This article was downloaded by: [Trakya Universitesi]On: 12 December 2014, At: 06:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Reviews in AnthropologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/grva20

The Social Dynamics of Everyday LifeSTELLA SOUVATZIPublished online: 11 Dec 2014.

To cite this article: STELLA SOUVATZI (2014) The Social Dynamics of Everyday Life, Reviews inAnthropology, 43:4, 238-259

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2014.964067

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

The Social Dynamics of Everyday Life

STELLA SOUVATZI

Hendon, Julia A. 2010. Houses in a Landscape: Memory and Everyday Life inMesoamerica. Durham: Duke University Press.

Moore, Jerry D. 2012. The Prehistory of Home. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Roper, Donna C., and Elizabeth P. Pauls, eds. 2005. Plains Earthlodges: Ethnographicand Archaeological Perspectives. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Zubrow, Ezra, Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe, eds. 2010. The MagdalenianHousehold: Unraveling Domesticity. Albany: State University of New York.

The four books under review illustrate different ways of analyzingpast societies through households, houses, and the conduct ofeveryday life. Grounded on the materiality, spatiality, and tempor-ality of prehistoric data, spanning from the Palaeolithic through tothe recent past, these books provide important archaeological con-tributions to the anthropological study of social organization,inviting challenge and interdisciplinary dialogue. Each book hasa distinctive approach, yet all four reflect wider epistemologicalshifts toward a concern with context, scale, diversity, and interac-tion. In summarizing and critiquing them, most attention is paidto their social perspectives and definitions. This leads to consider-ation of related work in wider anthropology.

KEYWORDS household, house, space, daily practices, socialrelations, materiality, archaeological theory, complexity

Address correspondence to Stella Souvatzi, 2 N. Plastira, Agioi Anargiroi, Athens 135 61,Greece. E-mail: stellasouvatzi@hotmail.com

Reviews in Anthropology, 43:238–259, 2014Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0093-8157 print=1556-3014 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00938157.2014.964067

238

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

INTRODUCTION

The micro-scale study of households, houses, and daily life has been amost important focus of social investigation to a wide range of disciplinesfor the past three decades. In anthropology, the household in particularemerged as a most significant new analytical category already in the1960s and has remained central ever since. In archaeology, the recognitionof the fundamental social significance of micro-scale social units did notcome easily, and for a long time such units were viewed largely as an adap-tation to external forces or wider social structures. In recent years, however,and particularly since the late 1990s, the archaeological literature has recon-sidered its traditional epistemological focus on large scales of space andtime and has shifted toward a more active inclusion of smaller scales,informed by concepts of agency, practice, structuration, and other elementsof contemporary social theories. Although this shift has not always resultedin a comprehensive, integrative theory, it has still led to a burgeoning andpromising literature on new patterns of social interaction and new ques-tions of ideology and meaning. Collectively, all four books considered hererepresent these shifts, offer lively insights into past societies, and provideimportant archaeological contributions to the wider anthropological studyof social organization, addressing a range of issues of interdisciplinary inter-est. Individually, each book focuses on the subject in quite different ways,and has a distinctive approach and a varying degree of emphasis on theoryand interpretation.

Two of the four books under review are single-authored (Hendon 2010,and Moore 2012) and the other two are edited collections (Roper and Pauls2005; Zubrow, Audouze, and Enloe 2010a). The books by Hendon, Roperand Pauls, and Zubrow, Audouze, and Enloe offer innovative methodologi-cal paradigms and make challenging theoretical claims. Hendon’ssingle-authored book examines three contemporaneous Native Americansocieties in the Honduras from the 7th–11th centuries AD, emphasizinginterpretation through observation of human action in engagement withmaterial culture. The edited volumes (Roper and Pauls; Zubrow, Audouze,and Enloe) take a strongly data-centred approach, drawing more on recentmethodological advances in archaeology and less on theoretical ones.Moore’s single-authored book stands out, in that, as the author specifies, itis intended for the general reader of archaeology and therefore it is compara-tively general. Still, drawing on a remarkable range of societies from acrossthe archaeological record and around the world, including the author’sown archaeological fieldwork in America, explaining the basic archaeologi-cal methodology and synthesizing many historical and ethnographic exam-ples, the book is a valuable source of reference both for archaeologistsand for anthropologists.

Social Dynamics of Everyday Life 239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Of the two edited volumes, Roper and Pauls explores the archaeologyand ethnography of the earthlodges of Native American tribes in theGreat Plains of North America between 950 and 1650 C.E. It containsnine chapters in total, including the editors’ introductory and concludingchapters. The contributions, as the editors indicate, fall more or less intotwo groups: one with a more cultural anthropological or ethnographic per-spective and data, and the other oriented toward a more archaeologicalmethodological approach (although the distinction is not immediately evi-dent in that the volume is not divided in parts and most of the chapters inte-grate non-strictly archaeological data anyway, e.g., historical documents andexperimental studies). The volume is coherent and provides a very usefulsurvey of various aspects of earthlodges of wider interest to the anthropologyand archaeology of dwellings. These include earthlodges (1) as material andlabor-intensive objects, and the dynamics of their life cycles (Roper 2005;Scullin 2005); (2) as living and symbolic space, and the relationship betweenarchitecture, social relations, gender, and ritual practices (Liberty 2005; Pauls2005); and (3) as important features in the development and refinement ofwider archaeological methods and models, concerning, for example, paleo-demography, residential patterning, and craft production (Bales andKvamme 2005; Blakeslee 2005; Lensink 2005). Overall, the volume succeedsin its stated aims of showing the diversity of types of research to whichearthlodge data can contribute, as well as outlining an agenda for futureearthlodge research.

The volume edited by Zubrow, Audouze, and Enloe explores the spatialand social organization of paleolithic open-air sites in Europe (mostlyFrance) during the Magdalenian phase during the 14th–13th millenniumB.P. It includes 18 contributions, plus the editors’ introductory and conclud-ing chapters, and is organized into three thematic parts, each of which beginswith a short introductory chapter by one or more of the editors. Five of themain chapters are written in French. The first part of the volume examinestechnology and demography through analysis of the typology and spatialpatterning of various material classes, such as flint stone and bone tools(Janny 2010 and Averbouh 2010 respectively), hearths (Dumarcay and Caron2005), and animal food consuming and procuring (Enloe 2010), and theirimplications for understanding the function and economic production ofresidential hunter-gatherer sites. The second part focuses on aspects of socialorganization, including the use of space and the identification of habitationunits (e.g., Keeler 2010), the distribution of activities and the division of labor(Audouze 2010), equality and inequality (Zubrow 2010), and comparativeanalysis of the social organization of other contemporary sites in Europe(Cattin 2010). The third part of the volume brings in ethnoarchaeologicalresearch on modern hunting and herding societies, addressing issues centralto the volume’s interests such as the sexual division of labor in hide working(Keeley 2010), the important role of activities not directly traceable in the

240 S. Souvatzi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Palaeolithic archaeological record such as weaving and basketry (Soffer andAdovasio 2010), and the exploitation of reindeer (David, Karlin, andD’lachenko 2010). The book’s organizational structure is rather opaque,while the complete absence of any consistent introduction to the book’s con-tents or of some summary of its many chapters does not help the readereither. Nevertheless, the articles cover a wide array of topics and the resultis a very useful survey of fields and methods concerning past and presentmobile, hunting societies.

