Clarke_loss of Innocence

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    1/13

    ANTIQUITY, XLVII, 1973

    Archaeology : the loss of innocenceDAVI D C L A R K E

    W e published last yea r two articles dealing with the aims and relevance of the so-called newarchaeology: thefirst was by Professor Richard Watson 1972, 210-15) and the second byA C . Hogarth I972, OI-4). W e also published a review by David Clarke of Explanationin archaeology by P . J Watson S A. LeBlanc and C . L Redman Ig72, 37-9). HereDr David Clarke Fellow and Tutor of Peterhouse Cambridge sets out his considered viewson the name and nature of archaeology some of which he has already discussed in his bookAn alyti cal archaeology.

    The loss of disciplinary innocence is the priceof expanding consciousness;certainly the priceis high but the loss is irreversible and the prizesubstantial.Although the loss of disciplinary innocence isa continuous process we can neverthelessdistinguish significant thresholds in the transi-tions from consciousness through self-conscious-ness to critical self-consciousness and beyond.Consciousness is perhaps achieved when thediscipline is named and largely defined byspecifying its raw material and by pragmaticpractice-archaeology is what archaeologists do.Thenceforth, the practitioners are linkedwithin an arbitrary but common partition ofreality, sharing intuitive procedures and tacitunderstandings whilst teaching by imitation andcorrection in the craft style (Alexander, 1964,1-60).Gradually consciousness develops into self-consciousness and sophistication erodes theparadigms of innocence. Self-consciousnessdawns with explicit attempts at self-knowledge-the contentious efforts to cope with thegrowing quantity of archaeological observationsby explicit but debated procedures and thequerulous definition of concepts and classifica-tions. The discipline emerges as a restless bodyof observations upon particular classes of data,between a certain range of scales, held together

    by a network of changing methodology andimplicit theory. Teaching, now formalized inacademies and universities, attempts to con-dense experience within general principles andexplicit rules; it is no longer possible either toteach or to learn the vast body of data andcomplex procedures by rote. Instead, classes ofdata and approaches are treated in terms ofalternative models and rival paradigms; in-evitably, the comparison of cIasses introducescounting and measuring which in turn entails amodest amount of mathematical and statisticalmethods and concepts.

    This process is also marked by the emergenceof competitive individualism and authority,since the individuals living depends on thereputation he achievesas a focus in the media orby innovation and intensive work in a specialistfield. The politics and sociology of the disci-plinary environment increasingly develop thisauthoritarian state in which each expert has aspecialist territory such that criticisms ofterritorial observations are treated as attacksupon personalities. This gradually becomes aseriously counterproductive vestige of a for-merly valuable disciplinary adaptation bymeans of which authorities mutually repelledone another into dispersed territories, thuseffectivelydeploying the few specialists over thegrowing body of data.

    6

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    2/13

    ARCHAEOLOGY: THE LOSS O F I N N O C E N C ESo, the new sophisticates industriously sub-partition their discipline;each group deepenstheir specialist cells by concentrated research,thereby unconsciously raising barriers tocommunication between archaeologists withinthe expanding mass of period, regional, topic,

    methodology and paradigm cells. These indi-vidual cells are clustered within and crosscutlarger regional partitions based on the conver-gent involvement of localized groups of menwith the same regionally peculiar range ofarchaeological phenomena within a commonnational, linguistic and educational environ-ment-increasingly separating themselves fromother groups of archaeologists confronting thesame range of phenomena but not in the sameparticular form or national context. Self-conscious archaeology has become a series ofdivergent and self-referencing regional schoolswith cumulatively self-reinforcing ,archaeo-logical education systems and with regionallyesteemed bodies of archaeological theory andlocally preferred forms of description, inter-pretation and explanation, where the politicaland sociological characteristics of individualismand authority complement the narrow special-izations within divergent academic tcaditions.The prevailing feeling is look how much weknow and the general impression is that thediscipline hardly exists as one subject at all.These unsatisfactory developments culminatein the emergence of a new level of disciplinaryconsciousness, critical selfconsciousness inwhich attempts are made to control the direc-tion and destiny of the system by a closerunderstanding of its internal structure and thepotential of the external environment. Focusswitches from the heap of data to ithe vastsample space and the prevailing feeling is nowlook how little we know and how inappropriateare our models and explanations. The generalimpression moves towards the positiion thatarchaeologists hold most of their problems incommon and share large areas of general theorywithin a single discipline with regional mani-festations. If the first revolution from conscious-ness to self-consciousness is mainly technicalthen this second threshold is largely a philoso-phical, metaphysical and theoretical one brought

