Archaeological Theory Today: Edited by lan Hodder40.200, 04 Archaeological Theory Today Edited by lan Hodder PolityCopyright © this collection Polity Press 2001. Chapter 5 © Colin Renfrew. First published in 2001 by Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers Ltd Editorial office: Polity Press 65 Bridge Street Cambridge CB2 1UR, UK Marketing and production: Blackwell Publishers Ltd 108 Cowley Road Oxford OX4 1JF, UK Published in the USA by Blackwell Publishers Inc. Commerce Place 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. ISBN 0-7456-2268-2 ISBN 0-7456-2269-0 (pbk) A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library and has been applied for from the Library of Congress. ‘Typeset in 10 on 12 pt Sabon by Best-set Typesetter Ltd., Hong Kong Printed in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents List of Figures and Tables List of Contributors 1 Introduction: A Review of Contemporary Theoretical Debates in Archaeology lan Hodder Behavioral Archaeology: Toward a New Synthesis Vincent M. LaMotta and Michael B. Schiffer 3 Evolutionary Archaeology Robert D. Leonard 4 Archaeological Theory and Theories of Cognitive Evolution Steven Mithen 5 Symbol before Concept: Material Engagement and the Early Development of Society Colin Renfrew 6 Agency, the Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological Record John C. Barrett 7 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape Julian Thomas 8 Archaeologies of Identity Lynn Meskell vil 14 65 98 122 165 187vi Contents 9 American Material Culture in Mind, Thought, and Deed Anne Yentsch and Mary C. Beaudry 10 Postcolonial Archaeology: Issues of Culture, Identity, and Knowledge Chris Gosden 11 Archaeological Representation: The Visual Conventions for Constructing Knowledge about the Past Stephanie Moser 12 Culture/Archaeology: The Dispersion of a Discipline and its Objects Michael Shanks Index 214 241 262 284 306 Figures and Tables 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 25 3. 3.2 3.3 ass aa 111 11.2 11.3 114 11.5 11.6 11.7 FIGURES The four strategies of behavioral archaeology A generalized artifact life history Examples of critical variables and associated values Element, energy, and information flows (“linkages”) between activities Model of a behavioral system comprised of linked activities Paquimé (formerly known as Casas Grandes) Casas Grandes ceramics from the Maxwell Museum, University of New Mexico Di Peso (1974) hypothesized type relationships Hypothesized historical lineage Relationship of design elements to clustering Megalithic tomb at Loughcrew, County Meath The discovery of fire (from Vitruvius 1548) A Young Daughter of the Picts (ca. 1585), painting by Jacques Le Moyne de Morgues Ancient Germans (from Cluverius 1616) Figures of ancient Britons (from Strutt 1779) “Man the conqueror of the cave bear” (from du Cleuziou 1887) Un rapt (1888), painting by Paul Jamin Cro-Magnon Artists (1924), mural by Charles Knight 16 21 25 27 28 81 82 84 89 91 178 270 272 274 275 277 278 279viii 21 3. List of Figures and Tables TABLES A behavioral chain segment for maize in Hopi subsistence activities (ca. aD 1900) Shared attributes summary table 22 92 Contributors John C. Barrett is Reader in Archaeology at the University of Sheffield. Mary C. Beaudry is Associate Professor of Archaeology and Anthropol- ogy at Boston University. Chris Gosden is Lecturer and Curator in World Archaeology at Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford. lan Hodder is Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University. Vincent M. LaMotta is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Arizona. Robert D. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico. Lynn Meskell is Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at Columbia University. Steven Mithen is Professor of Early Prehistory at the University of Reading, Stephanie Moser is Lecturer in Archaeological Representation at the University of Southampton, Colin Renfrew is Disney Professor of Archaeology and Director of the McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. Michael B. Schiffer is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Arizona. Michael Shanks is Professor of Classics and of Cultural Anthropology Stanford University. Julian Thomas is Professor of Archaeology at the University of Manchester. Anne Yentsch is As: Professor of Historical Archaeology at Armstrong Atlantic State University, Savannah, Georgia.Introduction: A Review of Contemporary Theoretical Debates in Archaeology Ian Hodder There has recently been a marked increase in the numbers of volumes dealing with archaeological theory, whether these be introductory texts (e.g. Johnson 1999), readers (Preucel and Hodder 1996; Whitley 1998), edited global surveys (Ucko 1995; Hodder 1991) or innovative volumes pushing in new directions (e.g. Shanks and Tilley 1987; Schiffer 1995; Skibo, Walker, and Nielsen 1995; Tilley 1994; Thomas 1996, etc.). It has become possible to exist in archaeology largely as a theory specialist, and many advertised lecturing jobs now refer to theory teaching and research. Annual conferences are devoted entirely to theory as in the British TAG (Theoretical Archaeology Group). This rise to prominence of self- conscious archaeological theory can probably be traced back to the New Archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s. ‘The reasons for the rise are numerous, and we can probably distin- guish reasons internal and external to the discipline, although in prac- tice the two sets of reasons are interconnected. As for the internal reasons, the development of archaeological theory is certainly very much linked to the emphasis in the New Archaeology on a critical approach to method and theory. This self-conscious awareness of the need for theo- retical discussion is perhaps most clearly seen in David Clarke’s (1973) description of a