This review is organized into several thematic sections. The first onedescribes and discusses each book’s approach and central concepts. Thenext four sections represent central themes of common interest both amongthe books under review and wider anthropology, while at the same timedemonstrating some of the many dimensions of the subject. Throughout thisessay I am particularly concerned with the social definition of and approachto household, for it is in this area that we can consider the state of theresearch, evaluate contributions, identify shortcomings, and explore waysappropriate for accommodating analysis of social dynamics.

ON CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

Setting conceptual boundaries around social units is fundamental before onecan thoroughly address social action and relations or systematically examinethe complex, and often contradictory, everyday practices. A concern withdefinitions is also essential in order to avoid abstraction and to distinguishbetween different concepts, such as household, co-residence, home, house,domestic group, family, or kinship unit.

In my own work (Souvatzi 2007a, 2008a, 2008b, 2012a), I haveemployed household as a social entity constructed on co-operation on anexus of social, economic, and ritual everyday practices and relationships,drawing on the rich corpus of household theory and research in socialanthropology (e.g., Netting, Wilk, and Arnould 1984; Roberts 1991; Wilk1991). Briefly, the household is defined primarily not by co-residence, kin-ship, or family, or a mere physical dwelling (e.g., house), but by the sharedperformance of a sphere of practices consisting minimally of production, dis-tribution, consumption, transmission, and social reproduction. It occurs dia-chronically, cross-culturally, and at various societal levels, and can thereforebe of wider analytical applicability and comparative utility than the otherconcepts.

In archaeology, despite the proliferation of works on houses and house-holds in recent decades, there have been comparatively few attempts to the-orize social units. Instead, a variety of interrelated social concepts and ofdiverse, and often conflicting, social theories are increasingly deployed inorder to elicit social relations and categories from the archaeological data.

Social Dynamics of Everyday Life 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Consequently, many studies work at cross-purposes, and there is also thequestion of alignment of concepts, approaches, and interpretation.

The books under review illustrate these points, first of all, by the varietyand polysemy of the terms chosen for their titles: home (Moore); householdand domesticity (Zubrow, Audouze, and Enloe); house (Hendon); and earth-lodge, a specific type of house (Roper and Pauls). In my view, this representsfragmentation rather than plurality or difference in research foci, given thatall of the volumes (1) deal with more or less the same thing: the social sig-nificance of everyday life at the domestic context; and (2) employ a similar,and most welcome, holistic methodology that combines all lines of availableevidence (spatial, material, architectural, ethnographic, textual, icono-graphic, and so on), thus making good use of the archaeological data.Second, of the four books, only Hendon, and also Zubrow, Audouze, andEnloe in the introductory chapter of their edited volume, are concerned withdefining the concepts they use. The other authors take their concepts forgranted, employ them without much comment, and do not avoid alternatinguse of different social forms.

Hendon’s book provides the best example of the recent preoccupationwith the application of increasingly sophisticated concepts and notions. Draw-ing on phenomenology and on an eclectic array of theories of place in thesocial sciences, she addresses a plethora of different themes, from the materi-ality of the human existence and the morality of knowledge to the experientialand formative role of objects as ‘‘persons,’’ and from memory to relational per-sonhood. The result is that despite many valuable and well-made points aboutspecific issues that will be discussed in the following sections, the book as awhole does not achieve a main focus, the main argument does not comeout clearly, and the content does not always correspond very well to the key-words of the title. I suspect that this discrepancy stems from the lack of focuson any specific, clearly defined social unit as a main analytical category.

Hendon distinguishes between biological lineage, household (which shetreats as solely an economic corporation with reference only to Wilk andRathje’s 1982 seminal work on household archaeology), and what she termsas sociological house (which is no other than largely Levi-Strauss’s [1983,1987] model of house societies and his notion of house as a corporate andestate-holding unit that perpetuates itself through intergenerational transferof property). She then dismisses the first two concepts as being too limitedfor a full examination of social life, and advocates for Levi-Strauss’s concept.In fact, she dismisses the utility of almost all major anthropological conceptsemployed thus far in the study of social organization, stating that ‘‘trying todetermine social organisation [ . . . ] fails to zero on what is truly significantfor the intersubjective construction through historical action of memoryand identity’’ (Hendon 2010:229).

This theoretical stance can be seriously critiqued in that it is superficialand partial. First, Hendon addresses only the economic dimension of

242 S. Souvatzi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

household and the biological dimension of kinship (as opposed to theirsocial dimensions). This does not do justice to the holistic perspectives andimportant contributions of the anthropology and archaeology of household,kinship, and social organization in general. Debate has moved forward con-siderably since Wilk and Rathje’s household archaeology, and in both archae-ology and anthropology there have been major attempts to reconceptualizehousehold and kinship as social, rather than solely economic, processes andto unify analysis of the house with analysis of the household (e.g., Carsten1997; Ensor 2011; Parker and Foster 2012; Schweitzer 2000; Souvatzi2008a). Second, structuralism, therefore Levi-Strauss’ approach to house,despite its recent elaborations (e.g., Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995; Joyceand Gillespie 2000), was not devised to account for social dynamics. Third,the distinction between an economically defined household and a ‘‘socio-logical’’ house seems to reiterate, and thus to reproduce, the artificial oppo-sition that characterized the archaeology of the 1990s betweenAmerican-influenced processual (i.e., functionalist) approaches to house-holds and British-influenced post-processual (i.e., symbolic and structuralist)approaches to the house. Lastly, instead of dismissive generalizations, itwould be more useful if Hendon explained, rather than merely stating,why she thinks other approaches and concepts have failed. This is perhapsthe most disappointing aspect, given that Hendon has published consider-ably on the domestic context during the 1990s (e.g., Hendon 1996, 1997,1999, 2000).

Apart from sociological house, Hendon adopts another two analyticalterms: co-resident community of practice in order to emphasize the aspectof living together in a house group, and memory community, which seemsto refer virtually to any group of people engaged in memory making. Thesethree concepts do not work well and are confusing. It is not clear whetherthey are synonymous or co-terminous with each other, or whether the authormeans something different with each one of the three, not least because inmany parts of the book they seem to be conflated (e.g., Hendon2010:228). As a result, we do not get any specific picture of the social com-position of any one group or the social relations between its members. Lastly,the importance of co-residence should not be a priori assumed. The relation-ship of house and co-residence is fluctuating and complex, and, as a largenumber of anthropological case studies have shown, co-residential groupscan exist on different levels within the same society, can contain more thanone social unit, or can be parts of larger social units (e.g., Hammel 1972;Segalen 1986).

