UC Berkeley
Anthropology Faculty Publications
Title
A Critical Archaeology Revisited
Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/93n067c5
Journal
Current Anthropology, 41(5)
Authors
Wilkie, Laurie
Bartoy, Kevin M.
Publication Date
2000-12-01
Peer reviewed
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library
University of California
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 41,
Number
5,
December
2000
Cl
2000
by
The
Wenner-Gren
Foundation
for
Anthropological
Research. All rights reserved
0011.3204/2000/4
TOS-0003$}.jO
A Critical
Archaeology
Revisited
l
by Laurie
A.
Wilkie
and
Kevin M. Bartoy
In
1987,
a small
number
of historical archaeologists issued a call
for archaeologists
to
embrace
the
teachings
of
critical theory so
that
their
research could be used to challenge societal
structures
of
inequality. Although
community
partnering, an outgrowth
of
critical theory, has
become
increasingly
important
to archaeolog-
ical practice, a true archaeological "praxis" has yet to be
achieved. Possible reasons for this include a decontextualization
of critical theory from its historical origin,
the
subsequent reifi·
cation
of
capitalism in critical lesearch, and
the
obscuring
of
agency in critical interpretations because of an emphasis on top-
down
or
macIOscale models
of
society.
We
suggest that true
praxis can be achieved in historical archaeology through a recon-
ceptualization
of
the
lelationship between individuals and soci-
ety
and through a
structuring
of
archaeological research
that
seeks to create a discursive relationship between past and pre-
sent peoples and between researchers and
community
partners.
We
present a critically informed archaeological case study from
Louisiana to
demonstlate
how
such a dialogue can lead
to
eman-
icipatory knowledge.
LAURIE
A.
WILKIE
is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at
the
University
of
California, Berkeley (Berkeley, Calif.
94720,
U.S.A. [wilkie@sscl.Berkeley.edull. Born in
1968,
she
was edu-
cated at Syracuse University (B.A.,
19881 and the University
of
California,
Los
Angeles (M.A., 1990; Ph.D., 1994J. Her research
interests are
the
African diaspora,
constructions
of
race, gender,
identity, and
consumerism.
Her
publications include Creacing
Freedom: Material Culture
and
African-American
Identity
at
Oakley
Plantation, Louisiana,
1845-1950
[Baton Rouge: Louisi-
ana State University Press,
20001, "Secret and Sacred: Contex-
rualizing
the
Artifacts
of
African-American Magic and Religion"
[Historical Archaeology
31[41:81-(06),
and "Beads and Breasts:
The
Negotiation
of
Gender Roles and Power at
New
Orleans
Mardi Gras," in
Beads and Beadmakers, edited by Lidia Sciama
and Joanne Eicher [London: Berg,
19981.
K E V I N
M.
BAR
TOY
is a graduate
student
in anthropology
at
the
University
of
California, Berkeley. Born in
1973,
he holds a
B.A.
from
the
University of Oregon [19951 and M.A. degrees from
the
University
of
California, Berkeley (1998), and
the
College of Wil-
liam and Mary (1999). His research interests arc early colonial
history and critical theory. He has published [with Jon M.
Er-
landsonl"Cabrillo,
the
Chumash,
and Old World Diseases" (Jour·
nal
of
California and Great Basin Anthropology
I7:153-73).
The
present paper was
submitted
24 v
99
and accepted 16
XI
99.
1.
Several individuals have
either
directly or indirectly contributed
to
the
production
of
this
paper.
We
arc especially grateful
to
Rose-
mary
Joyce,
who
delivered insightful comments
as
to
the
style
and
[Peoplel,
who
through laziness or avocation, do not;
or
for
want
of
time,
or
true helps, or for other
causes, cannot, penetrate
into
the
Principles of
Knowledge,
and
trace Truth
to
its fountain
and
orig-
inal, 'tis natural for
them,
and
almost
unavoidable,
to
take
up
with
some
borrowed Principles;
which
being reputed
and
presumed
to
be
the
evident
proofs
of
other things, are
thought
not
to
need
any
other
proofs themselves.