    upon us by the consequences of the firstClarke 1970, 7; 1972b, 7-10 .In the new era of critical self-consciousnessthe discipline recognizes that its domain is asmuch defined by the characteristic forms of itsreasoning, the intrinsic nature of its knowledgeand information, and its competing theories ofconcepts and their relationships-as by theelementary specification of raw material, scaleof study, and methodology. Explanation,interpretation, concepts and theory becomecentral topics of debate and develop theessential significance of archaeological logic,epistemology and metaphysics. It is apparentthat archaeologists need to know about knowingand the limits of what they can and cannotknow from the data and to know this by criticalappraisal, not simply by assertion. Demoraliz-ing but fundamental questioning develops-given what we now know about the limitationsof the data, concepts and methods, how do weknow what we appear to know reliably? Giventhat many explanations, models and theoriesmay a11 be simultaneously appropriate at manydifferent levels and in different contexts, how dowe choose between them? Th e astringentscrutiny of articles of faith and the burden ofchoice indeed represent an ordeal by fire-apainful refinement in the critical flame.

    The needs of teaching emerge as one of themain disciplinary propellants into the spaceof expanding consciousness-student andamateur provide the fuel, research sparksignition and the disciplinary elders monitor anddirect in a series of contradictory instructions. Anew environment develops as students andamateurs of an ever-widening backgroundemerge in increasing numbers and archaeo-logical units of all kinds multiply outside as wellas inside the old Euro-American centres. Fromthe Antipodes to Africa the old regionally self-centred colonial concepts are severely chal-lenged and their weaknesses gravely exposed inthe wider general debate. Question leads tounrest, freedom to further self-consciousnessand thought about thought, as the unformulatedprecepts of limited academic traditions give wayto clearly formulated concepts whose veryformulation leads to further criticism and more

    7

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    3/13

    debate (Alexander, 1964, 58). The rate ofchange becomes as disconcerting as the un-certainty, insecurity and general unrest-noone can deny the high price of expandingconsciousness.It is as unrealistic to ignore this contemporarycontext of debate as it is to portray thesechanges as painless moves from historicignorance to archaeological enlightenment;each archaeology is of its time but since manydeplore the time they will certainly be unhappywith its archaeology. The disciplinary system isafter all an adaptive one, related internally to itschanging content and externally to the spirit ofthe times. Past archaeological states wereappropriate for past archaeological contexts,and past explanations were very much relatedto past archaeological states of knowledge (e.g.short chronologies) and our own are no better inthese respects. However, formerly adaptivequalities frequently become disadvantageousvices in new environments and if archaeologicaldevelopment is not too closely to resemblegenetic ageing, with its dramatic terminus, thenthere has to be a critical and continuousmonitoring process to regulate development.Otherwise there is an accumulation of errorsand a build-up of multiple failures which woulddemand a simultaneous spasmodic correctionof global proportions. In the extreme case,formerly adaptive, traditional archaeologicalpositions can evolve in the new environmentinto monofocal, monodimensional and myopicspecialization, conformist authoritarianism,academic regionalism and individualism,archaeological isolationism and chauvinism;the attributes of a doomed race of disciplinarydinosaurs.T H E NEW ENVIRONMENTThe transition of archaeoIogy from nobleinnocence to self-consciousness and critical self-consciousness has been artificially condensedwithin such a spasm of an unusually abrupt andsevere kind. Historical and technologicaldevelopments have coincided in a remarkablyrapid change in disciplinary environment andcontent in the decades following World War 11compressing these phases of transition within

    A N T I Q U I T Y

    8

    the span of a working life-time, from the 1950sto the 1970s. The World War itself was notwithout significance in this social and scientificrevolution. Externally, neighbouring disciplineswere transformed by interrelated spasms whicherupted in the New Mathematics, NewBiology, New Geology, New Geography, NewSocial Studies, and the New Architecture.Internally, the number and variety of archaeo-logical amateurs, students, teaching-staff,university departments, research units andexcavations have globally doubled or trebled incomparison with the 1930s. Simultaneously, themajor technical developments of wartimeintroduced fresh archaeological potential, rang-ing from heavy mechanical excavators to newunderwater and aerial equipment, throughapplied mathematics to operational research,computer electronics and atomic physics. Aquantitative and qualitative technical and socialrevolution quietly transformed world archaeo-logy in a series of almost imperceptible piece-meal changes.These crucial decades have seen not only theemergence of new men, new methods and newequipment but more men, methods and equip-ment in a greater variety than ever before. Newobservations, new ideologies, new philosophiesand therefore new aims uncomfortably jostleearlier ones-the new scepticism, uncertaintyand insecurity painfully chafe the traditionalsecurity of innocence and the comfortingconfidence of habitual operations.Many archaeologists will be unwilling to facethe challenge of the new situation and mayeither entrench themselves in traditional posi-tions or retreat within the logically imperviousbastion of the freely creative artist. However,although these reactions are understandablethey are based upon two quite mistaken beliefs;that we can indefinitely avoid the chalIenge ofnew conditions by returning to primitiveparadigms; and that the deployment of artistryand imaginative creativityhave no place amongstthe new materials and new approaches. Byretreating within traditional forms it is alwayspossible to alleviate but never to banish the freshburden of new decisions (Alexander, 1964, 1060). A new environment develops new materials