The perspective on household and domesticity given by Zubrow,Audouze, and Enloe (2010b) is clear and encompassing and the closest tothe anthropological definitions outlined above than all the other books underreview. This is remarkable, given that their edited volume is about UpperPalaeolithic hunter-gatherer societies with no permanent architecture. It

Social Dynamics of Everyday Life 243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

serves to emphasize that the concept of household indeed offers a flexibleanalytical tool that can be applied successfully to all types of societies. Ireturn to this point in the next section. Domesticity is equally flexibly definedas ‘‘the processes that make up the creation and sustaining of the household’’(2010b:3) and as the basic component of society which, when a householddeteriorates or is destroyed, allows household members to recombine intoanother. There is also an interesting comparative discussion of domesticityin mobile and sedentary societies. The individual chapters then set out toexplore various aspects of social and spatial organization, from the organiza-tion and division of labor to the identification of specialized activity areas andhabitation units—focusing on technology and intra-site spatial analysis andemploying a variety of innovative methods. The volume focuses throughouton, and indeed offers a very refreshing view of, early prehistoric societies.

Regarding the other two volumes, it is really regretful that they are not atall concerned with concepts and definitions, as they both offer significantinsights into social organization. Despite its focus on one specific type ofhouse, Roper and Pauls’ edited volume on earthlodges raises important ques-tions about the spatiality of social life, craft traditions, gender relations, ritualpractices, symbolism, and variation. This makes the lack of any discussion ofthe kind of social group within an earthlodge all the more marked.

Moore’s Prehistory of Home might, perhaps, be excused in that the bookis intended for the general reader of archaeology. However, I would arguethat the general reader has to learn that social grouping and spatial orderare the outcome of intentionality and social choice rather than of someabstract human propensity or ‘‘what humans do’’—as often reiterated inthe book. One would have thought that the remarkable range of societieson which the book draws would have provided excellent data for the diver-sity and agency of social grouping. But it may be a matter of perspective. Thecentral concept of the book, home, is more cultural and emotive than social,mostly pertinent to Western ideals, and often derived from an intuitive senseof the domestic, whereas the idea that homes are mostly how humansadapt to the physical environment makes it difficult to conceptualize socialdynamics.

SPATIAL DYNAMICS

Space and the built forms of it have always been central themes of inquiryand of methodologically innovative research in archaeology, which has, inaddition, incorporated advances and ideas from other social sciences alongthe way. Since the 1990s, following the post-modernist critiques, a new inter-est in space and architecture has emerged in archaeology and anthropology,with renewed coverage and theoretical stimulus, focusing on the spatialdimension of social action (Souvatzi 2012b for detailed review and

244 S. Souvatzi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

references; also Souvatzi and Hadji 2014). All of the four books under con-sideration reflect these developments, and they all succeed, although in vary-ing degrees, to address many issues of interdisciplinary interest, including:meaning, identity, connectivity, experience, and tradition and innovation.

One important new direction concerns the constant movement ofpeople, goods, and ideas within and between sites and across the landscape.It shows a concern to direct similar attention to the social dynamics ofmobility as has been devoted to continuity and stability. The MagdalenianHousehold volume as a whole, as well as Moore’s chapter 3 (nicely entitled‘‘Mobile Homes’’), best exemplify the point that although a household alwaysoccurs in a spatial context, permanent architecture and long-term locality orsedentism are not its exclusive referents. Instead, household can just as welloccur in societies with seasonal and variable residential mobility such asnomads, hunter-gatherers, and seasonal horticulturists. Among the Magdale-nian hunter-gatherers, household space involves the domestic hearth and theconcentration of activities around it (e.g., cooking and weaponry retooling),an outer circle of work areas (e.g., for hide working), and a relatively emptyspace behind the hearth where tents may have been (Audouze 2010; Keeler2010). Enloe, Audouze, and Zubrow (2010) argue that the seasonal reoccu-pation of the same places in the landscape indicate that Magdalenian domes-ticity was at the same time stable and flexible. Similarly, Moore makes theimportant point that mobile hunter-gatherers—ancient and ethnographic—use residential locations to map onto the landscape, incorporating newregions and new sets of connections between place and culture every time,thus making the larger spatial scale into home. These points resonate with adistinct new trend that advocates greater account of the many ways in whichpeople constructed the wider landscape, projected meanings onto it, andultimately transformed it into a social landscape (e.g., Ashmore 2007;Murrieta-Flores 2014).

But even in sedentary societies spatial continuity and stability should betreated with caution. Lensink (2005), employing several methods for estimat-ing earthlodge use life and earthlodge village occupation duration, concludesthat all of the 27 sites of the Little Sioux phase in northwest Iowa were cre-ated by only two villages relocating through time, mostly likely due to socialand kinship realignments and changes in positions in long-distanceexchange networks. The longest occupation of a village was at 69 years,which is considerably less than the 300 or more years previously believed.Similarly, in South Dakota, villages were estimated to have been relocatedapproximately every 25 years, with the longest occupation of a village being50 years. This is really remarkable, given also that the construction of anearthlodge was an especially labor-intensive and time-consuming undertak-ing, requiring several months and many people for its completion (Blakeslee2005; Roper 2005; Scullin 2005). Roper’s chapter offers a revealing insightinto the dynamics of domestic architecture as being in constant process of

Social Dynamics of Everyday Life 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

deterioration and requiring decisions about its future. She shows how theHidatsa earthlodge-dwellers were all too familiar, and in fact they lived withthe constantly decaying materials of their houses; she also points out that anearthlodge (as any building, for that matter) is the outcome of countless deci-sions, choices, and actions regarding construction techniques and materials,maintenance and repair, reuse, modification, or abandonment.

Another area of common and wider interest concerns architecture andsymbolic representation, and the role of domestic space as a focus for ritual,cosmology, ontology, and social order. Pauls’ (2005) analysis of the Hidatsaearthlodge’s interior space and activities indicates that they were organizedinto a complex series of interrelated concentricities, both on the horizontaland the vertical plane, which provided a powerful cosmological and socialmap serving at once to naturalize social relations and gender roles, to com-municate aspects of social and cultural identity, and to protect the inhabitantsfrom their spiritual powers. For example, the hearth in the center acted as amale entity in the vertical plane and a female locus on the horizontal plane,the outer ring served for storage, giving birth and enculturation, while theentire earthlodge represented the earth. The recursive relationship of archi-tecture with cosmology and identity, and generally the interconnected rolesof space, culture, and agency, are the reason (according to Pauls) of theearthlodge morphological stability for about 500 years, disrupted only byWestern technical works in the 1950s.

