916 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 102, No. 4 DECEMBER 2000

graphically illustrate the common features of site planning andmonumentality that characterized the two largest sociopoliticalcenters in ancient North America.

The notion of "polity" in the prehistoric Southwest is poorlydefined conceptually and empirically vague on the ground. Thisproblem is thrown into high relief when compared to the situ-ation in the Southeast where polities are clearly recognized inthe form of hierarchical groupings of mound-plaza complexesand their associated hinterlands. As Fish and Scarry (p. 76) pointout, "One of the most portentous contrasts between the South-east and Southwest is the absence of similar uniformity in thecomponents and layout of Southwestern centers, and by infer-ence, in the organizational and integrative rationales of theirpolities." Southwestern civil-ceremonial constructions, whichinclude mounds, ballcourts, great kivas, great houses, and pla-zas, vary greatly across both time and space. In addition, the lackof elaboration in mortuary complexes in the Southwest suggeststhat, unlike Mississippian society, ancestor veneration and sym-bolic projections of kinship were not central to polity cohesion(Fish and Scarry: p. 77).

The intraregional variability and interregional contrasts out-lined by the various authors in this volume demonstrate the em-pirical and interpretive inadequacy of trying to understandsociopolitical formations in the Southwest and Southeast withinthe normative frameworks of "tribe," "chiefdom," or even"middle range society." As Muller and Wilcox note:

The structure of political discourse in the Eastcertainly in historictimesreveals competitive, even warlike, relations among the vari-ous levels of political power. . .. The paradox of politics and powerin the East lies in the dynamic balance between public affairs andprivate glory. . . .In contrast, chiefs are hard to identify in the South-west. . . . The flaunting of private glory was not the Southwesternmode of political action. To the contrary, corporate structures seemmuch more evident empirically. . .. Even so, increasingly complexstructures of political and economic organization were constructed,and archaeologists are just beginning to understand their workings,[p. 160]Those of us who struggle to understand the nature of commu-

nity formation, intraregional alliance, and interregional interac-tion among the native peoples of North America on the eve ofEuropean colonization certainly have our work cut out for us.However, the empirical foundation and comparative frame-work summarized in Great Towns and Regional Polities cer-tainly provide us with an excellent place to start. >

The Prehistory of Missouri. Michael J. O 'Brien and W. Ray-mond Wood. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1998.418 pp.

WILLIAM GREENUniversity of Iowa

Every state or region ought to have a summary of its prehis-tory. Missouri has several, of which this volume is the mostrecent.

This is an unusual state archaeological summary because ofits extended and explicit considerations of systematics and itsunwillingness to stray far beyond the "facts" of the artifactual

and paleoenvironmental records. The authors eschew interpre-tation, particularly in the ideological, religious, and ritualrealms of ancient cultures. They equate interpretation with un-scientific storytelling, whereas a scientific archaeology wouldoffer explanations, not interpretations.

Most midwestern archaeologists are wedded to the use oftypes and phases as taxa that help organize the data of prehis-tory. Consistent with this volume's up-front consideration ofsystematics, the authors often group artifacts into types but as-siduously avoid applying the phase names that other archaeolo-gists use for many prehistoric manifestations in Missouri. Thereason is their belief that essentialism, in which "entities are as-sumed to exist as bounded phenomena" (p. 359), obscures ratherthan promotes an understanding of prehistory. They believe thatthe application of taxa such as types and phases can feed essen-tialist thinking. They do recognize the usefulness of types as"shorthand notations that quickly convey information about anobject" (p. 360). In fact, they "can't imagine an archaeology thatdidn't somehow employ types" (p. 360). However, they do notview point and pottery types as "real"; only the objects are real.Prehistorians modify the type criteria as needed. Phase criteriaare even more poorly defined than types. Phases, too, can be"useful as shorthand devices, as long as we do not begin to seethem for something they are not, such as 'explanatory' con-structs" (p. 277). But phases are not real things or even theoreti-cal units. In the authors' view, phases in Missouri are "a mish-mash of internally inconsistent constructs of questionableutility" (p. 363).

Archaeologists need such reminders to avoid falling into es-sentialist dilemmas (e.g., "this site can't belong to thatphase be-cause it's in the wrong valley"), so these detailed discussions ofsystematics are useful even if unusual for a state archaeologicalsummary. Yet the strain will always exist between the archae-ologist's left brain, which recognizes phases are not ethnicgroups, and the right brain, which wants to attribute some degreeof humanity or at least social reality to the archaeological record.

According to the authors, the way to avoid essentialist think-ing is to apply a materialist viewpoint. "Under a materialistview, explanation is tied intricately to observed variation; infer-ences are made about the nature of change only after variationhas been identified and measured" (p. 360; emphasis in origi-nal). This volume therefore emphasizes measuring technologi-cal variation, especially in projectile point and pottery manu-facture and use, which the authors view as the first step inunderstanding and explaining the archaeological record. In theprocess of describing variation, the authors attempt to explainsome of the observed changes in projectile and pottery technolo-gies, while also offering a few plausible interpretations of settle-ment systems, subsistence patterns, and interaction networks.

Missouri, an average-sized state positioned at the juncture ofseveral resource-rich environmental zones, has a notably robustand diverse archaeological record. The authors note that theycould not cover all topics and regions in depth and so had tofocus and limit their discussion. By deciding to emphasizetechnology in accord with their materialist framework, theyhave done a good job of describing artifact and settlementforms and the variation in these forms through time andacross the state. Many aspects of Missouri archaeology are notcovered; some are receiving their own book-length treatments

BOOK REVIEWS / Archaeology 917

(e.g., C. Diaz-Granados and J. Duncan, The Petroglyphs andPictographs of Missouri, University of Alabama Press, 2000).