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    4/13

    ARCHAEOLOGY: THE LOSS O F I N N O C E N C Eand new methods with new consequences, whichdemand new philosophies, new solutions andnew perspectives.New Methodology Old methods have not onlybeen extended in new ways but a huge rangeof new methodology has sprung up which eitherextends our archaeological senses by detectingmore, different and previously unknown dataattributes, or extends our capacity for informa-tion recovery, manipulation and analysis. A newfield methodology has emerged with newtechniques for site location, combining aerialreconnaisance with a range of resistivity,magnetometer, gradiometer, electrolocation andchemical location methods. New laige-scaletechniques with heavy machinery for areaexcavation are complemented by smlall-scaletechniques for the processing and analysis ofsites and deposits-photogrammetry, fine siev-ing, flotation, centrifuging-which provide dataof a kind previously unknown. Physical,chemical and botanical techniques amplify ourinformation about the sources, properties andmovements of organic remains, fauna, flora,stones, clays, pottery, glass, resins and metals-using chromatography, thin section methods,heavy mineral analyses, optical and electronmicroscopy, electron microprobes, optical emis-sion spectrometry, infra-red spectroscopy, X-ray fluorescence, diffraction and microanalysis,beta-ray back scatter, neutron activation tech-niques, and many others.

    Archaeological scales for measuring andcounting, the key to comparative analysis, havebeen transformed. Chronological measurementhas been reformed by the many isotopemethods, thermoluminescence, fission track,archaeomagnetic, hydration, volcanic tephro-chronology, fluorine/nitrogen and many com-parable developments-with profound con-sequences. Measures and counts now aboundin a field traditionally devoid of comparativescales-taxonometrics, ethnometrics, energetics,thermodynamics, information indices of struc-tural complexity, economic measures of utility,spatial measures of distribution (Clarke, I p b ,53). The proper treatment of qualitative andquantitative observations has introduced a

    welcome precision and a proper appreciation oferror, facilitated the testing of predictions and,above all, such measurement structures haverevealed new empirical relationships andgenerated fresh theory-new problems.

    The realization has also dawned in archaeo-logy that mathematical methodology, a massivefield in itself: provides many new possibilities.The appreciation that these methods arelanguages of expression and deal as much withorder and relationships as magnitudes hasintroduced almost every branch of mathematicsinto archaeological contexts-from mathe-matical logic, to axiomatics, set and grouptheory, vectors, topology, probability, statistics,boolean algebra, matrix algebra, n-space geo-metry, numerical taxonomy, error andconfidence estimates, combinatorics, linearprogramming, game theory, optimizationmethods, location-allocation techniques andmany more (Clarke, 1968; Gardin, 1970;Kolchina and Shera, 1970; Hodson, Kendalland Tautu, 1971).These reinforcing developments in excava-tion, analysis, measurement and manipulativemachinery give added scope to the two othermajor fields of methodological innovation-explicit model-using and experimentation, andthe comprehensive theory of systems andcybernetics (Clarke, 197zb, 29-44).Nevertheless, even amongst this explosivevariety of new methodology two developmentshave emerged with repercussions which poten-tially dwarf the others-computer methodologyand isotope chronology.

    Computer methodology provides an expand-ing armoury of analog and digital techniques forcomputation, experimentation, simulation,visual display and graphic analysis. Thesesense-extending machine tools can either beused like the microscope to examine the finestructure of low-level entities and processes inminute detail, or like the telescope to scrutinizemassive ensembles over vast scales. They alsoprovide powerful hammer-and-anvil proceduresto beat out archaeological theory from intransi-gent data-thus on one hand these methods canbe used to construct models and simulate theirconsequences over a range of states, identifying

    9

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    5/13

    A N T I Q U I T Ytest-conditions-on the other hand the computermay be used to analyse and test real data andmeasure our expectations under the modelagainst the reality.Whilst all thinking archaeologists must sharesevere reservations about what has yet beenachieved with the aid of these tools, the fault iswith the uncertain archaeologist and his shakyconcepts, not with the machine; the newgeneration of archaeological craftsmen have yetto master the potential of the new tool. Indeed,a major embarrassment of the computer hasbeen that it has enabled us to do explicitlythings which we had always claimed to dointuitively-in so many cases it is now painfullyclear that we were not only deceived by theintuitions of innocence but that many of thethings we wished to do could not be done orwere not worth doing and many unimaginedthings can be done; we must abandon someobjectives and approach others in different ways.Harnessing powerful new methodological horsesto rickety old conceptual carts has proved to bea powerful but drastic way of improvingarchaeological theoretical constructs by elimina-tion.The chronological consequences of isotopeand other dating methods, especially theCarbon-14, Potassium-Argon, and Uraniumseries techniques, have infiltrated archaeologicalthinking in a manner which has largely concealedthe significance of their repercussions. It hasbecome increasingly apparent that the archaeo-logist must now think directly in terms of thekinked and distorted time surfaces of the chrono-metric scales which he actually uses-Carbon-4 time, Potassium-Argon time, and typologicaltime-where the error factors are almost moreimportant than the scale graduations. Inanother aspect, the transformation of archaeo-logical time from ultra-short to very longchronologies has had unsuspected and little-discussed consequences for archaeologicalmetaphysics, entity concepts, processes andexplanations.Under the ultra-short chronologies, archaeo-logical time was confused with historical timeand seemed packed with data and events; large-scale phenomena appeared to take place in swift

