Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role | American Antiquity | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

This paper seeks further to define the processes of the interpretation of meaning in archaeology and to explore the public role such interpretation might play. In contrast to postmodern and poststructuralist perspectives, a hermeneutic debate is described that takes account of a critical perspective. An interpretive postprocessual archaeology needs to incorporate three components: a guarded objectivity of the data, hermeneutic procedures for inferring internal meanings, and reflexivity. The call for an interpretive position is related closely to new, more active roles that the archaeological past is filling in a multicultural world.

Résumé

Este artículo intenta definir los procesos de la interpretación de significación en arqueología y explorar el papel público que esta interpretación podría tener. En contraste con la perspectiva postmodernista y postestructuralista, el debate hermenéutico incluye una perspectiva crítica. Una arqueología interpretativa postprocessual necesita incorporar tres componentes: una estricta objectividad de los datos, procedimientos hermenéuticos para inferir significados internos, y reftexividad. El interés en una posición interpretativa está relacionado a papeles nuevos y más activos que el pasado arqueológico cumple en un mundo multicultural.

References

Bapty, I., and Yates, T. 1990 Archaeology after Structuralism. Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Binford, L. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, London.Google Scholar

Betti, E. 1984 The Epistemological Problem of Understanding as an Aspect of the General Problem of Knowing. In Hermeneutics : Questions and Prospects, edited by Shapiro, G. and Sica, A., pp. 25–53. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. 1986 Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard, University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Clifford, J., and Marcus, G. 1986 Writing Culture. University of California Press.Google Scholar

Collingwood, R. 1946 The Idea of History. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Conkey, M., and Spector, J. 1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances in Archaeological Theory and Method, vol. 7, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 1–38. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Earle, T., and Preucel, R. 1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology 28 : 501–538.Google Scholar

Gadamer, H. G. 1975 Truth and Method. Seabury, New York.Google Scholar

Gathercole, P., and Lowenthal., D. 1989 The Politics of the Past. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. 1971 Knowledge and Human Interests. Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. 1990 The Hermeneutic Claim to Universality. In The Hermeneutic Tradition, edited by Ormiston, G. L. and Schrift, A. D., pp. 245–272. State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar

Heiddeger, M. 1958 The Question of Being. University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1989a This is Not an Article About Material Culture as Text. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8 : 250–269.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1989b The Meanings of Things. Unwin Hyman, London Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1990 The Domestication of Europe. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1991a The Postprocessual Debate. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies, edited by Preucel, R.. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, in press.Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1991b Gender Representation and Social Reality. In Proceedings of the 1989 Chacmool Conference, edited by University of Calgary Press, in press.Google Scholar

Kintigh, K. W. 1990 A Perspective on Reburial and Repatriation. SAA Bulletin 8(2) : 6–7. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar

Layton, R. 1989a Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar

Layton, R. 1989b Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar

Leone, M. 1982 Some Opinions About Recovering Mind. American Antiquity 47 : 742–760.Google Scholar

Leone, M., Potter, P. Jr., and Shackel, P. 1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 28 : 283–302.Google Scholar

Lovis, W. A. 1990 How Far Will It Go? : A Look at S. 1980 and other Repatriation Legislation. SAA Bulletin 8(2) : 8–10. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar

Mascia-Lees, F., Sharpe, P., and Cohen, C. B. 1989 The Postmodernist Turn in Anthropology. Signs 15 : 7–33.Google Scholar

Merriman, N. 1989 Museum Visiting as a Cultural Phenomenon. In The New Museology, edited by Vergo, P., pp. 38–61. Reaktion Books, London.Google Scholar

Moore, H. 1990 Paul Ricoeur : Action, Meaning and Text. In Reading Material Culture, edited by Tilley, C., pp. 85–120. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Olsen, B. 1990 Roland Barthes : From Sign to Text. In Reading Material Culture, edited by Tilley, C., pp. 163–205. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Ormiston, G. L., and Schrift, A. D. 1990 The Hermeneutic Tradition. State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar

Patterson, T. 1986 The Last Sixty Years : Toward a Social History of Americanist Archaeology in the United States. American Anthropologist 88 : 7–26.CrossRef Google Scholar

Patrik, L. E. 1985 Is There an Archaeological Record? In Advances in Archaeological Theory and Method, vol. 8, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 27–62. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Preucel, R. (editor) 1991 Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, in press.Google Scholar

Renfrew, C. 1989 Comments on Archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22 : 33^11.Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. 1971 The Model of the Text : Meaningful Action Considered as Text. Social Research 38 : 529–562.Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. 1990 Hermeneutics and the Critique of Ideology. In The Hermeneutic Tradition, edited by Ormiston, G. L. and Schrift, A. D., pp. 298–334. State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar

Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1987a Re-constructing Archaeology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1987b Social Theory and Archaeology. Polity Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Thompson, J. 1981 Critical Hermeneutics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tilley, C. 1989 Discourse and Power : The Genre of the Cambridge Inaugural Lecture. In Domination, Power and Resistance, edited by Miller, D., Rowlands, M, and Tilley, C., pp. 45–62. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar

Tilley, C. 1990a Reading Material Culture. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Tilley, C. 1990b Michel Foucault : Towards an Archaeology of Archaeology. In Reading Material Culture, edited by Tilley, C., pp. 281–347. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Trigger, B. 1980 Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity 45 : 662–676.Google Scholar

Trigger, B. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Watson, P. J. 1986 Archaeological Interpretation, 1985. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by Meltzer, D., Fowler, D, and Sabloff, J., pp. 439–458. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar

Yates, T. 1990 Jacques Derrida : “There is Nothing Outside the Text.” In Reading Material Culture, edited by Tilley, C., pp. 206–280. Blackwell, Oxford. Google Scholar