Ethnoarchaeology first developed as the study of ethnographic material culture from archaeological perspectives. Over the past half century it has expanded its scope, especially to cultural and social anthropology. Both authors are leading practitioners, and their theoretical perspective embraces both the processualism of the New Archaeology and the post-processualism of the 1980s and 90s. A case-study approach enables a balanced global geographic and topical coverage, including consideration of materials in French and German. Three introductory chapters discuss the subject and its history, survey the theory, and discuss field methods and ethics. Ten topical chapters consider formation processes, subsistence, the study of artefacts and style, settlement systems, site structure and architecture, specialist craft production, trade and exchange, and mortuary practices and ideology. Ethnoarchaeology in Action concludes with ethnoarchaeology's contributions actual and potential, and with a look at its place within anthropology. It is generously illustrated, including many photographs of leading ethnoarchaeologists in action.

No abstract

Curd Kratrier, Lehman College and the M i r i m Srar-k, University of' ArizonaEarlicr studics. s u c h as those cited in Roger Sanjek's seminal S i p s article, clcarly show that women anthropologists traditionally tend to have lowcr status than men. Suspccting that this might be rhe casc in nrcheology as wcll as in anthropology more generally. our objcctivc was to itlcntify areas in which diffcrences bctween thc sexes might bc empirically expressed. Sclccted observations regarding archcology PhD rccipients, patterns in the funding ch prca i d postdoctoral level srcheologists and faculty composition in major dcpartmcnts suggcst that in thc U s doctorates, rescarch grants and prestigious academic appointments arc diffcrcntially acquired by male and fcnmalc archeohpkts. Using longitudinal data covcring the period 1976-86, we offcr thc following observations:I . Mcire men than women receive the PhD i n antRropol!)pica/ arcl~eology. Data reviewed below ncithcr support nor rcfutc thc hypothesis that this diffcrencc exists repardless of s i x and sex composition of cntcring student cohorts. Establishing causal .retationships bctwcen discrimination against stucfcnts and studenis' sex would require dctailed longitudinal quantitative as well as qualitative docurnentation from a nunibor of dapirtnmcnts. which w e leek. We note. how-CVCI'. t h t d:it:i from tlrc 197S=X6 AAA Girirk clearly demonstrate that throughout this dccade women have constituted about half of all anthropology graduate students in the dcpartmcnts shown in 'rablc I. Figure I shows that their nunibers rose slightly during this period. If we assume rhat archeology students are neither disproportionately undcrnor overrepresented in four-field dcpartnicnts of anthropology. then tliesc ligurc5 suggcst that although thc sexes have similar rcprcscntalion iis cnrollcd graduate students of archcology . attrition rates through the coursc of thc gratluatc prograin vary by gender. Our data suggest that women stclrlcnts arc cithcr slower to receive thc PhD than thcir male countcrparts. or thcy arc leaving ;it proportionally highcr rates during tlic graduate studcrit phase of thcir education. or both. Daniel Koshland has rcccntly notcd il coniparabfe pattern of differentid attrition in the scicnccs generally.2. At variou5 points during a t'ernalc archcologist's doctoral and postdoctoral ciircer Shc is less likcly both to scek and to receive fundiiip t h n is a male tlrchcologist. More wornen itrcheologists apply for support in non-iieldwork projects. but it is also evidently the case that proportionally fewcr recent National Sci-2 nce Found at ion ( N S F) ap p I i cations by woincn for fieldwork havc been funded. Our bcst data come from NSF, hut we suspcct that patterns of sex-linked bias exist in research sponsorship dccisions made by other funding agencies. Becausc our data conccrning other agencies arc not as fine-grained as those generously rnadc available by NSF Anthropology Program officers. comparison and gcncralization arc not possible hcrc.3. Within the pool...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract