Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:00:03.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communities Make Theory: A Response to Bleed and Roper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark D. Mitchell
Mark D. Mitchell*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado 80309 (Mark.Mitchell@Colorado.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In their comments, Bleed and Roper acknowledge the profound effects routine research practices have had on the conceptual development of Plains archaeology, though both disagree with aspects of my analysis. Bleed disputes my characterization of current theory in Plains archaeology but fails to appreciate the extent to which Plains archaeology continues to emphasize culture historical research. Bleed further argues that there are few connections between the research practices established by the Missouri Basin Project (MBP) and those of more recent Plains archaeologists. However, such a stance discounts the powerful influence of construct paradigms or exemplars on the development of method and theory. Roper provides valuable insights into the role played by direct historic analogy in the development of theory in Plains archaeology. However, her analysis glosses over the fact that all aspects of archaeological research are informed by theoretical propositions, whether explicitly stated or merely assumed.

Résumé

Résumé

En sus commentarios, Bleed y Roper reconocen los efectos profundos que las prácticas rutinarias de las investigaciones han tenido en el desarrollo conceptual de la arqueología de las planicies norteamericanas. No obstante, no están de acuerdo con aspectos de mi análisis. Bleed disputa mi caracterización de la teoría actual en la arqueología de las planicies, pero no aprecia hasta donde la arqueología de las planicies sigue dando énfasis en la investigación histórico-cultural. Además, Bleed contesta que hay poca conexión entre las prácticas de investigación del “Missouri Basin Project” (MBP) y las de los arqueólogos más recientes en la región. Sin embargo, tal postura no hace caso al impacto profundo de paradigmas construidos o ejemplos en el desarrollo de la teoría y la metodología. Roper proporciona observaciones validas sobre el papel jugado por la analogía histórica directa en el desarrollo de la teoría en la arqueología de las planicies. Sin embargo, su análisis se deja de lado el hecho de que todos los aspectos de las investigaciones arqueológicas se informan por propuestas teóricas, sean explícitamente declaradas o meramente asumidas.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 72 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 789 - 792
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Ahler, Stanley A., and Kay, Marvin (editors) 2007 Plains Village Archaeology: Bison Hunting Farmers in the Central and Northern Plains. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 1999 Theory and Inference in Plains Archaeology. Plains Anthropologist 44(169):209–229.Google Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W. 2003 Trends in the Geographic Focus of American Archaeology: An Analysis of American Antiquity Articles and Ph.D. Dissertations. The SAA Archaeological Record 3(1):29–33, 38.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian 1999 The Archaeological Process. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lehmer, Donald J. 1971 Introduction to Middle Missouri Archaeology. Anthropological Papers No. 1. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, O’Brien, Michael J., and Dunnell, Robert C. 1997 The Rise and Fall of Culture History. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Mark D. 2006 Research Traditions, Public Policy, and the Underdevelopment of Theory in Plains Archaeology: Tracing the Legacy of the Missouri Basin Project. American Antiquity 71:381–396.Google Scholar
Owsley, Douglas W., and Jantz, Richard L. (editors) 1994 Skeletal Biology in the Great Plains: Migration, Warfare, Health, and Subsistence. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.Google Scholar
Schlesier, Karl H. (editor) 1994 Plains Indians, A.D. 500-1500: The Archaeological Past of Historic Groups. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Sterud, Eugene L. 1978 Changing Aims of Americanist Archaeology: A Citation Analysis of American Antiquity–1946-1975 . American Antiquity 43:294–302.Google Scholar
Vehik, Susan C. 2002 Conflict, Trade, and Political Development on the Southern Plains. American Antiquity 67:37–64.Google Scholar
Wedel, Waldo R. 1986 Central Plains Prehistory: Holocene Environments and Culture Change in the Republican River Basin. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Wood, W. Raymond (editor) 1998 Archaeology on the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Zeder, Melinda A. 1997 The American Archaeologist: A Profile. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar