Ozymandias, King of Kings: Postprocessual Radical Archaeology as Critique | American Antiquity | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract
References

Abstract

In Re-Constructing Archaeology (1987a) and Social Theory and Archaeology (1987b), Michael Shanks and Christopher Tilley argue for an antiscience radical archaeology as critique. They use deconstructionist sceptical arguments to conclude that there is no objective past and that our representations of the past are only texts that we produce on the basis of our sociopolitical standpoints. In effect, they contend that there is no objective world, that the world itself is a text that human beings write. This is a form of subjective idealism. Their critique is a nihilistic attack on all objective knowledge.

Résumé

En Re-Constructing Archaeology (1987a) y en Social Theory and Archaeology (1987b), Michael Shanks y Christopher Tilley proponen, como crítica, una arqueología radical y anticientífica. Usando argumentos escépticos “de-construccionistas,” Shanks y Tilley concluyen que no existe unpasado objetivo y que nuestras representaciones del pasado son sólo textos que producimos en base a nuestra posición sociopolítica. De hecho, ellos afirman que no existe un mundo objetivo y que el mundo mismo es un texto escrito por los seres humanos. Este es un tipo de idealismo subjectivista. La crítica de Shanks y Tilley es un ataque nihilista a todo conocimiento objetivo.

Information

Type

Articles

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barnes, B. 1984 T. S. Kuhn and Social Science. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Bergmann, G. 1954 The Metaphysics of Logical Positivism. Longmans, Green, London.Google Scholar

Binford, L. R. 1986 In Pursuit of the Future. In American Archaeology Past and Future: A Celebration of the Society for American Archaeology, 1935-1985, edited by Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D., and J. A. Sabloffi pp. 459–479. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar

Binford, L. R. 1987 Data, Relativism, and Archaeological Science. Man (n. s.) 22: 391–404.Google Scholar

Binford, L. R. 1989 Debating Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Bloor, D. 1983 Wittgenstein and Social Theory. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Cartwright, N. 1989 Nature's Capacities and their Measurements. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Chippendale, C. 1988 Ambition, Deference and Discrepancy: The Intellectual Place of Post-processual Archaeology. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the Theoretical Archaeology Group, Sheffield, England.Google Scholar

Churchland, P. M. 1979 Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

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

Derrida, J. 1976 Of Grammatology. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar

Derrida, J. 1978 Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourses of the Human Sciences. In Writing and Difference, by Derrida, J., pp. 278–293. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar

Derrida, J. 1981 Plato's Pharmacy. In Dissemination, by Derrida, J., pp. 61–172. Athlone Press, London.Google Scholar

Dilthey, W. 1954 [1907] The Essence of Philosophy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar

Earle, T. K., and Preucel, R. W. 1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology 28: 501-513, 525–538.Google Scholar

Evans, C. C. 1990 Strategies of Deconstruction: Derrida and The Myth of the Voice. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1975 Against Method. New Left Books, London.Google Scholar

Fritz, J., and Plog, F. 1970 The Nature of Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity 35: 405–412.Google Scholar

Gellner, E. 1982 What is Structuralisme? In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference, edited by Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J., and Segraves, B. A., pp. 97–123. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Gibson, A. M. 1982 Beaker Domestic Sites: A Study of the Domestic Pottery of the Late Third and Early Second Millenia B. C. in the British Isles. BAR International Series 186. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar

Glymour, C. 1980 Theory and Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar

Hempel, C. G. 1959 The Function of General Laws in History. In Theories of History, edited by Gardner, P., pp. 344–356. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar

Hempel, C. G. 1965 Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar

Hempel, C. G. 1966 Philosophy of Natural Science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1984 Archaeology in 1984. Antiquity 58: 25–32.Google Scholar

Hodder, I. 1987 Comments on Earle and Preucel. Current Anthropology 28: 516–517.Google Scholar

Hume, D. 1955 [1734] A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

Leiber, J. 1988 “Cartesian” Linguistics? Philosophia 18: 309–346.Google Scholar

Parsons, T. 1964 Evolutionary Universals in Society. American Sociological Journal 29: 329–357.Google Scholar

Renfrew, C, Rowlands, M. J., and Segraves, B. A. (editors) 1982 Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Rorty, R. 1979 Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar

Roth, P. 1987 Meaning and Method in the Social Sciences: A Case for Methodological Pluralism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar

Salmon, M. 1982 Philosophy and Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Schiffer, M. B. 1988 The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American Antiquity 33: 461–485.Google Scholar

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

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

Shanks, M., and Tilley, C. 1989 Archaeology into the 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22: 1–54.Google Scholar

Van Fraassen, B. C. 1989 Laws and Symmetry. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Watson, P. J. 1990a The Razor's Edge: Symbolic-Structuralist Archeology and the Expansion of Archeological Inference. American Anthropologist 92: 613–629.Google Scholar

Watson, P. J. 1990b A Parochial Primer: The New Dissonance as Seen from the Midcontinental U. S. A. In Processualist vs. Post-Processualist Archaeology, edited by Preucel, R.. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, in press.Google Scholar

Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., and Redman, C. L. 1971 Explanation in Archeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., and Redman, C. L. 1974 The Covering Law Model in Archaeology: Practical Uses and Formal Interpretations. World Archaeology 6: 125–132.Google Scholar

Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., and Redman, C. L. 1984 Archeological Explanation: The Scientific Method in Archeology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Watson, R. A. 1972 The “New Archeology” of the 1960s. Antiquity 46: 210–215.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1989 Archaeological Cables and Tacking: The Implications of Practices for Bernstein's “Options Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. ” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19: 1–18.Google Scholar

Wylie, A. 1990 A Proliferation of New Archaeologies: Scepticism, Processualism, and Post-Processualism. Ms. in possession of author.Google Scholar