1. This, of course, was not the only problem with structuralism, which anthropologists, philosophers, sociologists, archaeologists, and others critiqued for its lack of attention to historical process and context, agency, power, ideology, gender, practice, and a myriad of other elements that subsequent post-structuralist, Marxist, agency, and other approaches attempted to address (Bourdieu 1977; Derrida 1978; Foucault 1977, 1980; Hodder 1991; Thomas 2000).
2. Other discussions of the link between passages and transformations, in other parts of the world, can be found in various archaeological studies of architecture and rock art (e.g. Lewis-Williams 2002; Parker Pearson and Richards 1994; Taylor 2002).
3. It will also align archaeology, appropriately, with new models of the body that have stressed its non-linguistic and experiential dimensions (Clark 1997; Connerton 1989; Csordas 1994; Hamilakis, Pluciennik, and Tarlow 2002; Jackson 1989; Joyce 2005; Lakoff and Johnson 1999; Varela, Thompson, and Rosch 1991).
4. Barth, Fredrik. 1975.Ritual and Knowledge Among the Baktaman of New Guinea. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5. Baudrillard, Jean. 1981.For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. St. Louis, MO: Telos Press.