Post-processual archaeology

Last updated

Post-processual archaeology, which is sometimes alternatively referred to as the interpretative archaeologies by its adherents, [1] [2] is a movement in archaeological theory that emphasizes the subjectivity of archaeological interpretations. Despite having a vague series of similarities, post-processualism consists of "very diverse strands of thought coalesced into a loose cluster of traditions". [3] Within the post-processualist movement, a wide variety of theoretical viewpoints have been embraced, including structuralism and Neo-Marxism, as have a variety of different archaeological techniques, such as phenomenology.

Contents

The post-processual movement originated in the United Kingdom during the late 1970s and early 1980s, pioneered by archaeologists such as Ian Hodder, Daniel Miller, Christopher Tilley and Peter Ucko, who were influenced by French Marxist anthropology,[ clarification needed ] postmodernism and similar trends in sociocultural anthropology. Parallel developments soon followed in the United States. Initially post-processualism was primarily a reaction to and critique of processual archaeology, a paradigm developed in the 1960s by 'New Archaeologists' such as Lewis Binford, and which had become dominant in Anglophone archaeology by the 1970s. Post-processualism was heavily critical of a key tenet of processualism, namely its assertion that archaeological interpretations could, if the scientific method was applied, come to completely objective conclusions.

In the United States, archaeologists widely see post-processualism as an accompaniment to the processual movement, while in the United Kingdom, they remain largely thought of as separate and opposing theoretical movements. In other parts of the world, post-processualism has made less of an impact on archaeological thought. [4]

Approach to archaeology

Subjectivism

The post-processualists' approach to archaeology is diametrically opposed to that of the processualists. The processualists, as positivists, believed that the scientific method should and could apply to archaeological investigation, therefore allowing archaeologists to present objective statements about past societies based upon the evidence. Post-processual archaeology, however, questioned this stance, and instead emphasized that archaeology was subjective rather than objective, and that what truth could be ascertained from the archaeological record was often relative to the viewpoint of the archaeologist responsible for unearthing and presenting the data. [5] As the archaeologist Matthew Johnson noted, "Postprocessualists suggest that we can never confront theory and data; instead, we see data through a cloud of theory." [6]

Interpretation

Due to the fact that they believe archaeology to be inherently subjective, post-processualists argue that "all archaeologists... whether they overtly admit it or not", always impose their own views and biases into their interpretations of the archaeological data. [7] In many cases, they hold that this bias is political in nature. [8] Post-processualist Daniel Miller believed that the positivist approach of the processualists, in holding that only that which could be sensed, tested and predicted was valid, only sought to produce technical knowledge that facilitated the oppression of ordinary people by elites. [9] In a similar criticism, Miller and Chris Tilley believed that by putting forward the concept that human societies were irresistibly shaped by external influences and pressures, archaeologists were tacitly accepting social injustice. [10] Many post-processualists took this further and criticised the fact that archaeologists from wealthy, western countries were studying and writing the histories of poorer nations in the second and third worlds. Ian Hodder stated that archaeologists had no right to interpret the prehistories of other ethnic or cultural groups, and that instead they should simply provide individuals from these groups with the ability to construct their own views of the past. [11] While Hodder's viewpoint was not universally accepted among post-processualists, there was enough support for opposing racism, colonialism and professional elitism within the discipline that in 1986 the World Archaeological Congress was established. [12]

A number of post-processualists, such as Michael Shanks, Christopher Tilley and Peter Ucko, undermined "archaeology's claims to be an authoritative source of knowledge about the past", thereby "encourag[ing] people to question and resist all forms of authority… This position was hailed by its supporters as democratizing archaeology and purging it… of elitist pretensions". [13]

Understanding past societies

Materialism and idealism

Whereas the processualists had been firm materialists, and the culture-historical archaeologists had, by contrast, been idealists, the post-processualists argued that past societies should be interpreted through both materialist and idealist ideas. As Johnson noted, "Many postprocessualists claim that we should reject the whole opposition between material and ideal in the first place." [6] While recognizing that past societies would have interpreted the world around them in a partially materialistic way, the post-processualists argue that many historic societies have also placed a great emphasis on ideology (which included religion) in both interpreting their world and influencing their behaviour. Examples of this can be seen in the work of Bernard Knapp, who examined how the social elite manipulated ideology to maintain their political and economic control, [14] and of Mike Parker Pearson, who asserted that tools were just as much a product of ideology as were a crown or a law code. [15]

