Content uploaded by Michelle Hegmon
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michelle Hegmon on May 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2005 ( C2005)
DOI: 10.1007/s10816-005-8451-5
Painting as Agency, Style as Structure:
Innovations in Mimbres Pottery Designs
From Southwest New Mexico
Michelle Hegmon1,2and Stephanie Kulow1
The act of painting a design is a form of agency, and the overall style of that design
in part can be conceptualized as a kind of structure. This perspective is used as a
basis for analyzing chronological changes in designs on Mimbres Black-on-white
pottery (ca. AD 750–1150) from Southwest New Mexico. Specific focus is on a
methodology that can be used to detect innovations, that is, the introduction of
novel designs that are incorporated into the design corpus and thus transform the
structure. The conceptualization of a particular tradition (in this instance, pottery
painting) as a form of structure analogous to general structure in Giddens’ sense
thus provides important insights into the recursive relationship between agency
and structure.
KEY WORDS: agency; innovation; mimbres, pottery.
INTRODUCTION
Agency concerns everything humans do that has an effect on the world.
This perspective offers great promise for the archaeological study of agency, in
that it suggests that the archaeological record can be interpreted as a product of
agency (Shennan, 1993). However, this perspective is so broad that it does not
provide a means of theorizing agency, or understanding its role in the social realm.
One solution is to focus on the recursive relationship of agency and structure,
and thus on how agency is part of social processes extending across time and
space, such as the formation, persistence, and dissolution of community. The
recursive relationship between structure and agency is also key to the process
1School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-
2402.
2To whom correspondence should be addressed at School of Human Evolution and Social Change,
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402; e-mail: michelle.hegmon@asu.edu.
313
1072-5369/05/1200-0313/0 C
2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
314 Hegmon and Kulow
of structuration and to formulations by Giddens (1979, 1984) that are frequently
cited by archaeologists. The goal of this article is to provide an example of such
focus on the structure–agency dialectic, and to develop a methodology whereby
the relationship between agency and structure can be examined in terms of the
process of innovation. Analysis thus considers a narrow range of phenomena—
the painting of designs within the Mimbres tradition—in order to focus on this
relationship.
Mimbres painted pottery is unique in the American Southwest and renowned
for its spectacular designs, including representational images (animal, supernat-
ural, and sometimes human figures), which were most common during the AD
1000–1130 Classic Mimbres period in Southwest New Mexico (Fig. 1). Although
the designs are elaborate, and varied in content, they were laid out according to
a few basic and identifiable structural rules (Brody, 2004: Figure 131). We have
both (Hegmon et al., 1998; Kulow, 2004) argued that these repeated structures,
as well as other evidence of Classic Mimbres material culture homogeneity, are
indicative of social conformity (probably imposed from within, not dictated from
above, see also Kohler et al. (2004)). Dramatic changes in material style, including
an increase in diversity, were associated with major social and cultural changes at
the end of Classic, specifically the depopulation of aggregated villages, a shift to a
more mobile dispersed settlement strategy, and a change in the nature of communi-
ties (Hegmon et al., 1998). Thus, an understanding of agency and structure in this
specific instance of material style change is relevant to a broader understanding of
social change.
The basic premise of this paper is that the act of painting a design on a
vessel is a form of agency, and the overall style of that design in part can be
conceptualized as a kind of structure. This is both a theoretical and a method-
ological statement, and as such it recognizes the futility of separating method
from theory. Theoretically, this premise emphasizes the recursive relationship
of agency and structure, and supports the argument that agency is best inter-
preted in the context of this relationship (i.e., that there is no separate ‘agency
theory’ (Clark, 2000)). Methodologically, the premise directs our analysis to-
wards individual designs as instantiations of agency, and towards the rules of
design layout that can be discerned in the overall corpus as structure. Further-
more, while all designs can be considered to be part of the overall structure,
instances of innovation (i.e., changes in structure) are particularly significant for
investigating the recursive relationship between agency and structure. This di-
rects our attention towards the identification of innovations, which (following
Torrence and van der Leeuw (1989)), are understood as processes that include
both invention and adoption, the introduction of a novel form and its accep-
tance. Focus here is on the development of the relevant methodology, which
ultimately can be used to investigate the context and content of those innovations,
and thus to consider more broadly the source and role of agency in structural
change.
Mimbres Pottery Painting as Agency and Structure 315
Fig. 1. The Mimbres region in Southwest New Mexico, showing the location of the Galaz ruin.
We begin by justifying our methodological approach from a theoretical per-
spective. We then provide a brief overview of the relevant details of Mimbres ar-
chaeology, focusing particularly on design and material style in relation to general
social processes. The analysis is then presented in two parts, the first reviewing
the chronological basis for the study, the second developing and applying the
method with which we identify novel designs and innovations. The conclusions
then emphasize the theoretical implications of the methodology.
316 Hegmon and Kulow
POTTERY DESIGN AS AGENCY AND STRUCTURE
The relationship between the execution of particular pottery designs and the
design tradition represented by a corpus of vessels can be neatly conceptualized
in terms of the duality of agency and structure. Agency refers to people’s capacity
for doing things (Giddens, 1984, p. 9), which should be understood as a “socially
significant quality of action” (Dobres and Robb, 2000, p. 8). People do not possess
agency, rather they exercise it, and one result of this exercise is the creation of
material culture. In their exercise of agency, people draw upon structure, which
Giddens conceptualizes as the rules and resources involved in the reproduction
of social systems. “Structure exists only as memory traces, the organic basis
of human knowledgeability, and as instantiated in action” (1984, p. 377). Thus,
structure exists only in so far as it is reproduced by the conduct of actors, so the
exercise of agency can reproduce, reinforce, or transform structure.
The interpretation of pottery painting as a form of agency is probably uncon-
troversial, in that it is something that people do that affects the world around them.
It may be that the resulting designs, in their eventual effects on the world, can also
be said to have agency (Gell, 1998), although we do not explore that dimension
here. More complicated and possibly controversial is our linkage of design struc-
ture with the social–theoretical concept of structure. While we do not argue that
the two are identical, several lines of reasoning support our argument that they can
be approached analogously. The result of this analogical reasoning is that social
theory can be used to gain insights about painted designs and design structure
becomes relevant to general social theory. Archaeologists and other students of
material culture have long recognized that artistic and technological traditions
are dynamic (or dynamical (van der Leeuw, 1993)) phenomena, “always in the
process of becoming” (Pauketat, 2001, p. 80). Considerable attention has been
paid to the ways traditions are maintained and transformed, especially the process
of innovation (Lemmonier, 1993; van der Leeuw and Torrence, 1989). Recently,
some theorists have specifically referred to the role of practice in the maintenance
and transformation of cultural and technological traditions (Pauketat, 2001). Thus,
we suggest that the step (see Robb, this issue) between tradition and structure is
not excessively large, and can be taken with carefully designed analysis.
