of primate behavior . . . (for) . . . i many ways
the large caivore ofer more relevant comparative data (75, p. 4, parenthee adde).
Unquestionably, parallels between lion prides or wolf packs and palaeolithic
peoples may prove enlightening, and this project has forced archaeologists
interested in the beginnings of food production to reexamine the concept
of domestication and question in particular when and how the herding of
"wild" animals frst began. Yet the archaeological record from at lea, st
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 101
Middle Palaeolithic times onward clearly shows an elaboration of culture,
including, most likely, self-consciousness as refected in burial rites, far
beyond simple tool-making that is completely unparalleled in the animal
world. Denial of these diferences represents a misguided overreaction to
earlier idealist interpretations of prehistory which stressed human inven
tiveness and cultural diversity; untempered, the approach they recommend
can only yield equally specious and implausible results.
Archaeological studies implicitly or explicitly grounded in Harris's cul
tural materialist strategy have successfully questioned the explanatory value
of formerly popular agents of change such as conquests, migrations, or the
inherent nature of specific archaeological cultures. They have focused atten
tion away from the background noise of superstructural features or varia
tions that distinguish particular cultures and forced us to consider how such
cultures adapt to their environmental setting. Their concentration on pro
ductive, particularly subsistence, activities has sharpened our under
standing of prehistoric societies and the constraints under which they
operated. Moreover, their exclusive focus on material factors such as envi
ronment, technology, or demography ofen provides insights that would be
lacking in more holistic studies. That is, these analyses also are worthwhile
and illuminating in the sense that they show us the limits of a strictly
materialistic approach; such studies help us to understand better what
cannot be explained by reference solely to a society's material base. How
ever, the order which is claimed for prehistory is far too rigid and infexible;
historical processes today, as in the past, are not totally predictable (or
retrodictable) and cannot credibly be explained as mechanical responses to
changes in an exteral environment. The .dialectical interplay between cul
ture and nature, the manner in which culture consciously selects and rejects
basic features of the environment, also must be appreciated. Recognition of
this creative role is a distinguishing feature of the second popular materialist
approach: cultural ecology.
Cultural Ecology
Most contemporary archaeological texts (44; 81, p. 77; 166, pp. 522-25;
180, p. 43) adopt a form of materialism that is derived principally from the
works of Steward (173, 174). Distinctions between a base and superstruc
ture or a cultural core and less essential features still apply, and culture is
viewed as an open-ended system, a specifically human form of adaptation
to a broader environment which includes other cultures. One studies indi
vidual societies to detect cross-cultural regularities and construct general
izations about the nature of cultural processes. From a cultural ecological
perspective, the analogy between biological and cultural evolution is inexact
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
102 KOHL
since culture depends upon the transmission of leared behavior and is not
constrained by physical laws or organic methods of inheritance.
Diferences with the cultural materialist approach of Harris are real but
subtle, and nearly every archaeologist, cultural materialist or not, pays at
least lip service to the principles adumbrated above. The major difculty
resides in the ambiguities surrounding Steward's defnition of the cultural
core:
Elsewhere have ofere the concept of cu|umcore-the constellation of feture which
are most closely relate to subsistece activitie and eonomic arangements. The core
include such s, plitical, and religous patters a are empirically determine to b
closly connete with thee arrangements (173, p. 37).
If the cultural core c include "social, political, and religious patters" or,
in another passage, "functionally interrelated esthetic features," it encom
passes more than the techno-enviro-demo features that constitute etic re
ity (65, pp. 66062). However, in actual practice the cultural core usually
assumes a recognizable materialist form.
In general. adherents of the ecological approach ascribe an active role to
the values of the culture which is adapting to its environment. Thus, Flan
nery & Marcus (48) argue persuasively that traditional subsistence practices
in the Oaxaca valley are not guided by a strategy of maximizing agricultural
output but are integrally linked to Zapotec beliefs. In the long run thee
beliefs may be adaptively advantageous in that resources will be less easily
exhausted and the society will be less specialized and more capable of
responding to unusual climatic conditions. Ford and his colleagues adopt
a similar substantivist perspective in their ethnobotanical studies (49). For
example, Wetterstrom (199) argues that the Mesilla phase people of the
Hueo Bolson initially utilized introduced cultigens in ways consistent with
customary practices of food consumption. At first, maize may have ben
use as a relish, not a staple, and squash may have been collecte for its
seeds, not its flesh. In fact, such studies adopt a materialist perspective only
in the broadet sense of the term, and perhaps should be considered at
tempts at constructing a cognitive or symbolic archaeology.
Linare's impressive study, Adaptive Radiations in Pehistoric Panama
(110), is more representative of the cultural ecological approach. As the title
suggests, the movement of human groups into previously unoccupied areas
is conceptualized in biological terms. Despite a likely shared highland
origin, the prehistoric ancestors to the Guaymi Indians of Chiriqui and
Bo provinces of wester Panama difered in subsistence practices, settle
ment density, and general level of plitical and social complexity; these
cultural diferences, in tum, are explained by reference to subtle ecological
distinctions btween the Pacific and Caribbean littoral zones. The broader
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 103
Pacific coastal plains of Chiriqui allowe for greater social development.
While the correlation between development and environment is "obvious,"
it is admitte that the latter is not the only factor promoting change, and
in other writings (108, 109) Linares insists that the "social" nature of
subsistence-related practice is important and admits that the association
betwen natural setting and cultural development is weakest for complex
societies which to some extent can overcome or mitigate limitations im
posed by the environment.
Studies which trace shifs in the distribution of settlements over time
freuently are explicitly or implicitly indebted to Steward and his cultural
ecological approach (20). The sureys of Adams in souther Meopotamia
(1, 5, 6) clearly betray this intelletual heritage as well as reveal an equally
profound debt to the Central Asian studies of Lattimore (3, 102). For
example, in his recent authoritative discussion of settlements along the
Euphrates in the Nippur are Adams concludes: ". . . the most decisive
factor was the irregularity and unpredictability of the water supply .... In
the largest sense, Mesopotamian cities can be viewed as an adaptation to
this perennial problem of periodic, unpreictable shortages" (5, pp. 243-
4).
The historical actors in Adams's landscape assume not passive but active
roles, constantly shifing their strategies to maximize sbdrt-term gain de
spite potential long-term losse and environmental degradation. The land
scape fuctuates within narrow limits as natural and human forces
continually modify it, and certain perennial problems such as the unpredict
ability of the water supply and salinization always need to be solve. Pat
ters of settlement vary as cultures and their technologies, particularly
water management technique, evolve, but the setting remains relatively
constant, and the inherently unstable and prearious nature of agricultural
life on the Mesopotamian alluvial plain forces societies to respond or adapt
in limited, partially predictable ways.
Numerous synthees (118, 127) and other specialized studies in Near
Easter prehistory share this perspective. As a result of ethnographic and
archaeological investigations, Hole (79) devised a series of criteria based
upon the close symbiotic relationship betwen herders and their animals for
locating early nomadic sites and distinguishing them from those of hunters
and gatherers (pp. 162-64). Nomads are "not simply creatures of their
physical environment" but are clearly "efeted by social and political
circumstances" (p. 134); the latter, however, are unspecife since they
cannot help solve the archaeological problem of documenting the begin
nings of pastoral nomadism. Similarly, the pioneering investigations of
Hole, Flannery, and Neely in the Deh Luran plain of southwester Iran (80)
were guided by eological concers. The economy was largely equated with
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
10 KOHL
subsistence practices, and their concer was to recover primary evidence for
the adaptation of local prehistoric communities to the regional environ
ment. Few archaeologists today would disagree with their reaction against
earlier explanations of culture change and their belief that change was
gradual, adaptive, and a product of growth and stimuli largely interal to
the society in question:
H80m0H0r0j]rlhcl]0, we .are slow to invoke catastrophism or racial change to explain
what happened in southwet Asia betwen 10,00 and 4,00 B.C. We feel that ech
regional development must be seen in its own light and that interal, "adaptive" change
was, more ofen than not, the change that mattered. Each of the prehistoric regional
cultures ofthe Near Et developed its own set of behavior patters aimed at exploiting
the grazing and farming potential of the ecological zone in which it lived. The speifc
adaptation depended on each group's tehnology, and its contacts with neighboring
groups who had diferent techniques to solve their own eological problems. It matters
little that people occasionally borrowed a painted "re-ware" pot from people in the next
valley (p. 7, itic added).
