The postprocessual condition

Previous evaluations of postprocessual archaeology have regarded it more as a critique of processual archaeology than as a viable research program. Today this statement needs to be modified to account for the diversity of frameworks that have grown up within and adjacent to the early postprocessual formulations. These new approaches include various admixtures of structural Marxism, poststructuralism, critical theory, and feminism. Significant philosophical differences separate some of these positions, but rather than being debilitating, the active exploration of these areas holds out new possibilities and prospects both for linking archaeology more securely to the other social sciences and for making unique contributions to the nature of social theory.     

Working through theoretical tensions in contemporary archaeology: A practical attempt from southwestern Colorado

Archaeology should actively combine different paradigms to obtain a more complete understanding of the past. This paper argues for a practical combination of elements of the culture-historical, processual, and postprocessual approaches into a two-tier model. The first tierreconstructs the events of the past, using culture-historical and middle-range principles, and the secondconstructs a reflexive explanation of these events, which situates an analysis of the internal and external constraints on past human behavior within the specific theoretical and political positions of the analyst. The theoretical arguments are developed by means of an analysis of the prehistory of a segment of the mountains of southwestern Colorado.     

Elements of an inclusive evolutionary model for archaeology

In the following pages it is argued that the transformational, progressive framework of Cultural Evolution often employed in archaeology is limited to the extent that it can but rarely function in an explanatory capacity. It is proposed that the goals of a processualist archaeology can be met more fully by the scientific, inclusive evolutionary paradigm discussed here. Components of this new paradigm, based on a selectionist perspective of change, are introduced. In sum, it is suggested that the construction of an evolutionary theory applicable in archaeology requires that artifacts at any scale be interpreted as part of the human phenotype, and that fitness be assessed through the concept of replicative success. In this fashion, selective mechanisms may be identified and processual explanations of change generated.     

Transcending the “Obnoxious Spectator”: a case for processual pluralism in ethnoarchaeology

Several commentators have argued that ethnoarchaeology will only become a productive part of archaeological research once both archaeology and ethnoarchaeology are unified by the axioms of a single theory of behavior. Through an examination of the different roles that ethnoarchaeological research has adopted, I demonstrate that ethnoarchaeology is already theoretically unified by a general concern with analogy. I argue that the problems that many commentators have recognized with ethnoarchaeology’s apparent eclecticism arise from an over-reliance on “core universals” by both processual and postprocessual researchers. Instead of implementing a single unified theory of behavior, I suggest that ethnoarchaeologists should adopt a pluralistic orientation that is sensitive to the contextual applicability of specific causal processes.     

WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT THE USEFUL DIVERSITY OF THEORY IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY

Theory is crucial but has become boring and unintelligible; it is often ignored by most professionals. Archaeology must include a foundation of culture history, processual science, and postprocessual imagination and counteraction of bias. Further, all archaeology should aim for public aspects and practical applications. Theoretical writing must be clear and avoid pretension. Gender bias in Southeastern archaeology is one of the worst distortions of the prehistoric record for what were probably matrilineal societies. Diverse humanistic approaches from many (including non-archaeological) viewpoints can provide worthwhile avenues for investigation with new scientific tools. Narrow interpretive frameworks should be avoided in favor of the delightful banquet of multiple simultaneous or blended approaches.     

European Regional Studies: A Coming of Age?

This article reviews current developments in European regional studies. A brief history of settlement archaeology as practiced in Europe is followed by a discussion of new approaches to regional analysis and surface survey. I argue that recent, steady investments in the technology, methods, and theory of regional archaeological analysis and surface survey have stimulated advances in the study of settlement patterns and settlement pattern change through time in many parts of Europe. When innovative technologies (e.g., remote sensing, GPS, GIS), methods (e.g., geoarchaeology, “siteless” survey), and new theoretical frameworks (both processual and postprocessual) have been combined, breakthroughs in our understanding of European settlement have resulted. In the last half of the article, I describe some of these breakthroughs in a broad discussion of European settlement history, beginning with the earliest prehistory of Europe through the Middle Ages. Shifts in perspective are particularly apparent for phases of transition: from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic, Paleolithic to Mesolithic to Neolithic, and with the rise and expansion of states.     

Paradigms in science and archaeology

The paradigm concept as developed in western philosophy of science contexts is reviewed, and the metaphysical paradigms that govern research protocols in mainstream Old and New World prehistoric archaeology are described and compared. It is concluded that post-1970 New World archaeological research receives its intellectual mandate from anthropology, is founded on postpositivist biases, and is governed by a critical-realist ontology, a modified-objectivist epistemology, and an experimental-manipulative methodology. Post-1970 Old World archaeological research is viewed as a kind of history, remains mostly in the strict empiricist tradition, and is governed by a realist ontology, an inductivist epistemology, and by an observational methodology. The claims of various kinds of postprocessual archaeology are also evaluated in terms of the paradigm concept.     