Potters and painters work within design traditions, and archaeologists have
devoted considerable attention towards the identification and analysis of the struc-
tures underlying these traditions (Friedrich, 1970; Hardin, 1983; Hegmon, 1995;
Smith, 1962), including Mimbres pottery (Brody, 2004, pp. 120–136; Washburn,
1992). In a number of cases, analysts have argued for linkages between design
and social structure (e.g., the relative boundedness of art and society (Conkey,
1982; Hodder, 1984)), or between design symmetry and cultural identity (e.g.,
Washburn, 1983, 1992, 1999). The concept of “design structure” is not identical
to the concept of structure as developed in social theory; for example, Giddens
views structure as linked to social systems but “out of time and space” (1984,
Mimbres Pottery Painting as Agency and Structure 317
p. 25). However, the similarities among these constructs, particularly the empha-
sis on organization, suggest the step between design structure and structure in
social theory is not excessively large.
Finally, design traditions can also be interpreted to encompass the rules
and resources that are central to some conceptualization of structure. Resources
include potters’ knowledge of how to execute designs, their relationships with
other potters, their tools, and the corpus of vessels that they see and can use
as models. The rules of design structure—including how the designs should be
executed (van Keuren, 1999) as well as what the final designs look like—likely
reside at various levels of consciousness, including in practical consciousness
(which is key to Giddens’ formulation (1984, pp. 41–45)). As the potter builds
a pot and paints the design, and especially when the finished vessel becomes
part of the overall corpus, the pottery becomes part of the structure. The potter
may reproduce the rules, or may (intentionally or not) introduce novel forms. And
some artists—perhaps those with special skills or status—may be more likely than
others to introduce new forms that are accepted (i.e., innovations) and thus that
affect and change the structure. This is an example, writ small, of structuration.
MIMBRES ARCHAEOLOGY: BACKGROUND FOR
THE CASE STUDY
The analysis presented here concerns Mimbres Black-on-white pottery from
the Mimbres region of Southwest New Mexico, part of the larger Mogollon area.
Recent systematics, culture history, and research issues are summarized by Anyon
et al. (1981), Hegmon et al. (1999), and Hegmon (2002). Comprehensive, book-
length analytical discussions of Mimbres pottery include Brody (1977, 2004),
Brody et al. (1983), Brody and Swentzell (1996), and LeBlanc (1983, 2004). A
recognizable Mimbres pottery tradition (first plain brown, then decorated with red,
white, and eventually black paint) began by AD 200. Black-on-white decorated
pottery in this tradition was first made in the eighth century AD (the latter part of
the Late Pithouse period, AD 550–1000). Black-on-white pottery became increas-
ingly common and elaborate during the Mimbres Classic period (AD 1000–1130),
which was a time of residence primarily in above-ground pueblos. The majority of
Mimbres pottery designs are non-representational geometrics, but representational
designs that depict animals and occasionally other figures were also common, espe-
cially during the Classic. The end of the Classic is generally associated with the end
of this pottery tradition, although there is increasing evidence that Mimbres Black-
on-white pottery continued to be used, if not made, in the Reorganization phase
of the Postclassic (i.e., through the twelfth century (Nelson and Hegmon, 2001)).
The social context, as indicated by settlement and economic analyses as well
as previous studies of style, provides important background for this analysis. The
Late Pithouse through Classic periods (AD 550–1130) were times of generally
318 Hegmon and Kulow
increasing intensification, in agriculture and settlement, although the process was
not necessarily unilineal. The degree of Mimbres settlement continuity—many vil-
lages were occupied fairly continuously for centuries, from the beginning of the
Late Pithouse into the Postclassic period—is remarkable for the pre-1300 South-
west; similar continuity is well documented only in Hohokam (southern Arizona)
settlements dependent on large-scale irrigation. Ritual organization changed dra-
matically in the latter part of the Late Pithouse period; great kivas were deliberately
collapsed and burned (apparently a valley-wide event) and later rituals were housed
either in smaller kivas or in plazas, but never again in great kivas (see Creel and
Anyon, 2003). By the beginning of the Mimbres Classic period, some parts of the
Mimbres region, especially in the Mimbres River valley, were densely settled with
closely packed aggregated villages. Subsistence included an array of resources,
but increasingly relied on fairly intensive agriculture, with some small-scale canal
irrigation, and resulted in environmental degradation (Minnis, 1985). There are
some indications of subtle social inequalities (Hegmon, 2004), but no clear evi-
dence of vertical ranking (Gilman, 1990). Although the Classic is associated with
the most spectacular pottery designs, it was also apparently a time of considerable
social and subsistence stress, interpretations based on both environmental data and
subsistence remains (Minnis, 1985) and evidence of stylistic conformity and lim-
ited extra-regional interaction (see Hegmon et al., 1998). The end of the Classic,
which was also a time of climatic downturn and drought, is characterized by the
depopulation of the aggregated villages and a shift to dispersed settlements across
the region, the beginning of the Reorganization phase (Nelson, 1999).
Because Mimbres pottery has black designs on a white background (like
white wares from the northern southwest but unlike many brown wares from the
Mogollon area) it had once been thought to be a product of northern (Puebloan)
influence or even migration. But it is now well established that Mimbres pottery
(actually a white-slipped brown ware) was a local development (e.g., Shafer and
Taylor, 1986), although early Mimbres designs seem to have been influenced by
the Hohokam tradition to the west (Brody, 2004, pp. 81–86; Hegmon and Nelson,
2005). Both bowls and jars are decorated, but bowls are more numerous and
elaborate, and virtually all representational designs are on bowls. The analysis
discussed here considers only bowls.