    interludes-hence the prevalence of invasionexplanations. This situation is precisely equiva-lent to that underlying the catastrophetheories of 18th-century geology and we shouldnote the connexion between time scale,explanation and theory, since it is now exceed-ingly doubtful that the archaeologist cancontinue to use the old stock of political,historical and ethnic explanatory models in thisdirect way. Thus, to interpret the FrenchMousterian sequence, of more than 30,000yearsduration, in terms of the acrobatic manoeuv-rings of five typological tribes is tantamount toan attempt to explain the Vietnam war in termsof electron displacements. Political, historicaland ethnic entities and processes of thesekinds cannot yet be perceived at that scale inthat data, even if they then existed and evenwith our latest sense-extension and detectiondevices.A fundamentaI lesson emerges-the con-sequences arising from the introduction of newmethodologies are of far greater significancethan the new introductions themselves. Wemust move from the traditional model ofarchaeological knowledge as a Gruyhre cheesewith holes in it to that of a sparse suspension ofinformation particles of varying size, not evenrandomly distributed in archaeological spaceand time. The first thing we may deduce fromthis revision is that many of our taxonomicentity divisions are defined by lines drawnthrough gaps in the evidence and zones ofgreatest ignorance; this does not make thesetaxa invalid but it does gravely alter whatconstitutes meaningful manipulation and expla-nation of such entities. Now although theseproblems become less severe with later materialthey tend to become more subtle and they neverentirely disappear. We must face the fact thatalthough they may with care be mapped on toother disciplinary domains, archaeologicalobservations, entities, processes and explana-tions remain archaeological animals and theyare all scale, context, sample, paradigm andultimately metaphysics dependent.The huge content of the new and newlyextended methodologies is self-evident. How-ever, it has not been sufficiently grasped that,

    I 0

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    6/13

    ARCHAEOLOGY: T H Enumerous as they are, these methods form onlyone new component in the new environmentand that they are less important in their ownright than the new information they provide andits cumulative intellectual consequences.Certainly new ancillary methods do not alter theintrinsic nature of the discipline and we mustnot suppose that because we can display anarchaeological relationship mathematically andanalyse archaeological data scientificadly thatthe discipline itself necessarily assumes amathematical or scientific status. But equallyneither may we assume that, bec- iuse wedescribe archaeological observations; in aliterary form and interpret our data imagina-tively, the discipline is a free creative artClarke, 1968, 635, 663; 1g72b, 18).Neul Observations The array of new and oldmethodologies have also combined over thesame twenty years to produce a multitude ofsurprising new observations and to1 detectpreviously unrecognized sources of variability.Only the adaptive stability of the highly cellularstructure of traditional archaeology has success-fully disguised and dissipated what might havebeen a fundamental shock to the entire systemby confining each disconformity to a localizedcompartment. However, effectiveness cannotbe indefinitely sacrificed to stability, andarchaeological explanations, models and theorieshave yet to accommodate-a broad area andmultilinear origin for tool-using hominidsspanning more than 2,600,000 years, man inAustralia and America before ~5,000 BC,Japanese ceramics by 8 BC, Southeast Asianfood production before 6000 BC, and bronzetechnology by 2500 BC, radiocarbon. Onceagain, epistemological adaptation to the empiri-cal content of the new observations is of no lesssignificance than the explanatory and concep-tual adaptation now required to understandthem. Even those most complete and finishedaccomplishments of the old edifice-the ex-planations of the development of modern man,domestication, metallurgy, urbanization andcivilization-may in perspective emerge assemantic snares and metaphysical mirages.New Paradigms In this information explosion

