The Death of Archaeological Theory?
4/5
()
About this ebook
Related to The Death of Archaeological Theory?
Titles in the series (5)
The Death of Archaeological Theory? Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5First Light: The Origins of Newgrange Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5A Geography of Offerings: Deposits of Valuables in the Landscapes of Ancient Europe Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMyth and Materiality Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTemporary Palaces: The Great House in European Prehistory Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Related ebooks
An Archaeology of Prehistoric Bodies and Embodied Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsArchaeology Meets Science: Biomolecular Investigations in Bronze Age Greece Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIncomplete Archaeologies: Assembling Knowledge in the Past and Present Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFrom the Foundations to the Legacy of Minoan Archaeology: Studies in Honour of Professor Keith Branigan Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsRomans and Barbarians Beyond the Frontiers: Archaeology, Ideology and Identities in the North Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsExperimentation and Interpretation: the Use of Experimental Archaeology in the Study of the Past Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWild Things 2.0: Further Advances in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Research Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Quality of the Archaeological Record Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFrom Antiquarian to Archaeologist: The History and Philosophy of Archaeology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOne Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French, and American Anthropology Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A History of Oxford Anthropology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAn archaeology of innovation: Approaching social and technological change in human society Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDeath as a Process: The Archaeology of the Roman Funeral Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsArchaeology and Anthropology: Understanding Similarity, Exploring Difference Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Mirror of the Medieval: An Anthropology of the Western Historical Imagination Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsExploring Prehistoric Identity in Europe: Our Construct or Theirs? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEnclosing Space, Opening New Ground: Iron Age Studies from Scotland to Mainland Europe Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOf Odysseys and Oddities: Scales and Modes of Interaction Between Prehistoric Aegean Societies and their Neighbours Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOf Rocks and Water: An Archaeology of Place Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNeolithic Stone Extraction in Britain and Europe: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsScientific Dating in Archaeology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFar from Equilibrium: An archaeology of energy, life and humanity: A response to the archaeology of John C. Barrett Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsRe-Presenting the Past: Archaeology through Text and Image Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCult in Context: Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Diversity of Hunter Gatherer Pasts Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsReligion, History, and Place in the Origin of Settled Life Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsArchaeomalacology: Molluscs in former environments of human behaviour Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTheories of Population Variation in Genes and Genomes Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSocial Change in Aegean Prehistory Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBell Beaker Settlement of Europe: The Bell Beaker Phenomenon from a Domestic Perspective Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5
Archaeology For You
Sex and Erotism in Ancient Egypt Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Fifty Things You Need to Know About World History Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5America Before: The Key to Earth's Lost Civilization Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The Mound Builders Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/51177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed: Revised and Updated Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Memory Code Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Lehi and Sariah in Arabia: The Old World Setting of the Book of Mormon Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Epic of Gilgamesh Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Talking Taino: Caribbean Natural History from a Native Perspective Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Mystery of the Olmecs Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Incas Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Ancient Southwest: Chaco Canyon, Bandelier, and Mesa Verde. Revised edition. Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Disinformation Guide to Ancient Aliens, Lost Civilizations, Astonishing Archaeology & Hidden History Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Secret History of America: Classic Writings on Our Nation's Unknown Past and Inner Purpose Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Anunnaki Chronicles: A Zecharia Sitchin Reader Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Amulets, Effigies, Fetishes, and Charms: Native American Artifacts and Spirit Stones from the Northeast Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOmm Sety's Egypt: A Story of Ancient Mysteries, Secret Lives, and the Lost History of the Pharaohs Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Discovery of Tutankhamun's Tomb (Illustrated Edition) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHow to Survive in Ancient Egypt Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Amazons: Lives and Legends of Warrior Women across the Ancient World Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How to Survive in Ancient Greece Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Hidden History: Lost Civilizations, Secret Knowledge, and Ancient Mysteries Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Underwater Ghost Towns of North Georgia Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsKindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5There Were Giants Upon the Earth: Gods, Demigods, and Human Ancestry: The Evidence of Alien DNA Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Burying the Dead: An Archaeological History of Burial Grounds, Graveyards & Cemeteries Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAtlantis Pyramids Floods: Why Europeans are White Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Indian New England Before the Mayflower Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Brutish Museums: The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5
Related categories
Reviews for The Death of Archaeological Theory?