loss of archaeological innocence, and in Binford’s (1977) call “for theory building.” Postprocessual archaeology took this reflex- ivity and theorizing still further. Much of the critique of processual archaeology was about theory rather than method, and the main empha- sis was on opening archaeology to a broader range of theoretical posi- tions, particularly those in the historical and social sciences. In fact,2 Ian Hodder anthropology in the United States had already taken its historical and linguistic “turns,” but it was only a narrow view of anthropology as evo- lution and cultural ecology that the New Archaeologists had embraced. When the same “turns” were taken in archaeology to produce post- processual archaeology, the theorizing became very abstract and spe- cialized, although such abstraction is also found in other developments such as the application of catastrophe theory (Renfrew and Cooke 1979). In fact all the competing theories have developed their own specialized jargons and have a tendency to be difficult to penetrate. One of the internal moves was towards a search for external ideas, and external legitimation for theoretical moves within archaeology. There has been a catching up with other disciplines and an integration of debate. Similar moves towards an opening and integration of debate are seen across the humanities and social sciences. Meskell argues (chapter 8) that contemporary, third wave, feminist writers seek to open debate to a theoretical pluralism. There has also been a looking into archaeology from the outside, especially in philosophy but also in other fields. Shanks (chapter 12) shows how the metaphor of archaeology has wide resonance in cultural studies today. Indeed, he disperses archaeol- ogy into broad cultural and interdisciplinary fields. There are numerous examples of close external relations between archaeology and other dis- ciplines in this book. Leonard (chapter 3) describes the productive results of interactions between biology and archaeology. An important emerg- ing area of interaction is with various branches of psychology. Mithen (chapter 4) discusses the links to evolutionary psychology, and both he and Renfrew (chapter 5) describe debates with cognitive science and cog- nitive psychology. Barrett (chapter 6) shows how the agency debate in archaeology owes much to sociology, and indeed he argues that archae- ology needs to be further informed by sociology. Thomas (chapter 7) shows how archaeological work on landscapes has been greatly influ- enced by geography, especially by the recent cultural geographers, and by art history. But it should be pointed out that these interactions with other disciplines are not seen as borrowing from a position of inferior- ity. Both Mithen and Meskell in their chapters (4 and 8) argue specifi- cally that the particular nature of archaeological data, especially their materiality and long-termness, has something to offer other disciplines in return. Gosden (chapter 10) and Shanks (chapter 12) point out the need for archaeologists to engage with postcolonial theory. The critique from other voices and from multiple non-western interests has often forced theoretical debate. For example, Norwegian archaeology saw a long the- oretical debate about the abilities of archaeologists to identify past ethnic a7 = ooé_R_o_ Introduction 3 groups as a result of Sami-Norwegian conflicts over origins. Reburial issues have forced some to rethink the use of oral traditions in North American archaeology (Anyon et al. 1996). Indigenous groups in their claims for rights question the value of “objective science” (Langford 1983). A similar point can be made about the impact of feminism. This has questioned how we do research (Gero 1996) and has sought alternative ways of writing about the past (Spector 1994), opening up debate about fundamentals. The same can also be said of debates about representation in cultural heritage and museums (see Moser in chapter 11; Merriman 1991), These debates force a critique of interpretation. They challenge us to evaluate in whose interests interpretation lies, and to be sensitive to the relationship between audience and message. The community of discourses model It can be argued that archaeology has a new maturity in that, as claimed above, it has caught up with disciplines in related fields in terms of the theories and issues being discussed. Many now, as we will see in this book, wish to contribute back from archaeology to other disciplines (e.g. LaMotta and Schiffer, chapter 2) ~ this emphasis on contributing rather than borrowing suggests a maturity and confidence which I will examine again below. This maturity also seems to involve accepting diversity and difference of perspective within the discipline. There are always those who will claim that archaeology should speak with a unified voice, or who feel that disagreement within the ranks undermines the abilities of archaeologists to contribute to other disci- plines or be taken seriously. A tendency towards identifying some over- arching unity in the discipline can be seen in some of the chapters in this volume. Renfrew (1994) has talked of reaching an accommodation between processual and postprocessual archaeology in cognitive proces- sual archaeology. LaMotta and Schiffer (chapter 2) argue that other theoretical approaches can be formulated in and be contributed to by behavioral approaches. Mithen (chapter 4) notes that a number of dif- ferent paradigmatic positions have recently converged onto the problem of mind. Even the claim of postprocessual archaeology, or by Meskell (chapter 8), for theoretical pluralism can be seen as a strategic attempt to embrace and incorporate within one position (in this case the posi- tion of pluralism). There is often an implicit assumption in discussions about the need for unity in the discipline that real maturity, as glimpsed in the natural