    I

    LOSS OF I N N O C E N C Eit is hardly surprising that groups of practi-tioners have broken free from traditionalconformity and realigned themselves around thestudy of the special problems of limiteddimensions of the new evidence. Although theirroots are old, we suddenly have a number ofvigorous, productive and competitive newparadigms which have condensed around themorphological, anthropological, ecological andgeographical aspects of archaeological dataClarke, ~ g p b , -53). Nevertheless, diversethough they may be, they are significantlyinternational and share much of the newmethodology, philosophy and experimentalideology.A temporary new sectarianism may be theprice for the dissolution of the old disciplinaryfabric but this anarchic exploitation of freedomis symptomatic of the rethinking of primaryissues. t is now at least refreshing to findarchaeologists of one specialist interest, oneregional school and one ideology making majorif controversial contributions in other archaeo-logical specialisms and fields; cellular isolationis no longer possible even were it desirable.New Philosophies The threshold of criticaldisciplinary self-consciousness is currentlybeing traversed as the inevitable consequence ofthe social and technical revolution in archaeo-logy. The old disciplinary system could notindefinitely contain, suppress, or accommodatethe accumulation of discordant new informationwithin its structure, so the system has adaptedby exploring a range of new philosophies andideologies from which will slowly emerge, afterdue debate, those most capable of accommodat-ing both the old and the new information andaspirations compatibly.The new ideologies and philosophies there-fore present no simple new orthodoxy butheterodox diversity; the strength of the newarchaeologies, or New Archaeology, is that itintroduces a variety of questions where onlyanswers were formerly proclaimed and disci-plinary exhaustion a certitude. The era ofcritical self-consciousness has therefore dawnedwith the explicit scrutiny of the philosophicalassumptions which underpin and constrain

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    7/13

    every aspect of archaeological reasoning, know-ledge and concepts; some of the possibledevelopments of these aspects will be touchedupon below (New Consequences).T H E N E W A R C H A E OL O G YDo these developments represent a 'NewArchaeology'? Well of course it depends on thepoint of view of the observer and what theobserver wishes to see. However, it does seemdifficult to sustain the view that the character,scale and rapidity of recent change is of nogreater significance than that experienced inother twenty-year spans of archaeologicaldevelopment. We seem rather to have witnessedan interconnected series of dramatic, intersect-ing and international developments whichtogether may be taken to define new archaeo-logies within a New Archaeology; whether wechoose to use these terms or avoid them is thenmainly a personal, political and semanticdecision.

    We can define a postwar quantitative andqualitative revolution in the numbers andvariety of archaeological amateurs, students,departments, excavations, equipment andmethods. At first, it seemed these were merelynumerical and technical changes which couldeasily be assimilated. However, the newmethods produced new observations and freshpotential which could not be reconciled with theexisting disciplinary system. New paradigmsemerged as a response to this situation and nownew ideologies and philosophies are beingdeveloped to reset the new archaeologicalinformation within an appropriate disciplinaryframe and metaphysical field space.

    The New Archaeology is an interpenetratingset of new methods, new observations, newparadigms, new philosophies and new ideologieswithin a new environment. t is not virtuoussimply because it is new; many elements areunsound, inaccurate or wrong but that isequally true of much of traditional archaeology.Nevertheless, some of the new developmentsare unassailable and all of them are explicit,experimental attempts to grapple with, ratherthan avoid, the fundamental problems ofarchaeology; a critical self-consciousness which

    A N T I Q U I T Y

    I2

    healthily extends to self-critical self-conscious-ness, the new archaeology monitoring andcontrolling the new archaeology (LeRoy~.Johnson, 1972,374).The financial and intellectual cost of thesedevelopments is severe and interposes rathersubtle dangers. Traditional confidence andhabitual disciplinary security crumble into theinsecurity of critical self-consciousness andprofessional uncertainty, posing the heavyburden of choice within- a vastly enlarged con-ceptual arena. Authority seems challenged byanarchy as familiar concepts collapse undertesting, traditional guidelines dissolve anddecisions become more difficult. New questionsare asked but not always answered. Disreput-able old battles, long fought and long decidedin other disciplines, are imported into archaeo-logy to be needlessly refought with freshbloodletting. Even the new methods subtlvthreaten to redefine our basic concepts,entities and processes for us; sometimes for thebetter, sometimesfor the worse, emphasizing heessential need for clear logical, ep emol@icaland metaphysical control of archaeology byarchaeologists-the price of freedom is eternalvigilance (Clarke, ~ g p a ) .T H E N E W C O N S E Q U E N CE STheory of Concepts It has become clear thatevery archaeologist has thoughtfully or un-thinkingly chosen to use concepts of a certainkind-thus committing himself to a metaphysi-cal position, restricting himself to certainparadigms, to use certain methodologies, toaccept certain modes of explanation and topursue certain aims; at the same time explicitlyor tacitly rejecting other metaphysical positions,paradigms, methods, explanations and aims.In each era archaeologists represent thetemporary state of their disciplinary knowledgeby a metaphysical theory which presentsappropriate ideals of explanation and procedure.But metaphysical systems are not systems ofobservations but invented systems of conceptswithout which we cannot think (HarrC, 1972,IOC-3 9)Archaeological metaphysics is the study andevaluation of the most general categories and

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    8/13

    ARCHAEOLOGY: T H E LOSS O F I N N O C E N C Econcepts within which archaeologists think; atask long overdue Clarke, 1972a). Unknowingdevotion to one metaphysical system preventsthe recognition of those of other archaeologists,and critical self-awareness is therefore the firststep to the comprehension of the position ofothers and the bursting of the bonds tied by onesown metaphysical assumptions. Metaphysicalsystems may be invented ensembles and thearchaeologist may be free to choose accordingto whim, since the choices are not betweenright and wrong; but judgement can still beexercised in terms of the validity of the conceptsselected, the appropriateness of the ensuingexplanation for the scale of concept selected andthen the adequacy and power of that explana-tion thereafter.