The application of concepts of agency and structure to pottery design paint-
ing is appropriate in many situations; however, the Mimbres case is particularly
intriguing from this perspective, for at least two reasons. First, compositional
analyses clearly indicate that Mimbres Black-on-white pottery was made in many
locations, probably at most villages and possibly at many smaller sites as well
(Gilman et al., 1994; James et al., 1995). Furthermore, LeBlanc (1983, 2004;
LeBlanc and Ellis, 2001) suggests that relatively few small-scale specialists were
painting the designs and that the artists may have been competing with each other.
Given these conditions, design painting, including acts of innovation or confor-
mity, would have been a carefully considered activity, and one individual could
Mimbres Pottery Painting as Agency and Structure 319
have had a major impact on the overall tradition. Thus, the artists’ intentionality
may have been a significant factor. We note that while agency need not involve
intentionality (Giddens, 1984, p. 9), and the effects or consequences of particular
actions may be independent of the actor’s intentions, this does not mean that inten-
tionality should be ignored theoretically. As Dornan (2002) notes, intentionality
is often a particularly interesting component of agency; thus, while intentionality
should not be equated with agency, it should be investigated when possible, and
discernable innovations provide an important avenue for such investigation (see
also David, 2004).
Second, there is reason to think the Mimbres style had a special significance
to its makers and users, possibly more so than many archaeologically recognized
design styles. It truly was unique for its time in the southwest; there are a few other
traditions that incorporate representational elements, but none that depicts either
scenes of daily life or naturalistic detail seen on Mimbres bowls (in some cases the
species of animals depicted can be identified (e.g., Creel and McKusick, 1994; Jett
and Moyle, 1986)). In addition, both the content of the designs and the contexts of
the pottery suggest that the designs were highly charged symbolically. Specifically,
some bowls depict what are interpreted as mythological scenes such as emergence
(Brody, 2004, p. 175; Kabotie, 1982), death and the underworld (Brody, 2004, pp.
174–175; Moulard, 1984), mythological figures such as the Hero Twins (Brody,
2004, pp. 174–175), or deities, such as the goggle-eyed Tlaloc (Schaafsma, 1999).
Furthermore, many of the bowls with representational designs were recovered
from burials, typically covering the skull with a small ‘kill’ hole punched out of
the bottom of the bowl.
Brody (2004, pp. 102–104) suggests that Mimbres pottery painting “would
have been largely tradition bound” (p. 102), but he also notes that within the
tradition there was room for some degree of personal expression. Assuming his
characterization of Mimbres pottery painting as fairly conservative is correct, it
does not necessarily preclude some invention of novel forms, and Brody notes
(p. 104) that in later periods change in pottery traditions could happen very
quickly, including the swift incorporation of innovations into the overall corpus.
In more recent times, the influence of individual artists and rapid incorporation of
innovations is seen in the cases of Nampeyo at Hano (the Tewa village at Hopi)
around 1890, and Maria and Julian Martinez at San Ildefonso around 1910.
In summary, it is certainly likely that some painters of Mimbres pottery, even
if they were working within a well-established design tradition, could have intro-
duced novel combinations, and that these novelties could have been incorporated
into the overall design tradition, as innovations. It is difficult to imagine that this
kind of process did not happen, to some degree. Furthermore, given the apparent
symbolic importance of Mimbres pottery and its designs, it is likely that such
invention and innovation was a significant social process, recognized not only
by fellow painters but also by most members of Mimbres society. Focus here is
on developing a methodology by which we can detect this process, in order to
320 Hegmon and Kulow
understand when (and in later analyses, where and in what contexts) it occurs, and
thus how it relates to social dynamics in general.
DATABASE AND CHRONOLOGY
Analysis is based on data from more than 700 black-on-white bowls from
the Galaz ruin (Anyon and LeBlanc, 1984). The site, including small vessel pho-
tographs, is very well published (Anyon and LeBlanc, 1984); selected high quality
and/or color photographs of the Galaz vessels are shown in Brody and Swentzell
(1996), and all are also available in the Mimbres Archive at the Maxwell Museum,
University of New Mexico. Galaz was one of the largest Mimbres villages, it was
occupied throughout the time when Mimbres Black-on-white pottery was made
(i.e., in the Classic as well as parts of the preceding Pithouse and subsequent Post-
classic periods). There are also suggestions, based on its geographic position (in
the central Mimbres River valley, near a natural cross-valley corridor) as well as
compositional analysis of pottery (Powell, 2000), that Galaz was centrally located
with regards to interregional exchange and interaction. Thus, it is reasonable to
expect that potters at Galaz would have been well positioned to introduce innova-
tions. It is likely that a majority, though by no means all of the pottery vessels found
at Galaz, were made locally. Thus, analysis should be able to detect innovations
introduced by Galaz potters, as well as innovations introduced in other areas but
accepted by Galaz consumers. We do not attempt to differentiate between the two.
Temporal control provides an essential baseline for the analysis. A general,
well-established chronology divides Mimbres Black-on-white pottery into Styles
I, II, and III (sometimes called Boldface, Transitional, and Classic (see Scott,
1983)). Scott (1983) also recognized some finer distinctions within these styles,
and recent work by Shafer and Brewington (1995) systematized those distinctions
and established a finer chronology based on ‘microstyles,’ that is, details of de-
signs that can be used to subdivide the three styles. Their original methodology
emphasized details of rim bands and hachure, but also considered some aspects of
the overall designs, including structure and layout. In order to apply the microstyle
chronology as a basis for the present analysis, we considered only microstyle at-
tributes relating to rim treatment and hachure to insure that the chronology is
independent of the analysis of the layout and symmetry of the overall designs. The
chronological resolution and the distribution of bowls by microstyle are indicated
in Table I. This chronology was also applied in a related analysis (Hegmon and
Nelson, 2005) that considered Mimbres interregional interaction as indicated by
design style, and it is explained in considerable detail in that work.
ANALYSIS: DETECTING AGENCY
The production and painting of pottery, in general, can be interpreted as
instantiations of agency that become part of the design tradition and corpus,
Mimbres Pottery Painting as Agency and Structure 321
Tab l e I . Chronological Resolution Allowed by Microstyle Classi-
fication and Distribution of Galaz Ruin Mimbres Black-on-White
Bowls by Microstyle
Style or microstyle Dates (AD) No. of bowls
Late Style III 1110–1130/1150 29
Mid/Late Style III 1060–1130/1150 1
Style III 1010–1130/1150 46
Middle Style III 1060–1110 261
Early Style III 1010–1080 139
Style II/III 970–1020 86
Late Style II 970–1020 54
Style II 880–1020 16
Early Style II 880–980 35
Style I or Early Style II 750–980 40
Style I 750–900 11
Total 720
that is, the structure. In order to understand this relationship between agency
and structure, we focus on aspects of that relationship that are most visible,
specifically the introduction of novel designs and the incorporation of some that
become incorporated into the design tradition, that is, innovations. To the extent
that these new designs change the corpus of pottery and the historically constituted
tradition of pottery painting, they can be considered to have resulted in structural
transformations.