Using an example to explain this belief in materialist-idealist unity, the archaeologist Matthew Johnson looked at the idea of landscape among past societies. He argued that:

On the one hand, a materialist view of landscape tends to stress how it may be seen in terms of a set of resources, for example for hunter-gatherers or early farming groups. This leads one to turn, for example, to optimal foraging theory and other economic models for an understanding of how people exploited the landscape 'rationally'. Postprocessualists like to argue that landscapes are always viewed in different ways by different peoples. They reject the 'rational' view of 'landscape-as-a-set-of-resources' as that of our own society and one that is ideologically loaded in its own way, loaded towards ideas of commodity and exploitation found in our own society. They suggest that ancient peoples would have had different views of what was 'real' in that landscape. On the other hand, an exclusively idealist view of landscape does not work either. Postprocessualists like to stress that such an understanding of landscape was not formed in the abstract—that the way people moved around and used that landscape affected their understanding of it. [6]

Structuralism

Many, although not all post-processualists have adhered to the theory of structuralism in understanding historical societies. Structuralism itself was a theory developed by the French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009), and held to the idea that "cultural patterns need not be caused by anything outside themselves… [and that] underlying every culture was a deep structure, or essence, governed by its own laws, that people were unaware of but which ensured regularities in the cultural productions that emanate from it." At the centre of his structuralist theory, Lévi-Strauss held that "all human thought was governed by conceptual dichotomies, or bilateral oppositions, such as culture/nature, male/female, day/night, and life/death. He believed that the principle of oppositions was a universal characteristic inherent in the human brain, but that each culture was based on a unique selection of oppositions". [16] This structuralist approach was first taken from anthropology and applied into forms of archaeology by the French archaeologist André Leroi-Gourhan (1911–1986), who used it to interpret prehistoric symbols in his 1964 work, Les Religions de la Préhistoire. [17]

Within the post-processual movement, Ian Hodder became "the leading exponent of a structuralist approach". [18] In a 1984 article, he looked at the similarities between the houses and the tombs of Neolithic Europe, and used a structuralist approach as a basis for his ideas on their symbolism. [19] He then went on, in his seminal book The Domestication of Europe (1990), to use structuralist ideas to come up with his theory that within Neolithic Europe, there was a dichotomy between field (agrios) and house (domus), with this duality being mediated by a boundary (foris). [20]

Human agency

Marx old.jpg
Anthony Giddens at the Progressive Governance Converence, Budapest, Hungary, 2004 October.jpg
Sociologists Karl Marx and Anthony Giddens were influential figures in the development of post-processual ideas about human agency.

Post-processualists have also adopted beliefs regarding human agency, arguing that in other theoretical approaches to archaeology such as cultural-historical and processual, "the individual is lost", and humans are therefore portrayed as "passive dupes who blindly follow social rules." [21] Post-processualists instead argue that humans are free agents who in many cases act in their own interests rather than simply following societal rules, and by accepting these ideas, post-processualists argue that society is conflict-driven. [22] Influenced by the sociologist Anthony Giddens (born 1938) and his structuration theory, many post-processualists accepted that most human beings, while knowing and understanding the rules of their society, choose to manipulate them rather than following them obediently. In turn, by bending the societal rules, these rules eventually change. [21]

Other post-processualists have instead taken the view of sociologist Karl Marx (1818–1883) that class conflict was the force for this social change. [23] In this manner they share similarities with Marxist archaeologists. A minority of post-processualists, such as Julian Thomas have however argued that human agency is not a useful aspect for looking at past societies, thereby accepting a culturally determinist position. [24]

Marginalised archaeologies

Post-processualism places great emphasis on encouraging marginalised groups to interact with archaeology.

