The attitude towards science in the changing panorama of Archaeological Theory (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.
Towards Archaeological Theory: a History
The Power of Reason, the Matter of Prehistory. Papers in Honour of Antonio Gilman Guillén, 2020
Díaz-Andreu, Margarita. 2020. "Towards Archaeological Theory: a history." In The Power of Reason, the Matter of Prehistory. Papers in Honour of Antonio Gilman Guillén, edited by Pedro Díaz-del-Río, Katina Lillios, & Inés Sastre, 41-53. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. ABSTRACT - This article provides a historical overview of the interest in archaeological methods and theory. Starting with nineteenth-century positivism, attention will be paid to a preoccupation with methods at the turn of the century and the appearance of a focus on theory in the 1930s. Moving from the UK to the US, the proposals made by the generations preceding the appearance of the New Archaeology paradigm in the 1940s and 1950s will be briefly described. The context that made possible the emergence of the New Archaeology is then explained and sorne ideas about when its might began to diminish will also be given. The ultimate aim of this article is to serve as a context for understanding the situation of theoretical archaeology at the time in which Antonio Gilman learned about the profession and practiced it. The article finishes with sorne thoughts on archaeological paradigms. CONTENT: Introduction | Positivism, friendships, and methods | From method to theory – from Europe to America | The vital, ingenious and imaginative generation of the late 1930s and 1940s | ‘Fast and furious’ changes: the 1950s | New Archaeology | A brief note about New Archaeology’s aftermath | Conclusion |
Archaeology after Interpretation: returning humanity to archaeological theory
Do archaeologists recover the material record of past processes or the residues of the material conditions that made the presence of a kind of humanness possible? This paper attempts to emphasize the importance of distinguishing between these two options and argues the case for, and briefly contemplates the practical implications of, an archaeology of the human presence. Archaeology's propensity to range across a variety of theoretical approaches, from the positivism of the new archaeology, through structuralism, post-structuralism and phenomenology, and on to the current concerns with the extended mind, network theory and the new materialism, and all within a period of fifty or so years, has been taken as indicative of an intellectual posturing that detracts from the 'real' business of doing archaeology (Bintliff 2011 and 2015). This criticism seems, to me at least, to miss the point. All these theoretical approaches are no more than ways to think about the same fundamental question: why do we do archaeology? They allow us to evaluate what we are attempting to bring into view by our study of the material residues of the past. The means by which we establish the object of our studies are not the same means as those that we must employ to achieve such an objective. It has been the failure to distinguish between our definition of what we are studying from the question of how we intend to study it that has resulted in the various theoretical approaches appearing as if they were needless methodological distractions rather than the essential mechanisms that will open-up perspectives on the reality that is the objective of our studies. This confusion between objective and method, which is expressed by the assumption that the objective of archaeology is given by the current methodology, continues to have a detrimental effect upon wider perceptions of the discipline. Most outside observers, along with all too many practitioners, define archaeology in the banal terms of digging, discovery of old things, and the physical analysis of those things (cf. Thomas 2004, 67-9). It is from this perspective that the history of archaeology is written as the development of techniques of recovery and material analysis. This consigns archaeology to the role of antiquarianism, the relevance of which for many contemporary concerns seems marginal at best. Such a negative perception surely contrasts with the more challenging view that archaeology could offer of itself, namely as an enquiry into the full chronological and global extent of humanity's place in history.
Archaeological theories and archaeological sciences
Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory (eds. A. Gardner, M. Lake and U. Sommer)
Archaeological theory and archaeological science have traditionally been characterized as concerned with different issues and unable to interact productively. Here we present a brief history of the relationship between these two subdisciplines, and some clarification of the differences between scientific archaeology and archaeological science. We then focus on examples of recent and current projects to argue that we should no longer differentiate between archaeologists on the one hand and archaeological scientists on the other, since many leading practitioners of archaeological sciences are both. We contend that science-based archaeology today plays an important role in the formulation of new theories, and in challenging long-standing assumptions in archaeology and numerous other fields (e.g. ecology). Archaeological science is central to contemporary archaeological theory and practice, and will become increasingly important in the foreseeable future.
Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 1997
and Daniel Miller have in common? What are the relationships between McGuire's A MarxistArchaeology (1992) and Zen and the Art of Mo to rcycle Ma intenance (persig 1974)1 If you like the conjunction of paradigms from philosophy and psychology, reflections upon science and the humanities, refreshing reconsiderations of the processual and post-processual debates, and mental gymnastics, you will undoubtedly enjoy a majority of the essays found in this unique book. The goal of this volume is to reflect upon recent theoretical issues in archaeology. The commentators are, in the main, practicing archaeologists educated in the British tradition with substantial backgrounds in social anthropology, social theory, and philosophy. Therefore, some North American-trained anthropological anthropologists may find the scope of this interesting and introspective volume uncustomary and controver sial, perhaps even disjointed and diffused. The work goes beyond the "Old" and "New" Archaeology para digms, modernism. and post-modernism, objectivist and processual versus contextualist and post process ualist approaches, as well as other theoretical (and methodological) dichotomies. A majority of the authors are concerned about the major debates on archaeological theory that have taken place during the past two decades-for example, science and interpretation, and processualism and post-process ualism. Likewise, the papers concern the interr elationships of archaeology and contemporary social theory and draw from philosophy, the structure of science, gender studies, and ethics, among other humanities and social and physical sciences. In sum, the book engages an important question: Has contemporary theory in archaeology moved from constructive, "progressive" dialogues to a series of defensive, intractable positions or "pos tures?" Mackenzie also states that the idea that archaeologists " ... can disengage their personal, social, and political context from their work must also be construed as posturing" (p. 26). There are many fresh voices and divergent opinions presenting some invigorating ideas and challenging theoreticians of archaeological discourse.
Theory holds a paradoxical position in archaeology: its symbolic prestige is restricted to academic circles, and contrasts with the poor influence it exerts upon the daily practice of archaeology. This problem relates to the lack of a solid body of doctrines, but also to the methodological blurredness and disciplinary unsteadiness of archaeology. Past ideological abuses of interpretative models, as well as the tangible materiality of the archaeological sources have often encouraged demagogic, positivist attitudes among researchers, where down-to-earth explanations become evidence that discredit the need for theory in archaeology. We use a very broad definition of “theory”, encompassing the epistemology and the historiographic analysis of archaeological research: theory deals with everything that is linked to the nature of archaeology, to its scientific approaches, and to its relationship to the past and present. Functioning as a guide to archaeological practice, theory can therefore not be the field of specialists only.
The future of archaeological theory
Antiquity, 2015
In this latest contribution to our ‘Archaeological Futures’ series, Julian Thomas reflects on the current state of Western archaeological theory and how it is probably going to develop over the next few years. Archaeological theory has not ossified in the period since the processual/post-processual exchanges. The closer integration of archaeological thought with philosophical debate in the human sciences has gradually given rise to a theoretical landscape that would have been unrecognisable 30 years ago, wherein ‘new materialisms’ figure significantly.