The analysis is based on a subtle but analytically essential set of distinctions
between a set of related, but not isomorphic concepts, with regards to the painted
designs. An anomaly is an unusual design, which deviates from the norm in some
respect, and can be detected as such. Because this analysis is concerned primarily
with variation over time, anomalies are often new or novel forms, different from
anything seen before. (A different analysis that considered multiple different
but contemporaneous contexts might detect anomalies that are not necessarily
novelties.) To innovate is to make changes, thus an innovation is a new form,
detected as an anomaly in a given period, which is subsequently incorporated
into, and thus transforms the design tradition (following Torrence and van der
Leeuw (1989)). In contrast, we use the term ‘isolated anomaly’ to refer to unusual
designs that were not incorporated and that thus are assumed to have had little or
no effect on the design tradition. These conceptual distinctions can be applied to
particular designs only by considering the designs in the context of the overall,
historically constituted corpus. That is, a design that is unusual in a given context
is detected as an anomaly. If the anomaly is subsequently incorporated into the
corpus (e.g., it becomes more common in later periods), then it is considered to
be an innovation. This process, the introduction, acceptance, and spread (possibly
followed by decline), is the basis of seriation. If the anomalous design is not
incorporated, then it is considered to be an isolated anomaly. Specific methods
322 Hegmon and Kulow
for detecting anomalies, and discerning whether they should be considered to be
innovations or isolated anomalies, are developed further below.
Because the analysis is concerned primarily with innovations (i.e., new forms
that were accepted and incorporated into the structure) we chose to omit the five
apparently new or different designs that, for lack of better term, appear to have
been crudely executed (e.g., Anyon and LeBlanc, 1984, Plate 36b; Brody, 2004,
Fig. 93), and thus are unlikely to have impacted the overall design tradition. We
interpret this kind of execution—characterized by rough linework and not-quite
filled in ‘solid’ areas—as indicative of painters who lacked the skills to apply a
design consistently. Rough or crude designs should not necessarily be interpreted
as insignificant in all artistic traditions. However, Mimbres designs are known to
have become increasingly fine over time (the earliest style is called ‘Boldface’),
and there is some indication that the most finely painted bowls received special
treatment, in that they often had little use wear (Bray, 1982). Thus, the exclusion
of crudely executed designs (possibly made by novices or children (Crown, 2002))
is justified, in this case. We did not include irregular/asymmetrical designs with
fairly clean linework (e.g., Fig. 2a) in this category of ‘crudely executed’ designs
because, even though the lack of symmetry may be indicative of a lack of skill
(a possibility suggested by one reviewer), we did not feel this judgment should
be made apriori. Thus, unless they had crude brushwork, irregular designs were
considered as anomalies that might be isolated anomalies or that might have been
incorporated as innovations.
Recent critiques of ‘origins research’ (e.g., Conkey and Williams, 1992) have
noted that the search for the earliest instance of an attribute may overemphasize
that attribute’s importance, sometimes reifying or naturalizing it for the analyst.
Thus, development of a classification system used for detecting the introduction
of new attributes has theoretical as well as methodological implications. However,
Fig. 2. Apparently anomalous designs: (a) Asymmetric geometric, Middle
Style III (after Anyon and LeBlanc, 1984, Plate 11a); (b) Combination of
early (design comes up to rim) and late (fine hachure and frame) character-
istics, Style II/III (after Anyon and LeBlanc, 1984, Plate 12e).
Mimbres Pottery Painting as Agency and Structure 323
our emphasis on understanding innovation as a process, which includes both the
introduction of a new form and its incorporation into the structure, is helpful in this
regard, because the incorporation can be taken as an indication that the attribute
was important to the artists of the past who adopted it. Furthermore, the assumption
that what we detect analytically as innovations were culturally meaningful can be
given some support if the attributes are found to have been used regularly, that
is, if rules of design style can be discerned (see Hegmon, 1995). The detection of
such ‘rules’ by the analyst does not imply that the same rules were consciously
employed by the artists who painted the designs, but it does indicate that there was
some structure underlying the design system.
In the case of Mimbres designs, a high degree of structure has been noted
by various analysts (it is this structure that facilitates the development of the mi-
crostyle chronology), and systematized by Brody (2004, Fig. 131). The coding
system used to record the data considered in this analysis builds upon Brody’s de-
scription of the basic layout patterns of Mimbres bowl designs. The entire coding
system, used in a series of analyses (see Hegmon and Nelson, 2005), was used
to record a large number of attributes, including microstyle, basis for microstyle
assignation, presence and kind (animal, human, flower) of representational de-
signs, artistic conventions such as the use of negative designs, details and types of
symmetry, and the presence of conventions or motifs associated with other regions.
All the Mimbres Black-on-white bowls from the Galaz ruin were recorded and
classified according to this coding system, including 720 that could be assigned
to a chronological period based on microstyle.
The analysis presented here focuses on three sets of variables particularly
relevant to the study of innovation: (1) microstyle, as a basis for chronological
designation (see Table I); (2) design layout; and (3) representational design. Design
layout includes information on how the design is situated on the bowl as well
as symmetry (which was always rotational and sometimes also mirror). Layout
categories include those discerned by Brody (2004, Fig. 131) as well as a few
additional ones detected in our analysis; they are summarized in Table II. These
categories are based primarily on our and Brody’s consideration of the later part
of the sequence (i.e., Styles II and III), and thus can be used to detect anomalies
in the earlier part of the sequence that later became incorporated as innovations.
Designs that do not fit neatly into these categories (i.e., possible isolated anomalies)
are also considered in the analysis discussed below. Finally, salient variables
regarding representational designs are simply the presence or absence of clear cut
animal and/or human figures. Very few flowers or other plants are represented (see
Hays-Gilpin and Hegmon, 2005), and the rare representations of plants in this
corpus were associated with animals or humans, thus they were not considered
separately. Representational designs, especially humans, were more common later
in the Mimbres sequence; thus their analysis, including the identification of early
instances (when they were anomalies), is an important means of studying the
process of innovation.