Gender archaeology

In the 1960s and 1970s, feminist archaeology emerged as adherents of the second wave feminist movement began to argue that women in the archaeological record had been ignored by archaeologists up until that time. According to archaeologist Sam Lucy, "The agendas of feminist archaeology and post-processualism highlighted the importance of social and political factors on supposedly 'objective' investigation". [25]

Indigenous archaeology

History

Precedents

Although it would not be actually termed "post-processual archaeology" until 1985 (by one of its most prominent proponents, Ian Hodder), an archaeological alternative to processual archaeology had begun to develop during the 1970s. Some had already anticipated the theory's emergence, with the social anthropologist Edmund Leach informing the assembled archaeologists at a 1971 discussion on the topic of "The Explanation of Culture Change" held at the University of Sheffield that cultural structuralism, which was then popular among social anthropologists, would soon make its way into the archaeological community. [26]

Bruce Trigger, a Canadian archaeologist who produced a seminal study of archaeological theory, identified the existence of three main influences upon post-processualism. The first of these was "the Marxist-inspired social anthropology that had developed in France during the 1960s and already had influenced British social anthropology." This, Trigger noted, "had its roots not in orthodox Marxism but in efforts to combine Marxism and structuralism by anthropologists such as Maurice Godelier, Emmanuel Terray, and Pierre-Phillipe Rey". [27] The second main influence was postmodernism, which "emphasized the subjective nature of knowledge and embraced extreme relativism and idealism". Having originated among the disciplines of comparative literature, literary criticism and cultural studies, postmodernist thinking had begun to develop within archaeology. [28] The third influence identified by Trigger was the New cultural anthropology movement within the cultural anthropological discipline, which had arisen after the collapse of Boasian anthropology. The new cultural anthropologists "denounced studies of cultural evolution as being ethnocentric and intellectually and morally untenable in a multicultural, postcolonial environment." [29]

Origins in Britain

Post-processual archaeology began in Britain during the late 1970s, spearheaded by a number of British archaeologists who had become interested in aspects of French Marxist anthropology. Most prominent among these was Ian Hodder (born 1948), a former processualist who had made a name for himself for his economic analysis of spatial patterns and early development of simulation studies, particularly relating to trade, markets and urbanization in Iron Age and Roman Britain. Having been influenced by the "New Geography" and the work of the processualist David Clarke, as his research progressed, he became increasingly sceptical that such models and simulations actually tested or proved anything, coming to the conclusion that a particular pattern in the archaeological record could be produced by a number of different simulated processes, and that there was no way to accurately test which of these alternatives was correct. In effect, he came to believe that even using the processual approach to understanding archaeological data, there were still many different ways that that data could be interpreted, and that therefore radically different conclusions could be put forward by different archaeologists, despite processualism's claim that using the scientific method it could gain objective fact from the archaeological record. [30] [31] As a result of this, Hodder grew increasingly critical of the processualist approach, developing an interest in how culture shaped human behaviour. He was supported in this new endeavour by many of his students, including Matthew Spriggs. [31]

In 1980 these early post-processualists held a conference at Cambridge University, from which a book was produced, entitled Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (1982), which was edited by Hodder himself and published by Cambridge University Press. In his introduction to the book, Hodder noted that:

During the early period of exploration and development of ideas, premature conference presentations and individual seminars were given by various members of the Cambridge group in other archaeological departments in England and abroad. Individual scholars who were invited to talk to us in Cambridge in that period often felt, understandably, obliged to maintain a distinct opposition. While it is certainly the case that these presentations had occurred before our views had even begun to settle down, and that they were excessively aggressive, they played an important role in the process of enquiry and reformulation. In particular, the contrasts which were set up by us and by outside scholars allowed the views of the seminar group, and the differences of viewpoint within the group, to be clarified. The opposition highlighted our own opinion but also threw the spotlight on the blind alleys down which there was a danger of straying. Our aggression resulted from the conviction that we were doing something new. This, too, was important. In the initial period there was a clear idea of what was wrong with existing approaches and there was a faith that something else could be done. [32]