Hendon focuses more on bodily movement, experience, orientation,and knowledge, emphasizing in particular the networks of interaction inshaping social identities and co-presence. One example is the interactionof body with spatialized and specialized tasks. Considering in detail howthe basic technology of weaving, a skilled and particularly valued craftamong the Maya, is entirely dependent on the movement and ability of thehuman body, Hendon argues that it also becomes a technique for shapingpersonhood. At the same time, the domestic setting of both learning and per-forming the craft contributes to the social construction and meaning of thehouse. Imported goods and other evidence for exchange (e.g., of labor,ideas, and visits) also suggest constant mobility of people and things withinand between the settlements.

RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION, IDENTITIES, AND PRACTICES

The analytical potential and social dynamics of everyday practices has been amost important focus of research in archaeology and anthropology for thepast three decades. While earlier work was characterized either by an econ-omistic view of household production (i.e., functionalist studies) or anexclusive emphasis on women’s action only (i.e., gender studies), recentlythere has been a productive shift of attention to how household serves to

246 S. Souvatzi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

inscribe social relations and identities, involving all sex, gender, and agegroups. Approaches to identity have also moved from an almost exclusiveearlier focus on the individual to the inclusion of collective, group, or corpor-ate identity. These integrative perspectives have also contributed significantlyto the deconstruction of the dichotomies between function and meaning, anddomestic and ritual.

Both Hendon and Moore draw on Richard Bradley’s (2003:20–21) argu-ment for the ritualization of the domestic realm ‘‘in which everyday actscould take on special qualities until they assumed the character of a theatricalperformance.’’ Extending her earlier work on domestic productive activitiesand relations (Hendon 1996, 1997), Hendon (chapter 4) demonstrates howcooking, ceramic, textile, shell ornament, and paper production are signifi-cant to the social reproduction not only of household but of society as awhole, and that they were used to create more or less public and ritualizedkinds of interactions; or, conversely, that in Mesoamerica, ritual and religiondid not include a different kind of logic from the repeated daily practices.

Pauls (2005) and Audouze (2010) address gender relations and socialidentities in the Hidatsa earthlodge and the Magdalenian residential huntingcamp respectively, through identification of specific gendered practices,workplaces and material, division of labor, and accessibility or restrictedness.Pauls provides a revealing account of the existence of three genders amongthe Hidatsa, and subsequently of three categories of gendered rights, identi-ties, and power: female, male, and berdache, a person biologically male butwho renounced his sex after receiving several visions indicating that his pathwas female. Women sustained the material and social continuity of the vil-lage, accomplishing the majority of activities (from cultivating plants andmaking tools to building the earthlodge), and therefore had many rightsand properties, including ownership of the earthlodge itself; men wereinvolved in much fewer but more dangerous activities, including huntingand protecting, and had fewer possessions; and berdaches comprised themost prominent ceremonial class in the village. The co-existence and com-plementarity of three different genders and foci of power and identity under-lines the fact that gender and gendered division of labor is a social andcultural, and not a biological, construct, as Marxist and feminist scholarshiplong ago pointed out (e.g., Collier and Yanagisako 1987; Folbre 1986).

Audouze’s (2010) analysis indicates that gender division of labor wasalready present among Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers, particularly with regardto weaponry technology (male) and hide working (female). In fact, Enlow,Audouze, and Zubrow (2010) suggest, employing what sounds like a Marxistperspective, that social organization is better viewed generally as largely aconsequence of the organization of labor. Yet, the gender division of spacewas attenuated, in that all work areas and all tool categories seem to havebeen accessible by all, suggesting flexible norms or codes. This is in contraryto several present-day hunter-gatherer societies, in which the engendered

Social Dynamics of Everyday Life 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

use of space is very marked, and therefore warns against direct ethnographicanalogy, as the same authors rightly point out.

Keeley (2010) reviews cross-cultural ethnographic evidence concerninggender roles for hide working and concludes that this activity could be maleor female in different societies, depending on the correlation between theimportance of hunting and hide cloth production by women. Soffer andAdovasio (2010) start with a valuable critique of earlier Palaeolithic researchfor having privileged just one segment of people and activities—prime agemales, hunting, and durable materials—thus providing highly biased viewsof Palaeolithic life. They then proceed to offer a refreshing account of tech-niques and activities associated with the more perishable plant-based materi-als (e.g., clothes, footwear, cordage, nets, and baskets), which, judging fromthe ethnographic record, form more than 90 percent of what was actuallymade and used across Europe and Eurasia. Importantly, these perishabletechnologies shed light on the significance of the productive skills and con-tribution of the women, the children, and the elderly to Palaeolithic econ-omy. Remarkably, of all the books under review, it is this one, dealingwith the earliest societies, that more systematically attempts to incorporateinto the analysis all age groups, including the elders (see also chapter byEnlow, Audouze, and Zubrow 2010).

SOCIAL DIFFERENCES AND COMPLEXITIES

Social differences and complexity have always held a prominent position inprehistoric research, usually with regard to the large spatial and temporalscale and with a heavy reliance on neo-evolutionary societal typologies. Asa consequence, models conflating complexity with hierarchy, taking hier-archy as the chief mechanism driving social integration, and seeing all differ-entiation of power relations as hierarchical, abound in the archaeologicalliterature, as does the dichotomous classification of societies either as simpleor complex, static or dynamic, and egalitarian or unequal. Clearly, these ideaseffectively deny complexity to households of a variety of societies in whichclear-cut and permanent hierarchical relationships are lacking. Such perspec-tives have been criticized within many theoretical archaeological agendas,and current debate moves further toward a reconceptualization of com-plexity as inherent in all social forms (e.g., see Souvatzi 2008a:40–43,205–207 for detailed discussion; also Chapman 2014).

Zubrow’s (2010) interesting chapter points out that in contrast to theabundant archaeological literature on inequality and contrary to all othersocial and historical disciplines, there is almost a complete lack of interestby archaeologists in the origins or maintenance of equality. After discussingtheoretical models as well as ethnographic examples of equality, he developsa model for equality in the Magdalenian economy on the basis of two

248 S. Souvatzi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

different food sharing and re-sharing patterns. He underlines, however, thatthe redistribution of food is the product of a divided but not hierarchicalsociety, and thus he conceptually separates division from hierarchy. Zubrowalso hints at the assumption that equality is easy. Indeed, egalitarianism andsimplicity are not synonymous. It is neither simple nor easy ‘‘to defend equal-ity’’ (Trigger 1990:145), and egalitarian relations require highly complexcodes of social behavior and can exist in any society and at different levels.