.
This statement, written in 1968 on fieldwork conducted in 1961 and 1963
or near the beginning of the paradigmatic shift to ecological interpretations
of archaeological data, is important precisely because it is so explicit and
because its apparent reasonableness underscores the pervasive acceptance
of their "principle."
As this cursory review indicates, cultural ecological studies in archaeol
ogy difer considerably among themselves. The most recent interpretations
of the archaeological and ethnographic data from the Oaxaca valley empha
size that the strategies pursued by its pre-Columbian tillers were not ratio
nal in a modem, capitalist sense; Adams, on the other hand, interprets his
settlement patter data within a more formalist economic perspective in
which peasants compete strenuously over scarce resources and periodically
destroy their environment a they overgraze and overcultivate marginal
lands in their eforts to stay alive. Yet these studies not only share a common
intellectual heritage grounded in the writings of Steward and show a respect
for local variation and detail frequently lacking in the more mechanical
cultural materialist approaches discussed above, but also are primarily
concered with the relation of man to his environment, the fundamentally
adaptive features of culture. Correspondingly, they are less concered with
the occasionally accidental and frequently sudden and cataclysmic or vio
lent events and conjunctures i history which result in cultures relatively
unadapted or maladapted to their environment; in addition, such adapta
tions usually are seen as beneial on the community level with little inquiry
into their efects on distinct subgroups or classes within the society.
The cultural ecological approach has reoriented archaeology in an un-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 105
questionably positive fashion; new types of data retrieved by new techniques
have grounded our reconstructions of the past on a much firmer and more
credible base. It must be questioned, however, whether this new and nearly
universally accepted (at least in the Anglophone world) paradigm is as
all-inclusive and sufcient as its adherents claim. One should attempt to
determine the problems of cultural evolution not directly solved by an
ecological approach. Particularly, prehistoric archaeologists who study the
origins of the State or investigate complex societies should examine histori
cally documented examples of development and ascertain what additional
factors besides a culture's ever shifting or inconstant relation to its environ
ment induce change.
Economic Materialsm
The terms economy and ecolog are both derived from the same Greek root
oikos or household and clearly delimit overlapping fields. Commonly the
former term defines household literally or as some culturally instituted
reality, while the latter refers to a much expanded household encompassing
the natural environment; in this sense ecolog is more inclusive and econ
omy more directly and intimately associated with social structure and
organization. In a very thoughtful paper, Cook (34, p. 810) defnes the
economy's "general contours" as "a culturally mediated feld of a human
population's activity in which its members interact with their physical and
social environment in the calculated attempt to acquire directly or indi
rectly a living." If this definition is accepted, it is clear that the economy,
particularly its productive activities, acts as the interface between nature
and culture; through its economy a culture deliberately manipulates tangi
ble, physical objects for social ends. Reference to economic materia
l
sm, on
the other hand, popularly suggests the writings of Marx and Engels and the
strawman theory of economic determinism; unfortunately, this common
misconception, which was frequently denounced by the founders of the
materialist conception of history (e.g. 115, p. 487), cannot be reviewed here.
For our discussion of economic materialist approaches in prehistory, refer
ence is to those studies emphasizing a society's past technology or recon
structing its exchange networks.
TECHNOLOGY In general, most contemporary archaeological discus
sions of cultural evolution have not emphasized technological development
as a primary or dominant agent of chage. A sharp contrast can be drawn
with the role technological advances played in the general prehistoric recon
structions of Childe (24, 25) with the typically secondary or dependent
status accorded to them today. Although a separate paper would be re-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
106 KOHL
quired to explore the reasons for this shif i emphasis, it can be noted
briefly that articles such as Binford's "Post-Pleistocene Adaptations (1 4),"
which dismiss technologically based explanations as vitalistic or tautolo
gous, prefer mechanical responses to the environment, climatic change, or
inexorable population growth as primary causal factors inducing change.
However "crude" or "vulgarly materialist" explanations of social develop
ment based upon technological advance may be, they still stress factors that
are a creation of society and somehow intimately and complexly linked to
social structure. As such, they run counter to the current trend of interpret
ing cultural evolution as an entirely natural process, explained by general
laws goverg the behavior of all life forms.
Although this theoretical shift in emphasis is real, physical analyses of
artifacts and reonstructions of ancient tehnologies abound in contempo
rary archaeology (e.g. 19, 50, 78, 95, 106). Most, however, simply reon
struct an ancient technology and are only tangentially concered with the
relationship betwen technological innovation and cultural evolution. Im
portant exceptions occur (4, 57, 122, 127, 155), but it is noteworthy that
most of these document advance in subsistence tehnologies that led to the
intensifcation of food production.
The work of Tosi and his colleague (16, 1 33, 1 34, 181-185) has at
tempted to reconstruct the entire range of technological activities from
subsistence practice to craft production at the third millennium site of
Shahr-i Sokhta in easter Iran. Utilizing Marxian concepts, these investiga
tions even have attempted to determine the relative value of raw materials
and finished objects, based upon the labor-time neded to acquire or fashion
them. Major technological developments reulting in increased control over
plants and animals, fre, or water do not simply represent an adaptation to
the environment, but a transformation of nature and man. In Tosi's own
words: "The transformation of nature require the transformation of man,
that is to say that the transformation of reources is an efect of the social
order and the amount of individuals it can kep working together" ( 184).
Eventually, the society les how to control its human resource in a more
efcient manner resulting in the emergence of a complex, "proto-urban"
formation.
Similarly, Wright and Johnson's investigations (85, 87, 209, 210) into the
origins of the State place primary emphasis on the evolution of information
transfer and procesing capabilities. Although their terminology is opaque,
these organizational developments preumably ret upon technological
changes that increase administrative efciency and reduce costs. The meh
anisms fostering intraregional exchange and the centralization of craft pro
duction are lef unspecife (209, p. 388). but it is the development of thee
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 107
productive activities which nesitates changes i the regulatory system
leading to new forms of social control.
EXCHANGE Numerous studie of prehistoric exchange and trading net
works have appeared during the last few years (e.g. 43, 101, 102), and
models have ben developed which explain the rise of complex societies and
empires largely as a result of the development of social institutions neces
sary to control and direct interregional trade and tribute (120, 142, 1 54, 197,
198). As with technological studies, the vast majority of studies detailing
past exchange systems are not guided by any explicit materialist paradigm;
rather, most (e.g. 129) consist of detailed empirical investigations which
reconstruct exchange patters through increasingly sophisticated tech
niques of trace element and structural analyses.
The localization or uneven distribution of resources over the landscape
commonly is interpreted as bth the stimulus and determinant of exchange
patters. Cost is a direct retetion of distance from source area, and the
progressive fallof in the distribution of exchanged materials from the natu
ral supply zone is seen as a common patter of simple exchange systems (12,
148). Such an explanation, of course, may represent the most plausible
interpretation of a specifc distributional patter (1 51 , 1 52), but as a general
model it undoubtely simplife reality. The costs and mechanisms for
exchange are never simply the prouct of resource availability, but also the
result of social and political factors imposed upon the natural distribution
(67). For example, many invetigators (149, 208) have insisted upon analyz
ing local and long-distance exchange systems separately. This distinction is
useful, but not always straightforward, simply because local trade fre
quently functions within a spific sociopolitical unit, the boundaries of
which may extend beyond some immediately recognizable regional geo
graphic unit. Thus, most of the exchange of materials along the Indus
Valley and into the subcontinet in the third millennium may represent the
redistribution of goods within a politically unified "empire" and not trade
between separate resource ares [contrast (165) with (8).]