324 Hegmon and Kulow
Table II. Design Layout Categories (Bowl Counta)
aN=703; 17 bowls were not assigned design layouts.
bLayouts marked (B) are based on categories originally identified by Brody (1977, Fig. 85; see also
2004, Fig. 131).
Mimbres Pottery Painting as Agency and Structure 325
TableIII. Distribution of Isolated Anomalous Designs, by Chronological
Period
Isolated anomalies, All analyzed
Style or microstyle count and (period %) bowls, count
Late Style III 3 (10.3) 29
Mid/Late Style III 0 1
Style III 0 46
Middle Style III 3 (1.1) 261
Early Style III 44 (31.7) 139
Style II/III 2 (2.3) 86
Late Style II 3 (5.7) 53
Style II 0 16
Early Style II 2 (5.7) 35
Style I or Early Style II 0 40
Style I 0 11
Total 57 (7.9) 720
The method for detecting anomalies and possible innovations includes two
components. First, we identified rules of design—a sort of simple grammar—
which were essentially codified in our classificatory categories (see Hegmon (1995,
Chapter 7) for development of a similar procedure with a different corpus), and we
used these rules to detect well-executed anomalies. Because these anomalies were
detected in comparison with the assemblage in its entirety, we conclude that they
were never adopted into the design tradition. That is, they are ‘isolated anomalies
that never became innovations. These anomalies were identified according to
two sets of criteria: (1) Structures that could be easily defined by our rules,
but that were rare in the assemblage (less than 8% overall, see Table III); (2)
Designs that seemed to ‘violate’ our rules, and incorporated aspects of two of our
categories. These two kinds of anomalies were not necessarily different from the
painters’ perspective, nor do they represent different kinds of social processes, the
difference is just in how we identified them. Asymmetric geometrics (Fig. 2a) are
anomalous in that asymmetry is common with representational designs, especially
in portrait format (Table II, categories 11 and 12), but unusual when designs
are entirely geometric. The coincidence of apparently early and late traits is
similarly anomalous. Specifically, the bowl illustrated in Fig. 2b has fine-line
hachure surrounded by fine framing lines (a late trait), but a design that rises all
the way to the rim (an early trait).
The chronological distribution of isolated anomalies, identified according
to one of the two sets of criteria discussed above, provides information about
their context in terms of the sequence of Mimbres developments. Table III shows
the distribution of isolated anomalies, in comparison to all bowls, divided by
chronologic sub-period. Interpretations of these data must take into account the
variable lengths of the time periods represented by the various microstyles (see
Table I). However, because Table III gives figures for the proportion of anomalies
326 Hegmon and Kulow
within each period, it can still be used to examine the relative distribution of
isolated anomalies over time. Isolated anomalies are strongly overrepresented
earlier in the sequence, especially in Early Style III (AD 1010–1080, the early
part of the Classic period), when 31.7% of the bowl designs were identified as
isolated anomalies; calculated differently, 77.2% of all anomalies but only 19.3%
of all bowls date to Early Style III. The cultural significance of these temporal
patterns is discussed subsequent to the second part of the analysis, at the end of
this section.
The second component of the analysis focuses directly on detecting early in-
stances of designs known to have become an important part of the painting tradition
in later periods, that is, on anomalies that became innovations. This component
focuses on representational designs, both because they can be detected and classi-
fied in a straightforward manner, and because the use of elaborate representational
designs makes the Mimbres tradition unique in the southwest.
The distribution of various kinds of representational designs, ordered chrono-
logically, is shown in the rightmost columns of Table IV. As expected, based
on the general literature about Mimbres painting, representational designs are
most common late in the sequence (77% are Style III (i.e., the top five rows in
Table IV)), and early humans are even more uncommon than early animals.
Because the designs were eventually incorporated into the tradition, the early
instances can be interpreted as anomalies that became innovations and can be
examined to understand the source of these innovations. For example, the single
Style II animal representation (Fig. 3) has characteristics (the horned toad motif,
the interacting scrolls) suggestive of the Hohokam tradition in southern Arizona,
Tab l e I V. Characteristics and Distribution of Representational Designs
Design structure Figure represented
Microstyle NIncorporated Portrait Opposed NAnimal Human
Late Style III 9 0 7 2 9 8 1
Mid/Late Style III 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
Middle Style III 125 4 108 13 126 111 15
Style III 6 0 2 4 6 5 1
Early Style III 18 3 10 5 18 18 0
Style II/III 41 2 34 5 40 34 6
Late Style II 3 1 2 0 3 3 0
Style II 2 1 1 0 2 2 0
Early Style II 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
Style I or Early Style II 2 0 2 0 2 2 0
Style I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Explanation: Includes only bowls with representational designs (N=208). 1. Each bowl is one case
in the “Design structure” section of the table; N=208. 2. Each motif is one case in the “Figure
represented” section of the table; N=208. (a) Three bowls have two different types of images, and
thus are counted twice in the “Figure represented” section (they have both the animal and human
motifs). (b) Three bowls included in the tabulation for the “Design structure” section were not
assignable to “Figure represented” categories because the designs were not well preserved.
Mimbres Pottery Painting as Agency and Structure 327
Fig. 3. Early (Style I/Early II) representational design (after Anyon
and LeBlanc, 1984, Plate 113d).
which has long been interpreted as a source of early Mimbres designs (Brody,
2004, pp. 81–86; Hegmon and Nelson, 2005). Thus, although this bowl is clearly
Mimbres technologically, and was very likely made locally (in the Mimbres valley
if not at Galaz itself), the design itself may have been inspired by interregional
interaction to the west.
