Archaeology and Theory Jan Hodder; Lewis R. Binford; Nancy M. Stone Man, New Series, Vol. 23, No. 2. (Jun., 1988), pp. 373-376, Stable URL htp:/flinks.jstor-org/sicisici=( 125-1496%28198806%292%3A23% 3A2%3C373%3AAAT%3E2.0,.COGIB2-F ‘Man is currently published by Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hupulwww.jstor.org/journals/rai. html ch copy of any part of'a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ Sat May 27 08:05:11 2006CORRESPONDENCE Archacology and theory 1am gratell tothe dtr of MAN for allowing sme to respond t0 Binford (Maa N.S. 23, 391 {foa). response seoms particularly appropriate given the wider public debate about his article (Times Higher Educational Supplement 2:10.1987 and 16.10.1989) 'Atthe end ofthe THES report of 10.1987 1s concluded, wryly peshaps, that according t Binfoed “archacology"s only hope te 0 treat things asthings nd moshing more" Thismay be fn inaccurate summary of Binford’s postion ‘After al he has elsewhere made strong ease for theory building and testing of theory agenet dats, But on the other hand, the comment ‘captures some ofthe implications of Biaford’s position. Amongst archacologsts sll hesily Influenced by the diretion ofthe New Archa- cology of the 1960's in which Binford played sch an important roe, che overriding emph- 2sis is on methodology—staustis, sampling, Site formation proceses, settlement puters dnd the lke. There agreement with Binford that one must remain objective, explict and rigorous, Theteis abit that doesnot matter ‘where theory comes ftom. As long 3s one gets themethodology night, all wil be well. ‘Atleatintheearly daysof New Archacology it was claimed that archacology was anchvo- ology, and 352 resule interesting attempts 3t fencralisation were made, Becatee constructed ‘sihin mar, ecological and functional view ‘of cultural varity, these generalisations tended to fl or appear trivial. The retreat was into ‘methodology, in accordance with the view that, ‘the external word exist ints own fight, and thatincludes the properties of the archaeological record” (409) eiseniely consistent with his feeret that Binford should nove be een fom ethnography as well—indced from al the social scieners. According to Binfordy many of the major debates in the social sciences are ‘metaphysical iksues that are mt cally appropr= ate to scence in Fundamental ways” (p. 391) The data of social scientists (xcept archaeal. ogists) are ‘inadmissible for scienic research? (p-399), andethnographers "are stil not ope ingin ascent ole’ (p.398). “This ina srry stat of affairs forthe est of the social sciences, perhaps. Btit seven sadder for thote archacologists who espouse Binford's ‘ews For archaeology o be science must, Usssocae tall fmm eehnogeaphy and the Soual scenes, Archaclogy reduced to dry ‘methodology, elated on the ges conten porary debuts in soci theory, uml to on Tibutto our understanding of story, cle tnd the conseacion of meaning. Inds the Grtent to which Bivfords. programme for Stehacology hus wergd from amropoogic oncens B dtiocive, On te antropologia Sslcthres human agency, stractureand event, txlate and economy. the reactions to deco ‘traction and cial perspectives, On Binfors fie there is Bone phonon, toes of we tvear om fing snd hunteregatherer foraging rate. in ic Bnford, in other works (1983) tat shown how carcal sndy ofthe et nid level concerns can produce important Inplictons for our understanding. of ely humanity. On the ober handy st soon a one fs beyond the purview of primary depo Siionalrgumens there white tht can be ombuted to broader debates by adbenng fo'te ge view of scenes advocsted by inford, A 2 scale of the fale of that ‘ew dal wthcomplexcontemporsry 3, Ina archacologs ate beginning to s0ek Tiemaces infordscems unckat about ches alters sivas He lame divergent positon conten Dorey archacology together. Io nor know ‘thats Mant comtexaal (403) approach, Tor example. However, unrlying hi crt cio t 2 general miindersanding which | frevime rel fom an astm tha {scaring coral meaning, wit peoplsay of primary importance infor prvleges, Seah. The frst eesule ofthis assumption is that all cogeaphy is condemned because, Biford Seo the ethnographer dependent on formas thon received ftom informs, The snthropol og can thus never ack explanations, nly Mindesstanding in other terms. Te ceranly tee that some edinographics can he eriocsed for overscan on suthoretve inforant Bus, mont contemporary ethnography goes beyond what sai by informants fo traces cor systems of meaning which mae sense of Shot sud. Cerny many modern materEa clare stadics, ednographers or ethnoarchac- logists would not ge very iri they relied on indigenous exegesis. A common responseto the (question ‘why did you make this po eh way?” ‘because tis tradition” The scientific ethnog- ‘apher and anthropologists concemed to move beyond spoken words in order to explain them ‘withina