Similarly, the reconstruction of patters of interaction based upon the
limited, special purpose theorie (190) of locational geography yield prob
lematic results. Factors skewing observed hierarchical settlement patters
from the predicted hexagonal clusterings cannot b explained solely by
reference to peculiar environmental features distorting the assumption of a
uniform landscape such as the watercourses of souther Mesopotamia (84);
these studies also must take account of social, political, and historical
factors which efect the interaction between communities (169, pp. 1 2021 ).
Even ignoring the real problems of contemporaneity and estimation of site
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
108 KOHL
size that beset most settlement patter data, we pessimistically can conclude
that prehistoric applications of locational models only directly inform us in
the rare cases when the fit between observed and expected settlement pat
ters is precise; by themselves noncorrespondences efectively do not tell us
why the model has failed, and diferent archaeological methods must be
used to explain the anomalies. As with simulation models (62), the real
value of Iocational and gravity models is indirect in that they "encourage
archaeologists to consider more systematically the variables involved in
interaction" (86, p. 487).
While earlier studies (47, 1 35, 207) uncritically adopted Polanyi's con
cepts and theoretical perspective of minimizing the role of market exchange
in antiquity, more recent studies (4, 23, 93) have argued that trade repre
sents a conscious economic activity in which the various participants at
tempt to obtain an optimal retur for their own goods. Such a perspective
should yield more credible reconstructions of prehistoric economies since
it directs the analysis to the relations between exchange partners and poten
tially allows us to understand the motives, strategies, and calculations that
fueled and directed the exchange. In fact, we can generalize that an exami
nation of prehistoric exchange networks is critical for determining relations
between cultures or groups and classes within a culture. Unlike ecological
studies which focus on a culture's relationship to its environment, the
analysis of exchange patters is concered with the relations, tensions, and
relative power of groups within a society or between a society and its trad
ing partners. As such, analyses which attempt to determine the economic
motives behind prehistoric exchange systems represent one method for
constructing a materialist approach conspicuous by its absence in contem
porary archaeology: historical materialism.
Historical Materialism
The great political theorist and activist Gramsci felt that the basic limitation
of materialism was the attempt to explain "every fuctuation in politics and
ideology . . . as an immediate expression of the (material or economic)
structure" (61, p. 407); he believed that this failing, which he termed
"primitive infantilism," was overcome by Marx in his concrete political and
historical studies, not in his more famous general works or analyses of
capitalist society. If we examine The XVlIth Brumaire or The Civi War
in France, we see that Marx analyzed historical developments not by a
society's response to environmental and economic conditions but by the
conficting interests of social and political groups interested in maintaining
or extending their social power. Similarly, although explicitly written from
a non-Marxist perspective, Weber's justly famous analyses of the city (195)
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 109
and ancient society (196) proceed along remarkably similar lines (46; 55;
1 62, p. 1 1) and must reflect a shared academic training and interest in the
history of legal and social institutions.
For our purposes, historical materialism refers to a nonmetaphysical
approach to reality that refuses to separate distinct political, economic, and
ideological spheres of activity or to make rigid conceptual distinctions
between subjects and objects; it emphasizes the ever-changing, nonequilib
rium seeking nature of social life. A dialectical or historical materialist
approach accepts a confictual. as opposed to consensual, theory of society
in which the conscious political actions of social groups or classes remain
central and paramount however firmly or loosely rooted they may be to
their "economic base." In other words, the focus is on activity, not on its
ideological justifcation nor even primarily on its relation to economic real
ity. Political activity, of course, must be explained by reference to the
relevant group's beliefs and economic conditions, but these relations to
correspondences are always complex and constantly changing. Unlike the
approach advocated by Harris and tacitly accepted by many contemporary
archaeologists, historical materialism does not consider ideas epiphenome
nal to an etic reality or mere refections of the infrastructure but recognizes
that the beliefs of a given group once formulated can-during the course
of any historical process-assume a life of their own and substantially efect
a society's productive activities. Many acts which are ideologically moti
vated can be explained in historical materialist terms as due to the interal
organizational needs of the group or party championing . the ideology in
question. As an example, Gramsci (61, p. 409) cites the famous, bitterly
contested debate between the Easter and Wester Christian churches on
whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father or from both
the Father and the Son, a confict which led to the schism of 1054 and had
numerous profound economic consequences:
The two Churches, whose existence and whose conflict is dependent on the structure and
on the whole of history, pose questions which are principles of distinction and interal
ooheion for each side, but it could have happene that either of the Churches could have
argued what in fact was argued by the other. The principle of distinction and confict
would have been upheld al the same, and it is this problem of distinction and conct
that constitutes the historical problem, and not the banner that happene to be hoisted
by one side or the other.
Analogously, the bizarre practices of Aztec ritual need not reflect protein
deficiencies in the Mesoamerican diet but the interal organizational needs
of Aztec priests trying to maintain and extend their power within an ex
panding empire-state. For archaeologists the challenge is to reconstruct the
conflicting needs and strategies of groups within complex societies or the
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
1 10
KOHL
relations among dif erent "band" and "tribal" societies during Palaeolithic
and Early Neolithic time. It should not assume that society as a whole was
passively adapting to its environment and/or tehnological base.
The primary emphasis accorde to social ad political institutions by the
fathers of contemporary social science also should sober us for the simple
reason that many of the most important relations, such as patters of land
ownership, are not diretly preerved in the archaeological record. Childe
overly stresed the importance of technologca developments preisely be
cause they were archaeologcally recoverable, and his later writings, partic
ularly Social Evolution (28), show a keen awareness of the limitations of
archaelogical evidence for the reonstructon of social institutions or the
relations, as opposed to the forces, of production. Yet Childe worked largely
in a pre-"new," even pre-radiocarbon age, and his sensible pessimism has
ben supersee or displaced by advance in the discipline since his death.
The reliable reconstruction of exchange systems, the technological exami
nation of artifacts and the reonstruction of the stages of their production,
the large-scale recovery of environmental and subsistence-related data, and
the focus on regional studie and settlement patter analyses-all can be
use to determine the presence and nature of conficts and political activities
among groups within societies in ways that Childe never deemed possible.
For example, microwear aalyses and the examination of debitage and
semi-fnishe objects can allow us to reconstruct aspects of work organiza
tion, the social division oflabor and stratifcation, and, however tentatively,
labor-time and value. Nissen's perceptive fnctional analysis (1 26) of the
development of cylinder seal manufacture and its relation to changing
repreentational styles and, more importantly, to the evolving requirements
of early Sumerian society allows us to detet elusive juridical relations such
as the presence of corporate groups. A reonstruction of the stages of
production of soft stone artifacts from Tep Yahya and Shari-i Sokhta and
their integration with other developing "industries" such as metallurgy
allows us to contrast the development of cr production and the extent and
character of social stratification at two distinctive but roughly contempo
raneous sites in easter Iran (92).
If approached from a historical materialist perspetive, the analysis of
toral and faunal remains can inform us as to the existence and nature of
distinct classe within a society. Here the problem is to identify not what
the total society subsisted upon, but what speifc segments or groups within
it consumed. A representative sampling strtegy frst would have to identify
diferent fnctional areas or neighborhoods within a site and then devise
appropriate recovery procedure for each area. One conscious attempt at
such a study has ben undertaken by Masson and his colleague (1 1 7) at
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 111
Altyn-depe in Souther Turkmenistan; unfortunately, their suggestive re
sults are somewhat vitiated by relatively unsophisticated retrieval tech
niques.
Recent survey work i Oaxaca (17) has shown that Monte Alban did not
develop gradually into the valley'S largest and most imporant settlement,
but appeared suddenly, presumably the result of political conquest or suc
cessful establishment of a confederation uniting the inhabitants of all re
gions of the valley. While it may be unfortunate and misleading to refer to
this process and the nature of the settlement as an example of "disembedde
capital" (202) it still seems clear that the fonnation of this city, which ruled
over and greatly infuenced Oaxaca and surrounding areas for centuries,
represented a sudden and decisive political act; it simply cannot best be
explained as the product of a smoothly unfolding interal growth. Theoreti
cally similar results emerge from Brumfel's (21) insightful analysis of re
gional exchange within the Valley of Mexico. She argues persuasively that
the political dominance of Tenochtitlan-Texcoco transformed traditional
relations and marketing patters among local communities in late Aztec
times. The unexpeted results from a surface survey of Huexotla forced her
to conclude that the rapid growth and demands of the urban capital were
more critical for determining intercommunity interaction than speialized
adaptations to local environmental conditions.
