Life beyond the Boundaries (original) (raw)
Related papers
Transitions in Social Organization: A Predictive Model from Southwestern Archaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1996
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Identity Crisis: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Identity.
Identity Crisis As a component of daily practice, identity itself is a characteristic of both individuals and groups. The construction and maintenance of identity in the past may not have been straightforward; many of our social categories such as race, gender, and social status likely did not hold the same meaning to the people of the past (Meskell 2001; Wynne-Jones and Croucher 2007). Theorizing social identity in archaeology thus warrants recognition that, although our subjects are dead and long-buried, they were once people with lives, friends, goals and senses of self. We should, therefore, study past identities through the reconstruction of daily practices and social interactions to gain a greater understanding of the people of the past. Michel Foucault has argued that identity is a form of social construction which people impose on themselves and others (Foucault 1994). The contributions to this volume highlight the fact that there are, indeed, multiple, layered and plural identities, created through both self-definition and the perceptions of others. Consequently, the concepts and definitions of identity discussed in this volume are dynamic, changing with history, environment and socio-political relations (Martindale 2009; Wynne-Jones and Croucher 2007). For archaeologists who are forced to examine a static record, it is important to recognize the dynamic nature of social identity and to adopt a more active view of the archaeological record in which the construction of identity occurs as a fluid and continuous process (Meskell 2001). As archaeologists, we often operate under the assumption that artifacts and material remains have a direct relationship with social identity (Casella and Fowler 2005). Although material remains do serve as a good indication of social identity in many cases, this explicitly material focus is not necessarily justified. As the contributors to this volume show, the examination of material culture is only one of many ways in which social identity can be accessed in the archaeological record. Because identity is the product of social processes, the study of the daily lives of groups and individuals through material remains, iconography, communal events, dietary practices or burial customs can lead to a greater understanding of the mechanisms of identity construction and maintenance within a given culture (McGuire and Wurst 2002). As the contributions in this volume illustrate, the question of identity in archaeology is intriguing given the different approaches to identity construction and the different responses of individuals to social stimuli in past societies. The articles included in this volume explore the study of identity in a variety of contexts, ask different questions and offer new interpretations of the archaeological record. The Contributions The papers in this volume represent only a small subset of a wide range of papers from different regions and countries presented at the 2009 Chacmool Conference. The diverse array papers presented here should include something for everyone, from new approaches or ways of looking at identity in the archaeological record to new perspectives on social identity. Archaeologists in the Old and New Worlds are faced with different problems, materials and social contexts in their approaches to the study of identity. For organizational purposes, we have opted to present the papers dealing with the Old World first, followed by those dealing with New World culture areas, but we encourage our readers to explore the innovative approaches used in other parts of the world which may, in fact, have applicability in their own culture area. However, the volume begins with a paper by Andrew Gardner, the keynote speaker at the 2009 Conference, who presents a discussion of theoretical approaches and considerations in the archaeological study of identity. He discusses the fluid and multiple nature of social identity, which make it difficult to discover this ever-changing concept in the archaeological record. Identities, Gardner suggests, have the power to both divide and unite present and past populations. He nevertheless suggests that social identity can and should be studied archaeologically and presents a number of theoretical and methodological techniques for doing so. Gardner‘s encouragement to take up thestudy of social identity provides a nice lead into the remaining papers of the volume.
Archaeologists have tended to overemphasize spatial and temporal boundaries between social groups at the expense of crosscutting and historical links. This bias is rooted in ethnographic conceptions of cultural identity and fails to make use of the time depth that is archaeology's primary advantage in the study of human behavior. An emphasis on synchronic, bounded spatial units like culture areas has obscured diachronic dimensions of identity, especially linear and historical constructs that are common among many indigenous groups. Incorporating these indigenous perspectives into archaeological research is a productive means of advancing archaeological theory and practice regarding identity. A case study from the American Southwest illustrates this approach.
The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology
Despite increasing interest in the archaeological study of ethnic groups few historical archaeologists have addressed the broad question of how such groups form and change. This paper presents a theory of ethnic group formation and change drawn from both anthropological and sociological research. The theory is based on the examination of the relationship of three variables: competition, ethnocentrism, and differential power. Of these variables, the differential distribution of power is given the most weight in determining changes in ethnic boundary maintenance. The development of ethnic boundaries in southern Arizona between 1854 and the early 1900s provides an example of the interrelationships among these variables. Consideration of archaeological material from this time period illustrates the necessity of archeaological data for testing the proposed theory. Further suggestions are made for the testing of the proposed theory, using historical and archaeological data.
The Study of Ethnicity in Archaeology: Some Methodological Issues
In the 1970s many archaeologists promoted the importance of building theory; but by the 1980s, theory was becoming something archaeologists borrowed. Today, we rarely hear about theory building, but rather about successful or unsuccessful appropriations or translations of theory borrowed from outside the discipline. Most recently though, there has been a call to halt this one way traffic and reverse the flow of influence and create theory from within archaeology. Is this a swing back to theory building? Or something different? Or is the difference between theory building and theory borrowing in fact over exaggerated? What really is at stake here? These are some of the questions I will explore in this talk, which attempts to draw out key issues about archaeological theory in relation to disciplinary practice and its wider intellectual context.