Evolutionary approaches in archaeology

Two evolutionary approaches in contemporary archaeology, selectionism and processualism, are compared in terms of their theoretical perspectives, methodologies, and empirical contributions. Selectionism is a tightly focused approach that aims to apply a strict Darwinian framework to the study of cultural evolution. The selectionists view cultural evolution as a shift in the relative frequencies of cultural traits; the evolutionary mechanism that brings this about entails undirected variation followed by selection in a manner analogous to biological evolution. Processualism is a more flexible approach that acknowledges the importance of variation and selection but employs these concepts in a broader framework that recognizes fundamental differences between cultural and biological evolution. Among them are the central roles played by directed variation and the hierarchical operation of selection in cultural evolution. As we enter the late 1990s, the selectionists appear comfortably ascendant while the processualists often seem in disarray—they appear less confident, more embattled, more internally diverse. This diversity and dynamism, however, may harbor great potential for further growth and development. It is suggested that processualism's ongoing ferment will spawn the evolutionary archaeology of the future.     

Walter Taylor and the history of American archaeology

Walter Taylor’s place in the history of archaeology is well secured. Not only is he noted for his uncredited anticipation of the theoretical and methodological innovations of the 1960s and 1970s in his infamous book A Study of Archeology, but he is also well-known for committing professional suicide by short-sightedly attacking numerous key figures in American archaeology for their methodological shortfalls, and yet never publishing a report utilizing his controversial method. Although these statements have inundated the historical literature on American archaeology, they are received wisdom rather than the reality of Taylor’s contributions to the field. Many aspects of Taylor’s conjunctive approach were at odds with the stated aims of processual archaeology. Although Taylor did not live up to his critics’ (or his own) demands for a grand display of his approach, he did on several occasions demonstrate its potential. The irony of Taylor in the history of archaeology is not that he was uncredited for his prescience or that his attacks on the archaeological establishment were a naïve failure; but rather that he receives too much credit for what he didn’t do, and not enough for what he did.     

Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions

In light of the growing social scientific interest in agency theory, this paper sets out to examine and critically evaluate recent approaches to agency within archaeology. To this end, the paper briefly outlines the foundational theories of Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens before turning to discuss the central themes and issues that emerge from some of the more influential contemporary approaches to agency within archaeology. Drawing from these differing approaches, this paper seeks to establish conceptual clarity in archaeological thinking about agency through a discussion of the importance of distinguishing between intentions, consequences, meanings, and motives when seeking to understand the situated subjectivities of historical actors.     

Status and Role of Formation Theory in Contemporary Archaeological Practice

Since Binford appropriated the term “middle-range theory,” it has signified the process of reasoning from the extant material record to the cultural past. Merton's sociological concept of middle-range theory is relevant to archaeology, but does not mean what Binford denoted by it. More accurately, Binford's domain should be called “formation theory.” By whatever name used, archaeologists differ greatly in our views of its role and status. Somehow, formation theory has come to be viewed as method but not theory, and as intrinsic to materialism, but irrelevant if not antithetical to other ontologies. Yet it is as critical to the contextual understanding of the past sought by many archaeologists today—a role that, among others, belies formation theory's marginal status in academic practice.     

The coming of age of the history of archaeology

Publications and organizational developments relating to the history of archaeology from 1989 until June 1993 are critically examined. Attention is paid to the changing motivations for producing such publications, their shifting intellectual orientation, controversies, especially as they relate to internal vs external approaches and the epistemological status of explanations, problems of verification, and the status of these studies as a subfield within archaeology.     

Late Postclassic lowland Maya archaeology

The archaeology of the Late Postclassic lowland Maya (ca. A.D. 1200–1517) is summarized and reviewed. The history of past research is outlined, and investigations on topics of major scholarly concern are discussed. The current data allow us to present an approximate reconstruction of the events and processes that characterize the period, although the information on many areas and topics is still fragmentary. Research in Maya archaeology has focused heavily on the more spectacular developments of earlier periods, creating the impression that the last few centuries of the prehispanic era were a time of disorganization and decline. New data and interpretations indicate that the Late Postclassic was a dynamic period in which the lowland Maya were moving in new directions, restructuring their society and worldview.     