In short, adoption of a historical materialist approach in prehistory does
not constitute an impossible dream. Groups or classes can be identified and
their interests plausibly reonstructed from their material remains. Major
evolutionary studies (52) have appeared which fous attention on society
and its latent contradictions; others (42, 57) have stressed the conscious,
acquisitive character of elite behavior and cogently questioned the benefts
or functions their activity conveys upon the society as a whole. The calculat
ing activities of political man can emerge from the artifacts and ecofacts of
archaeology. A sophisticated historical materialist approach to prehistory
should complement, not replace, the unquestioned advances achieved
within the cultural ecological paradigm; or, in other words, a political
archaeology is needed to elaborate and make more meaningful the economic
interpretation of prehistory.
Reognition that cultural evolution is a unique human process in which
the participants actively modify its course does not deny our animal nature
nor the fundamental importance of omnipresent and pressing subsistence
needs; it is obvious that conscious activities can and frequently do have
unforeseen consequences that profoundly infuence the further development
of society. But the dominant ecological paradigm has too consistently
stressed the passive, unrecognized features of the evolutionary process and
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
112 KOHL
inspired too many unbelievable or basically uninteresting and trite recon
structions of the past. The door has been lef open for a new emphasis,
already apparent in the literature (77), on the bewildering diversity and
inexplicable character of human cultures; a neo-Boasian reaction, in short,
may ensue and replace our multilinear evolutionary models, unless we
attempt to write prehistory in terms familiar to us from our daily lives.
"Men make their own history," wrote Marx at the beginning of the
XVIlth Brumaire, " . . . not under circumstances chosen by themselves . . .
but directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past." Childe
accepted this simple truth and reformulated it as the title to his most famous
popular work. Contemporary, archaeologists labor under a paradigm so
pervasive that they run the risk of ignoring the deliberately selective and
calculating features that also characterize cultural evolution. Today, for
example, our understanding of pre-Columbian development i
Mesoamerica is epitomized by the story of how maize made itself. That
unforeseen changes in this incredibly plastic plant profoundly altered the
course of New World civilization cannot be doubted, but the reasons why
man first selected and then actively interacted with it must be more complex
than current wisdom suggests. Moreover, the temporal depth provided by
archaeological data not only lets us reconstruct cultural evolution, but also
allows us to understand aspects of culture and the durability of cultural
traditions that ethnographers cannot analyze. The prehistoric rulers of
norther coastal Peru most likely utilized corvee labor on a large scale for
the construction of public works centuries, if not millennia, prior to the
advent of the Incas (123, 124). This archaeologically attested fact tells us
that societies within a historically interacting area adopt basic organiza
tional principles not solely as common solutions to natural problems, but
because they have been tested and proven to work by earlier societies with
which they are familiar. Recourse to an idealist interpretation-the "ge
nius" of a people or the "form" of a civilization-is not necessary to explain
this common and important phenomenon; a materialism sensitive to the
contingencies as well as the necessities of historical proc
e
sses alone will
sufce.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Several scholars suggested studies that I should include andlor provided
useful comments to an earlier draft of this article. Their help is gratefully
acknowledged. Particularly I would like to thank R. McC. Adams, K. C.
Chang, A. Gilman, C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, A. Shimony, and R. Wright
for their constructive and detailed criticisms. All factual errors or lack of
balance in presentation remain my sole responsibility.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 1 1 3
ll0r0lur0 Lll0d
1 . Pd8mS, B. NCL. 1965. 0nd 0hInd
0ghd0d. H Wl8l0Q 0j0ll0m0nl8 0h
lh0 l]00 0lh. LhC8g0: 1uV.
LhC8g0 IcSS. 1 87 gg.
2. Pd8mS, B. NCL. 1966. h0P0ull0h0j
Ur00n 0cl0Q. LhC8g0: Pduc
3. Pd8mS, B. NCL. 1974. hc NcS0-
g08m8uS0C88udSC8gc: 8VcW I0m
hc I0ucI. bcc Bc. 121, gg. 1-22
4. Pd8mS, B. NCL. 1974. PuhI0g00g
C8 gcISgOVcS 0u 8uCcuI8dc. Lurr.
Hnlhr0]0. 15:239-58
5. Pd8mS, B. NCL. 1981. W00rl0hd 0j
Llll08. LhC8g0: 1uV. LhC8g0 IcSS
6. Pd8mS, B. NCL., SScn, M. J. 1972.
h0 UruKL0uhlQ8ld0. LhC8g0: 1uV.
LhC8g0 IcSS. 241 gg.
7. PS8d, . 1975. Hnlhr0]00@) 0hd lh0
L00h0 hc0uhl0r. 0ud0u: h8C8
I8S
8. PSh8n8, S. 1981 . MaI8gg8n I8dc n
mc8S 8nd mucI8S: 8 Icg0u8 8g-
gID8Ch. u 0W0r0]]0h LlPU0l0h.H
L0hl0m]r0 0r]0cllP0, e. L. L.
0SSch. Lcb: A. uS. ud8n bud.
u gIcSS
9. hcnS, J.b. 1977. hc0IDudug8ud
hc Sud 0 cV0u0n8I gI0CcSS u
C0mgcX S0CccS. bcc Bc 15, gg.
353-84
10. 8c, b., bVcIm8u, N. L. 1979.
d000@ 0hd P0Qd0] g0' Hn-
lh]00@ ^00m0rXl8l h0ughl, 0hd
0000m 0jd000@ 0nd h00cl0
00. Pnn PID0I 1nV. NCh. tcS
11. 8Ih, F. 1950. C00gIC8d8g80u8ud
CuuI8 Ch8ngc u 8ICh8c00g. Hm.
Hnllg. 15(4):338-39
12. c8c, . . 1973. 8II8dcu hgh-
8ud I8u 8 VcW I0m 8 S0uICc 8Ic8.
0rd Hrch000. 5: 133-8
13. u0Id, . B., e. 1972. PICh8c00g
a 8uhI0g00g. u Hh Hrch0000glc0
0r8
J
0cllP0, gg. 20-32. cW Y0Ik:
bcmm8I
14. u0Id, L. B. 1972. 0S-gcS0Ccuc
8d8l80S. bo Bc 13, pp. 421-49
15. u 0Id, . B. 1977. 0r 00Quld-
lhg lh HDh0000@). cW 30Ik PC8-
dcmC
16. SC0uc, B., ug8Ic, L. N., L0u-
Sluu, ., c0, N., 0S, N. 1974.
PICh8c00Cm dSC0VcIIcS 8nd mch-
0d00gC8 gI0DcmS u hc cXC8V80uS
0 bh8hI- b0kh8, bS8u. u 0ulh
H8l0n Hrch0000@ 1973, cd. J. E. Y8n
0huZcn-Lc IccuW, J. J. J. 1D8ghS,
g. 12-52. cdcu
17. 8u0u, B. E. 1978. 0hl0H00h, 0l-
l0m0hl0ll0rn3 0l lh0 Hhcl0hlZ0]0l0c
L0]ll0. WcW Y0Ik: PC8dcmC
18. IadW00d, B. J. 1974. hc I8gJ8tm0
gI0]cC. bo Bc. 203, gg. 61-83
19. I, B. M., e. 1971. l0hc0 0hdHP-
ch0000@. L8mDIdc: N IcSS
20. I0uS0u, . 1975. cc8Ic8Imug:
dcm0gI8h a C8uSc 8ud C0nScgucnCc.
u 0]u0ll0h, 00@, 0hd0c0P0-
ull0h, e. b. 0g8I, gg. 53-78. hc
M8guc: N0u0u
21. Iumhc, E. N. 1980. bgcC8Z80u,
m8IkccXCh8ugc, 8ndhcPZcCS8c: 8
VcW I0m MucX0l8. LHrr. Hnlh].