wider Famework, ado move beyond ‘materia objects and historical evens to discover generative processes, Binford 1s incorrect in Implying.that-ethnographers_simply record ‘wha is said and leave ta that, Whatever hap pened to symbolic anthropology? Or ath ology mare generally? Or history? ‘Asa second rsul of Binfor’s privileging of speech, Binford. suggests repeatedly in his Huxley Memorial Lecture tat because archae- logists have no informants they eaot make progress in making inferences about cultural feanings. [do not understand why Binford "inks thatthe material word wasmotpaterned ‘meaningfully inthe past and dae aces ofthese past pitts do not survive inthe archacologic= Hecord, The material world is organised in ‘ways comparable to, iin detail differen from, Spoken sounds ts meaning can thus be debated italy and rigorously in ways simula to the methods of ethnography orhistory even though it i clear tha within this wider Famework archacology must develop its own method and theory “Thereis a dang, in following Binord's Ine, ‘ofthe death ofarchicologiesl theory. There 3 ‘anger n etractingfromt che increasingly ext cal perspective of archacologists, Dinford ac- ‘iste archaeologists of being ‘theologians’ (p. 404) and of making arbitrary value jodgerents accuses me of socio-political morabsing'(P 402). The main reason Thavetaken such astance ‘Statin order co be scent (i.e “abjecive' or explicit) itis necessary to be theoretically exiti- fal became clear that inthe Nese Arckacolo- 8 thee was alndden politcal and moral agenda ‘which was used unscentfcally because was hot subject o critcl examination, These deep sumptions, Binford's own thealogy” are clear in hie Lec, sn statements such a The exter= nal world ets ints own right? or “The chim that our cognitive devioes insulate us from the external world i false’ (p. 403). These value Judgements are presented without substantia~ tion. I is dificult to see how they could be ‘ered. ‘They are presented a «pr know- ige, 38 ideas lowing "self evidently’ fom the Toman’ experince, and. they encapsulate assumptions, which are socal and politcal in ature, about the roe ofthe saetistin society. ‘These are exactly the points for which Binford criticises pontprocesial archaeology. ‘Should archacology as 2 seience be about knowledge or should also be about meaning Oversimplied, this isthe question atthe hubof CORRESPONDENCE the contemporary debate. Binford wishes 10 move in an orderly manner "to an accurate 2pprecaton ofthe past (p. 404). thes realise thse any such sim must involve the ertcal interpretation of past and preset meanings 1 relation to cach other, Indeed, i Binford wold Took a his own work with the same powers of tits that he brings tothe work of ethers, he ‘would find that his own writ and research about the presen and pastareprimecxamples of {he socal constriction of meaning wath which ‘weall play aoe lan Hodder Cambridge University Binford, L. R. 1983. J paral of the pa TTondon: Thames & Hiadson [edocs not surprise meta learn that Dr Houlder takes exception to vitally the enie content of fhe 1986 Hsley Memoral Lecture [published ‘n Man as ‘Data eativtsm and archtcologial Science’) for he and Ihave been disputing the ttlity of one another’ views, in person and in Print, For nearly 2 decade. What does conecen fe is Hodder's apparent assumption that the ‘Words ‘citicsm’y "theoretealy critical, and ‘ritical examination” represen the same tle lectual procesies a8 the words “scientific f= search’, "argument, and ‘knowledge Iw the guation of one set of terme with te ther that permite Hor to clam: "inorder tobe clr Dic fe. Yobyective” or expe) 6 necessary to be theoretialy crite and ais fom this ‘tical poste thats hidden pobticl and moral Sgenda” war perceived to be embedded inthe New Archaeology, with sshich T have been socited, T would argue that the pursur of ay neclec- tual goal, and thi would inclade the goal of flscovering. putative hidden political and ‘moral sgends, involves not only ah appropriate Procedure but slso an awareness among those Partapating in the quest that the procedare pens appropriate their knowledge goal. It there is deageeement about the goal or the Procedure, oF the Bie between the two, then Evidence must be organised in the form of an Srgument that has reference to, and can be ‘evaluated in terms of the aspect Of the ext ‘world thats being debated. Thess what secnee ie and docs, and if Hodder were ever t0 spproach my work from this perspective, [am ‘train that | would benefit rom is attention, Within the field of azchacology, wunforea- nately, there is considerable controversy with respect to even the most base issues, withthe resule that in his ast paragraph, apropos of flsciplinary "goals, Hodder "asks. “Should archicology 24 science be about knowledge or Should i also be about meaning?” Ones lett to assume that he would place himself among