death archaeological theory 1

7/28/2019 Death Archaeological Theory 1

1/6


2/6

2 Te Death o Archaeological Teory

Teory. Some o those have given us their papers to refect on here in

this collection and their contributions refect a range o opinions and

positions; other papers were solicited to contribute to the debate. We were

astounded at the interest shown in our provocation, and eel that thisdoes refect a grassroots questioning o the direction that Archaeological

Teory is taking. Te conerence organisers also had not expected such a

turnout, so the small room allotted was soon lled even or standing-room

and foor-space. Nonetheless the debate was very lively and combative,

with ans and detractors o certain theoretical approaches and o theory

in general engaged in ree-ranging and uninhibited jousting. At the end,

however, came a proposal rom the foor, which took all the speakers bysurprise, yet soon seemed to nd a wide acceptance rom a large sector

o the audience. It had not occurred to us, but now seems obvious and

revolutionary in its implications. Te proposal was simply this: why

not proclaim a moratorium on the customary teaching o the history o

Archaeological Teory as a sequence o paradigm shits, one replacing and

making redundant its predecessor (viz. Culture History, New Archaeology

and then Post-processualism)? each rather a breadth o method and theory,in which students are encouraged to see the complementary strengths and

weaknesses o all three (and other) bodies o ideas and approaches, regardless

o their temporal sequence.

We shall here pick up on a ew themes and remarks in the papers

which ollow, and give our personal take on how they relate to the session

programme. John Bintli considers that Teory in Archaeology was rom

the rst corrupted by ideology, where individuals promoted a limited view

o the world to the exclusion o other perspectives. Bibliographic exclusion

continues to ensure that students are indoctrinated into conusing theory

with act, by having to memorize the sacred texts o particular authorities,

without being encouraged to read critiques o these authors and ideas. Te

closure o reerence systems is also reerred to by Kristiansen, backed by

journal analyses undertaken by his students. Te process is akin to Medieval

Scholasticism. Pluciennik, Gramsch and Kristiansen underline the little-

explored aspect o theory traditions being driven by cultural ashions, whilstPearce links the generational renewal o Teory to an Oedipal reaching or

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


3/6


4/6


more appropriate than others. Kristiansen and Pluciennik predict pressure

rom outside Archaeology to redirect our dominant theories towards genetic

and human impact theory. One is inevitably reminded o the humorous,

but insightul quip o Jacquetta Hawkes (1967, 174): Every age has theStonehenge it deserves or desires. Gramsch emphasizes that a solution

to the Teory crisis should be Refexivity asking or a deconstruction o

approaches, in order to ree Archaeological thinking rom unquestioning

commitment to dogmas arising rom limited social or cultural perspectives

in the present-day. We think that the discipline can go urther, and this

brings us to a point made by several authors the virtues o eclecticism.

Tere is a general and growing consensus, clearly here adumbratedby Pearce, that the reality o Archaeological Teory is that the majority

o practitioners combine methods and theories taken rom all current

and previous traditions in the discipline. Tis in itsel might encourage

a positive judgment, that behind the Kuhnian model o paradigm

replacement, as Culture Historians are consigned to the dustbin o the

History o Archaeology, ollowed by a stratum o Processualists, etc. etc., a

more accurate description o Archaeologys maturing as a discipline is ocontinual growth through the adding-on o new insights and worktools.

Te earlier-mentioned proposal to jettison the Paradigm model or teaching

Archaeological Teory is in tune with this rethinking. Tere is, as Pluciennik

and Pearce point out, a tendency to belittle an Eclectic Archaeological

Teory as directionless and uncritical, but this is oten rom a position

where ideology restricts ones thinking to just one, limited reading o

the Past and Present. Bintli argues that the problem with Teory 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 preerence or eclectic arrays o methods and concepts which

can be applied without a prioriselection to archaeological case-studies, inorder to bring us closer to more deensible and robust interpretations.

But is Eclectic Archaeological Teory a viable alternative to ollowing

like robots, the cultural cycles o Kristiansen? It seems to us that the answer

is a resounding Yes!. Te growing interest in intellectually-integrativeapproaches to human society is one symptom, and here we think o Annales

history, o biosocial approaches such as that o im Ingold, o Science-

Humanities hybrids such as Complexity Teory or Human Cognition

Studies, and the special interest o one o us in Wittgensteins toolbox


5/6

Introduction 5

approach to research. In a more practical sense, one needs only look at

the ascinating way GIS studies in Archaeology have eortlessly spanned

outsider and insider perspectives on landscapes, whilst the same can be

seen in the merging o emic and etic in recent developments in the ormalanalysis o the built environment using new versions o the Space Syntax

approach. Flannery and Joyce oer examples o elaborate mixes o method

and theory in their two case-studies, in which one cannot neatly pigeonhole

such work into traditional Kuhnian paradigms o Archaeological Tought.

Nonetheless, eclecticism need not imply reductionism. Instead we would

argue that combining hitherto oppositional approaches works better as

complementary analyses on the same data set (Fig. 1.1).A concluding remark is in order. Literary theorists have pointed out

that Barthes call or Te Death o the Author did not actually demand

a complete neglect o authorial existence and intentions. Instead Barthes

asked readers to contemplate the counter-intuitive alternative creating

through interaction with a text a more personalised precipitate in which the

reader participates as a second author. Likewise, we do not actually demand

Fig. 1.1. Te uture o Archaeological Teory. Source: Bintli 1993, fg 2.


6/6


the intellectual execution o leading theorists and the neglect o Teory

manuals in Archaeology. In the spirit o Barthes, we do however ask that

readers ree themselves rom the imposed tyranny o a single theoretical

paradigm. Refexivity and eclecticism should be our watchwords or a uturemore democratic Archaeological Teory, and a healthy scepticism to being

told what to read and not to read.

References

Barthes, R., 1967. Te Death o the Author.Aspen 56. [Reprinted in R. Barthes,

Image, Music, ext, 142148. Essays selected and translated by Stephen Heath,1977. London: Fontana Press].Bintli, J. L., 1993. Why Indiana Jones is smarter than the Post-Processualists.

Norwegian Archaeological Review26, 91100.Hawkes, J., 1967. God in the machine. Antiquity41 (163), 174180.Sherratt, A., 1996. Settlement patterns or landscape studies? Reconciling

Reason and Romance.Archaeological Dialogues3, 140159.

death archaeological theory 1

Documents