21 (4}:459-78
22. L8uck, . . 1976. hc ucD8 SIuC-
uIc 0cu0Ch8n. bcc Bc. 209, pp.
287-302
23. Lh8ug, . L. 1975. PnCcu I8dc a
cC0u0mCS 0I a O00g. bcc Bc. 10,
pp. 211-24
24. Lhdc, Y. L. 1936. 0h 0K08 Wlm-
30Q )0ud0u 8S
25. Lhdc, Y. L. 1942. 0lW0]]0n0d ln
WIl0Q. M8D0udSW0Ih: cuguu
26. Lhdc, Y. L. 1946. 0l0hd00j0r0 lh0
c0l8 0ud0u: Nchucu
27. Lhdc, Y. L. 1947. Wul0Q. 0ud0u:
L0DDc
28. Lhdc, Y. L. 1951. 0cl0 P0ull0h.
cW Y0Ik: bChum8u
29. Lhdc, Y. L. 1958. Y8cdC0n. uL
h8l. Hrch000. UhlP. 0hd0h 1:1-8
30. L8Ik, J. L. L. 1952. 0hUl0rlc u-
]0. h0 c0h0mlc dl8. 0nd0n:
Nchucu
31. LDc, N. D. 1974. L0mmcuS 0u I0.
b8ndcrS' g8gcI: Lhcd0m 0 Slac: po
C8 cV0u0u 8 8mu8]uu,
Lu8cm88. bcc Bc. 124, gg. 97-121
32. L0hcn,N. 1977. h01odLrl8l8lnJ0-
hI8l0Q. cW M8Vcu: Y8c 1uV. fSS
33. L0ukc, N. 1978. bc 8ud u0Im8-
0nIn CuuI8 cV0u0n: 0W8Id 8gIc-
dCVc m0dc 0I hc g8OhC. bcc
Bc 145, gg. 61-86
34. L00k, b. 1973. LC0n0mC8nhI0g00g:
gI0DcmS u hc0I, mch0d, 8ud 8u8-
Sc8. uW0hd00K0j0cl00hdLulur0
Hnlh

00@, cd. J. M0ngm8n, gg.

795-86. LhC8g0: B8ud NC8
35. L0WgI1,L.. 1975. LuC8uSc88udCDu-
ScgucnCc 08n0cn8ndm0dcOrgu-
80n Ch8ugc. Hm. Hnlhr0]. 77:
505-25
36. LDWg, L. . 1975. 0gu80u Ic8-
SuIc8S8u0n-cXg8u80n. u0]u0ll0h
8ludl08 lh 0rch0000@0hd0l00glc00h-
lh]00@! 0 8]m]08lum. e. P. L.
bWOuud, Hm. Hhllg. 40(2) Ncm. 30,
pp. 127-31
37. LuDcfl, . . 1974. h8 03l LlPU0-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
1 14 KOHL
tion: Te Stor ofthe Clas ic May.
New York: Harpr & Row
38. Daniel, G. 1976. A Hundred and Fit
Year ofArhaeolog. Cambridge: Har
vard Univ. Pres
.
39. Diakonof, I. M. 1969. Ancient
Mesopotami: Soia-Eonomic Histor
Moscow: Nauka
4. Downing, T. E., Gibson, M. 1974. Irri
gation Impact on Soiet. Univ. A.
Anthropl. Pap. 25, Tucson
41. Duby, G. 1974. Te Early Grwth ofthe
European Economy. London: Weiden
feld & Nicolson
42. Earle, T. K. 1977. Economic and Soial
Oraniation ofa Cmple Chiefdom:
Te Halelea Ditrct, Kaua'i Hawii
Univ. Mich. Mus. Anthropol. Pap. 64
43. Earle, T. ., Ericon, J. E. 1977. Ex
change Systems in Pehitor. New
York: Academic
4. Fagan, B. 1978. In the Beginning: An
Intrduction to Arhaeolog. Boston:
Little w
45. Fairservis, W. A. 1975. Te Treshold
ofCiviliation. New York: Scribner's
46. Filey, M. I. 1977. Te ancent city:
from Fustel de Coulange to Max We
br and byond. Compo Stud So. Hit,
pp. 305-27
47. Fannery, . V. 1974. The Olme and
the valley of Oaxaca: a moel for inter
regional interaction in Formative time.
In Te Rie and Fal ofCiviliations, e.
C. C. Lambrg-Karlovsky, I. A. Sablof,
pp. 6- 83. Menlo Park: Cmming
48. Flannery, . V., Marcus, I. 1976. For
mative Oa and the Zapote cosmos.
Am Sci 6:374-83
49. Ford, R. I. 1978. Te Nature and Status
ofEthnobotany. Univ. Mich. Mus. An
thropl. Pap. 67, An Arbor
50.
Franklin, A. L.,Olin, J. S., Wertime, .
A. 1978. Te Searh for Ancient Tn.
Washington DC: Smithsonian
51 . Frieman, J. 1974. Marxism, structur
alism and vulgar materm. Man
9: 59
52. Frieman, J., Rowlands, M. J. 1977.
Te Evlution ofSoial Systems. Lon
don: Duckworth
53. Fox, C. 1932. Te Pernalit ofBritain.
Cdf : Natl. Mus. Wale
54. Fritz, J. M., Plog, F. 1970. The nature
of archaelogcal explanation. Am An
tiq. 35(4):45-12
55. Giddens, A. 1971. Capitalim and Mod
er Soial Ter. London: Cambridge
Univ. Pres
56. Gilman, A. 1975. ron age dynamics
in southet Spain. Dialect AnthrpL
1 :307-19
57. Gilman, A. 1981. Social stratifcation in
Bronze Age Europ. Curro AnthrpL
22:In pres .
58. Godelier, M. 1972. Rationalt and Ir
rationalt in Economics New York:
Monthly Rev. Pres
59. Godelier, M. 1977. Perpectives in
Marist Anthrpolog. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Pres
6. Gould, S. J., Lewontin, R. 1979. Te
spandrels of San Marco and the Pan
glossian paradigm: a critque of the ad
aptationist programme. Poc. R. Soc
London Ser. B 205:581-98
61. Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections frm the
Pion Noteboks New York: Int. Publ.
62. Hamond, F. W. 1978. The contribution
of simulation to the study of archaelo
gical procese. In Simulation Studies in
Arhaeolog, ed. I. Hodder, pp. 1-1 1.
London: Cambridge Univ. Pres
63. Hardesty, D. L. 1977. Eological An
thrpolog. New York: Wiley
64. Haer, M. 1977. The eological basis
for Azte src. Am EthnoL
4: 1 17-35
65. Hars, M. 1968. Te Rie ofAnthrp
logical Theor. New York: Crowell
66. Hars, M. 1979. Cultural Materialism'
The Strgle for a Science ofCulture.
New York: Random House
67. Harrison, R. I., Gilman, A. 1977. Trade
betwen the Maghreb and Iberia. In An
cient Eurpe and the Mediteranean:
Studies Pesented in Honour ofHugh
Hencken, e. V. Markotic, pp. 90-10.
Warminster: A & Phillips
68. Hassan, F. A. 1978. Deographic ar
chaelogy. Adv. ArhaeoL Method Te
or 1 :49-103.
69. Hassan, F. A. 1978. Demography and
archaeology. Ann. Rev. Anthrpol 8:
137-6
70. Hawke, C. F. C. 1942. Rc, prehis
tory, and Europan civtion. Man
73: 125-30
71. Hawke, C. F. C. 1954. Archaelogical
thery and method: some suggetions
from the Old World. Am. AnthrpL
56(1): 1 55-8
72. Hawke, I. 1968. The Jropr study of
manknd. Antiquit 42(168):255-62
73. Higgs, E. S. 1972. Paper in Eonomic
Pehitor. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Pres
74. Higgs, E. S. 1975. Palaeoeconomy.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pres
75. Higgs, E. S., Jarman, M. P. 1975. Pala
eonomy. SeRef. 74, pp. 1-8
76. Hill, J. N. 1977. Systems thery and the
explanation of change. In Eplanation
ofPehitorc Change e. J. N. Hl , pp.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 1 1 5
59-10. Albuquerque: Univ. N. Mex.