Other anomalies that became innovations can also be detected by considering
the structure of the paintings that included representational designs (Table IV, left
side). For this portion of the analysis, the layouts of the representational designs
were grouped into three general categories. Incorporated (Table II, category 13;
Fig. 4a) means that the representational figure, in the center of the bowl, is inte-
grated into a larger (often geometric) overall design. Por t r a i t (Table II, categories
11 and 12; Fig. 4b) means that the design is surrounded by white space and there is
a clear top–bottom orientation to the design. Opposed (Table II, categories 14 and
15; Fig. 4c) indicates that two or more figures stand across from each other, with
rotational symmetry. Incorporated representational designs are rare throughout
the sequence. Thus, the presence of a representational design in Middle Style III
times may be interpreted as an innovation (i.e., an earlier anomaly that became
incorporated into the design corpus), while the presence of this particular layout
may be an isolated anomaly, because it is rare (4/125) and does not become ac-
cepted later in the sequence. This interpretation illustrates the fine but interpretable
line between isolated anomaly and innovation. Unincorporated designs, both in
portrait and opposed form, become increasingly popular later in the sequence, thus
328 Hegmon and Kulow
Fig. 4. Various early usages of representational designs. (a) Incorporated, Style II (after Anyon and
LeBlanc, 1984, Plate 119c; (b) Portrait, Style II (after Anyon and LeBlanc, 1984, Plate 7c); (c)
Opposed, Early Style II (after Anyon and LeBlanc, 1984, Plate 63e).
early instances of these forms can be interpreted as early anomalies that became
innovations. Finally, much has been made of Mimbres portrayal of human figures.
Humans appear only late in the sequence, but there are six instances of humans on
Late II/Early Style III bowls (e.g., Fig. 5) that are possible instances of a rapidly
accepted innovation.
Table IV shows the overall distribution of representational designs, including
anomalies that became innovations and eventually were incorporated into the
overall corpus. Thus, it is not possible to draw a clear line between the introduction
and acceptance of an innovation; indeed, it may not be possible to draw such a
line even with detailed ethnographic data, as some anomalies might (depending
on context) immediately become innovations. However, Table IV does suggest a
general trend of more novel/anomalous designs in Style II/III and Early Style III,
the same time that isolated anomalies become more common (Table III).
Style II/III and Early Style III are associated with the early part of the Mim-
bres Classic period, times of change in architectural and ceremonial organization,
Fig. 5. Early depictions of humans on Mimbres bowls: (a) Style II/III (after Anyon and LeBlanc,
1984, Plate 76f); (b) Style II/III (after Anyon and LeBlanc, 1984, Plate 93c); (c) Style II/III (after
Anyon and LeBlanc, 1984, Plate 109c).
Mimbres Pottery Painting as Agency and Structure 329
including a shift from residence in pit houses to above-ground pueblos, and from
great kivas to small kivas and plazas. The apparent flurry of new designs at this
time (both isolated anomalies and innovations) is consonant with these other in-
dications of social flux. People were experimenting with new forms (of painting,
architecture, organization, etc.) though not all the new forms were necessarily
incorporated as innovations. The relative dearth of anomalies after this time is
consonant with our previous finding (Hegmon and Nelson, 2005; Hegmon et al.,
1998) that the Mimbres design and architectural traditions became more homoge-
neous, indicative of conformity, in the later periods. These changes, in the social
context and in the relative frequency of new designs, suggest that the relationship
between agency and structure is not constant and that there may be contexts in
which agency is particularly likely to affect change, a point to which we return in
the conclusions.
To summarize, our analysis as presented here focuses on developing a method
to identify anomalous designs, including those that were never adopted into the
overall tradition (i.e., isolated anomalies) and those that were adopted (i.e., inno-
vations). The difference between isolated anomalies and innovations is subtle, and
in at least one instance designs (incorporated representational) that were anoma-
lous in one respect might have been innovations in another respect. This method
for identifying novel designs and their acceptance (or not) is important because
it allows us to identify their context, in this case the time of change associated
with the beginning of the Classic period. A different analysis that considered spa-
tial distributions could be used to examine whether such vessels with innovative
designs were associated with a particular geographic area or were more or less
frequently exchanged than other vessels. The method also provides insights into
the relationship between structure and agency, which is the focus of the following
concluding section.
CONCLUSIONS: THE THEORY OF THE METHOD
Agency is everywhere, in archaeological discourse, and in what people do.
On the one hand, this means that (as Shennan, 1993 noted) we should be able to
detect agency with ease in the archaeological record. But if agency is omnipresent,
then it becomes a catchall with little theoretical salience or explanatory power.
While agency may be everywhere, we argue that it can only be understood in terms
of its recursive relationship with structure; thus, analytically we are most likely to
learn the most by focusing on situations in which we can see both components of
that relationship, the goal of the analysis described here.
We treat the act of painting a design on a vessel as a form of agency, and
the overall style of that design is part as structure. The conception of painting as
agency is fairly straightforward, in contrast to interpretation of a design tradition
as structure. A design tradition fits Giddens’ conception of structure (i.e., “rules
330 Hegmon and Kulow
and resources recursively implicated in the reproduction of social systems” (1984,
p. 377)) closely, but not exactly. Design structure does not directly reproduce social
systems; it is more limited in scope. However, we suggest that considering design
traditions—as well as other structured phenomena—as analogous to structure in
Giddens’ sense, can lead to important insights. For example, in an analysis quite
similar to the one presented here, Pollock (1983) considered how innovations were
introduced in the creation of value at the Royal Cemetery of Ur. Although she
did not use the terminology, some of the processes she discussed (e.g., emulation)
could be conceptualized as agency, and the system of value that resulted can be
viewed as structure. Another example is Varien’s (1999) discussion (which does
use Giddens’ terminology) of settlement in the Mesa Verde region of Southwest
Colorado. People exercised their agency and located new settlements within the
context of the existing social, landscape, and settlement structure, and in so doing
they affected decisions of generations to come. Over time, community continuity
and settlement density increased, and the structure was transformed.
Archaeological discussions of agency most often focus on social and political
issues, and thus fit nicely with Giddens’ definition of structure involving social
systems. The three examples discussed above (design painting, graves and value,
settlement systems) are obviously related to social issues, though less directly.
This indirect relationship is not necessarily problematic, however. It may be that
one of the best ways for archaeologists and other social theorists to explore issues
of structure and agency is to seek out cases in which both parts of the duality can
be studied. Sometimes it may be possible to do this by examining structures that
involve overall social systems. However, in many cases we may learn more by
considering structures or aspects of structure that are more limited in scope but for
which the recursive relationship with agency can be clearly examined. The result
will be a better understanding of individual cases as well as a better understanding
of the structure–agency duality.