    This approach reveals that archaeologists,old and new, have adopted many quite differentanalytical concepts. The historical school havepreferred the imagined historical individual, orgroup of individuals, acting at the personal scalewithin events of a comparable level; appro-priate explanation has therefore been in termsof the states and reasons attributed to theseactors laid out in rational and dispositionalexplanations. The physical school have pre-ferred models ranging in scale from particleclouds to networks and billiard balls, thusdiversifying causal and probabilistic explana-tions from diffusion waves in media, to systemicinteraction and invasive displacement:. It isamusing to note that just as invasion explana-tions were conditioned by the metaphysics ofthe short chronologies and produced a reactiontowards autonomous explanations, so iautono-mous explanations become meaninglessamongst networked communities. Indeed thecapacity of archaeology to reinvent f o r itselfarchaic explanation structures long abandonedin other fields is remarkable-invasion catastro-phism can be joined by the currently fashion-able autonomous spontaneous generationexplanations and that mysterious phlogistoncivilization.Archaeological entities, processes and explana-tions are bound by metaphysical concepts oftime and space. Sowe may expect chronologicaland spatial revisions to be followed by profound

    disciplinary consequences. But, the very greatimportance of time and space measurementscales has often led the archaeologist toconfuse the scales used for measurement withthat which is being measured. Space and timeare conceptual terms relative to the existence ofcomplex phenomena; they exist because of theobserved phenomena and not vice versa. Timeand space are relative to some observed system,and a key step in archaeological interpretation isa model approach towards the meaning oftime and space for the inmates of particularsystems. The mobile Palaeolithic band movingon foot with limited external contacts and anextremely rapid generational turnover presentsa very different time and space surface from theIron Age society with elaborate transport,extensive international contacts and a slowergenerational turnover, even when occupyingthe same territory over a similar timespan. Themeasurement scale must not be confused withthe relationships being measured and, inparticular, forms of explanation should not beinappropriate to the error and graduation rangeof particular time and space scales.The exposure of archaeological metaphysicsto critical appraisal allows us the self-consciouscapacity to consider the possibilities of alteringor rejecting current disciplinary concepts infavour of some alternative forms. Thus, at themoment, archaeology is still a discipline inwhich artifacts, assemblages, sites and theircontents are identified and related as relicts ofcommunities in accordance with rules formu-lated in terms of artifact taxonomies-thetraditional Montelian paradigm. But theseartifact taxonomies are merely systems ofprior; rules whereby the relation or identifica-tion of the archaeological configurations that areto bear taxonomic labels is guided and controlledby taxonomic postulates. So some practitionerswithin the ecological and geographical para-digms might suggest that we abandon artifacttaxonomy as the primary system for organizing,classifying and naming archaeological entitiesand devise some other system of classification,perhaps in terms of landscape and activityunits of some kind. Now, although there is aNeo-Montelian response to this suggestion, the

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    9/13

    main point is that fundamental speculation atthis level is exceedingly important if onlybecause the more fundamental the metaphysicalcontrolling model, the less we are norma@inclined to rethink it.Theory of information The problems ofinformation processing and nomenclature bringus into the field of archaeological epistemology-the theory of archaeological information(Clarke, 1972a). This will entail a critical andself-conscious concern with the kinds ofinformation which archaeological methodsmight yield about the past, together with thelimitations and obscurities imposed on the onehand by the nature of the record and on theother by our languages of expression.

    Archaeologists have certainly failed to ack-nowledge the degree to which the nature of thearchaeological record has imposed itself uponarchaeological concepts. To a very large extentit now appears that many archaeologicalprocesses and groupings are artifacts of thenature of the elements in the samples and theiraberrant distributions-the nature of theentities arising in the main from the informa-tion characteristics of archaeological channelsthan from differing kinds of ethnic units, forexample. This becomes readily apparent if wecontrast the sparse density of Lower Palaeolithicfinds in space and time with their few artifactcategories and limited numbers of attributesseverely constrained by function and material,against the abundant later finds of manycategories in many materials, with large num-bers of attributes and a great range of stylisticvariability. It is hardly surprising that thePalaeolithic complexes which we detect emergeas largely equifinal, functional groupings, manythousands of years deep and hundred of milesin radius-whilst the later units appear to besocially constrained stylistic groupings, severalhundred years deep by tens of miles in diameter.The units we perceive are defined as much bythe intrinsic limitations of the record asby thetechnology of perceiving.Any consideration of Montelian archaeo-logical hypothetical entities-whether types,cultures, culture groups or varieties, traditions,