Press
77. Hodder, I. 1978. Simple correlations be
tween material culture and soiety: a
review. In Te Spatial Oraniation of
Culture, e. I. Hodder, pp. 3-24. Lon
don: Duckworth
78. Hodge, H. 1976. Artiacts: An Intr
duction to Early Materials and Technol
ogy. London: Baker
79. Hole, F. 1978. Pastoral nomadism in
weter Iran. In Explorations in Eth
noarchaeolog, ed. R. A. Gould, pp.
1 27-68. Albuquerque: Univ. N. Mex.
Press
80. Hole, F., Flannery, K. V., Nely, J. A.
1968. Prehistory and human ecology of
the Deh Luran plain: an early village
sequence from Khuzistan. Iran. Mem
oirs No. I . Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich.
Mus. Anthropl.
81. Hole, P., Heier, R. 1973. Pehitoric
Archaeolog. New York: Holt, Rine
hart & Winston
82. Isbell, W. A. 1978. Environmental per
turbations and the origin of the Andean
stt. Se Ref 145, pp. 303-14
83. Johim, M. 1976. Hunter-GathererSub
sistence and Settlement: A Pedictive
Model. New York: Academic
84. Johnson, G. A. 1972. A tet of te util
ity of central place theory in archaeol
ogy. In Man, Settlement, and Urban
ism, e. P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, G.
W. Dimbleby, pp. 769-85. London:
Duckworth
85. Johnson, G. A. 1973. Local Exchange
and Early State Development in South
westem Iran. Univ. Mich. Mus. An
thropol. Pap. 51
86. Johnson, G. A. 1977. Aspets of re
gonal analysis in archaeology. Ann.
Rev. Anthrpl 6:479-508
87. Johnson. G. A. 1978. Information
source and the development of dei
sion-making organizations. Se Ref
145, pp. 87-112
88. Katz, F. 1972. The Ancient American
Civiliations New York: Praeger
89. King, T. F. 1978. Don't that beat the
band? Nonegalitarian political orga
nization in prehistoric central Califor
nia. See Ref. 145, pp. 225-48
9. Klejn, L. S. 1977. A panorama of theo
retical archaeology. Curo Anthropl.
18: 1-2
91. Kohl, P. L. 1975. The archaelogy of
trade. Dialect. Anthrpl 1(1):43-50
92. Kohl, P. L. 1977. A note on chlorite
artefacts from Shahr-i Sokhta. Eat and
West 27: 1 1 1-27
93. Kohl, P. L. 1978. The balance of trade
in southweter Asia i the third mil
lennium [B.C.] Curr Anthrpol 19(3):
463-92
94. Kohl, P. L. 1979. The 'world eonomy'
of Wet Asia in the third millennium
B.C. In South Asian Archaeolog 197
ed. M. Taddei, pp. 55-85. Naple: 1st.
Univ. Orient.
95. Kolchin, B. A. 1975. Ocherki Tekh
nologii Drevneihikh Poidstv. Mos
cow: Nauk
96. Kottak, C. P. 1978. Anthrplog: Te
Explortion ofHuman Diverit. New
York: Random House
97. Kramer, C. 1977. Pots and people. See
Ref. 212, pp. 91-1 12
98. Kroeber, A. 1925. Handbook of the In
dians of Califoria. Bur. Am. Ethnol
BulL 78:1-995
99. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1981. Dil
mun: gateway to immortality. 1 Near
Eat. Stud In pres
10. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1981. Afer
word. In Te Brne Age of Central
Asia: Recent Soviet Dicoveres, ed. P. L.
Kohl. New York: Sharp. In press
101. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C., Sablof, J.
A. 1975. Ancient Civiiation and Trade.
Albuquerque: Univ. N. Mex. Pres
102. Lattimore, L. 1951. Inner Asian Frn
tier ofChina. Boston: Beacon
103. Leach, E. 1973. Concluding addres. In
Te Explanation of Culture Change:
Moels in Pehitor, e. C. Renfrew,
pp. 761-72. Pittsburgh: Univ. Pitts
burgh Pres
10. Leach, E. 1977. A view from the bridge.
Se Ref. 171, pp. 161-76
105. Leacok, E. 1972. Introduction. In Te
Origin ofthe Family, Pvte Pperty,
and the State. F. Engels. New York:
Int. Pub!. New World Paperbacks
106. Lehtma, H. 1977. Style m tehnology
-some early thoughts. In Material
Culture: Stle, Oraniation, and Dy
namics of Technolog, e. H. Leht
man, R. Merrill, pp. 3-20. St. Paul:
West
107. Leone, M. 1972. Issue in anthroplog
c archaelogy. In Contemporr Ar
chaeolog, e. M. Lene, pp. 14-27.
Carbndale: South. 11 . Univ. Pres
108. Linare, L. F. 1974. On the moe of
production in tw trpical soietie Pre
sente at Am. Anthropol. As . Meet.
Symp.: Marxist Approache to Archae
ology. In manuscript
109. Linare, L. F. 1978. Comments to papr
by E. B. Ross. Se Ref. 1 53, p. 23
1 10. Linare, O. F., Ranere, A. J. 1980.
Adaptiv Radiations in Pehistorc Pan-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
1 16
KOHL
0m0. Peabody Mus. Monogr. 5.
Cambridge: Harvard Univ.
1 1 1. MacNeish, R. S., e. 1972. The Pehis
l0Q0jlh0 0hu0c0h 0H0], 0 5: X-
c0P0l0h8 0hd 0c0hh08I0hc0. Austin:
Univ. Tex. Press
1 12. MacNeish, R. S. 1978. 0 c0hc0 0j
Arhaeolog? Belmont: Duxbury
1 13. Mamdani, M. 1972. h0]lh 0ju
0l0h L0hlA: 10m}, L08l0 0hd Class
h 0h hd0h 0g0. New York:
Monthly Rev. Press
1 14. Marfoe, . 1981 . Cedar forest to silver
mountain: on metaphors of growth in
erly Syrian society. See Ref. 1 55. In
press
1 15. Marx, K., Engels, F. 1969. 00cl0d
Work, VoL 3 Moscow:Nauk
1 16. Masson, V. M. 1976. K0h0mK0 80l-
800h8lAdr09hKh 008hch08l9. Lenin
grad: Nauk
1 17. Masson, V. M., Kiyatkina, T. P. 1981.
Man at the dawn of urbanization. Se
Ref. 10. In press
1 18. Meadow, R. 1971. The emergence of
civilization. In 0h, Lulur0 0hd0c-
0Q, ed. H. Shapiro, pp. 1 12-67
1 19. Mellaart, J. 1975. 0 ^00lhc 0jlh0
^00r 08l. New York: Scribner's
120. Millon, R. 1973. Ur00hU0l0h 0l
00lhu0c0h, 0Xc0 0 1: h0
00lhu0c0h 0]. Austin: Univ. Tex.
Press
1 21 . Moore, C. B. 1974. 0c0h8lrucl0g
L0m]0X 0c0l08. Hh Hrch0000gc0
L0H0guum. Cambridge: Bull. A.
Sch. Orient. Re. 20
122. Moseley, M. 1974. Organizational prea
daptation to irrigation: the evolution of
early water-management systems in
coastal Per. See Ref 4, pp. 77-82
123. Moseley, M. E. 1975. The Maritime
10uhd0l0h 0j Hhd00h L9z0l0h.
Cambridge: Cummings
124. Moseley, M. E. 1975. Prehistoric princi
ples of labr organization i the Moche
Valley, Peru. Hm. Hhlg. 40(2): 191-96
125. Murra, J. V., Morris, C. 1976. Dynastic
oral tradition, administrative records
and archaeology in the Andes. 0rd
Hrch000. 7:267-79
126. Nissen, H. J. 1977. Aspects of the devel
opment of early cylinder seals. In 008
0hd 00hg8 h 0 Hhc0hl ^00r08l,
e. M. Gibson, R. D. Biggs, pp. 1 5-24.