Moore reviews a broad range of densely packed yet ideally egalitariansocieties across space and time, from Neolithic Catalhoyuk to the Iroquoislonghouse, and considers how they succeeded to solve conflicts and toremain in coexistence for remarkably long periods. He finds that in mostcases this was the result of collective processes and complex social integrat-ive mechanisms revolving around an ideology or ethos of egalitarianism andpromoting an ideological focus on the community. For example, the pueblosof the Southwest United States had a long and successful history of resistanceto hierarchization, unbroken, as Moore points out, by all outside imposers,from Spanish conquest to modern tourism, due to complex ritual systemscharacterized by community-wide ceremonies that cross-cut lineage groupsand fostered village integration.

But even in politically centralized societies such as the Mesoamericanones, Hendon finds no consistent evidence for the existence of fixed socialclasses or ranks between households. Rather, all the potential indicators ofstatus, including nutrition, burial treatment, access to imported goods, andelaboration of architecture, indicated that social differences remained fluid,transient, and susceptible to contestation as reflections of relational pro-cesses. Even at Copan, which had the most powerful ruling dynasty, theuse of valued materials was not restricted to elites. Instead, inter-householdsocial differences were created on much more subtle and transient practicessuch as the degrees of visibility and knowledge of the locations of storage,burials, caches of valuable items, and ritual offerings—in other words, onthe differentiation of knowledge of what Hendon successfully calls ‘‘the hid-den dimension of the social and physical space’’ (p. 121). Hendon identifiesfeasting as a major framework within which social relationships and differ-ences were realigned in the local, or even in a regional, social network,and individual and group identities were reordered through the abilities ofdifferent groups to provide the resources and through obligation and debt.This is in accordance with the recent literature on the role of feasting as anideal and ritualized context for social interaction (e.g., Dietler 2001;Spielmann 2002).

Hendon (see also Joyce and Hendon 2000) argues for the existence ofoverlapping and cross-cutting networks of power rather than bounded hier-archies, and for the Cuyumapa in particular, for the maintenance of heter-archical relations. Indeed, the concept of heterarchy, defined ‘‘as therelation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they

Social Dynamics of Everyday Life 249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways’’(Crumley 1995:3), has provided new perspectives to an increasing numberof archaeologists seeking to explore the potential of all societies for innumer-able choices (social, economic, political, spatial, and temporal) in the cre-ation of social complexity (e.g., Kohring and Wynne-Jones 2007; Lesureand Blake 2002; Souvatzi 2007b, 2013).

Collectively, the four volumes reveal a picture of considerable flux andambiguity, serving more than anything to highlight the limitations in usingideas deeply embedded in social evolutionism to develop a comprehensivesociology of the complexity and variability of everyday lived reality.

TIME AND HISTORY

Conceptualizing and addressing time constitutes one of the greater strengths ofarchaeology, given the great historical depth of the archaeological data, whichextend to very early human societies and cultures, such as those considered inthe Zubrow, Audouze, and Enloe volume, and in part by Moore. Despite thelong archaeological use of time mostly for the construction of chronologicaland cultural sequences and mostly on the macro-scale, and although the grandmodels of social evolution have continued to influence archaeologicalthought, archaeologists have problematized time repeatedly over the recentdecades, and there is now a growing appreciation of different scales andrhythms of time (see Hadji and Souvatzi 2014 for a most recent review of timein archaeology and anthropology). Besides, the increasing focus on themicro-scale requires approaches that effectively acknowledge that houses,households, and everyday life are loci where the synchronic and the dia-chronic, the short-term and the long-term, conjoin or conflict. Furthermore,unlike what many traditional, top-down models assume, houses and house-holds do not just exist outside history, nor is history something that happenssomewhere outside the household and to which household merely responds.

One major way of making history is through making memory, whichrepresents a key notion of Hendon’s book, as well as an area of growingfocus in archaeology (e.g., Knapp 2009; Watkins 2014). Hendon demon-strates how the residential compound serves as a ‘‘semiotic memorymachine’’ (p. 95) through the repetition of daily practices, the continuoususe and repeated reconstructions of buildings over time, the burial of ances-tors, the transmission of knowledge and information, as well as the trans-mission of the houses themselves and of the objects kept in them. Theseactions are generative of identity and memory from which local and localizedhistories grow. Thus, they turn these dwellings into tangible historical refer-ents that span generations, speak to multiple actors, and may continue afterthe inhabitants have ceased to exist or the buildings have been abandoned(see also Hodder and Cessford 2004 for specific houses acting probably as

250 S. Souvatzi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

‘‘guardians of the archive of memories’’ (p. 36) or Hodder and Pels 2010 for‘‘history houses’’ in Neolithic Catalhoyuk).

However, as Hendon points out, memory should not be seen a substi-tute or poor relation of history. Hendon provides a useful critique of the pre-judices involved in the modern Western model of history as linear,teleological, and single-directed, which led not only to the dichotomy of tra-ditional versus modern societies but to the idea that non-Western societies,including prehistoric ones, have no sense of historical consciousness. Shethen rightly argues that history is universal but culturally constructed. Thatis, all societies have a sense of history; it is how they define the concept thatdiffers. Indeed, the increasing questioning of the idea of change as a steadyand uniform path toward ‘‘progress’’ and the arguments for a more complexhistory of prehistory constitute one of the promising avenues of research incontemporary archaeology. Memory, as Hendon suggests, is not somethingthat people have but something they do: by doing it they become boundin webs of social relations and therefore they create history. The memorybundle includes, according to Hendon’s analysis, three facets: temporality,implicit, for example, in the orientation and movement of the human bodyacross space; time telling or temporal rhythm, developing from the daily orperiodic repetition of activities (e.g., cooking and consuming food, andbuilding and large-scale feasting respectively); and local history (see above).

Equally relevant here is the attention, discussed above, to the socialdynamics of mobility, site or building duration, abandonment or relocation,the complex life histories of buildings, and generally the interplay betweentime, place, and architecture. It challenges the notions of idealized continuityand timeless past communities and shows that domestic space is itselfenmeshed in historical processes. For example, analyses by Pauls (2005),Roper (2005), Scullin (2005), and Blakeslee (2005) all show that the Plainsearthlodge represents the gradual and collective result of a number of peopleover spans of time. Therefore it can be understood as a record of power rela-tions and traditions, a social history, as well as a material mnemonic of thosetransactions. Pauls proposes a view of the earthlodge as both the medium forand the outcome of histories of action that fused group genealogies, imagesof the past, religion, and social relations. Paleolithic hunter-gatherer societiesof France and Switzerland also kept a memory of place and the activities thatcould take place there. The reoccupation of the same spots in the landscapeand a similar use of domestic space indicate that they would have come backagain and again to perform the same activities, even though it is not certainhow many generations separated the first inhabitants from the next (Audouze2010; Cattin 2010; Enloe, Audouze, and Zubrow 2010).