JOHN
LOCKE,
An
Essay Concerning
Human
Under-
standing, 1689
More
than
ten years ago,
Mark
Leone, Parker Potter, and
Paul Shackel
(19871
issued
a call for a1chaeologists
to
follow the lead
of
cultural
anthropologists and embrace
critical theory as an interpretive tool
that
would allow
scholars to
situate
their
work
politically and
self-reflex~
ively. While
their
important
article
met
with
mixed re-
sponses in
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
(see, e.g., Blakey
1987, Gero 1987J, the call for a critical archaeology has
since been answered by several influential publications
(e.g.,
Handsman
and Leone 1989; McDonald et al. 1991;
Pinsky
and
Wylie
'989,
Potter
'99',
19941. After a decade
the "Annapolis School1/
2
of
historical archaeology is a
well-recognized force
within
the
discipline.
To date,
the
application
of
critical theory to archae-
ology has had its
most
important
impacts in the realm
of
partnerships
between
archaeologists
and
the
com-
munities
in which they
work
(e.g., McDavid
and
Babson
'997,
Baker
'997,
BaItoy
'999,
Derry
'997,
McDavid
1997, Gibb
1997,
Wilkie n.d.
a).
Archaeologists are in-
creasingly considering the political
impacts
of their re-
search
on
descendant populations and
the
general public.
An integral part of this process involves learning
how
to
give a stronger voice to a
multitude
of archaeological
publics (e.g.,
Franklin
1997b,
Hodder
'997,
LaRoche
and
Blakey
1997,
Matthews
1997,
McDavid and Babson 1997,
McKee 1994,
Potter
1994,
Wylie 1985). A growing
num-
ber
of
archaeologists (e.g., Epperson
1990,
1999i Franklin
T997bi McDavid 1997;
Schmidt
and
Patterson
1995J arc
calling upon
their
colleagues to challenge ideologies
that
naturalize
structures
of
inequality. Because
of
the influ-
ence
of
the Annapolis School as well as larger social,
content
of
this essay. Meg
Conkey
proVided valuable guidance and
direction in the early development of
the
project.
We
thank
Ruth
Tringham for her thoughtful
comments
on
an earlier version of
this
paper. Finally, we
thank
Richard Fox
and
three
anonymous
referees
for their
comments
and advice for
the
improvement
of
this man-
uscript. Of course, we take responsibility for any remaining incon-
sistencies or inaccuracies.
2.
In
using
the
term"
Annapolis School," we are referring
to
a ver-
sion
of
critical alchaeology
that
has emerged as part
of
the"
Ar-
chaeology in Annapolis" Program created by Mark Leone in
1981.
This
program has produced numerous publications, and many
of
the
original theoretical
statements
have changed in response to
lessons learned over nearly
20
years. While
the
Annapolis School
includes a variety
of
individual authors, we feel
that
their
theo-
retical and methodological perspectives are
similar
enough to in-
clude
within
a
single
category.
747
748
I
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume
4I,
Number
5,
December
2000
theoretical, and political
movements
that
have shaped
archaeological practice, archaeologists are
more
criti-
cally self-aware
than
perhaps ever before.
The
Annapolis School
continues
to assert a strong in-
fluence
on
critical-archaeological practice. Leone (1995,
1999) has
continued
to call for
what
he
now
terms
an
lIarchaeology
of
capitalism,"
while
Shackel (1993),
Potter
(1991, 1994), and
other
scholars associated
with
the An-
napolis School (e.g., Little
'9940,
b)
have published aI-
chaeological
studies
that
promote
their
viewpoint.
The
influence
of this group of scholars has been so pervasive
that
many
archaeologists and nonarchaeologists alike
have
come
to
consider historical archaeology synony-
mous
with
the archaeology
of
capitalism.
While this influence has productively shaped archae-
ological discourse over the past
20
years, the tendency
of
the Annapolis School has been to obscure
the
impor-
tance
of
agency
in
archaeological interpretations. Its clas-
sical Marxist perspective stresses the forces
that
shape
people's lives
rather
than
the people
who
both
construct
and are
constrained
by
them.
Adherents
of
the Annapolis
School often fail to problematize
such
basic concepts
as
ideology, capitalism,
and
class. In doing
do,
they ignore
the origins and reproduction of these
systems
of
thought.
Ultimately,
our
criticism rests on the failure
of
the An-
napolis School
to
incorporate the full potential of critical
theory into
an
archaeological praxis.
