You are on page 1of 4

Maney Publishing

Trustees of Boston University

Review
Author(s): K. Anne Pyburn
Review by: K. Anne Pyburn
Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer, 1992), pp. 230-232
Published by: Maney Publishing
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529987
Accessed: 21-12-2015 00:14 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Maney Publishing and Trustees of Boston University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Field Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 204.235.148.92 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:14:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
230 BookReviews

because of its bulk, probable instability, and the fact that


Material Culture and Mass Consumption
the ramp would inevitably impede work on the construc-
tion of the buildings ancillary to the pyramid proper. In DANIEL MILLER. 240 pages, bibliography, index. Oxford

developed complexes, as at Giza, the pyramid was the and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1987. No
focus of a whole network of cult buildings, storerooms, prices given. ISBN 0-631-15605-4 (cloth), ISBN 0-631-
and mastaba-tombs. 1800-X (paperbound).
From the Fourth Dynasty the Egyptians realized that
the use of larger blocks was conceivable, and would speed The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal
up the building process and reduce the number of skilled
workmen needed on site. By that time too it had become EDWARD STASKI AND LIVINGSTON D. SUTRO, eds.Ari-
clear that huge monuments formed by piling up a small zona State UniversityAnthropologicalResearchPapers42.
mountain of stone blocks held together by a finely dressed vii + 92 pages, 11 figures, 113 tables, 8 plates, bibliog-
casing would not burst asunder. The use of monolithic raphy. Tempe: Arizona State University, 1991. $10.00
stones dates from this period, and many are visible in the paper. ISBN 0-936249-24-2.
extant monuments. Some aspects of the Egyptians' build- Reviewed by K. Anne Pyburn, Department of Anthro-
ing methods need clarificationor more detailed study, but pology, Indiana University, 425 University Blvd., Indi-
at least the damaged condition of many monuments has anapolis, IN 46202-5140.
enabled Arnold to pose questions and to suggest answers:
the examination of jointing, clamps, mortises and the like These two books deal with the ways humans interact
would be difficult had the buildings survived practically with their material surroundings to create cultural reality.
unscathed. Miller's book primarily treats the consciousness of the
It is sometimes suggested that Egyptian architects were consumer. Staski and Sutro are concerned with the con-
conservative in their approach. This may be true to the sciousness of the archaeologist who is studying the con-
extent that having perfected (from their point of view) a sumer (and disposer) of material culture. The Ethnoar-
building method they did not go out of their way to make chaeologyof RefuseDisposal is a useful contribution to our
further advances. Yet experimentation can be detected databank on site formation processes (cultural and natu-
throughout the vast time-span of pharaonic architectural ral), but it is theoretically impoverished. Material Culture
history. One need only cite the preventative measures and Mass Consumptionis a theoretical masterpiece, but
taken to discourage tomb-robbers in the pyramids and difficult to read.
other tombs, both royal and private. The interior systems Miller addresses ways that material culture affects and
and the mode of entry of the royal monuments, at least, shapes society. He points out that not only archaeologists
are often totally unpredictable. As in Egyptian art one see human behavior reflected in artifacts,but that ordinary
feels that architects were given free rein to exercise their individuals see themselves, and intentionally create world
own ingenuity and gifts: there were scarcely any "fixed" views, in terms of their material culture. This interesting
criteria of operation. premise, squeezed laboriously from the impenetrable tau-
It is unfashionable, and indeed unnecessary, to vaunt tologies of Hegel and dragged mercilessly through Marx,
the achievements of the Egyptians over those of other Munn, and Simmel, turns out to be surprisinglypowerful.
ancient civilizations in the Near East, Europe, and else- Although the idea that people use things to develop their
where. Nonetheless their building achievements, their own consciousness of the world is not new to contem-
ability to erect enormous monuments of astonishing porary anthropology, Miller gives it a new twist.
beauty and to embellish them with consummate skill and By deleting Hegel's overarching scheme based on a
iconographical flair, their sheer genius in the organization belief in universal rationality, Miller is able to manipulate
of manpower, still rightly excites our admiration and won- this concept of interaction between humans and their
der, though there was slipshod work then as now. things, a process of continuous change that he calls "ob-
Enough has been said to indicate that Building in Egypt jectification," to elucidate social process. Viewing humans
is an excellent and stimulating book. It is to be recom- as active participants in this process, Miller allows "the
mended warmly. natives" to be intellectually respectable decision-makers
without patronizing them as Marxist dupes, Rousseauian
noble savages, or Durkheimian anomics.
So what does this do for archaeology?At the very least,
it reminds us that the intentionality behind artifactscannot