One important implication from all of the four books under review isthat in order to reconstruct social trajectories we need to look into the manypractices that take place in a given historical context, into changing cycles ofcontinuity and change, and into more localized networks of interaction.

Social Dynamics of Everyday Life 251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

CONCLUSIONS

All four volumes reviewed here provide exciting evidence for the continuedvitality of households, houses, and everyday life in wider socio-culturalresearch and can inform general anthropology in many important waysand directions. First, they reveal the plurality, multi-dimensionality, anddiversity, therefore the social and analytical dynamics, of daily life in thedomestic context. Second, they challenge, although not always explicitly,views that reduce fundamental social units to some purported essence:sedentism and permanent architecture, an administrative concern with orga-nizing resources, some higher-level social integration or institution, a fixedoriginal meaning, and a monolithic identity. Third, they address a plethoraof themes and issues topical in contemporary anthropology, many of whichwere presented here. Last, but not least, they all contribute to the deconstruc-tion of the assumption that prehistoric archaeological data are unable to pro-vide a proper understanding of micro-scale social dynamics, compared to thekinds of data available in anthropology, or even in historical archaeology.

Hendon (2010) argues convincingly against the primacy of writtensources, which is a modern Western priority anyway, and for the analyticalpotential of materiality as intimately bound with the human existence andsocial practices. I would add that is not only the materiality, but also thespatiality, temporality, historicity, and specificity of social units and dailypractices that connect them to key social phenomena and that, in fact, enableprehistoric archaeology to make genuine contributions to wider research.Pauls’ (2005) ‘‘anthropology of history,’’ as well as most other chapters inthe Plains Earthlodges volume, also demonstrate the many biases and partial-ity involved in earlier anthropological and ethnographic records and inter-views regarding Native American life. Overall, as I have argued elsewhere(Souvatzi 2008a), an archaeological approach to household is particularlycrucial to an interpretative theory of micro-scale social organization as adialectical, historical, and dynamic process.

However, these are the very areas in which I have found all fourvolumes most wanting: theory and social process. Despite accepting the plu-rality of theoretical and methodological positions among the volumes, thefact is that they contain little or no theorizing of social units and particularlyof their influence upon society. And with little or no such theorizing, therecan be little effective view of social units as truly dynamic, ever-emergent,and able to reconstruct, and also to change, their wider social environment.Specifically, I would have liked to have seen a lot more in the volumes abouthow houses or households (1) vary from each other within the same site, andwhy; (2) interact with the continually changing wider society within whichthey exist; and (3) act as a context where wider norms, ideals, conditions,and relationships are not only reproduced, but can actually be contested

252 S. Souvatzi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

or inverted. The lack of search for possible contradictions between dominantideologies or community ideals and the actual practice of real households(e.g., Souvatzi 2012a) is a major shortcoming in all the four volumes. As sug-gested in the first main section of this essay, much of this inadequacy can beunderstood in terms of narrow conceptualization and=or inappropriatetheoretical perspectives. A main caveat relates to the articulation of issuesof social agency into a more comprehensive approach. Hendon’s broadframe offers much but delivers little. By dismissing social structure and socialorganization as not-valuable goals of investigation, the aim of her focus onpractices remains unclear. I would argue with Ortner (2001:271) that the sub-ject of agency becomes most useful when it is considered in its interactionwith social structure, and that its analytical strength lies in the considerationof the dialectics between practice and system. History and change do nothave a teleology, as Hendon rightly argues. But practices do not themselveshave a teleology either. Rather, they provide analytical tools for grasping thedialectics between structure and agency, and between reproduction andchange. Their fluidity and open-ended character stems from people’s abilityto contest, resist, or change the wider social and cultural norms.

The other three volumes are generally characterized, even thoughimplicitly, by a continuing presence of functionalist and adaptationist think-ing—for example, by often casting types of sites, households, or houses as anoutcome of environmental conditions or raw material availability. This wayof thinking tends to externalize variability and change and makes it very dif-ficult to conceptualize any social unit as a locus of action and contradiction.In Pauls’ otherwise very good analysis of the Hidatsa earthlodge, the mainimpression we get is that architecture fixes and stabilizes social relations—for example, through the repetition of spatial relationships and the represen-tation of the social order. Even though Pauls does acknowledge that theearthlodge’s interior organization is not simply a source of stability, but alsoa vehicle for change, she does not devote any analysis to this point. As aresult, she does not eschew an impression of earthlodges as static,homogeneous, and bounded entities.

In spite of their theoretical shortcomings, all four volumes reviewed hereoffer powerful and nuanced analyses and each deserves attention and reader-ship. What I find most hopeful for the general anthropology is that they all (1)employ a multi-scalar approach (e.g., domestic space and short-term but alsoexternal, communal, or public areas, settlement and landscape levels, and themedium- and longer-term), thus showing that real-life practices and relation-ships have a variety of space and time scales; and (2) incorporate interdisci-plinary theories and methods, thus reflecting how the subject’s richnessgives it the potential for an interface of co-relating various converging themesand directions across the social and historical disciplines. Such considerationspromise to yield unique insights into the complexity and variety not only ofdaily but of all of social life.

Social Dynamics of Everyday Life 253

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many thanks to Marcel Kornfeld for his helpful comments and suggestionsthroughout the writing process, as well as to the anonymous reviewers fortheir comments on an earlier version of the text. Thanks also to MichaelHarkin for our meeting and discussion at Istanbul. This essay was writtenwhile I held a British Institute at Ankara–Koc University, Research Centreof Anatolian Civilisations Senior Research Fellowship at Istanbul.

REFERENCES CITED

Ashmore, Wendy2007 Social Archaeologies of Landscape. In A Companion to Social Archaeology.

Lynn Meskell and Robert W. Preucel, eds. Pp. 255–271. Oxford: Blackwell.Audouze, Francoise

2010 Domesticity and Spatial Organisation at Verberie. In The MagdalenianHousehold: Unraveling Domesticity. Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze, andJames G. Enloe, eds. Pp. 145–175. Albany: State University of New York.

Averbouh, Aline2010 Utilisation et transformation des matieres osseuses au Buisson Campin

(Verberie, Oise). In The Magdalenian Household: Unraveling Domesticity.Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe, eds. Pp. 76–90. Albany:State University of New York.

Bales, Jennifer R., and Kenneth L. Kvamme2005 Geophysical Signatures of Earthlodges in the Dakotas. In Plains Earthlodges:

Ethnographic and Archaeological Perspectives. Donna C. Roper and Elizabeth P.Pauls, eds. Pp. 157–183. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Blakeslee, Donald J.2005 Middle Ceramic Period Earthlodges as the Products of Craft Traditions. In

Plains Earthlodges: Ethnographic and Archaeological Perspectives. Donna C.Roper and Elizabeth P. Pauls, eds. Pp. 83–110. Tuscaloosa: University ofAlabama Press.

