The excesses and trans-Atlantic impact of the proces-sual brand of anthropological archaeology resulted in a critique of this approach beginning in the 1980s by more historically trained British archaeologists who argued that beliefs and symbol systems played a central role in structuring archaeological remains. Labeled postprocessualism, this type of archaeology tends to privilege the interpretation of specific archaeological contexts over cross-cultural comparison. Closer scrutiny of archaeological interpretations of the past from a feminist perspective also revealed a constructed past in which females were underrepresented and female-gendered labor somewhat denigrated. This critique gave rise to the study of gender within archaeology and more broadly to the study of the means and methods by which social identities were constructed and expressed materially. Likewise, there is a concern among contemporary anthropological archaeologists (regardless of whether they self-identify as processualists or postprocessu-alists) to understand the past on more human and less abstract terms, to see the past as having been inhabited by a diverse array of persons with agency and social practices that are somewhat knowable. In effect, the archaeological definition of ‘culture’ has been socialized and can include a focus on practice, subjectivities, and human engagement with a materiality that colloquially is referred to as ‘the archaeological record’. Current research can be characterized as combining the strengths of both processualism and postprocesualism and to embrace a variety of topics such as hierarchy, trade, religion and ritual practice, economic and political forms, gender, identity, the human body, and landscapes (both experiential and reconstructive approaches). Methodologically, the role of scientific techniques (often called archaeometry) within anthropological archaeology continues to grow as DNA, chemical, and molecular techniques of analysis mature.
The current atmosphere within which North American anthropological archaeology is conducted has been influenced greatly by the 1990 passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). This legislation mandated that museums curating Native American skeletons and associated grave accoutrements (and in receipt of federal funding) make a complete inventory of their holdings and notify descendant tribal leaders in order to initiate consultation and possible repatriation of the remains and artifacts to tribal jurisdiction. The effect of this law changed the balance of power between archaeologists and Native Americans and ushered in a new era of consultation and dialogue between North American archaeologists and the descendents of those whose artifactual and architectural remains are studied by archaeologists. This enfranchisement of indigenous peoples into the practice of archaeology, likewise, has led to an emphasis on less destructive techniques of investigation, an avoidance of mortuary contexts, and a concomitant emphasis on both the ethics of archaeological research and the preservation of cultural heritage. As self-appointed stewards of the past, many North American anthropological archaeologists have oriented their work towards preservation of the past through enhanced programs of public and community education. In this regard, anthropological archaeology as practiced within the milieu of twenty-first century globalism exhibits an ‘applied’ edge as archaeologists engage with descendent and local communities and also struggle to combat the adverse impact of rampant tourism, unstoppable looting of archaeological sites, and site destruction caused by urban and industrial expansion.
See also: Agency; Biblical Archaeology; Classical Archaeology; Culture, Concept and Definitions; Engendered Archaeology; Marxist Archaeology; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; Postprocessual Archaeology; Processual Archaeology.
World History