This content downloaded from 204.235.148.92 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:14:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.
19, 1992 231

be ignored. It is inadequate to treat human populations of Refuse Disposal, continues this well-established intellec-
as slaves to some unconscious "grammar"of material cul- tual tradition in American archaeology.
ture. The material record of human behavior, the archae- The strength of Staski and Sutro's book lies in the
ological record, is patterned at least in part, because it was authors' discussions of the implications of their work for
meant to be by the people who created it. Human inten- archaeological interpretation, and most go beyond "cau-
tion is, of course, obscured or exaggerated by site for- tionary tales" in their conclusions. Baer, for example, tells
mation processes, unconscious motives, and competing us how age, sex, and social status shape Mexican food
desires; but it is not simply an epiphenomenon suitable consumption patterns that affect the archaeologicalrecord
only for explaining leftover data. of one complex society and possibly others. Sutro's dis-
At best, Miller's book provides a useful theoretical un- cussion of depositional and post-depositional processes
derpinning for some more interesting models of cultural warns against simplistic interpretations of refuse deposits,
process than those that continue to hold sway in much but also suggests ways that a research design may be
New World archaeology. For example, his approachcould shaped to compensate for the biases he identifies in the
be used to argue that early writing systems were creations archaeological record of a contemporary village in Oaxaca.
with an intended impact, not solidified, a-cultural, objec- Similarly,Kamp shows how cultural patterns will be either
tive history; kinship is culturallyuseful, not an immutable reflected or skewed in refuse deposits, and suggests some
biological imperative; settlements are not caused by ecol- sources of data that will be more reliable than the standard
ogy or kinship ties, but created by humans who use their trash deposit.
environment and their material culture to objectify se- Ordinarily, archaeologists argue that more refuse of a
lected cultural values; and so on. Certainly these models particular type is the result of more people, a longer oc-
will be more complicated, but the accuracyof our recon- cupation, or a greater emphasis on the activity producing
structions of the past is not enhanced by a lack of theo- the refuse. Wilson, Rathje, and Hughes show that ineffi-
retical sophistication. ciency and a reduced likelihood of recycling result in the
Material Culture and Mass Consumptionis an important production of proportionally more garbage from infre-
book, but a significant portion of it is poorly written. quent activities than from those that are more routine.
Occasionally the heavily jargon-laden text actually be- The authors then leap to a whole new level of analysis and
comes humorously opaque, e.g., "If, however, the social suggest that complex societies arise, in part, by capitalizing
properties of objects are not as 'evident' as they are visible, on the waste in labor and skills produced by infrequent
this very factor may actually be, in part, responsible for attempts at group cooperation. The counterintuitive find-
our inability to appreciate the significance of the object" ings from the Garbage Project are provocative and the
[p. 100]. Miller indulges himself in 10-line sentences and developmental process described may well play some part
made-up words, but embedded in this sticky prose are in complex societies, but the intellectual chasm between
ideas of real brilliance, and some of these ideas could have paint thinner frequencies and the rise of the state in the
far reaching consequences for archaeological interpreta- Maya Lowlands that is crossed by the authors in only
tion. Getting the good bits out is like digging snake ver- three pages is likely to give the reader vertigo.
tebrae out of wet day. If you happen to enjoy this sort of Chang presents useful correlations between culturalval-
intellectual excavation, grab this book. If you tend to avoid ues and differential treatment of refuse in an Inupiat fish-
it, steel yourself, but buy the book anyway. ing camp, but the most significant contribution of her
A continuous theme in Miller's book is that the study piece lies in her brief conclusions about the use of analogy.
of material culture and the meaning of objects has suffered She points out, quite correctly, that the idea of "timeless
from an overemphasis on modes of production and a lack foragers" is simplistic and that a study of living foragers
of attention to patterns of consumption. This point is well is suitable for the construction of analogical models, not
taken, but it is unfortunate that Miller overlooked the for assuming a behavioral identity between past and pres-
work of Rathje and his colleagues in this context. Miller's ent groups.
theoretical climax discusses the relationship between con- Clark's chapter on Lacandon debitage disposal ap-
sumption patterns and social mobility, a topic that was proaches a general model for differential treatment of po-
central to Rathje's early researchon the Maya (e.g., Rathje tentially hazardous waste according to its perceived nui-
1970). According to Rathje's own research, garbage pro- sance value in a particular context. Unfortunately, the
vides more reliable information on consumption than al- paper is marred by the patronizing tone the author takes
most any other source (cf. Rathje and McCarthy 1977). toward the Lacandon, whom he presents as "unwilling"
The second volume reviewed here, The Ethnoarchaeology to carryvery many chert nodules on foot from the quarry