This
article aims
(I) to
demonstrate
how
critical theory lends itself to a
broader consideration of
human
agency
than
has been
demonstrated
in
the archaeological literature,
(2)
to re-
view
and
contextualize
the roots of critical theory, and
(3)
to provide a case
study
that
demonstrates
our
recon-
ceprualization
of
a critical archaeology.
Critical Archaeology: Agency Lost?
Inspired by the Frankfurt School
of
critical theory, Leone,
Potter, and Shackel
(19871
called for the
development
of
a critical archaeology
that
would allow archaeologists to
follow in the footsteps of sociocultural anthropologists
who
both
had acknowledged the
situated
nature
of
their
research and were
working
to
effect political change (e.g.,
Clifford and Marcus
1986,
Comaroff
and
Comaroff 1991,
Marcus and Fischer 1986). While these goals are laudable,
many
works of
the
Annapolis School have insisted on
the
use
of
value-laden descriptions
to
delineate "clearly
marked"
dichotomies: capitalists are oppressors/laborers
are exploited; capitalists control/laborers resist. Such
characterizations
only serve
to
mask
the
complex ma-
nipulation
of
social relations
that
develops in the context
of
capitalism.
Archaeologists
such
as Leone (1981,
1987,
1988, 1999)
argue
that
many
individuals
continue
to live in capitalist
systems
because
they
have been lulled into a sense
of
false
optimism.
This
"false consciousness" (Leone 1987,
1988)
is explained through a
notion
of
ideology as nat-
uralizing
the
structural
inequalities
between
the classes
(Comaroff
and
Comaroff
'99';
Onner
'99',
'998,
19991.
This
conception
of
ideology
is
most
clearly
exemplified
in Leone's
study
of
William Paca's garden (1987,
1988,
1995). While this
interpretation
was groundbreaking,
Le-
one failed
to
recognize the possibility
that
laborers could
either
pierce the
mask
of
ideology or perhaps
not
un-
derstand
the
language of elite oppression. In the case of
William Paca, ideology served to reaffirm his position
among his peers
rather
than
to deceive
the
general pop-
ulace
into
a false sense of complacency.
If
we were to accept Leone's
notion
of ideology as rep-
resentative of the
human
experience
under
capitalism,
archaeological exploration
would
be unnecessary. A
more
interesting avenue of critically informed research
might
be
to explore
how
agents
situate
themselves
within
the capitalist system. Agents can perceive
the
advantages and disadvantages of capitalism and actively
seek to advance themselves
within
it. Such an approach
would further explore
the
sense
of
optimism
that
leads
many
people to embrace the mythology
that
hard work
is rewarded
with
social mobility (Ortner
1991,
1999).
In its interpretive work,
the
Annapolis School
has
at-
tempted
lito organize material
culture
studies
that
can
help pierce or
unmask
past (or present) ideologies"
(Le-
one, Potter, and Shackel
I987:II8).
Leone [1987, 1988)
described William Paca's garden as evidence
of
a capi-
talist's
trying to naturalize his
status
as elite through
the
manipulation
of
perspective. Focusing on the experi-
ences
of
the oppressed lower classes,
Mullins
(1999a,
b)
has recently employed
similar
reasoning to argue
that
the purchase
of
bric-a-brac by African-American workers
helped
them
to
construct
a sense
of
belonging and pro-
gress
within
the capitalist class
system
that
followed
emancipation. While
both
of these case studies
attempt
to
understand
the ideological basis for the
naturalization
of
capitalism in
nuanced
and sophisticated ways,
neither
adequately
situates
actors from different classes
in
dy-
namic
relationships
with
one another.
Ironically, Leone's strongest application
of
a critical
approach has been his ethnographic analysis
of
Colonial
Williamsburg
rather
than
his archaeological interpreta-
tion of Annapolis. In this work, Leone
(1981) argued
that
since the modern
"reconstruction"
presented black
workers as
subservient
to
white
workers,
structures
of
inequality were
shown
to be unchanged from
the
past
to the present. In the
minds
of
the visitors, capitalist
social relations were naturalized as the way things were,
the way things are, and the way things will be.
The
strength
of this
study
was
that
Leone drew
attention
to
the
relations
of
power
between
workers of different clas-
ses rather
than
restricting consideration to a single class.
