Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15
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