1 rating0 reviews
Book preview
The Death of Archaeological Theory? - John Bintliff
1
Introduction
John Bintliff and Mark Pearce
In 2006, driven by an increasing dissatisfaction at the state of Archaeological Theory, despite the significance given to it in University Archaeology departments in several Western European countries, we joined forces to organize a provocative session at the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Krakow. Just as Roland Barthes had some forty years previously (1967 [1977]), challenged an unthinking orthodoxy by proposing ‘The Death of the Author’, questioning whether the existence of an author and their intentions get in our way in a critical encounter with a literary text, so we decided to suggest that a session on ‘The Death of Archaeological Theory?’ could stimulate radical questioning about its future development. We asked whether the study of past societies through their material culture – i.e. Archaeology – would benefit considerably by discounting the burden of somewhat dogmatic theory and ideology which has inexorably begun to obscure our pathways to reconstruct the Past over the last 25 years. Would archaeologists then also be much better off if unitary theoretical paradigms were ignored in favour of a freer application of methodologies appropriate to our real aims, which many maintain are to create as truthful a reconstruction of what happened, and why, and how life was, as we can achieve with current techniques? So we asked whether ‘The Death of the Archaeological Theorist’ might be a liberating thought experiment.
In the event, the speakers who volunteered or were volunteered to speak on the platform or from the floor, represented a wide spectrum of backgrounds and positions within the community concerned with ‘Theory’. Some of those have given us their papers to reflect on here in this collection and their contributions reflect a range of opinions and positions; other papers were solicited to contribute to the debate. We were astounded at the interest shown in our ‘provocation’, and feel that this does reflect a grassroots questioning of the direction that Archaeological Theory is taking. The conference organisers also had not expected such a turnout, so the small room allotted was soon filled even for standing-room and floor-space. Nonetheless the debate was very lively and combative, with fans and detractors of certain theoretical approaches and of theory in general engaged in free-ranging and uninhibited jousting. At the end, however, came a proposal from the floor, which took all the speakers by surprise, yet soon seemed to find a wide acceptance from a large sector of the audience. It had not occurred to us, but now seems obvious and revolutionary in its implications. The proposal was simply this: why not proclaim a moratorium on the customary teaching of the history of Archaeological Theory as a sequence of paradigm shifts, one replacing and making redundant its predecessor (viz. Culture History, New Archaeology and then Post-processualism)? Teach rather a breadth of method and theory, in which students are encouraged to see the complementary strengths and weaknesses of all three (and other) bodies of ideas and approaches, regardless of their temporal sequence.
We shall here pick up on a few themes and remarks in the papers which follow, and give our personal take on how they relate to the session programme. John Bintliff considers that Theory in Archaeology was from the first corrupted by ideology, where individuals promoted a limited view of the world to the exclusion of other perspectives. ‘Bibliographic exclusion’ continues to ensure that students are indoctrinated into confusing theory with fact, by having to memorize the ‘sacred texts’ of particular authorities, without being encouraged to read critiques of these authors and ideas. The closure of reference systems is also referred to by Kristiansen, backed by journal analyses undertaken by his students. The process is akin to Medieval Scholasticism. Pluciennik, Gramsch and Kristiansen underline the little-explored aspect of theory traditions being driven by cultural fashions, whilst Pearce links the generational renewal of Theory to an Oedipal reaching for power by ambitious opinion-leaders in the discipline.