Bruce Trigger considered this book to be "a postprocessual showcase and counterpart to New Perspectives in Archaeology", the 1968 book written by American archaeologist Lewis Binford (1931–2011) that helped to launch the processual movement. [31]

Development in the United States

Post-processual archaeology developed largely independently among the archaeological community in the United States. As such its primary influence was critical theory, as opposed to the French Marxist anthropology which had been the primary influence upon their British counterparts. Many American archaeologists had begun to recognise issues of bias within the scientific community, and within the processual movement itself which attempted to be scientific. They also began to notice elements of ethnic prejudice within archaeology, particularly in regards to Native American peoples, who had commonly not had a chance to participate in their own heritage management up until the 1990s. [33] Many American archaeologists also began to take note of a gender bias in the archaeological interpretation and in the discipline as a whole, as women had been largely marginalised. The 1980s saw archaeological studies finally being published that dealt with this issue, namely through Joan Gero's paper on "Gender bias in archaeology: a cross-cultural perspective" (1983) [34] and Margaret Conkey and Janet Spector's paper on "Archaeology and the Study of Gender" (1984). [35] Among the post-processualists, less emphasis was put on correcting class biases in the American archaeological record than had been put into studying gender and ethnic differences. Instead, it was mostly among historical archaeologists (those who study the archaeology of the historic, or literate period of the past), that such investigation into marginalised classes such as workers and slaves took place. [36]

Criticism

As the archaeologists Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn noted, "For its most severe critics, [post-processualism], while making a number of valid criticisms, simply developed some of the ideas and theoretical problems introduced by [processualism]. To these critics it brought in a variety of approaches from other disciplines, so that the term "postprocessual," while rather neatly echoing the epithet "postmodern" in literary studies, was a shade arrogant in presuming to supersede what it might quite properly claim to complement." [37]

In their article "Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique" (1987), Timothy K. Earle and Robert W. Preucel examined the post-processual movement's "radical critique" of processualism, and while accepting that it had some merit and highlighted some important points, they came to the conclusion that on the whole, the post-processual approach was flawed because it failed to produce an explicit methodology. [38]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">V. Gordon Childe</span> Australian archaeologist (1892–1957)

Vere Gordon Childe was an Australian archaeologist who specialised in the study of European prehistory. He spent most of his life in the United Kingdom, working as an academic for the University of Edinburgh and then the Institute of Archaeology, London. He wrote twenty-six books during his career. Initially an early proponent of culture-historical archaeology, he later became the first exponent of Marxist archaeology in the Western world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Processual archaeology</span> Theoretical paradigm in archaeology

Processual archaeology is a form of archaeological theory. It had its beginnings in 1958 with the work of Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips, Method and Theory in American Archaeology, in which the pair stated that "American archaeology is anthropology, or it is nothing", a rephrasing of Frederic William Maitland's comment: "My own belief is that by and by, anthropology will have the choice between being history, and being nothing." The idea implied that the goals of archaeology were the goals of anthropology, which were to answer questions about humans and human culture. This was meant to be a critique of the former period in archaeology, the cultural-history phase in which archaeologists thought that information artifacts contained about past culture would be lost once the items became included in the archaeological record. Willey and Phillips believed all that could be done was to catalogue, describe, and create timelines based on the artifacts.

Systems theory in archaeology is the application of systems theory and systems thinking in archaeology. It originated with the work of Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 1950s, and is introduced in archaeology in the 1960s with the work of Sally R. Binford & Lewis Binford's "New Perspectives in Archaeology" and Kent V. Flannery's "Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica".

Lewis Roberts Binford was an American archaeologist known for his influential work in archaeological theory, ethnoarchaeology and the Paleolithic period. He is widely considered among the most influential archaeologists of the later 20th century, and is credited with fundamentally changing the field with the introduction of processual archaeology in the 1960s. Binford's influence was controversial, however, and most theoretical work in archaeology in the late 1980s and 1990s was explicitly construed as either a reaction to or in support of the processual paradigm. Recent appraisals have judged that his approach owed more to prior work in the 1940s and 50s than suggested by Binford's strong criticism of his predecessors.