In this book, the discussion is organized sequentially, fromthePaleoindian through the Archaic, Woodland, and Mississip-pian periods. The authors employ data from throughout Mis-souri and nearby states to establish artifact chronologies basedmostly on uncalibrated radiocarbon ages, cross-dating of typesand assemblages, and sedation. The characteristic artifacts ofeach period receive extended discussion, and most types are il-lustrated through a series of consistently clear and sharp photo-graphs. Most artifacts, including those from private collections,are identified to county, but some are from unknown countiesand unknown collections (pp. 242, 243). Some artifacts areshown in color, the main purpose appearing to be to highlightvariation in raw material types and colors. However, the textcontains little follow-up regarding the cherts that ancient peo-ples used in Missouri and how chert availability and technicalproperties may have influenced the distribution and forms ofthese artifacts.

The authors admit that their coverage is biased toward re-gions and subjects in which they have worked. Fortunately, theyhave worked in much of the state. Several discussions and casestudies are based upon the authors' own intensive research invarious locales. Such coverage informs some of the book'sstrongest segments, e.g., on the Salt River valley in northeastMissouri and the Pomme de Terre-Osage River basin in south-west Missouri. Unfortunately, the authors cite very little workfrom the late 1980s onward other than that of the senior authorand R. Dunnell. They note that cultural resource management(CRM) work constitutes the majority of the archaeological stud-ies conducted over the past couple of decades in Missouri, yetthey cite virtually none of the recent work.

The authors believe (p. 223) that the Late Woodland period(ca. A.D. 450-900) holds little interest for midwestern archae-ologists because of its relatively drab material record. I disagree.Recent Midwest Archaeological Conference programs, stateand regional journal articles, CRM reports, and state site files (atleast for Iowa and Illinois) indicate significant and growing in-terest in the Late Woodland period. Why? Partly because LateWoodland sites are abundant and broadly distributed and thuslikely to be encountered in CRM studies, and partly because, asthe authors note, Late Woodland studies are important in under-standing the emergence of the complex societies of the Missis-sippian period. As a way of emphasizing the latter point, theauthors place the Late Woodland and Early Mississippian peri-ods within a single chapter covering ca. A.D. 450-1200. In sodoing, however, they unfortunately obscure the profound dif-ferences in technologies, settlement patterns, and sociopoliticalorganization between societies of those two periods. Of course,the authors recognize these differences, and they observe addi-tionally that "differences between groups residing in the Missis-sippi Valley and those living elsewhere became more accentu-ated" through time (p. 293). Yet the chapter is organized in aconfusing way: it covers Late Woodland and then Mississippianprojectile points, Late Woodland and then Mississippian pot-tery, and Late Woodland and then Mississippian settlementsand mortuary patterns in various locales. This dizzying back-and-forth treatment conforms to the structure of other chaptersbutmakes it exceedingly difficult for the reader to focus on tech-nological, economic, and sociopolitical variation within both

the Late Woodland and Mississippian periods and to compre-hend the series of related changes that accelerated in most re-gions ca. A.D. 900-1000.

The authors conclude with the jarring thought that eventhough archaeology is well suited to "furthering our under-standing of the prehistoric human past," it produces no informa-tion of "any adaptive use" and has no value in planning for thehuman future (pp. 364-365). If this is true, why do communitiesemploy archaeology in their struggles to achieve identity andpower, why do the popular media swarm over new discoveries(as the authors recount), and why do economic developmentschemes (whether irrigation systems, museums, or theme parks)incorporate archaeologically derived knowledge and materials?Perhaps the authors' definition of "adaptive use" is too limited.Ostensibly, the only tangible benefit of archaeology is that,along with other disciplines, it helps us understand the Earth'senvironmental history (p. 365). As an environmental archaeolo-gist, I applaud this statement only halfheartedly, knowing thatmost paleoenvironmental studies could proceed apace withoutarchaeological involvement. I also note that laws and regula-tions require private corporations and public agencies to spendhuge amounts of money on Missouri archaeology, so it ought tobe possible to utilize the results of recent studies and recognizesome tangible value in this work.

The Prehistory of Missouri serves as a useful source on theprehistoric artifacts and settlements of an important part of cen-tral North America and as an exemplar of a particular way ofconstructing and presenting an archaeological narrative. It isworth reading in order to see how a coherent theoretical view-point can be applied to a region1 s prehistoric sequence, regard-less of whether one subscribes to the theoretical stance. >

A Dictionary of Archaeology. Ian Shaw and Robert Jameson,eds. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. 624 pp.

VIRGINIA R. ANDERSON-STOJANOVICWilson College

In the time I have spent preparing this review of A Dictionaryof Archaeology, I have taken a fascinating journey of discoverythrough geographical areas and periods that I rarely encounter. Ifound entries to be so well written that it was difficult to stopreading and begin writing this review. Editors Shaw andJameson, with the help of 40 other authors, have created a com-pact, yet comprehensive one-volume dictionary. The concen-tration is on regions and sites (many of which have not been ac-cessible in print or in English) but also includes cultures andchronological/stylistic periods, some well-known named ob-jects (e.g., Gundestrop cauldron), essential terms, techniques,and theory. Entries are clear and jargon-free and contain a short,essential bibliography. Information for each site includes de-tails about when it was excavated, who directed the work, and alist of most recent publications. Unlike many other dictionariesand encyclopedias of archaeology, the editors wisely chose notto include biographies of famous archaeologists to allow inclu-sion of other essential information. A Dictionary of Archaeol-ogy is not aglossy,popularproduction with masses of colorpho-tographs and time lines, but a serious attempt to provide a