The chronological ordering of bowls that formed the basis for this analysis
allowed the identification of anomalous designs that were apparently novel when
they were introduced early in the sequence. In some cases, these new designs were
present for only a short time, they were not incorporated into the overall tradition;
these are what we identified as isolated anomalies. In other cases the anomalies
were accepted and incorporated; these are conceptualized as innovations. All the
designs—every instance of painting a pot—involves agency. We do not suggest
that some people or some acts have ‘more’ agency than others; agency is not a
possession, and it cannot be quantified. However, the isolated anomaly/innovation
distinction suggests that the relationship between agency and structure is variable.
Agency may reinforce, reproduce, or transform structure. Some people may have
more opportunity to exercise agency than others, and thus will have more effect
on the structure. Similarly, there may be situations that facilitate the exercise of
structure-transforming agency, including possibly times of stress (see Aldenderfer,
Mimbres Pottery Painting as Agency and Structure 331
1993; Schachner, 2001), or expansive socio-cultural traditions that value innova-
tion (see Wiessner, 2002). Conversely, there are also situations in which novelties
were apparently discouraged, in favor of conformity (Kohler et al., 2004), such
that agency seem to have reinforced and reproduced, but not transformed the
structure. Innovations (i.e., novel forms that are accepted and passed on) can also
be understood from the perspective of information transmittal (Washburn, 2004).
Finally, the issue of innovation also has implications regarding the relation-
ship between agency and intentionality. This is a complex issue because agency
does not necessarily imply intentionality (Giddens, 1984, p. 9), and intentionality
is not a unity phenomenon. While an artist may ‘intend’ to paint a rabbit rather than
a quail, it would be difficult to understand—even with ethnographic interviews—
intentions at a different scale, whether the painting was intended to reproduce,
reinforce, or change an extant tradition. However, as David (2004) notes, inno-
vative acts are more likely to be intentional challenges to tradition. While we do
not suggest that every novel design should be interpreted in this way, continued
investigation of the context of innovations might provide important insights into
the issue of agency and intentionality. If innovations consistently come from one
source, then it might be reasonable to suggest that the potter or potters associated
with that source were intentionally introducing innovations into the design struc-
ture. Once again, consideration of the relationship of agency and structure in one
particular sense—a design tradition—can shed light on general theory regarding
agency and structure.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank John Robb and Marcia-Anne Dobres for inspiring and organizing
the symposium in which this paper was originally delivered. A number of people
provided useful comments on an earlier draft, including Robb, Cathy Cameron,
Jim Skibo, and two anonymous reviewers. Caitlin Wichlacz lent considerable
effort to the illustrations. This analysis would not have been possible without the
detailed photographic record made by the Mimbres Foundation and published by
Anyon and LeBlanc (1984) in the Galaz ruin report and made available in the
Mimbres Archive. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the collaboration of Peggy
Nelson in all of our work with the Mimbres material.
REFERENCES CITED
Aldenderfer, M. (1993). Ritual, hierarchy, and change in foraging societies. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 12: 1–40.
Anyon, R., Gilman, P. A., and LeBlanc, S. A. (1981). A reevaluation of the Mogollon-Mimbres
archaeological sequence. Kiva 46: 209–225.
332 Hegmon and Kulow
Anyon, R., and LeBlanc, S. A. (1984). The Galaz Ruin: A Prehistoric Mimbres Village in Southwestern
New Mexico, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology and the University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Bray, A. (1982). Mimbres Black-on-white, Melamine or Wedgewood? A ceramic use-wear analysis.
Kiva 47: 133–149.
Brody, J. J. (1977). Mimbres Painted Pottery, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Brody, J. J. (2004). Mimbres Painted Pottery, Revised Edition, School of American Research Press,
Santa Fe.
Brody, J. J., Scott, C. J., and LeBlanc, S. A. (1983). Mimbres Pottery: Ancient Art of the American
Southwest, Hudson Hills Press, New York.
Brody, J. J., and Swentzell, R. (1996). To Touch the Past: The Painted Pottery of the Mimbres People,
Hudson Hills, New York.
Clark, J. E. (2000). Towards a better explanation of hereditary inequality: A critical assessment of
natural and historic human agents. In Dobres, M. A. and Robb, J. E. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology,
Routledge, London, pp. 92–112.
Conkey, M. W. (1982). Boundedness in art and society. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural
Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 115–128.
Conkey, M. C., and Williams, S. H. (1991). Original narratives: The political economy of gender
in archaeology. In di Leonardo, M. (ed.), Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist
Anthropology in the Postmodern Era, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 102–139.
Creel, D., and Anyon, R. (2003). New interpretations of Mimbres public architecture and space:
Implications for cultural change. American Antiquity 68: 67–92.
Creel, D., and McKusick, C. (1994). Prehistoric macaws and parrots in the Mimbres area, New Mexico.
American Antiquity 59: 510–524.
Crown, P. L. (2002). Learning and teaching in the prehispanic American Southwest. In Kamp, K. A.
(ed.), Children in the Prehistoric Puebloan Southwest, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,
pp. 108–124.
David, B. (2004). Intentionality, agency and an archaeology of choice. Cambridge Journal of Archae-
ology 14: 67–71.
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.
Dornan, J. (2002). Agency and archaeology: Past, present, and future directions. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Method and Theory 9: 303–329.
Friedrich, M. H. (1970). Design structure and social interaction: Archaeological implications. American
Antiquity 35: 332–343.
Gell, A. (1998). Art and Agency, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gilman, P. A. (1990). Social organization and Classic Mimbres period burials in the SW United States.
Journal of Field Archaeology 17: 457–469.
Gilman, P. A., Canouts, V., and Bishop, R. L. (1994). The production and distribution of Classic
Mimbres Black-on-white pottery. American Antiquity 59: 695–709.
Hardin, M. A. (1983). The structure of Tarascan pottery painting. In Washburn, D. K. (ed.), Structure
and Cognition in Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 8–24.
Hays-Gilpin, K., and Hegmon, M. (2005). The art of ethnobotany: Depictions of maize and other plants
in the prehispanic Southwest. In Hegmon, M. and Eiselt, B. S. (eds.), Engaged Anthropology:
Research Essays on North American Archaeology, Ethnobotany, and Museology: Papers in Honor
of Richard I. Ford, Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor (in press).
Hegmon, M. (2004). Beyond the mold: Questions of inequality in Southwest villages. In Pauketat,
T. R. and DiPaolo Loren, D. (eds.), North American Archaeology, Blackwell Press, pp. 212–234.
Hegmon, M. (2002). Recent issues in the archaeology of the Mimbres region of the North American
Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Research 10: 307–357.
