Kent Flannery is a well known contemporary archaeologist whoses work is mainly based in Mesoamerica. He began his career as a graduate student in the sixties.  During this time, he worked with Richard MacNeish in Mesoamerica and Robert Braidwood in Mesopotamia on interdisciplinary studies (Flannery, 1986.)  Since then, he has become a professor at the University of Michigan, a member of the Cambridge Journal Editorial Advisory Board, and a curator for Zooarchaeology at the University of Michigan f Museum of Anthropology.
   Most of his work focuses on the rise of the Zapotec civilization, and its predecessors.  He has published many books concerning his research in this area.  The most recent of these was Zapotec Civilization : How Urban Societies Evolved in Mexico's Oaxaca Valley.  This book was the result his many years of research and analysis.  The action theory of archaeology is the major analytical approach used in this book (Brumfiel, 1997).   This theory concentrates on the decision processes because "focusing on human decision making. . . may provide high resolution."  (Flannery, 1986)  This theory focuses on the processes of change in prehistoric culture instead of the results in order to paint a more complete picture of prehistory.  One of Flannery's ongoing preoccupation over his career, the interplay of environmental and cultural change, is given much play in this book.  It is stated here that change in culture is "...not simply by factors beyond the control of humans, but also by their own free will."  (Flannery, 1997)
    Kent Flannery is also quite interested in the origins of agriculture and the rise of urban civilizations, which he researched with Richard MacNeish in Mesoamerica as a graduate student, and as the head of his own multi-disciplinary studies over the years.  His opinion on this subject is that there is not one universal explanation for the beginnings of agriculture, because it developed in different ways in different areas around the world.  He asserts that the "key to urban civilizations lies not in man-land relations, but in man-man relations."  (Flannery, 1976)  His statement that "The origins of agriculture involve both human intentionality and a set of underlying ecological and evolutionary principles."  (Flannery, 1986) is a good summary of his attitude toward this source of debate.
    Achieving a balance in archaeological research and analysis seems to be a common thread throughout his work.  Dr. Flannery has tried consistently over the years to avoid adherence to extreme ideologies.  Often he has decribed the problems inherent in these extreme viewpoints in many "parables" througout his career.  In his words, archaeologists "try to acheive some balance between perspective and resolution, between biology and culture, between universal process and regional intentionality." (Flannery, 1986)
    As an extension of his goal of balance, he has taken on the function as a commentator on the state of archaeology today.  Many of his speeches and articles in journals deal with problems that he sees in field at present.  He has criticized the new archaeology in two different guises, which he calls, "law and order archaeologists" and "Serutan archaeologists."  The law and order archaeologists were criticized for making generalizations about problems of "utmost trivia."  (Redman, 1973)  He went further to say that they have made a ". . . series of low level generalizations that some critics have called 'Mickey Mouse laws.'"  (Redman, 1973)  This aspect of Flannery's career can also be shown in The Early Mesoamerican Village, where he uses the 'Mesoamericanists at work: A parable' as a running theme througout the book.  This parable consisted of  caricatures of Mesoamerican archaeologists to illustrate the myriad of problems that he saw in this particular area of research.  He used caricature once again to illustrate the "problems of archaeological goals and rewards" (Flannery, 1982) in the article "The Golden Marshallton."  More recently he has discussed the problems with political correctness in archaeology today.  Here he states that "Whenever science is combined with a social or political agenda . . . it is inevitably science that suffers."  (Flannery, 1994)  These examples are evidence of the role that he has taken on as commentator on the state of modern archaeology.
    In conclusion, Kent Flannery is a contemporary archaeologists whose career has spanned many years and seen many changes in the field.  His work in the field of Mesoamerica has been solid and comprehensive, while  his "parables" are entertaining, and useful.  His strive for balance and moderation has been a driving force in his career.  These qualities all make Kent Flannery a fascinating character in the archaeology of today.