    A N T I Q U I T Y

    I 4

    cotraditions-introduces a number of epistem-ological problems. Whatever their status, wecertainly use these theoretical terms to makereference and to relate observations. Now somehypothetical entities may prove to be realthings, qualities, or processes and may bepartially or completely demonstrated in duecourse (the virus was just such a concept) butothers are merely summarizing terms-of-convenience employed to simplify complexexpressions (the mechanical concept of forcefor example) (Harrk, 1972, 91-9). Nowarchaeology has been much vexed by theproblem of whether its hypothetical entities arereal; it had been intuitively assumed that theywere so but the technical revolution which hasallowed us to test for their existence reveals thatthey are structurally very complex and theirreality is still a matter of debate. However,even should the reality of our hypotheticalentities turn out to be of the latter merelyreferential form, their utility need not diminish.Although the Montelian paradigm was only ahypothetical mechanism which offered anaccount of the nature of archaeological data andexplanations of its relationship to hominidbehaviour, to be a Montelian under traditionalarchaeology was certainly to view this structurenot just as a plausible model but as a reality.This is no longer possible or necessary and to bea Neo-Montelian within the new morphologicalparadigm is only to assume that it may still be avaluable way of thinking about the data(Clarke, 1972b, 6, 45).

    This focuses attention upon a fundamentalduality in archaeological data. Site, settlementand cemetery archaeology has recently andproductively reasserted the special richness ofthe information which may be extracted fromthe complex, integrated relationships encapsu-lated within such sites. However, somethingapproaching 95 per cent of the archaeologicaldata that we have is not of this integrated format all-it is disconnected, stray, collected, un-provenanced, pillaged or rescued material.Now, it was mainly for the purposes of extract-ing the maximum amount of useful informationfrom this most abundant and very complexdata, through comparative taxonomy, typology

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    10/13

    ARCHAEOLOGY: THE OSS O F I N N O C E N C Eand distribution mapping, that the olld hierar-chies of archaeological entities were evlolved.Thus in practice we have two different butrelated dimensions of archaeological informa-tion which have to be reconciled and imutuallyexploited in an appropriate way. After all, sinceit is admitted that we will never be able toexcavate the sites of a contemporaneous sitesystem or, what is more to the point, given ourchronological scales we would not be aware ofthe fact even if we had the luck to do so, it isapparent that what logically articulates siteswithin site system reconstructions is the re-peated recurrence of sets of site categories andtheir mutual assemblage affinities. Whatt allowsus to speculate that in ninth-millennium BCPalestine there may already have existedcomplex site systems is that the conceptNatufian relates large supersites like Jericho,to villages like Beidha, hamlets like NahLal Orenand specialized hunting and fishing sites ofmany kinds, like Mugharet-el-Wad.Theory of Reasoning Whether the last sentenceexpresses a reasonable speculation dependspartly on the data, partly on the concepts andpartly on the reasoning involved. The criticalscrutiny of patterns of archaeological reasoningimmediately exposes the basic importance ofarchaeological logic within archaeological philo-sophy and theory. Archaeological logic shouldoutline for us the theory of correct reasoningwithin our discipline, without making anyunwarranted assumptions that the principles oflogic and explanation are simple universalswhich may be transferred from one disciplineand level to another Clarke, 1972a). Thesematters introduce the other side of the problemsof explanation and suggest why some reasoningmay be appropriate at one scale, in one context,but inappropriate at another. It raises theproblems of the nature of the logical relation-ships between archaeological conclusions andthe grounds for those conclusions, betweenarchaeological hypotheses and the reasons fortheir rejection or modification, the nature ofpredictions and postdictions and the dangers ofcorrelations as explanations or causes ofarchaeological observations. The slippery