Ian Richard Hodder is a British archaeologist and pioneer of postprocessualist theory in archaeology that first took root among his students and in his own work between 1980 and 1990. At this time he had such students as Henrietta Moore, Ajay Pratap, Nandini Rao, Mike Parker Pearson, Paul Lane, John Muke, Sheena Crawford, Nick Merriman, Michael Shanks and Christopher Tilley. As of 2002, he is Dunlevie Family Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Culture-historical archaeology</span> Theoretical paradigm in archaeology

Culture-historical archaeology is an archaeological theory that emphasises defining historical societies into distinct ethnic and cultural groupings according to their material culture.

An archaeological culture is a recurring assemblage of types of artifacts, buildings and monuments from a specific period and region that may constitute the material culture remains of a particular past human society. The connection between these types is an empirical observation, but their interpretation in terms of ethnic or political groups is based on archaeologists' understanding and interpretation and is in many cases subject to long-unresolved debates. The concept of the archaeological culture is fundamental to culture-historical archaeology.

Chris Tilley is a British archaeologist known for his contributions to postprocessualist archaeological theory. He is currently a Professor of Anthropology and Archaeology at University College London.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gender archaeology</span> Archaeological sub-discipline

Gender archaeology is a method of studying past societies through their material culture by closely examining the social construction of gender identities and relations.

Cognitive archaeology is a theoretical perspective in archaeology that focuses on the ancient mind. It is divided into two main groups: evolutionary cognitive archaeology (ECA), which seeks to understand human cognitive evolution from the material record, and ideational cognitive archaeology (ICA), which focuses on the symbolic structures discernable in or inferable from past material culture.

The term migrationism, in the history of archaeological theory, was opposed to the term diffusionism as a means of distinguishing two approaches to explaining the spread of prehistoric archaeological cultures and innovations in artefact. Migrationism explains cultural change in terms of human migration, while diffusionism relies on explanations based on trans-cultural diffusion of ideas rather than populations.

Archaeological theory refers to the various intellectual frameworks through which archaeologists interpret archaeological data. Archaeological theory functions as the application of philosophy of science to archaeology, and is occasionally referred to as philosophy of archaeology. There is no one singular theory of archaeology, but many, with different archaeologists believing that information should be interpreted in different ways. Throughout the history of the discipline, various trends of support for certain archaeological theories have emerged, peaked, and in some cases died out. Different archaeological theories differ on what the goals of the discipline are and how they can be achieved.

Conjunctive archaeology is a method of studying of the past developed by Walter Taylor in the 1940s that combined elements of both traditional archaeology and the allied field of anthropology. It is exemplified by Taylor's A Study of Archeology (1948).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archaeology</span> Study of human activity via material culture

Archaeology or archeology is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. The archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts, sites, and cultural landscapes. Archaeology can be considered both a social science and a branch of the humanities. It is usually considered an independent academic discipline, but may also be classified as part of anthropology, history or geography.

In archaeology, phenomenology is the application of sensory experiences to view and interpret an archaeological site or cultural landscape in the past. It views space as socially produced and is concerned with the ways people experience and understand spaces, places, and landscapes. Phenomenology became a part of the Post-processual archaeology movement in the early 1990s and was a reaction to Processual archaeology's proposed 'scientific' treatment of space as an abstract and empty locus for action. In contrast, phenomenology proposes a 'humanized' space which is embedded with meaning and is created through praxis. Phenomenology therefore treats the landscape as a network of places, each of which bears meaning and is connected through movements and narratives.

Marxist archaeology is an archaeological theory that interprets archaeological information within the framework of Marxism. Although neither Karl Marx nor Friedrich Engels described how archaeology could be understood in a Marxist conception of history, the archaeological theory was developed by Soviet archaeologists in the Soviet Union during the early twentieth century. Marxist archaeology quickly became the dominant archaeological theory within the Soviet Union, and subsequently spread and was adopted by archaeologists in other countries. In particular, in the United Kingdom, where the theory was propagated by an influential archaeologist V. Gordon Childe. With the rise of post-processual archaeology in the 1980s and 1990s, forms of Marxist archaeology were once more popularised amongst the archaeological community.

