Archaeology as science fiction. A microarchaeology of the unknown (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Marriage of Archaeological Science and Social Theory
In this course, we will examine the successes and failures within the relationship between science and theory. Students will be introduced to some literature from the history of science and philosophy of science in an attempt to understand how scientific interpretations can be social constructions and how our perceptions about the validity and ‘truth’ of science were constructed. By questioning the origin of these paradigms, we can better comprehend our dependence on scientific analysis, as it informs our archaeological interpretations. We will critically evaluate topical approaches in leading journals, such as Archaeological Science, Field Archaeology, Archaeological Method and Theory and Social Archaeology, focusing on environmental approaches, survey methods and certain material assemblages, such as ceramics, plant, animals, and soils. What can these assemblages inform us about the people who produced and used them? Can high-tech analytical methods contribute to a deeper understanding of the past or just muddy the waters? Theoretically, we will follow Latour, Dupre and Foucault, to challenge the objectivity of ‘science’ and value of archaeological taxonomies, and question archaeological epistemologies as it relates to the construction of archaeological narratives. In the second part of this course, we will be dealing directly with archaeological assemblages and pushing the traditional interpretations further into the social realm. We will be working directly with the archaeological assemblages of the graduate students, specifically addressing the science and theory issues applicable to their research. The syllabus will be adjusted in the first week to accommodate the specific research problems presented by the graduate students.
Microarchaeology, Materiality and Social Practice
Current Swedish archaeology, 2021
In this paper we propose an operative social theory that eliminates the need for a pre-defined regional context or spatio-temporal social entities like social system, culture, society or ethnic group. The archaeological object in a microarchaeological approach is not a closed and homogeneous social totality, but rather the structurating practices, the regulative actions operating in a field ofhumans and things. In order to address these issues more systematically, we discuss social action, materialities and the constitution of archaeological evidence. Sartre's concept of serial action implies that materialities and social agency are integrated elements in the structuration process. We suggest that such patterns of action can be partially retrieved from the fragmented material evidence studied by the archaeologist.
It's a small world after all:comparative analyses of community organization in archaeology.
American Antiquity, 1997
Human social systems are constituted at different scales; the local community, while an important organizational unit cross-culturally, has received limited archaeological study. We argue that community-centric studies in archaeology have significant potential in documenting the diversity of small-scale agricultural systems and in promoting comparative study of local societies. Using comparative data from social anthropology, we put forth a definition of community useful for the archaeologist based upon three irreducible elements; social reproduction, agricultural production, and self-identification. These elements provide an ideal framework for cross-cultural comparison. We also argue that operationalizing a community approach requires certain methodological refinements, such as adopting an appropriate research scale, conducting intensive surface survey, and using analytical strategies such as labor investment and boundary maintenance. We present recently collected data from two prehistoric agricultural communities, Waiohuli in Hawai'i and Tsikwaiye in northern New Mexico, in order to illustrate the strength of this mode of research. Los sistemas sociales humanos se organizan en diferentes escalas; la comunidad local, a pesar de ser una importante unidad organizativa omnipresente en toda cultura, ha recibido poca atención por parte de los arqueólogos. En este artículo planteamos que los estudios que se concentran en el análisis de la comunidad tienen un amplio potencial de documentar la diversidad de sistemas agrícolas de pequeña escala y en promover estudios comparativos de sociedades de carácter local. Al utilizar información comparativa obtenida de la antropología social, presentamos una definición de comunidad, útil para el arqueólogo, basada en tres elementos irreductibles; reproducción social, producción agrícola y auto-identificación. Estos elementos proveen un marco ideal para realizar comparaciones inter-culturales. También argüimos que para operar estudios a escala comunitaria se requiere de ciertos afinamientos metodológicos, tales como adoptar una escala apropiada de investigación, llevar a cabo reconocimientos de superficie intensivos, y usar estrategias analíticas como el análisis de inversión laboral y mantenimiento de espacios sociales. Presentamos informacion recientmente recolectada de dos comunidades agrícolas prehistóricas, Waiohuli en Hawaíí y Tsikwaiye en el norte de Nuevo México para ilustrar la solidez de esta forma investigacion.
Introduction: "Community-Oriented Archaeology"
Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 2014
D efining the relationship b e tw e e n a rc h a e o lo g y a n d th e people it studies has always been an elu sive undertaking. T he people o f the past are long gone by the time archaeologists arrive to tell th eir stories. W hat exactly we can and cannot say about them o r on th eir b eh a lf from th e im perfectly p re served an d n o n -rep resentative sam ple o f th e ir m aterial g estures is not, a n d never has been, very clear. Many archae ologists have, we think, underestim ated the complexity o f this problem . Archae ologists seem to expect the relationships between things and culture, culture and individuals, the past an d the present to be straightforw ard, w hen all evidence from the anthropology of o u r own expe riences suggests otherw ise. In the p re sent th ere is some correlation between m aterial things an d th eir roles in p eo p le's lives, b u t the reality, as anyone who has had a favourite coffee m ug or a dis like for specific places knows, is com plex and varied. T he distance between what we th in k ourselves to be capable o f as cu ltu ral beings a n d w hat we define as the subject o f o th er peoples' history is a m easure o f these limitations. Despite o ur hopes th at the past is understandable in o u r own terms, it seems likely th at this is as m uch an ethnocentric aspiration as a scholarly truth. M artindale and Nicholas (this volume) argue that such bias serves us well when the archaeologists are part o f the descent com m unity o f the people being studied, b u t generates ethnocen tric barriers to o u r perception when the arch aeo lo g ical-su b ject re la tio n sh ip is m ore distant. T here has always existed a double standard in archaeology on this front, one that reflects a wider asymme try in which som e ways of knowing the past are valued while others are not. T he im balance favours the dom inant cultural community, which in the cu rren t politi cal context Atalay 2007:253) defines as "western". H ere we refer n o t ju st to the declarative value o f considering m ulti ple points of view (which has increased lately), b u t to th e dem onstrable effort to do so, which as many papers in this special issue argue, requires disciplinary concessions o f privilege and forthright scrutiny about ethnocentrism . As with any subaltern dynam ic, th e asym m etry is m o re visible to th o se w ho occupy m arginalized p o in ts o f view, which in N orth Am erican archaeology at least, is prim arily Indigenous (although similar relatio n sh ip s exist in th e archaeology o f A frican-A m erican, L atino, C hinese a n d o th e r c o m m u n itie s). T h o se w ho are n o t m arginalized by the structural asym m etries o f pow er do n o t perceive
Archaeologists have long realized the necessity of going beyond antiquarianism, the collection and study of artefacts for their own sake, and have attempted various forms of historical narrative and social reconstruction, setting artefacts in their context. This has predominantly involved relating material culture to units which subsume the individual -cultures, societies, culture systems: social totalities. This is because archaeology's data have been thought to require a conceptual occlusion of the agents who were originally responsible for producing the past. Before considering this striking absence of the individual social actor in archaeological theory we will examine the project of a social archaeology as it has developed in Britain by examining a series of texts.