This content downloaded from 204.235.148.92 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:14:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
232 BookReviews

to their village. This unwillingness accounts for their The strength of both these works lies in their original-
"overly rigorous quality standards for selecting stone." ity; new perspectives abound in both volumes. The ma-
Clark explains that he "collected many of their quarry terial in the Staski and Sutro volume is well presented (the
rejects and showed them to the same men later, and they articles by Baer and Kamp are particularly cogent), but
marveled that I had found so many fine stones" [p. 64]. the significance of the book is shortchanged by its editors.
It may occur to the reader that the economically disad- Miller also shortchanges the significance of his contribu-
vantaged Lacandon might practice a form of politeness tion by a lack of expository rigor. But these criticisms are
that would make them appear ingenuous to outsiders. only of consequence because both books deserve to reach
Otherwise, Clark's data are fascinating and likely to dis- a wide audience.
appoint archaeologists who assume that lithic debitage
disposal is circumspect or even consistent. Mesoamerican- Rathje,WilliamL.
ists will cringe to learn that the Lacandon often pour their 1970 "Socio-political of LowlandMayaBurials:
Implications
debitage onto ancient mounds. MethodologyandTentativeHypotheses," WorldArchae-
Staski and Sutro's book contains an interesting and ology1: 359-374.
useful set of articles, especially since its bargainprice makes Rathje,WilliamL., andFrederickD. McCarthy
it accessible to everyone, but the editors missed an op- 1977 "Regularity andVariabilityin Contemporary Garbage,"
in'StanleySouth, ed., Research in Historical
Strategies
portunity to compare and contrast these papers, either in Archaeology.New York:AcademicPress,261-286.
the introduction, which is superficial, or in a conclusion,
which is absent. Neither the authors nor the editors go
far enough toward constructing general analogies, so the
data presented remain embedded in the societies from
which they were derived. How these societies may be
considered analogous to others, or how an archaeologist
might identify the ethnographic processes described in the
book in an archaeological context receives only cursory The Uses of Style in Archaeology
treatment.
MARGARET W. CONKEY AND CHRISTINE A. HASTORF, eds.
This is unfortunate, since, as Chang realizes, identities
between past and present societies cannot be assumed, New Directions in Archaeology.124 pages, 24 figures, 13
even when the past and present are historically connected. tables, bibliography, index. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
Staski fails to tell us under what conditions of urbanism versity Press, 1990. ?25.00 cardboard bound. ISBN 0-
we are to look for "urban inertia." How much growth 521-35061-1.

during what period of time constitutes the "rapidgrowth" Reviewed by Clemency Chase Coggins, Department of
urban setting for inertia in behavioral responses to the Archaeology, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Av-
environment? enue, Boston, MA 02215.
Chang finds trash widely distributed around an Alaskan
fishing camp, and suspects a more circumscribed distri- What are the uses of style in archaeology? There are
bution would occur in a village setting; but Kamp also many answers to this question in the estimable volume
finds refuse widespread in a Syrian village. Clearly the under review, depending on who one is and what analyt-
reasons for the spread of refuse are different in the two ical problem one has chosen. Such choice is addressed
contexts, but in what kinds of societies can which kinds obliquely in Chapter 4 by James Sackett who serves as
of questions be answered with refuse studies? Is variation recurrent straw man because of his theory of "isochres-
in food consumption patterns only characteristicof com- tism." While his first problem is clearly the word itself,
plex societies? When the archaeologist finds evidence of which he coined from the Greek to mean "equivalent in
large scale cooperative effort as described by Rathje and use," or "there is more than one way to skin a cat" [p. 33].
Hughes, can we automatically assume a trend toward state By isochrestic he means that most stylistic choice occurs
level organization? How can we rule out competing be- at a culturally predetermined, unconscious level. The
havioral explanations for widespread archaeological distri- choices and approaches of the authors are similarly pre-
butions of trash or high concentrations of certain types of determined, and reveal their inherent biases and interests
refuse? What are the general (or specific) principles that as clearly as do the fact that they are all, with one excep-
can be used to distinguish between archaeological pat- tion, anthropologists, and that the men, who wrote eight
terns? If there are none, what is the point of doing eth- of the 10 chapters, are more combative in defense of their
noarchaeology? theories, while the women are more conciliatory. Margaret

This content downloaded from 204.235.148.92 on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:14:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like