Bradley, Richard2003 A Life Less Ordinary: The Ritualisation of the Domestic Sphere in Later

Prehistoric Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13(1):5–23.Carsten, Janet

1997 The Heat of the Hearth: The Process of Kinship in a Malay FishingCommunity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Carsten, Janet, and Stephen Hugh-Jones, eds.1995 About the House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Cattin, Marie-Isabelle

2010 Comparing Social Organisations of Magdalenian Hunter-Gatherers: A SwissExample. In The Magdalenian Household: Unraveling Domesticity.Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe, eds. Pp. 213–221.Albany: State University of New York.

254 S. Souvatzi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Chapman, Robert2014 Scales, Interaction, and Movement in Later Mediterranean Prehistory. In

Space and Time in Mediterranean Prehistory. Stella Souvatzi and Athena Hadji,eds. Pp. 32–48. New York: Routledge.

Collier, Jane Fishburne, and Sylvia Yanagisako, eds.1987 Gender and Kinship: Essays Toward a Unified Analysis. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.Crumley, Carole L.

1995 Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. In Heterarchy and theAnalysis of Complex Societies. R. M. Ehrenreich, Carole L. Crumley andJ. E. Levy, eds. Pp. 1–5. Archaeological Papers of the American AnthropologicalAssociation, no. 6. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.

David, Francine, Claudine Karlin, and Vladimir D’lachenko2010 Slaughter and Carcass Processing of Reindeer in Siberia: Patterns and

Distribution of Tasks—Comparisons between Prehistoric andEthnoarchaeological Cases. In The Magdalenian Household: UnravelingDomesticity. Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe, eds.Pp. 245–268. Albany: State University of New York.

Dietler, Marc2001 Theorising the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics and

Power in African Contexts. In Feasts: Archaeological and EthnographicPerspectives on Food, Politics and Power. Marc Dietler and Brian Hayden, eds.Pp. 65–114. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dumarcay, Gaelle, and Madeleine Caron2010 Pincevent and Verberie Rocks and Hearths: A Tentative Summary=

Preliminary Analysis. In The Magdalenian Household: Unraveling Domesticity.Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe, eds. Pp. 91–102. Albany:State University of New York.

Enloe, James G.2010 Fauna and Site Structure at Verberie: Implications for Domesticity and

Demography. In The Magdalenian Household: Unraveling Domesticity.Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe, eds. Pp. 22–50. Albany:State University of New York.

Enloe, James G., Ezra Zubrow, and Francoise Audouze2010 Conclusion: Domesticity Re-Expressed. In The Magdalenian Household:

Unraveling Domesticity. Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe,eds. Pp. 283–297. Albany: State University of New York.

Ensor, Bradley E.2011 Kinship Theory in Archaeology: From Critiques to the Study of

Transformations. American Antiquity 76(2):203–227.Folbre, Nancy

1986 Hearts and Spades: Paradigms of Household Economics. WorldDevelopment 14:245–255.

Hadji, Athena, and Stella Souvatzi2014 Space and Time in Mediterranean Prehistory and Beyond. In Space and

Time in Mediterranean Prehistory. Stella Souvatzi and Athena Hadji, eds. Pp.1–31. New York: Routledge.

Social Dynamics of Everyday Life 255

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Hammel, Eugene. A.1972 The Zadruga as Process. In Household and Family in Past Time. Peter

Laslett and R. Wall, eds. Pp. 335–374. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hendon, Julia A.

1996 Archaeological Approaches to the Organisation of Domestic Labour:Household Practice and Domestic Relations. Annual Review of Anthropology25:46–61.

1997 Women’s Work, Women’s Space, and Women’s Status among the ClassicPeriod Maya Elite of the Copan Valley, Honduras. In Women in Prehistory:North America and Mesoamerica. C. P. Claassen and Rosemary Joyce, eds.Pp. 33–46. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

1999 The Preclassic Maya Compound as the Focus of Social Identity. InSocial Patterns in the Preclassic Mesoamerica. D. C. Grove and Rosemary A.Joyce, eds. Pp. 97–125. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library andCollection.

2000 Having and Holding: Storage, Memory, Knowledge, and Social Relations.American Anthropologist 102:42–53.

Hodder, Ian, and Craig Cessford2004 Daily Practice and Social Memory at Catalhoyuk. American Antiquity 69:17–40.

Hodder, Ian, and Peter Pels2010 History Houses: A New Interpretation of Architectural Elaboration at

Catalhoyuk. In Religion in the Emergence of Civilisation: Catalhoyuk as a CaseStudy. Hodder Ian, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 163–186.

Janny, Frederic2010 Technologie Lithique a Verberie: Production Domestique et Apprentissage.

In The Magdalenian Household: Unraveling Domesticity. Ezra Zubrow,Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe, eds. Pp. 51–75. Albany: StateUniversity of New York.

Joyce, Rosemary A., and Susan D. Gillespie, eds.2000 Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Joyce, Rosemary A., and Julia A. Hendon

2000 Heterarchy, History, and Material Reality. In The Archaeology ofCommunities: A New World Perspective. M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, eds.Pp. 143–160. London: Routledge.

Keeler, Dustin2010 GIS of Verberie: Spatial Definition of Habitation Units. In The Magdalenian

Household: Unraveling Domesticity. Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze, andJames G. Enloe, eds. Pp. 131–144. Albany: State University of New York.

Keeley, Lawrence H.2010 The Probable Sexual Division of Labour in Magdalenian Hide Working:

Ethnological Evidence. In The Magdalenian Household: UnravelingDomesticity. Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe, eds.Pp. 227–234. Albany: State University of New York.

Knapp, Bernard A.2009 Monumental Architecture, Identity and Memory. In Proceedings of

the Symposium: Bronze Age Architectural Traditions in the East

256 S. Souvatzi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Mediterranean: Diffusion and Diversity, Gasteig, Munich, May 7–8, 2008.Pp. 47–59. Weilheim: Verein zur Forderung der Aufarbeitung der HellenischenGeschichte e.V.

Kohring, Sheila E., and Stephanie Wynne-Jones, eds.2007 Socialising Complexity: Structure, Interaction and Power in Archaeological

Discourse. Oxford: Oxbow.Lensink, Stephen, C.,

2005 This Old Earthlodge Village: How Long Were Sites of the Middle MissouriTradition Occupied? In Plains Earthlodges: Ethnographic and ArchaeologicalPerspectives. Donna C. Roper and Elizabeth P. Pauls, eds. Pp. 133–156.Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Lesure, R. G., and M. Blake2002 Interpretative Challenges in the Study of Early Complexity: Economy,

Ritual and Architecture at Paso de la Amada, Mexico. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 21:1–24.

Levi-Strauss, Claude1983 The Way of the Masks. London: Jonathan Cape.1987 Anthropology and Myth: Lectures 1951–1982. Oxford: Blackwell.

