The Effect of the Direct Historical Approach on the Development of Theory in Plains Archaeology: A Comment on Mitchell's Analysis of the MBP Legacy

Mark Mitchell's analysis of the legacy of the Missouri Basin Project (MBP) identified the direct historical approach as one discourse that shaped the MBP legacy. While that identification is certainly correct, the discussion is too limited in two ways. First, the use of the direct historical approach for tracing ethnicity was more limited than is generally recognized. Second, and more seriously, the rich documentary and ethnographic record of the Plains Village lifeway became a too readily used source of specific analogies for reading the archaeological record. Theory became irrelevant. Some of the numerous inaccuracies this produced are only recently being corrected.

Communities Make Theory: A Response to Bleed and Roper

In their comments, Bleed and Roper acknowledge the profound effects routine research practices have had on the conceptual development of Plains archaeology, though both disagree with aspects of my analysis. Bleed disputes my characterization of current theory in Plains archaeology but fails to appreciate the extent to which Plains archaeology continues to emphasize culture historical research. Bleed further argues that there are few connections between the research practices established by the Missouri Basin Project (MBP) and those of more recent Plains archaeologists. However, such a stance discounts the powerful influence of construct paradigms or exemplars on the development of method and theory. Roper provides valuable insights into the role played by direct historic analogy in the development of theory in Plains archaeology. However, her analysis glosses over the fact that all aspects of archaeological research are informed by theoretical propositions, whether explicitly stated or merely assumed.

Research Traditions, Public Policy, and the Underdevelopment of Theory in Plains Archaeology: Tracing the Legacy of the Missouri Basin Project

For more than 40 years archaeologists have been engaged in a self-conscious appraisal of the factors influencing the development of archaeological theory. The importance of external social and political forces has been widely acknowledged; however, less attention has been paid to the ways in which routine disciplinary practices authorize and reproduce particular theoretical standpoints. To illustrate how the growth of archaeological theory is intertwined with the practice of archaeological research, the goals and structure of one of the nation's first large-scale public archaeology projects, the River Basin Surveys' Missouri Basin Project (MBP), are considered and their effects on contemporary theory in Plains archaeology are evaluated. Today, theory in Plains archaeology remains implicit and for many projects culture history remains the central focus. The persistence of this research tradition can be traced in part to the success of the MBP in establishing new standards of practice for the region. Throughout the 1950s, MBP archaeologists pursued a distinctive research agenda that institutionalized inductive, culture-historical investigations. However, by the late 1960s many American archaeologists had adopted a new model of preservation, one that necessitated a new set of research practices. Because the MBP was not replaced by a new exemplar of practice, the culture historical research it championed continues to influence theory in Plains archaeology today.