Malibu: Undena
127. Oates, D., Oates, J. 1976. Early irriga
tion agriculture in Meopotamia. In
000m8 h c0h0mc 0hd 0c0 Hr-
ch0000@, e. G. deG. Sieveking, I. H.
Longworth, K. E. Wilson, pp. 109-36.
London: Duckworth
128. Orlove, B. S. 1980. Ecological an
thropology, Hhh. 09. HhlhA] 9:
235-73
129. Peacock, D. P; S. 1977. 0ll0Q 0hd
0r} L0mm0rc0! Lh0r0cl0rU0l0h 0hd
r0d0 h 0m0h 0hd 0l0r L0r0mc8.
New York: Academic
130. Pfeifer, J. E. 1977. Te Emerence 0j
0c0Q. H 0hUl0Q 0j lh0 8l00Uh-
m0hl. New York: McGraw-Hill
1 31 . Piggott, S. 1959. H]]r00ch l0Hrch000-
0@. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press
132. Piggott, S. 1969. Ancient u]0. m
lh0 0ghhhg8 0jHgrculur0 l0 L088-
c0 HhlguQ. Chicago: Aldine
133. Pipero, M. 1973. Microdrlling at
Shahr-i Sokhta; the making and use of
the lithic drill-heads. In 0ulhH80hAr
ch0000@, ed. N. Hammond, pp. 1 19-
29. London: Duckworth
134. Pipero, M. 1978. The graveyard. In 0
Lll0Puc0ll0 d01080rl0 00l0, pp.
137-8. Venice: Erizzo Editrice
135. Pires-Ferreira, J. W. 1975. 0rm0l90
0800m0rc0h Xch0hg0^0lmrk hlh
]0c0 0j0r0hc0 l0 lh0 0H0] 0jOax
0c0. Univ. Mich. Mus. Anthropol.
Mem. No. 7. Ann Arbor
136. Pitt-Rivers, A. H. L. F. 1975. The evo
lution of culture. 0c. . 1h8L . .
7:496-520
137. Plog, F. 1977. Explaining change. See
Ref 76, pp. 17-57
138. Plog, F. 1978. The Keresan bridge: an
ecological and archaeological account.
Se Ref. 145, pp. 349-72
139. Price, B. 1977. Shifts in production
and organization: a cluster-mteraction
model. Lurr. HhlhA]0 18(2):209-34
140. Price, B. 1978. Secondary state forma
tion: an explanatory model. In rgh8
ofthe State: the Anthropolog ofPoliti
c0 90ul0h, ed. R. Cohen, E. Service,
pp. 161-86. Philadelphia: ISHI
141. Rappaport, R. A. 1967. Ig8j0r lh0Hh-
c08l0r8. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
142. Rathje, W. 1974. The origin and devel
opment of lowland classic Maya civili
zation. In h0800hd10H0jLPU0-
l0h, ed. J. A. Sablof, C. C. Lamberg
Karlovsky, pp. 84-94. Menlo Park:
Cummings
143. Redman, C. L. 1973. Research and the
ory i current archeology: an introduc
tion. In 0800rch0hd00Qh LuN0hl
Hrch000@, ed. C. . Redman, pp. 5-
20. New York: Wiley
144. Redman, C. L. 1978. 0I00jL9-
Z0l0h. San Francisco: Freman
145. Reman, C. L. 1978. 0c0 Hrch000-
0@. 0}0hd u08Il0hc0 0hd 10lhg.
New York: Academic
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
MATERIALIST APPROACHES 117
14. Redman, C. L., Curtin, ., Versaggi,
N., Wanser, 1. 1978. Soial archaeol
ogy: the future of the past. See Ref. 143,
. pp. 1-18
147. Renfrew, C. 1972. 0 m0rg0hc0 0j
LP20l0h, lh0 L]c0d08, 0hd lh0
H0g00h h lh0 hrd l0hhum . C
London: Methuen
148. Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as action at a
distance: questions of integration and
communication. See Ref. 101, pp. 3-59
149. Renfrew, C. 1977. Introduction: pro
ductidn and exchange in early state so
cieties, the evidence of pottery. See Ref.
1 29, pp. 1-20
150. Renfrew, C. 1979. Transforations. In
r0h8j0rm0l0h8 m0lh0m0lOl H]-
]r00ch08 l0 Lulur0 Lh0hg0, ed. A. C.
Renfrew, pp. 1-44. New York: Aca
demic
151. Renfrew, C., Dixon, J. 1976. See Ref.
127, pp. 137-50
152. Renfrew, C., Dixon, 1., Cann, J. R.
1966. Obsidian and early culture con
tact in the Near East. P. 0h8l. 0c.
32:3072
153. Ross, E. B. 1978. Food taboos, diet, and
hunting strategy: the adaptation to, ani
mals in Amazon cultural ecology. Lurr.
Hhlhr0]0l 19: 1-36
154. Rowlands, M. J. 1971. The archaeologi
cal interpretation of prehistoric metal
working. 0rldHrch0c0 3: 210-24
155. Rowlands, M. J. 1981. A critique of
world systems theory and its relevance
for Old World prehistory. f Hrch000
0. u]_ 0r. In press
156. Sanlins, M. 1976. Lulur0 0hdI0clc0
0080h. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
157. Sahlins, M. 1976. h0 U80 0hdH0u800j
00@. Ann Arbr: Univ. Mich.
158. Sandars, N. K 1979. The religious de
velopment of some early soieties. In
h0 rgh8 0jLPU0l0h. ed. P. R. S.
Moorey, pp. 103-27. London: Oxford
Univ. Press
1 59. Sanders, W. T. 1977. Resource utiliza
tion and political evolution in the
Tehuacan Valley. See Ref. 76, pp.
231-58
160. Sanders, W. T., Price, B. 1968.
0800m0rc0. h0 P0ul0h 0j0 L9-
Z0l0h, New York: Random House
1 61 . Schifer, M. 1980. Review of For Theor
udhg h Hrch0000@. Hm Hhlg.
45(2):377
162. Schumpeter, J. 1962. L0]l0u8m, 0-
c0u8m, 0hd 10m0cr0c]. New York:
Harper & Row
163. Seddon, D. 1978. 00l0h8 0j0duc-
l0h. 0rXl H]]r00ch08 l0 Economic
Hhlhr0]00@. London: Cass
164. Serice, E. 1975. rgh8 0j lh0 f0l0
0hd LPU0l0h. New York: Norton
165. Shafer, J. 1980. Harappan exteral
trade: a critical assessment. In hdu8
LPU0l0h'00m80hdSfu08, ed. B.
B. Lal, S. C. Malik. Simla: Indian Inst.
Adv. Study. In press
166. Sharer, R. J., Asmore, W. 1979. 1uhd0-
m0hl08 0jHrch0000@. Menlo Park:
Cummings
167. Shennan, S. 1978. Archaelogical 'cul
ture': an empirical investigation. See
Ref. 77, pp. 1 13-4
168. Smith, C. A. 1976. 0g0h0 Hh0]8U'
0 1 c0h0mc]8l0m8, 0. 2, 0c0
]8l0m8. New York: Academic
169. Smith, M. E. 1979. The Azte market
ing system and settlement patter in the
Valley of Mexico: a centra place analy-
,
sis. Hm. Hhlg. 44: 1 10-24
170. Smith, P . .. . 1976. 00d 0ducl0h
0hd 1lI . L0h80gu0hc08. Menlo Park:
Cummings
171. Spriggs, M. 1977. Where the hell are
we? (or a young man's quest). In Hr-
ch0000@ 0hd Hhlhr0]0, ed. M.
Spriggs, pp. 3-17. Br. Archaeol. Rep.
Suppl. Ser. 19
172. Sprggs, M. 1981. 0rul 10r8]0clP08
h Hrch0000@. London: Cambridge
Univ. Press. In press
173. Steward, J. H. 1955. 00Q0jLulur0
Lh0hg0. Urbana: Univ. m.
