In its infancy, archaeology opposed itself to myth and folklore and to antiquarianism. In the eighteenth century it developed a clear identity for itself by opposing science to non-science. 'The arrangement and proper use of facts is history; - not a mere narrative taken up at random and embellished with a poetic diction'
Original Description:
Original Title
Hodder 1999 the Archaeological Process. an Introduction
In its infancy, archaeology opposed itself to myth and folklore and to antiquarianism. In the eighteenth century it developed a clear identity for itself by opposing science to non-science. 'The arrangement and proper use of facts is history; - not a mere narrative taken up at random and embellished with a poetic diction'
In its infancy, archaeology opposed itself to myth and folklore and to antiquarianism. In the eighteenth century it developed a clear identity for itself by opposing science to non-science. 'The arrangement and proper use of facts is history; - not a mere narrative taken up at random and embellished with a poetic diction'
xiv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
Age world system look like? Journal of European Archaclag, 1993, 1.2,
1-58; and L, Hodder, The Domestication of Europe, 1990, by permission of
Blackwell Publishers:
fig. 9.1 from M. Adams and C. Brooke, Managing the past: truth, lata
and the human being, Nomegian Archaclaical Revi 1995, 28,955 1045
table 6.1 from W. Matthews, C. French, : Lawrence and D. Cutler,
Multiple surfaces: the Micromorphology. In I. Hodder (ed), On the
Suface, 1996, pp. 301-42, by permission of due McDonald Archaeolo-
gical Institute and the Brish Insitute of Archaeology at Ankara.
TThe publisher apologizes for any errors or omissions in the above list
and sould be grateful to be notified of any corrections that should be
incorporated in the next elton or reprint ofthis book.
| Crises in Global Archaeology
‘One Archaeology or Many?
Perhaps it never was saighiforward, But in retrospect it ems to have
been, ‘Traditionally, dhe object of archacology was to obtain better
scivatife knowledge of human activities in the past, on the basis of
mi im was (o got clone to the erat. In is infancy,
archacology opposed itselto myth and folklore and to aatiquarianism,
In the cightcenth century it developed a clear identity for itself by
‘opposing eience co non-science. The beginning of the frst volume of
Archaeogia, published by he Society of Antiquities of London in 1770,
‘opposed ahistorical science dealing with truth and evidence to an
unscientific archaeology trading falschoods, tradition and the vanity
1 propagators. “The arrangement and proper use of
facts is history; ~ not a mere narrative taken up at random and
embellished with a poetic diction, but a regular and elaborate inguiry
into every ancient record and proof” (Arcacslegia 1 (1770), 2). The
primary underlying dheme here was empiricism — the separation of
Facts ane! theories. In order to be scientific it was assumed that beliefs
nd ideas needed to he separated from data, One had to stay a close as
possible to the facts themselves, and distinguish well-grounded state-
ments from flights of imagination, As Piut-Rivers (1894) enjoined, to be
4 scientist the archacologist had to record meticulously and publish
Thets from which conclusions eoulel den be drat,2. CRISES IN GLOBAL ARCHAEOLOGY
There was also a socal identity o archacology, within the upper ana
the upper middle classes. The association between archacology and
these socal milieu in the 1
bbeen demonstrated for Scandinavia by Kristiansen (1981), for Britain
bby Hudson (1981), and for North America hy Patterson (1995)
Belief in the possibilies of science, when allied with a limited
western social focus, often led to a unified sme global ponspeetive, As
Wheeler claimed in Arclaelogy fiom the Kanth (1956, 36), “there is 10
method proper 10 the excavation of a British site which is not
applicable ~ nay, must be applied ~ to a site in ica or Asia’. But
the colonial context did nor always lead ta such views. Seton
Lloyd (1963, 30) suggested that British and Near Eastern sites were so
diferent that different methods of excavation should be used, In the
United States, Hole and Heizer (1973, 187) argued that “there are no
rules for digging a particular site” Variation in method was linked
the type of site being excavated and to the archaeologist. Use of a
bulldozer differs substantially from the use of a fine dental pick, But
such variation was encompassed within an empiricist position ~ appro-
be useel at specifi sites, but the overall method
ig of layers, arifets and their superimposition was
sith and early-tventieth centuries has
priate methods were
of objective ecard
scen as genera
The height of this confidence in universal methods was perhaps
hed by David Clarke when he declare in 1968 that ‘archacology
is archacology is archaeology’. The New Archaeology generally exiled
confidence. Binford (1962) angued that all aspects of past sociocultural
systems are available to us. This optimism remained based on a belief
in science and objective methods, I was also haved, in USA at lea
a supreme consiction that the object of archacology was to be anthro=
ppological. But the positivist separation of facts from theories ander-
pinned the scientific claims for a general methodology. ‘There was on
lone way to do science (Schiffer 1976). Other fretors played a role in the
dlevelopm
of Cultural Resource Management led to the
‘control and monitoring om a far greater scale of
he result, allied with the widespread use of computers, was a strong
emphasis on codification and rigorous ins
and Brooke 1995), Standardized! and re
espoused bath because of the commitment to positivism and because
‘of the need t0 cope with and publically account for an expaning but
‘of this new confident science. For example, the expansion
ced for systen
saeological enquiry.
agement systems (Adkins
satable procedures were
limited archaeological reseurce
(CRISES IN GLOBAL ARCHAEOLOGY 3
In is widely recognized that early processual archaeology embraced
the notion of universals and global theory. But it is important to
recognize that in parallel with this stance towards theory, method too
was seen as universal. Gradually (eg, Binford 1977; Sehiffor 1976) a
xencral Middle Range ‘Theory was expoused dealing with the forma-
tion of the archaeological record, Processual archacology coupled with
the ri of contract archacology also badl an impact on Field methods
‘The following changes can he discerned; the development of field
well-defined research objectives; the development of a
regional (ccological| approach to sites in their setilement systeras and
environments, new weehniques of intensive survey, sampling and
screening (sieving). In an introductory textbook, Renfrew and Bahn
(19996) have recently argued that the widespread application of these
points “has begun to ereate for the first time a true world discipl
archaeology that reaches geographically right round the globe, and an
archaeology that reaches back in time to the beginnings of hy
ind right up to the modern peviod? (pp. 39-40).
Many people since the 1970s have written about the philosophy of
archacology, These authors often commented on the discipline from a
postion a least partially external to it(Salmon 1982; Bell 1994; Watson
1991), While chey held different positions they all talked about the
reasoning process in archacology, the philosophy of archacology. Per=
haps because they came in from the outs, they saw archaeology as
aan entity, an objeet for their study whieh had coherence. This is also
‘of those like Courbin (1988) and Gardin (1980) who tried 10,
analyse archaeological procedures from the inside. Clarke (1968) devel-
‘oped! a systems view of the archacological process (figure 1.1). In all
ceases there isan overall description for
uchacology as a whole.
Processual, postprocessual and post-postprocessual
archaeologies
By processua archaeology I mean a belief in objective science in the
{form expounded in the 1960s to the 1980s, especialy inthe United
‘States by Binford (1962; 1989). This view held chat there was one
Fight way to do archaeological science, iavolving the testing of
propositions against data. Universalizing anthropological and. (at
least incall) evolutionary assumptions were made,emus GTEntone ALS
AER SSTATON He Souemon GAWLST |
Figure 1.1. David Clarke's (1968) general model for archaeological procedure,
described a Yor the organisation and reluon of archacologial activites witha &
Fsciplined procedure’ (bd. 3)
CRISES IN GLOBAL ARCHAEOLOGY
By posprocessual archaeology | mean a group of views based on a