Liberty, Margot P.2005 From Earthlodge to Medicine Lodge? Probable Cheyenne Origins of the

Sun Dance. In Plains Earthlodges: Ethnographic and ArchaeologicalPerspectives. Donna C. Roper and Elizabeth P. Pauls, eds. Pp. 75–82.Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Murrieta-Flores, Patricia2014 Space and Temporality in Herding Societies. In Space and Time in

Mediterranean Prehistory. Stella Souvatzi and Athena Hadji, eds. Pp. 196–213.New York: Routledge.

Netting, Robert, Richard R. Wilk, and E. J. Arnould, eds.1984 Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Ortner, S. B.

2001 Commentary: Practice, Power and the Past. Journal of Social Archaeology1:271–278.

Parker, Bradley J., and Catherine P. Foster, eds.2012 New Perspectives on Household Archaeology. Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns.Pauls, Elizabeth P.

2005 Architecture as a Source of Cultural Conservation: Gendered Social,Economic, and Ritual Practices Associated with Hidatsa Earthlodges. In PlainsEarthlodges: Ethnographic and Archaeological Perspectives. Donna C. Roper andElizabeth P. Pauls, eds. Pp. 51–74. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Roberts, P.1991 Anthropological Perspectives on the Household. Institute of Development

Studies Bulletin 22:60–64.Roper, Donna C.

2005 Earthlodge Dynamics 101: Construction and Deterioration Issues and TheirLessons for Archaeologists. In Plains Earthlodges: Ethnographic and

Social Dynamics of Everyday Life 257

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Archaeological Perspectives. Donna C. Roper and Elizabeth P. Pauls, eds.Pp. 111–132. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Roper, Donna C., and Elizabeth P. Pauls, eds.2005. Plains Earthlodges: Ethnographic and Archaeological Perspectives.

Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Schweitzer, Peter P., ed.

2000 Dividends of Kinship. Meanings and Uses of Social Relatedness. London:Routledge.

Scullin, Michael2005 Confounding Stereotypes: Building an Earthlodge for Fun and Edification.

In Plains Earthlodges: Ethnographic and Archaeological Perspectives. Donna C.Roper and Elizabeth P. Pauls, eds. Pp. 32–50. Tuscaloosa: The University ofAlabama Press.

Segalen, Martine1986 Historical Anthropology of the Family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Soffer, Olga, and James M. Adovasio2010 The Roles of Perishable Technologies in Upper Palaeolithic Lives. In The

Magdalenian Household: Unraveling Domesticity. Ezra Zubrow, FrancoiseAudouze, and James G. Enloe, eds. Pp. 235–244. Albany: State University ofNew York.

Souvatzi, Stella2007a The Identification of Neolithic Households: Unfeasible or Just

Disregarded? In Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in theAegean and Beyond. Ruth C. Westgate, James Whitley and Nick R. E. Fisher,eds. Pp. 19–28. London: British School at Athens Studies 15.

2007b Social Complexity Is Not the Same as Hierarchy. In SocialisingComplexity: Structure, Interaction and Power in Archaeological Discourse.Sheila E. Kohring and Stephanie Wynne-Jones, eds. Pp. 37–59. Oxford: OxbowBooks.

2008a A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece. AnAnthropological Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

2008b Household Dynamics and Variability in the Neolithic of Greece: TheCase for a Bottom-up Approach. In Living Well Together: Settlement andMateriality in the Neolithic of Central and Southeastern Europe. Douglass W.Bailey, Alasdair Whittle and Daniela Hofmann, eds. Pp. 17–27. Oxford: OxbowBooks.

2012a Between the Individual and the Collective: Household as a Social Processin Neolithic Greece. In New Perspectives on Household Archaeology. Bradley J.Parker and Catherine P. Foster, eds. Pp. 15–43. Winona Lake, Indiana:Eisenbrauns.

2012b Space, Place, Architecture: A Major Meeting Point between SocialArchaeology and Anthropology? In Archaeology and Anthropology: Past,Present and Future. David Shankland, ed. Pp. 173–196. London: Association ofSocial Anthropologists Monographs Series.

2013 Land Tenure, Social Relations and Social Landscapes. In An Archaeology ofLand Ownership. Maria Relaki and Despoina Catapoti, eds. Pp. 21–45. London:Routledge.

258 S. Souvatzi

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Souvatzi, Stella, and Athena Hadji, eds.2014 Space and Time in Mediterranean Prehistory. New York: Routledge.

Spielmann, Kate A.2002 Feasting, Craft Specialisation, and the Ritual Mode of Production in

Small-Scale Societies. American Anthropologist 104:195–207.Trigger, Bruce G.

1990 Maintaining Economic Equality in Opposition to Complexity: An IroquoianCase Study. In The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-ScaleSedentary Societies. S. Upham, ed. Pp. 119–145. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Watkins, Trevor2014 Time and Place, Memory and Identity in the Early Neolithic of Southwest

Asia. In Souvatzi and Hadji, Space and Time in Mediterranean Prehistory.Pp. 101–119. New York: Routledge.

Wilk, Richard R.1991 The Household in Anthropology: Panacea or Problem? Reviews in

Anthropology 20:1–12.Wilk, Richard R., and William L. Rathje, eds.

1982 Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life.American Behavioral Scientist 25:617–40.

Zubrow, Ezra2010 Archaeology of Equality: Magdalenian Economy. In The Magdalenian

Household: Unraveling Domesticity. Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze, andJames G. Enloe, eds. Pp. 109–130. Albany: State University of New York.

Zubrow, Ezra, Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe, eds.2010a The Magdalenian Household: Unraveling Domesticity. Albany: State

University of New York.Zubrow, Ezra, Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe, eds.

2010b Introduction: Domesticity Expressed. In The Magdalenian Household:Unraveling Domesticity. Ezra Zubrow, Francoise Audouze, and James G. Enloe,eds. Pp. 1–7. Albany: State University of New York.

STELLA SOUVATZI received her Ph.D. in Archaeology from theUniversity of Cambridge. She is adjunct professor at the Schoolof Humanities, Open University of Greece, and currently holdsa British Institute at Ankara–Koc University Research Centrefor Anatolian Civilisations Senior Fellowship at Istanbul. Shehas taught in Britain, Greece, and Cyprus, and has conductedarchaeological fieldwork all over Greece. Her research interestsinclude the Neolithic archaeology of Greece, the eastern Medi-terranean, and Southeastern Europe, as well as the theory ofarchaeology and anthropology. She is the author of A SocialArchaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece: An Anthropo-logical Approach (Cambridge University Press, 2008) andco-editor of Space and Time in Mediterranean Prehistory (Rou-tledge, 2014).

Social Dynamics of Everyday Life 259

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tra

kya

Uni

vers

itesi

] at

06:

37 1

2 D

ecem

ber

2014