174. Steward, J. H. 1977. P0ml0h 0hd
c00@' &0]8 0h 0c0 r0h8j0rm0-
l0h, ed. 1. C. Steward, R. F. Murphy.
Urbana: Univ. Ill.
175. Steward, J. H., Setzler, F. M. 1938.
Function and confguration in archaeol
ogy. Hm. Hhlg. 4(1):4-10
176. Stoianovich, T. 1976. h0h W8l0rc0
0lh0d. h0 Hhh008 0r0dgm.
Ithaca: Corell Univ. Press
177. Sutherland, J. W. 1973. H 0h0r0]8-
l0m8 1ho8o]h}jor lh0 ocd 0hd c-
h0P0r0 c0hc08. New York: Braziller
178. Taylor, W. W. 1948. Hlud]0jHNh00-
qlog0m. 0r. Hm. Hhlhr0]0L H&0c.
69. Menasha
179. Terray, . 1972. 0Ifm 0hd m-
lP0 0c0l08. New York: Monthly
Rev. Press
180. Thomas, D. H. 1974. 0dclhg lh0
108l. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston ,
fSI. Tosi, M. 1965. Excavations at Shahr-i
Sokhta, a chalcolithic settlement i the
Iranian Seistan: preliminary ,report on
the ft campaign, October-December
1967. 08l0hd W08l 18:9-66
182. Tosi, M. 1969. Excavations at Shahr-i
Sokhta; preliminary report on the sec-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
1 18 KOHL
ond C8mg8g, bcg!cmbt-Iocmbt
V. 0l 0hd Ol V.ZJ~J
J. 08, N. V13. bc dl8U!08 0 8!8!c
otm8!on n NoQ t8n, 8nd
Lcn!t8 88. w0cl. Hhlh]0
[8):1J~
+. o8,N. V . 0mm!08!on8ndgto-
!ob0oog: 88g!8 o !obu0ogy 0t
!bc !t8n80tm8!0n 0 n8!utc. n 0r]
gHculur0 0hd 0l0Hu@. L0hlrl0u-
ll0h8l0 0]m]8lum 0h Nglh8 lhl
0hd Ol Asia e. . Not!cn8cn, .
b0tc06n Scand hJl HJl0h Stud.
[b!ud. A88n ogO8, Yo. 3). Logcnb8-
gcn. n gt8
3. 08, N., Qo,N. V1J.L!b0!Ob-
n00g bbl0d!bc8g882u!t8dc. X-
]0dlll0h b: 3~J
b. tgct, . Vb. 0jhd WUl0Q. h0
0 0d0jIhUl0Q. cWYotX:Mo!,
Bncb8t! & 08!on
1 87. Triger, B. V. Grdon Chi/de: Revo-
ull0h8 lh HNh0000@. Lond0n:
b8m & Mud8on
. m6t, B. L. V1+. tchl8!otI0 0!cn-
8lVc agicutue in the Maya 0W8008.
cl0hc0 185: 1 18-24
V. mct, B. L., J0bu8on, . C. V1V.
N88 d l0 !bc L0g80 Y8lc, M0n-
dut88. Hm. Hhllg. ++[):VV~J
V. Y8nCc, J. . V1. 0 0rch0hl8
0rd. 0 00]h] 0j 0080hhg
ngcWo L 8: tcn!Cc-M8
V. Y8yd8, . ., N0L8y, . J. V13. cW
0ltU!l008 i O0l0g 800 U00gl08l 8n-
!bt0g00. Hhh. 0P. Hhlh_.
+:VJJb
VZ. Y00gt8d0V, . Y. N8m6doV, . .
V13. ]0r00hllhl ]0P]0kh. No8-
0oW: 8uX
VJ. 8ct8!c0, . V1J. 0 0d0D
0rd-]8l0m. L0]ll0Ul Hgrlculur0
0hd lh0 Nglh80jlh0u]00h 0rd-
c0h0m] lh lh0Dl00hlh L0hluQ. cW
Y0tX: 08dcm0
V4. Watson. . J., I8nC, b. .,Bcdm8n,
C. L. V1. X]0h0ll0h lhHNh000@.
Hh X]lcll]cl0hlQc H]]Dch. cW
Y0tX: L0umb8 LnV. tm8
V3. cbct, N. V3. 0 Cit. cW York:
N80m8n
V. cbct, N. V1b. 0 Hgmrl0h 00-
0@ 0jHhcl0hl LlPlUlkm London:
cW L 0X
V1. g8nd, . V11.bcprehistory o!bc
8!8!c 0 Z8C8!U88. I Hhu0N0 d0 WU-
l0Nc0 Zc0l0c0h0 e. C. . b8n0bc2.
Zacateas: LnV. Autonoma dc Zacate
c
V. cg8nd,.,M8t0!!c,L.,b8tc,.Y.
V11. utQuo8c 8outC 8nd 8outCc
8n88l8: Nmo8mct08 8nd !bc 8ou!b-
WO!cD L.b.. bU c. +J, gg. 3~J+
VV. c!!ct8!tom,. V1. Lo@!Vc 88-
!cm8, 0d g8!cD8, 8nd g8=!b-
n0bo8n. bcc Bc. +V, gg. ~V
Z. cy, L. . V1+. c!t08g!8. nHr-
ch0000glc0 0800rch08 lh 0l8]0cl,
o. L. B. c, gg. +V~1. Lam-
btdgc: n!btog
. cy, L. R. V1b.N08mct0800V-
l28!0n 8nd !bc dO 0!t8n806nd6006.
HhllgulQ 3 [VV/):3~3
. cy, L. B. V1V. 1c "d8cmbdo
08g!8 i 0omg8t8!Vc gt8!V. J
Hhlh]0 0S J3[) ZJ1
J. cy,L.B . bg8,. V3.0lh0
and Theor in American Hrch0000@.
LbC8go: LnV. LhiC80 t8
Z. cy, L. B., b8 o, J. . V1+. H
WIl0Q 0jHm0rlc0h Hrch0000@. bM
t8n0800: t66m80
3. 0 , . B. V3V. 0h8 0jlh0h0klhg
0rlh. Lhl08g0: LDlV. Lb08g0 t8
b. 0,E. . V1b. 0 0l0]0_0Xlc0.
Abuuctuc: LuV. . NcX. tm8
Z1. tIgb!, G. . V1+. At0b8oy 8nd
!t8dc. HddI0h- O0] 0du0 Hh-
InA 49
Z. tIgb!, M. . V1Z. Con8dct8!on o
n!cttcgon8 cX0b8ngc n Lt!ct
Nc8ogo8m8: 40 300B.C. n 0cl0
Xch0hg0 0hd hl0r0cll0h, e. . .
m86n,rg.V3~3L0lV.Mich. Nu8.
An!bt0g0. 8g. +b, An Atbot
V. tgb!, M. . V11.Bocn! reearch 0n
!bc 0tg0 0 !bc 8!8!c. Ann. 0Y. Hh-
lh]0 :J1V~V1
. tgb!, M. T. V1. oW8td 8n cXg8-
n8!0n ot !bc otlgn 0 !bc 8!8!c. bO
Bc. +, gg. +V~bV
. Y0cc, . V1V.bc donc 8ndt8c0
Nc80g0!8m800V28!0n: 80 c!bn08t-
chae1ogcal t8go!Vc on !bc cVou-
!on o 8oC8 OomcX!. m. hllg.
++[):3-J3
Z. Young, . L. V11. ogu8!on d08m-
O8 8nd philosophical dchotomie. I
0uhl0lh80hd0h0hd8' SI0]8 lhlh0
Hrch0000@ 0_ r00l0r 080]0l0ml0
e. L.. LcVnc,. C. Young, gg. J1~
V. N8bu: Lndcn8
J. Zubt0W,... V13.0hUl0NcLr-
Qlhg L0]0clQ. H 0d0L Nc0o 8tX:
Cming
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
8
1
.
1
0
:
8
9
-
1
1
8
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

C
a
t
o
l
i
c
a

d
e

T
e
m
u
c
o

o
n

0
3
/
2
8
/
1
2
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.