<i>Fragments from Antiquity</i> Book by John C. Barrett

Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC is a book on the archaeology of Britain in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages written by the British archaeologist John C. Barrett, then a senior lecturer at the University of Glasgow. It was first published in 1994 by the Oxford-based company Blackwell as a part of their ‘Social Archaeology’ series, edited by the archaeologist Ian Hodder of the University of Cambridge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter N. Peregrine</span>

Peter N. Peregrine is an American anthropologist, registered professional archaeologist, and academic. He is well known for his promotion of the use of science in anthropology, and for his popular textbook Anthropology. Peregrine did dissertation research on the evolution of the Mississippian culture of North America, and conducted fieldwork on Bronze Age cities in Syria. He is currently Professor of Anthropology and Museum Studies at Lawrence University and Research Associate of the Human Relations Area Files at Yale University. From 2012 to 2018 he was an External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute.

<i>The Archaeology of Death and Burial</i> Book by Michael Parker Pearson

The Archaeology of Death and Burial is an archaeological study by the English archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson, then a professor at the University of Sheffield. It was first published in 1999 by Sutton Publishing Limited, and later republished by The History Press.

John C. Barrett, is a British archaeologist, prehistorian, and Emeritus Professor of Archaeology at the Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield. His research has primarily focussed on archaeological theory, European Prehistory from early agriculture to Romanisation, and the development of commercially funded archaeology in the UK. Barrett has been seen as an influential figure in the development of archaeological theory, critiques of archaeological practice, and British Prehistory.

References

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Johnson 1999, pp. 98–99.
  2. ↑ Johnson 2010. p. 105.
  3. ↑ Johnson 1999, p. 101.
  4. ↑ Trigger 2007, pp. 477–478.
  5. ↑ Trigger 2007, pp. 451–452.
  6. 1 2 3 Johnson 1999, p. 102.
  7. ↑ Johnson 1999, p. 103.
  8. ↑ Trigger 2007, p. 467.
  9. ↑ Miller 1984, p. 38.
  10. ↑ Miller & Tilley 1984, p. 2.
  11. ↑ Hodder, Ian (1984a). "Archaeology in 1984". Antiquity . 58 (222): 25–32. doi: 10.1017/S0003598X00055940 . S2CID   163788037.
  12. ↑ Trigger 2007, p. 452.
  13. ↑ Trigger 2007, pp. 467–468.
  14. ↑ Knapp, B. 1988.
  15. ↑ Pearson, Mike Parker. 1984:61.
  16. ↑ Trigger 2007, p. 463.
  17. ↑ Leroi-Gourhan 1964.
  18. ↑ Trigger 2007, p. 464.
  19. ↑ Hodder 1984b.
  20. ↑ Hodder 1990.
  21. 1 2 Johnson 1999, p. 104.
  22. ↑ Johnson 1999, p. 105.
  23. ↑ Trigger 2007, p. 469.
  24. ↑ Thomas 2000, pp. 149–150.
  25. ↑ Lucy 1997, p. 153.
  26. ↑ Leach 1973, p. 763.
  27. ↑ Trigger 2007, p. 44.
  28. ↑ Trigger 2007, pp. 446–448.
  29. ↑ Trigger 2007, pp. 448–449.
  30. ↑ Johnson 2010. pp. 102–103.
  31. 1 2 3 Trigger 2007, p. 450.
  32. ↑ Hodder 1982, p. vii.
  33. ↑ Trigger 2007, pp. 456–458.
  34. ↑ Gero, Joan (1983). "Gender bias in archaeology: a cross-cultural perspective". In Gero, J. M.; Lacy, D. M.; Blakey, M. L. (eds.). The Socio-Politics of Archaeology. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
  35. ↑ Conkey, Margaret; Spector, Janet (1984). "Archaeology and the Study of Gender". Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. 7: 1–38.
  36. ↑ Trigger 2007, p. 460.
  37. ↑ Renfrew & Bahn 2004, p. 44.
  38. ↑ Earle & Preucel 1987.

Bibliography

Academic Books
Academic Articles
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.