In reality, there does not seem to be a clearly dominant theoretical paradigm in Archaeology. Gramsch shows very well that in Central and Eastern Europe, including Germany, not only has Anglo-American Theory had limited impact, but current discussions on the future of method and theory in these lands offer a broader view of the discipline in which older traditions are seen to form the foundation. It turns out that ‘theory’ was never absent or even undeveloped in many countries of this region, rather that many leading scholars preferred to operationalise models in project-contexts with a firm field and empirical grounding. It is noteworthy that this tradition of ‘applied theory’ significantly predates the birth of Archaeological Theory in the West, and although since the 1960s it has added elements from that direction, in essence it has been independent from Anglo-American discourse. Pearce adds that even in the heartland of Post-processualism, in the UK, archaeological departments continue to house scholars with varying approaches which cannot be categorised as ‘old’ culture historians or processualists, or ‘young’ post-processualists. In the States, the situation is different again, as Flannery and Marcus remind us. Post-processualism remains a marginal phenomenon, whilst a mix of culture history and processual approaches seems the norm, and Ecological-Darwinian insights are a major theme in much research as they have been since before the rise of New Archaeology.
Flannery and Marcus raise another key element in the debate: they provocatively query whether Archaeological Theory can be dead when it has never existed in the first place. It is surely true, that all traditions of thought in Archaeology appear to emanate from other disciplines. Perhaps only Petrie's Seriation is an independent innovation which has travelled out from Archaeology to another discipline. In the States, undoubtedly Cultural Anthropology has always been the primary source of ideas for Archaeology, an over-reliance which has now begun to lose its dialectic value with the ‘loss of confidence’ Anthropology has been suffering, from having too enthusiastically embraced cultural relativism. In Western Europe the early theoretical alignment by the Archaeological Theory community to a strong Scientism, followed by a U-turn to Post-modernism, was never accompanied by critical reading into these wider intellectual traditions.
Kristiansen has correlated the major shifts in Archaeological thinking to waves of cultural packages dominating Western Thought since the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. A similar approach has been taken by Sherratt (1996) and Bintliff (1993). We are indeed embedded in our Age with its own preoccupations, for which certain intellectual positions seem more appropriate than others. Kristiansen and Pluciennik predict pressure from outside Archaeology to redirect our dominant theories towards genetic and human impact theory. One is inevitably reminded of the humorous, but insightful quip of Jacquetta Hawkes (1967, 174): ‘Every age has the Stonehenge it deserves – or desires’. Gramsch emphasizes that a solution to the ‘Theory’ crisis should be Reflexivity – asking for a deconstruction of approaches, in order to free Archaeological thinking from unquestioning commitment to dogmas arising from limited social or cultural perspectives in the present-day. We think that the discipline can go further, and this brings us to a point made by several authors – the virtues of ‘eclecticism’.
There is a general and growing consensus, clearly here adumbrated by Pearce, that the reality of Archaeological Theory is that the majority of practitioners combine methods and theories taken from all current and previous traditions in the discipline. This in itself might encourage a positive judgment, that behind the Kuhnian model of paradigm replacement, as Culture Historians are consigned to the dustbin of the History of Archaeology, followed by a stratum of Processualists, etc. etc., a more accurate description of Archaeology's maturing as a discipline is of continual growth through the adding-on of new insights and worktools. The earlier-mentioned proposal to jettison the Paradigm model for teaching Archaeological Theory is in tune with this rethinking. There is, as Pluciennik and Pearce point out, a tendency to belittle an Eclectic Archaeological Theory as directionless and uncritical, but this is often from a position where ideology restricts one's thinking to just one, limited reading of the Past and Present. Bintliff argues that the problem with Theory in Archaeology has been its increasing assimilation into Ideology, to which the only recourse is to return to the neutral term ‘model’, and this brings us likewise to a preference for eclectic arrays of methods and concepts which can be applied without a priori selection to archaeological case-studies, in order to bring us closer to more defensible and robust interpretations.
But is Eclectic Archaeological Theory a viable alternative to following like robots, the cultural cycles of Kristiansen? It seems to us that the answer is a resounding ‘Yes!’. The growing interest in intellectually-integrative approaches to human society is one symptom, and here we think of Annales history, of biosocial approaches such as that of Tim Ingold, of Science-Humanities hybrids such as