Hegmon, M. (1995). The Social Dynamics of Pottery Style in the Early Puebloan Southwest, Occasional
Paper No. 3, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.
Hegmon, M., and Nelson, M. C. (2005). In sync, but barely in touch: Relations between the Mimbres
region and the Hohokam regional system. In Sullivan, A. P., and Bayman, J. (eds.), Hinterlands
Mimbres Pottery Painting as Agency and Structure 333
and Regional Dynamics in the Ancient Southwest, University of Arizona Press, Tucson (in press).
Hegmon, M., Nelson, M. C., Anyon, R., Creel, D., LeBlanc, S. A., and Shafer, H. J. (1999). Scale and
time-space systematics in the post-A.D. 1100 Mimbres region of the North American Southwest.
Kiva 65: 143–166.
Hegmon, M., Nelson, M. C., and Ruth, S. M. (1998). Abandonment and reorganization in the Mimbres
region of the American Southwest. American Anthropologist 100: 148–162.
Hodder, I. (1984). Burials, houses, women, and men in the European Neolithic. In Miller, D. and Tilley,
C. (eds.), Power, and Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 51–68.
James, W. D., Brewington, R. L., and Shafer, H. J. (1995). Compositional analysis of American
Southwestern ceramics by neutron activation analysis. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
Chemistry 192: 109– 116.
Jett, S. C., and Moyle, P. B. (1986). The exotic origins of fishes depicted on prehistoric Mimbres
pottery from New Mexico. American Antiquity 51: 688–720.
Kabotie, F.(1982). Designs from the ancient Mimbre˜
nos with a Hopi interpretation, 2nd edn., Northland
Press, Flagstaff.
Kohler, T. A., Van Buskirk, S., and Ruscavage-Barz, S. (2004). Vessels and villages: Evidence for
conformist transmission in early village aggregations on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23: 100–118.
Kulow, S. (2004). The social context of residential abandonment in the eastern Mimbres area of
southwestern New Mexico. MA paper, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University.
LeBlanc, S. A. (1983). The Mimbres People: Ancient Painters of the American Southwest, Thames and
Hudson, London.
LeBlanc, S. A. (2004). Painted by a Distant Hand: Mimbres Pottery of the American Southwest,
Peabody Museum Press, Harvard University, Cambridge.
LeBlanc, S. A., and Ellis, M. M. (2001). The Individual Artist in Mimbres Culture: Painted Bowl
Production and Specialization. Poster presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, New Orleans.
Lemmonier, P. (ed.) (1993). Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the
Neolithic, Routledge, London.
Minnis, P. E. (1985). Social Adaptation to Food Stress: A Prehistoric Southwestern Example, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Moulard, B. (1984). Within an Underworld Sky: Mimbres Ceramic Art in Context, Twelvetrees Press,
Pasadena, CA.
Nelson, M. C. (1999). Mimbres During the Twelfth Century: Abandonment, Continuity, and Reorga-
nization, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Nelson, M. C., and Hegmon, M. (2001). Abandonment is not as it seems: An approach to the relationship
between site and regional abandonment. American Antiquity 66: 213–235.
Pauketat, T. R. (2001). Practice and history in archaeology: An emerging paradigm. Anthropological
Theory 1: 73–98.
Pollock, S. (1983). The Symbolism of Prestige: An Archaeological Example from the Royal Cemetery
of Ur, PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan.
Powell, V. S. (2000). Iconography and Group Formation During the Late Pithouse and Classic
Periods of the Mimbres Society, A.D. 970–1140, PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Oklahoma, Norman.
Schaafsma, P. (1999). Tlalocs, Kachinas, sacred bundles, and related symbolism in the Southwest and
Mesoamerica. In Schaafsma, C. F. and Riley, C. L. (eds.), The Casas Grandes World, University
of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 164–192.
Schachner, G. (2001). Ritual control and transformation in middle-range societies: An example from
the American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 168–194.
Scott, C. J. (1983). The evolution of Mimbres pottery. In Mimbres Pottery: Ancient Art of the American
Southwest, Hudson Hills, New York, pp. 38–67.
Shafer, H. J., and Brewington, R. L. (1995). Microstylistic changes in Mimbres Black-on-white pottery:
Examples from the NAN Ruin, Grant County, New Mexico. Kiva 61: 5–29.
Shafer, H. J., and Taylor, A. J. (1986). Mimbres Mogollon architectural dynamics and ceramic style
change. Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 43–68.
Shennan, S. (1993). After social evolution: A new archaeological agenda. In Yoffee, N. and Sherratt, A.
(eds.), Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
334 Hegmon and Kulow
pp. 53–59.
Smith, W. (1962). Schools, pots, and potters. American Anthropologist 64: 1165–1178.
Torrence, R., and van der Leeuw, S. E. (1989). Introduction: What’s new about innovation? In van der
Leeuw, S. E. and Torrence, R. (eds.), What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation,
Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 1–15.
Van der Leeuw, S. E. (1993). Giving the potter a choice: Conceptual aspects of pottery techniques.
In Lemmonier, P. (ed.), Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the
Neolithic, Routledge, London, pp. 238–288.
Van der Leeuw, S. E., and Torrence, R. (eds.) (1989). What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of
Innovation, Unwin Hyman, London.
Van Keuren, S. (1999). Ceramic Design Structure and the Organization of Cibola White Ware Pro-
duction in the Grasshopper Region, Arizona, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona,
Tucson.
Varien, M. D. (1999). Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde and Beyond,
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Washburn, D. K. (2004). Remembering things seen: Experimental approaches to the process of infor-
mation transmittal. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 67–99.
Washburn, D. K. (1999). Perceptual anthropology: The cultural salience of symmetry. American
Anthropologist 101: 547–562.
Washburn, D. K. (1992). The structure of black-on-white ceramic design from the Mimbres Valley. In
Duran, M. S. and Kirkpatrick, D. T. (eds.), Archaeology, Art, and Anthropology: Papers in Honor
of J. J. Brody, The Archaeological Society of New Mexico, 18, Albuquerque, pp. 213–223.
Washburn, D. K. (1983). Toward a theory of structural style in art. In Washburn, D. K. (ed.), Structure
and Cognition in Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–7.
Wiessner,P. (2002). Vines of complexity: Egalitarian structures and the institutionalization of inequality
among the Enga. Current Anthropology 43: 233–269.
