Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Archaeological Methods

    Uploaded by

    Abhi
    2 views14 pages
    Representations of Archaeology and Historiography Methods

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Representations of Archaeology and Historiography Methods

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views14 pages

    Archaeological Methods

    Uploaded by

    Abhi
    Representations of Archaeology and Historiography Methods

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 14
    \ certain neo-evolution ‘understanding of the spatial dist fifaceted understanding of activite® han coutd older simplistic POHONS of single Tanetions For particular rooms oF STTUCEES: Gunnin ARCHAEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDCE Posrrtvism ap BEYOND Teovas within the processual schoo) fat $0 archaeologist started to take an ire tbe philosophy of knowledge and Scene jn their formulations of archaeological epistemology. An explicit interes sn using the scientific method 25 ‘expressed and the philosophy bebind erie digeusse. Tis began witncals For problem-oriented approsch Pre Framework of factual Know edBe beat ges only as a sotution to problerns raised vcuse facts” have neither an independ rar ence nor does the mere organiza of facts amounttotheory’ (Malik 1998). 3 as opposed to and opposed BY POPONEA of the rational induetive approseh to archacology, according t© ‘vere then built into theory: AS processualist equited more than ji applying scientific Yechnigues like those of Se0108), nd Quaternary palaeoeeolOBs hypothesis testing: nce we concede hat archaeology is 0n2 VAY of acquiring knowledge about the worl We ‘cannot ore the scientific metho a renting culturally meaningfol Probes Pending the isolation of such problesns ‘and subjecting | afford {0 8m the fu ot inferit brie (Passyy 1980 133; italics added) ‘Marital similes aside, this was a explicit statement of positivist sn which the past | Could be knowable through probab) sainsta growing cops of excavation ata (sce also Sankalia 19778) “Amore protonged| aati of postivin was later produce’ PY Paddayya (1990: 8-12) | Forces, it as increasingly becn realized Wht 27 peeing the archaeological recor} cannot be a simple matter ‘of equating artefacts and sites with functioning social systems | sn particular by those involved fn ng a chaeological research (© Houee 1982). AS ve aenby Miller (1985b) in his detailed sU0y St pottery progction in meen DINE sme vessels play multiple and chaning Perpbole roles in social relations Pot 1 expectations, in particular the linking together of craft specialization, standardization et centralized contol. For example, ‘standardization may bbe promoted by Kin-based production networks as much 9S ‘centray authority (Kenoyer bs Poy Inaddton, teannot be assumed Spat the patiad patterning of erate found Up the surface or as excavated Bill a that Harappan sites necessasily reec spatial segregation of ancient workshops, So" this could represent sect from production areas, or bie imtensh™ periods of activity. was increasingly recognized. that comprehension of taphonomic processes could contribute (9% ‘more nuanced Beyond Description ae Difusion nm dary refuse displaced me pution of different human activities ‘and provide a more 1975. 3, see also Paddayya 1980: ‘Dhavalikar 1985; Allchin Nobis emerged from the dirt through excavation and pointed ot by Paddayya (1980: 1981), being a ‘scientific y_ Instead, it demanded prablem-oriented approach OF alin prehistory has made Sucien! progress for | acre rigour of the scenic metog enn cite techniques wil be rater Tike the | static statements based on the testing of hypotheses | 118 Archaeology and Historiography reflecting ideal relations and reereating (hE ‘The relationship between pots and peoPle ee ofone-o-one correspondence Laer 197 sf rmultiple overlapping frameworks Ma derstanding realty. More dvetly Ged 9 archaeological interpretation. Panja (1996: “72) briefly discussed the “hermeneuti= procedure’ of interpreting rarchacological sites in ‘which “preanderstanding! eam en ethnographic analogies conditions: ‘putdoes not limit, archaeological interpretation. “The necessary archaeological reliance on analogy calls into surely positivist framework in which te past cehaptetely and objectively Knowable- snevordingly post-processualism, which is se wupan the next chapter, alone Wilh & Mmnber of other recent approaches i archacology, have been termed “post-positivist” {Whitley 1992). Inereasingly the positivism of early processualist archaeology has come lander attack even in its American Hvierand: The vnreftective nature of the New ‘Archaeology was astonishing but not ORE ‘han its almost anti-intllectual insistene trpon he astute truth of single qistemotogical framework of sience (Lambers- Raclovsky 1989a: see also Trigger 1989: “Srofr, Paddayya has also come 10 EXPRESS 20 jpterest in alternative epistemological frameworks, including some derived from Indian interact trations (Paddayya 1990: 50. Mose 139-41). Ie is interesting that stat ‘Binds of coneems had already been raised BY ‘Malik (1968, 1973a) although they were win addressed by many other archaeologists Util post-processuisin emerged Malik vod briefly brought up epistemology and Ihe tee avhich “sense-perception and valve” jiudgerents? (1968: 5) inevitably Play sae ereation of what becomes accepted 1 jeeedge. As the canons of theory change £9 do perceptions of data, and thelr interpretation: “Therefore, any reonstrctions oF reproductions cof past societies are “re” in only #5 fF they enjoy social (whether itisa ge"? Fi eologns Nsorians or sty a BS) endorsement. Seo trical reality becomes false sat heN rrcepal and conceptual di=rzen=es ae older reproductions “ouof ate’ this, 08 merry cause of new evidences of a facteat Morceptal Kind whieh are discovered Put oon of the formulation of ew cOmeeD Papers. Therefore, in this sense, both the yea aus gems with regard othe past and tPe sey of evidence are ‘unstable (Malik 1968:7) question the utility of 8 {eas with contemporary social acceptance jpfluence interpretation, and therefore contemporary social circumstances will fet sGews of the past. It is some of the Key setfueces onthe perception of the past which ie me nereasingly into focus UOUEN the entiques of post-processual archacclozy (Boivin and Fuller, this volume). Mv strapistie positivism that Sgnores the conten DONT oeial influences on archaeological faterpretation cannot be sustained 88,2 philosophical framework for archaeology: Nevertheless, a systematic commitment © eer methodology remains a pONeTEN Approach to understanding the past and it 0 nypothesis-testing that was advocated by. Malik despite statements Tike the One peve (3968, 1975, 1979). By collecting rchaeological evidence in an attempt to repeatedly test explicit hypotheses (he growing | ody of material inevitably constrains whey Sy ‘pe conjectured about the past (Paddayys | 1989. 1990; Trigger 1989: 4071, yl 1991). Ne 1 questions and critical | I, Silos saa ee Se Beyond assess ‘and reformulate hypotheses, but itis u ‘which arguments are built, CONCLUSION Inexploring processualism, existed to some extent prior intertwined within a processual ierett strands have been identified as: cultural °l0sy. ‘of culture, the problem of site reformulation of archaeological ‘hich apply to the buman past (Possebl ZFisciplinary investigations with particular ‘context of sites (Agrawal and Chakrabarti I ‘alysis of data was carried out within new framework: ‘which stressed variation Jn tum, the emphases oF reasoning explicit, formed critique and alternative. ‘Processual archaeology and the post-proce: that human behaviourfaction ishighly patternes deposits will also retain some amount of this Pi Sno past economies and social organizations

    You might also like