Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 159–166 | Cite as

“Doing” Agency: Introductory Remarks on Methodology



As a theory of social reproduction, agency provides an attractive framework for understanding how material culture relates to everyday social action, to long-standing cultural institutions, and to wholesale culture change. What remains under-explored in archaeology is the question of how to proceed in linking observable material patterning to the agency of ancient social reproduction and how to understand the role of material culture in this dynamic process. This introduction (to this and the next issue of JAMT (Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory)) explores why there is a need for archaeology to develop explicitly articulated “middle range interpretive methodologies” that are appropriate for agency-oriented research in the past.


agency methodology middle range interpretive methodologies social reproduction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Binford, L. R. (1964). A consideration of archaeological research design. American Antiquity 29: 425–441.Google Scholar
  2. Clarke, D. (1973). Archaeology: The loss of innocence. Antiquity 47(185): 6–18.Google Scholar
  3. Dobres, M.-A. (2000). Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archae- ology, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J. E. (2000). Agency in archaeology: paradigm or platitude? In Dobres, M.-A. and Robb, J. E. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
  5. Gell, A. (1998). Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Harding, S. (1987). The method question. Hypatia 2(3): 19–35.Google Scholar
  7. Hegmon, M. (2003). Setting theoretical egos aside: Issues and theory in North American archaeology. American Antiquity 68: 213–243.Google Scholar
  8. Hodder, I. (ed.) (1987). The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. Redman, C. (1973). Multistage fieldwork and analytical techniques. American Antiquity 38: 61–79.Google Scholar
  10. Robb, J. E. (2005). The extended artifact and the monumental economy. In DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C., and Renfrew, C. (eds.), Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 131–139.Google Scholar
  11. Skibo, J. M., and Schiffer, M. B. (2001). Understanding artifact variability and change: A behavioral framework. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, Amerind Foundation and University of New Mexico Press, Dragoon and Albuquerque, pp. 139–149.Google Scholar
  12. Tilley, C. (1994). A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments, Berg, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Walker, W. H., and Lucero, L. J. (2000). The depositional history of ritual and power. In Dobres, M-A., and Robb, J. E. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge, London, pp. 130–147.Google Scholar
  14. Wylie, A. (1986). Bootstrapping in the un-natural sciences: an archaeological case. In Fine, A., and Machamer, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 314–322.Google Scholar
  15. Wylie, A. (1992). The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: recent archaeological research on gender. American Antiquity 57(1): 15–35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Archaeological Research FacilityUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyCalifornia
  2. 2.Department of ArchaeologyCambridge UniversityCambridgeUK
  3. 3.RandolphUSA

Personalised recommendations