In order to address
the
lack of agency so apparent
in
current critical archaeologies, we suggest an approach
that
more openly considers persons as conscious of
the
system
in
which
they live and capable,
within
its struc-
tural constraints, of pursuing
alternative
avenues of ac-
tion. This,
of
course, is
not
a new observation (sec, e.g.,
Comaroff and Comaroff
1991;
Ortner
1991, 1998, 1999;
Marcus 1999i
Thompson
1978a). To achieve a critical
insight into
the
past, however, these persons
must
not
be viewed as radically independent agents; it is impor-
tant
to
consider
how
they
are
situated within a
web
of
WILKIE AND BARTOY A Critical Archaeology Revisited I
749
social relations
that
define their position in society
ICornaroff and Cornaroff
'99',
Ortner
19911.
In addition
to a consideration of socioeconomic class, an analysis of
these social relations
must
include constructions of iden-
tity such as gender, sexuality, age, race, and ethnicity.
While
this
goal has been articulated by certain scholars
of
the
Annapolis School (e.g., Little
'994a,
b;
Little and
Shackel
'989;
Shackel t993; Shackel and Little
19921,
the
results of their archaeological analyses continue
to
obscure and dismiss the agendas of subjects and their
abilities
to
construct
representations of self
that
manip-
ulate and challenge tensions inherent in society.
One
of
the
primary problems in
the
application of
critical
theory
in archaeology has been a reliance on
lltop-down" models of social formation and social
change.
These
models obscure
the
complexity of rela-
tionships
between
individuals and society,
thus
deny-
ing any possibility of recognizing social agency on
the
part
of individual actors. Many archaeologists, partic-
ularly
those
of
the
Annapolis School, have typified hu-
man
agents as
little
more
than
the
passive
victims
of
structural
changes, historical forces, and elite ideolo-
gies. Even more disturbing is the tendency of
some
ar-
chaeologists of
the
Annapolis School
to
personify ide-
ologies
such
as capitalism, seemingly suggesting
that
they prevent
humans
from creating individualized iden-
tities. Leone's
11999:10)
statement
that
"capitalism
has
been successful and expansive for over four centuries
because it
constructs
and reproduces social relations
that
resist
simplistic
analyses
ll
would imply
that
cap-
Italism
is
beyond
the
control of
human
agency-that
capitalism, not people,
constructs
social relations. Iron-
ically,
statements
that
treat
the
central role of capital-
ism in
cultural
analyses as inevitable and necessary are
similar
to
the
ideologies
that
critical theories seek to
challenge.
Following from
this
critique,
the
theoretical influ-
ence of
structural
Marxism, particularly
the
work of
Alrhusser
(19711,
should
be readily apparent. While
Le-
one
119951
and
others
(e.g., Leone, Pottel, and Shackel
'987,
Shackel
19931
have explicitly drawn upon
AI-
thusser's
notion
of ideology, the Annapolis School owes
a deeper and more disturbing debt to
this
variant of
Marxist thought.
The
abstraction and subsequent nat-
uralization of categories
such
as class and capitalism
from forms of social being closely approximate
the
AI-
thusserian
project. As a form of generalization,
this
type
of logic would seem well
suited
to
the
goals of a social
science, but
it
is
enmeshed
in a belief system
that
ac-
tively works to destroy
human
freedom through theo-
retical practice.
In an Althusserian system, individuals
exert
at best
limited
influence upon social process,
which
is
dominated
by
abstract categories and forces
and
not
by individual experience. In a thought-provok-
ing essay
questioning
Althusserian
logic,
the
social his-
torian
E.
P.
Thompson
!I978a:I671
offered
both
critique
and solution:
3
J.1t
is
difficult
to
express
the
complexity
of
Thompson's
argument
Not
only a substantive knowledge, but also the very
vocabularies
of
the
human
project-compassion,
greed, love, pride, self-sacrifice, loyalty, treason, ca-
lamity-have
been beaten down to the circuits of
capital.
...
At its worst (and
this
is
where it
is
usu-
ally at) theoretical practice
is this end, and we
may
thank
Althusser for demonstrating this
with
such
"
r
igour." But
if
we return to "experience" we can
move, from
that
point, once again into an open ex-
ploration
of
the
world and of ourselves. This explo-
ration makes demands of equal theoretical rigour,
but
within
[a]
dialogue of conceptualization and em-
pirical engagement
....
Emphasizing
the
importance of experience and
the
per-
son, we propose
that
the application
of
critical theory in
archaeology would benefit from
the
injection of the dis-
cussions regarding agency
that
have informed other an-
thropological discourses. A growing
number
of scholars
in archaeology have embraced practice theory le.g.,
Gilchrist 1994, Jones
'997,
Lightfoot, Schiff, and Wake
1997, Lightfoot, Martinez, and Schiff
1998,
Shennan
1989, Upton
1996,
Wilkie and Farnsworth 19991, partic-
ularly the work of Pierre Bourdieu [1977,
19901
and his
concept of habitus as a means of understanding the con-
struction
of
social being and
the
relationship between
material objects and cultural beliefs. Little
of
this grow-
ing body of literature has impacted
the
work of histOrical
archaeology's critical theorists.
Bourdieu
11977,
19901
defines
the
habitus as
the
sense
of
cultural propriety and normative order
that
a person
develops through childhood experiences and through
everyday practice or action and then uses to impose order
on new experiences and domains. What
is
important
about this concept
is
that
it recognizes
that
people's un-
derstanding of their cultural
environment
is
uniquely
historically situated
within
their own experiences,
thereby avoiding
the
determinism
of
structural theories.
Artifacts are recognized as situated
within
cultural ne-
gotiations and infused
with
meaning. Further, when
the
relation between
structure
and practice is emphasized,
it
is
the artifacts used in everyday life rather than the
rare
or exotic ones that are likely to be the most impor-
tant. In this sense, archaeology, with its study
of
things
domestic and discarded, has the opportunity to provide
great insight into social being in the past.
This
approach
also removes
the
need
to
pinpoint
whether
an artifact
explicitly represents ethnicity, gender, race, class, or
some
other
experience, for a single artifact can have mul-
tiple levels
of
meaning to
the
user and those meanings
may be embedded in
a
number
of different cultural
ex-
periences.
If
any artifact recovered from a site is per-
ceived as being formed from the habitus, then artifact
assemblages can be studied contextually
for
an under-
in the form of a single quotat:'on. His essay
"The
Poverty of Theory"
(Thompson
197801
is
an
essential text for understanding
the
the-
oretical weaknesses
of
structural Marxism and
the
political impli·
cations
of
this mode
of
thought.
In
his words and actions, Thomp-
son
embodies
the
type
of
praxis
that
our
argument
hopes
to attain.
750
I
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume
41,
Number
5.
December
2000
standing of how they may have reinforced different
senses of self.
The
application of
the
habitus
concept is not
without
its drawbacks. Bourdieu's actors are largely unconscious
of
the
relationship between their actions and the broader
cultural tapestry, and therefore their agency is limited.
Ortner
(t996J has tecognized this aspect of Bourdieu's
work. She has subsequently struggled
to
reconcile the
gulf between her own work in practice theory and fem-
inism by proposing a
II
serious games" approach
that
rec-
ognizes
that
individuals operate as agents
within
the
constraints
of their social and personal contexts and his-
tories.
As
does Ortner, we find Bourdieu's
jI977,
19901
notion of
the
habitus
invaluable, but we
do
nOt
wish
to
imply
that
the
presence of
the
habitus as a structuring
principle excludes agency.
The
habitus, with its uncon-
scious
structuring
effects on
human
action, provides a
useful way of conceptualizing normalized use and
in-
teractions
with
the material culture that has been
re-
covered archaeologically. While material culture can be
used in automatic, unconscious ways in the course
of
everyday life, it is also used in active, expressive, con-
scious ways.
If we do not recognize this duality we risk
losing
important
layers
of
meaning
in
our
interprctations.
The
work
of
Anthony Giddens (t979, t9841 offers in-
sight into the dualities
of
agency and structure
as
well
as
the
conscious and unconscious aspects
of
daily life.
In his theory of structuration, Giddens
(1984:41) intro-
duced a "stratification model" of
human
agency based
in .the tripartite division of "basic security system" and
Jlpractical and discursive consciousness./J This model
suggests
that
human
experience is key to understanding
the
reflexive relationship between
structure
and agency
that
dominates
social being.