Revolutionary archaeology in Cuba

The Revolution of 1959 brought forth changes in the mission, theoretical orientation, and organization of archaeology in Cuba and created a role for, and constraints on, the profession that are unique in the Western Hemisphere. This paper draws upon examples from substantive field and laboratory research to examine the methods and theoretical perspectives of Cuban archaeology since the Revolution, focusing on the period from 1962 until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Archaeological practice during the Revolutionary period in Cuba has reflected the aims of the Revolutionary government, the influence of Soviet archaeology, the legacy of pre-Revolutionary approaches in North American archaeology, and the Cuban sense ofpatria.     

Cultural biographies, cognitive landscapes and dirty old bits of boat:'theory' in maritime archaeology

Advances in the use of archaeological theory by maritime archaeologists are proposed after a brief review of recent literature on the subject. A disparity in theoretical discussion between maritime and'mainstream' archaeology is noted and reasons for this discussed, before two areas are explored where mutual advances might be made: an'engendered' maritime archaeology and'Marxist' perspectives. The paper concludes by considering the development of specific theoretical approaches unique to the maritime sphere.     

Time perspectives,palimpsests and the archaeology of time

This paper explores the meaning of time perspectivism, its relationship to other theories of time used in archaeological interpretation, and the ways in which it can be implemented through an analysis of the palimpsest nature of the material world we inhabit. Palimpsests are shown to be a universal phenomenon of the material world, and to form a series of overlapping categories, which vary according to their geographical scale, temporal resolution and completeness of preservation. Archaeological examples are used to show how different types of palimpsest can be analyzed to address different sorts of questions about the time dimension of human experience, and the relationship between different types of processes and different scales of phenomena. Objections to the apparently deterministic and asocial character of time perspectivism, and its apparent neglect of subjective experience and individual action and perception, are dealt with. The line of thinking developed here is used, in its turn, to critique other approaches to the archaeology of time, and conventional understandings of the relationship between past, present and future.     

The archaeology of post-medieval death and burial

SUMMARY: The richness of post-medieval mortuary archaeology is explored through a broad number of cases, also identifying trends in research agendas and theoretical approaches, through time. This article considers the archaeology of burial and mourning; the osteological study of demography and health; the reconstruction of the individual biographies of the dead and hitherto marginalized histories, with a focus on the archaeology of the United Kingdom, but with reference to work which has taken place elsewhere, including Europe and North America, reflecting the past emphasis of Post-Medieval Archaeology. The growth of forensic archaeology is discussed, as well as technological developments in the study of the dead. Work on the ontological and ethical status of the dead in archaeology is explored. In conclusion, some of the major challenges to the field, including those of cross-disciplinary work and public engagement, are highlighted.     

The contemporary in post-medieval archaeology

SUMMARY: Contemporary archaeology is an emerging field of enquiry within the wider discipline associated with the questioning of temporal boundaries in what we study and why we engage with material remains of the recent past more generally. This article argues that contemporary archaeology should be broadly defined at this stage in its development and therefore can be located in Post-Medieval Archaeology through research that explicitly engages with what it is to conduct contemporary archaeology, but also through those implicitly considering how the past intrudes into the present. We believe that Post-Medieval Archaeology will continue to highlight archaeological studies of the contemporary into the future.     

Experimental archaeology in Denmark

When experimental archaeology began 100–150 years ago, it was carried out scientifically alongside regular archaeology. However, while general archaeology has continued intensively, scientific experimental archaeology has continued very sporadically during this century. The fact that there is a considerable amount of so‐called ‘experimental archaeology’ does not mean that it has been carried out scientifically. This is exemplified by house reconstructions, which despite their great number have only in a few cases added something new to archaeological research. Although these particular house reconstructions serve a pedagogic function, it would be better if, instead, scientific education was made available in the area of experimental archaeology.     

Humans in the Environment: Plants,Animals and Landscapes in Mesolithic Britain and Ireland

Environmental archaeology has historically been central to Mesolithic studies in Britain and Ireland. Whilst processual archaeology was concerned with the economic significance of the environment, post-processual archaeology later rejected economically driven narratives, resulting in a turn away from plant and animal remains. Post-processual narratives focused instead on enigmatic ‘ritual’ items that economic accounts struggled to suitably explain. Processual accounts of landscapes, grounded in economic determinism, were also rejected in favour of explorations of their sociocultural aspects. However, in moving away from plant and animal remains, such accounts lacked the ability to rigorously explore the specificities of particular landscapes and humans actions within them. This paper will bridge this gap by considering how palaeoecological and zooarchaeological analyses can be used to explore human interactions with plants and animals, which were key in developing understandings and relationships that ultimately structured landscapes, influenced past human actions and shaped archaeological assemblages.