It
refers directly
to
aspects
of
social being formed through routinized, day-to-day en-
counters
that
could, if brought into question, be ex-
plained by individual actors. For
the
purpose of our ar-
gument, we will ignore Giddens's notion
of
the
unconscious and focus
attention
on his division of con-
sciousness
into
"practical" and IIdiscursive" forms.
While this neglect does injustice to his system of
thought, his Jlunconscious" aspects of social being are
another
form of practical consciousness of the individ-
ual. Rather than being separate from consciousness, this
other, unconscious form of practical consciousness is dif-
feremiated by
the
fact
that
individuals would
"not
be
able to give verbal expression
to
the
promptings of a
given
action"
It984:45J.
In
daily life,
human
actors both reproduce and create
practices
that
are informed by and help to form the Struc-
tures of social being. Actors in a society are cognizant
of these
structures
in different ways and at different lev-
els depending upon their personal experience. Giddens's
aCtors are nor mere
automatons
governed
by
StruCture
bur instead both constrained and enabled
by
structure.
Human
action may reflect structural considerations, but
it
is
just as likely to
manipulate
or (re)form those struc-
tures.
In
their historical anthropological study of South
Africa,
Comaroff
and
Comaroff
(1991:291
expand
upon
Giddens's theory of
structuration
to propose a chain of
consciousness
that
represents
lI
a
continuum
whose two
extremes are
the
unseen and the seen,
the
submerged
and the apprehended, the unrecognized and
the
cogni-
zed." Like Giddens,
the
Comaroffs
(p.»)
recognize
that
agentive power is situated
within
"specific historical
contexts" and
not
unlimited.
While Giddens's insights concerning this duality of
structure
are nor necessarily
revolutionary/
his concep-
tualization of a duality of consciousness and intention-
ality has
important
implications for
the
study of daily
practice. Bourdieu's habitus is similar
to
Giddens's 11979,
19841
concept of practical consciousness in that both
terms refer, more or less,
to
less than conscious moti-
vations for
human
action. Through the use of both prac-
tical and discursive consciousness we are able to con-
front
some
of
the serious limitations to
the
concept of
habitus
that
we have previously discussed. The key to
the duality of structure lies in
the
ability of actors to
provide Jlverbal expression" for their actions [Giddens
1984:45). Following from this idea, a given actor, asked
to give verbal expression for an action, might provide a
deep or a superficial explanation depending upon the em-
beddedness
of
the structural concepts from which
the
action derived. While
this
characterization may sound
structurally deterministic, we
must
recognize
that
the
actor's ability to acknowledge these motivations
(or
structuresj implies that the actor may manipulate or al-
ter the structure rather than merely (and unconsciously)
following
the
pattern.
The
difficulty of expressing this
dialectic between structure and agency in static prose
should be readily apparent.
In daily practice, individuals place themselves
not
only
in relation to
other
individuals but also in telation to
their material world.
We
need
nOt
think
only of action
and behavior as being part of structurationi our lives are
structured
by
objects, be they buildings, beds, or
the
pages of
CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY.
It should be obvious
not only
that
this material world StruCtures individual
experience but also
that
individual experience structures
the world.
Thus
material culture can be perceived both
as a sedimentation of
structure
and as an active manip-
ulation of structure.
The
challenge for archaeologists,
of
course, is to
attempt
to understand the myriad potential
meanings of artifacts
within
a given context.
It
is
within
a given context of experience
that
the material world
acquites meaning.
As
the
integration of the actions of numerous individ·
uals and
communities
jsuch as groups sharing identities
4.
In
fact, the consideration of
structure
and agency or, more
broadly, of the individual and society has been a consistent concern
of
SOCial
science even prior to Marx's (1963(18691:
151
often-quoted
statement
that
"Men
make their own history,
but
they do not make
it
just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances
chosen by themselves,
but
under circumstances directly encoun-
tered, given and
transmitted
from the past."
We
believe
that
some
of
the most exciting advances
in
the social sciences are currently
being made
with
the (re)formulation of this classic "problem" (e.g.,
Barrett 1994; Bender 1998; Comaroff and Comaroff 1991; Fox 1991;
Johnson 1996; Marcus 1999; Ortner 1996, 1999; Sahlins 1981, 1985;
Thomas
t9961.