    nature of the logical aspects of archaeologicalexplanation becomes apparent in the frequentconfusions between the direct causes ofarchaeological observations and the ex-planation of the mechanism which broughtabout those causal stimuli at a yet deeper level.A proper scrutiny of such problems mightallow archaeology to escape from the self-imposed paradoxes and tautologies whichcurrently plague its arguments. Not the leastinteresting area in this respect would be someclear identification of the characteristics ofpathological explanations-those which arerejected and yet which appear to use normallyacceptable reasoning on sound data.At least part of the confusion about explana-tion in archaeology arises from the mistakenbelief that there is one universal form ofarchaeological explanation structure appropriateat all levels, in all contexts. Attempts have beenmade to say something which would logicallycharacterize all archaeological explanations butwhich simply succeed in describing, withvarying success, certain modes of explanationused at certain scales, in certain contexts toanswer certain archaeological questions. Afterall, the explanation of the recurrence of acertain house plan may have a logical structureof one kind, whilst the explanation of thecollapse of the Maya or Mycenaeans may havequite another; the explanation of complexevents in sophisticated systems is an especiallyimportant and ill-understood area Tuggle,Townsend Riley, 1972, 8).If archaeological explanations exist for manydifferent purposes, and are of many differentlogical forms at varied levels in differing con-texts, the appropriate procedures forjudging andtesting their accuracy, relevance and logicaladequacy have yet to be explicitly uncovered;we must therefore resist an ill-fitting deter-mination to force the patterns of archaeologicalreasoning within those supposed to hold forother disciplines Clarke, 1972a). Nevertheless,we can anticipate some bases for such judge-ments. It has already emerged that one test ofthe relevance and adequacy of an archaeologicalexplanation is the relevance and adequacy of itshypothetical elements. If the hypothetical is not

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    11/13

    ANTIQUITYrelevant to the particular scale or context, as inthe tribal explanations of the Mousterian, thenthe explanation fails. Second, several differentexplanations may still compete for attention andhere, amongst other criteria, it is the explana-tion which derives from or implies the existenceof the more powerful theory which is to bepreferred. At the last, even when an explanationis proven not to be trivial, tautologous, circular,redundant or statistically accidental it alwaysremains conventional-relative to the state ofcontemporary knowledge, a particular paradigmview and a given metaphysical position.General theory One of the prizes denied to usby the partitioned regionalism and specialismof the Old Archaeology is the explicit realizationthat there is or could be a comprehensivearchaeological general theory. The difficultywith this intriguing possibility has never been alack of forms which this theory might take andareas within which it might fulminate butrather the converse-the infinity of kinds oftheory which might conceivably be appropriatefor archaeology and the familiar problem ofchoice, where to search in the infinity? Anearlier response was either to import theHistoricism of Spengler and Toynbee, theDeterminism of Ellsworth Huntington, themodified Marxism of Childe and others, or toreact by rejecting the possibility of generalarchaeological theory and to disappear into thedepths of particular research problems with therapidity of hot stones on snow.

    Now, this prize may not yet be within ourgrasp but a possibly emerging theoreticalform does now seem distantly perceivable. Wehave seen that the rising interest in archaeologi-cal philosophy naturally leads to necessarymetaphysical theories of archaeological con-cepts, epistemological theories of archaeologicalinformation and classification and logicaltheories of archaeological reasoning. Here iscertainly a body of necessary but unfulfilledtheory which overlies and permeates a series ofother levels of archaeological theory thattranslate and explain the relationships betweenclasses of archaeological phenomena; it is theseunspecified steps which underly the critical

    leaps in archaeological reasoning. Without sucha body of theory these critical leaps do indeedtake-off and become a free-flight of creativefancy-an irresponsible art form.These other levels of archaeological theorymay be crudely expressed as the steps latent inany archaeological interpretation, relating:I ) The range of hominid activity patterns andsocial and environmental processes whichonce existed, over a specified time and area.2) The sample and traces of these (I) thatwere deposited at the time.3) The sample of that sample 2) whichsurvived to be recovered.4) The sample of that sample 3) which wasrecovered by excavation or collection.

    The pairwise relationships between theselevels generates the essential set of predeposi-tional, postdepositional, retrieval, analyticaland interpretive models and theory which allarchaeologists intuitively employ in the inter-pretive leaps from the excavated data to thewritten report, covering the interpretive processfrom the grave to publication.Predepositional and depositional theory-oversthe nature of the relationships between speci-fied hominid activities, social patterns andenvironmental factors, one with another andwith the sample and traces which were at thetime deposited in the archaeological record ;largely a social, environmental and statisticaltheory relating behavioural variability to vari-ability in the record, linking levels I) and 2)above.Postdepositional theory-the nature of therelationships between the sample and traces asinitially deposited and their subsequent re-cycling, movement, disturbance, erosion, trans-formation or destruction; largely a micro-geomorphological and statistical theory linkingRetrieval theory-the nature of the relationshipsbetween the surviving sample 3) and thecharacteristics of the excavation or collectionprocess which selectively operated upon it toproduce 4); largely a theory of sampling, fieldresearch design and flexible response strategieslinking 3) and 4).

    2) and 3).

    16

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    12/13

    A R C H A E O L O G Y : T H E LOSS O F I N N O C E N C EAnalytical theory-the na tur e of th e relation-ships between the observations 4), whichbecome the data, and their subsequent opera-tional treatment un der selective m odelling,testing, analysis, experimentation, storage andpublication ; largely a theory of informationretrieval, selection, discarding, evaluation, com -paction and decision costs, linking 4:)- 1)viathe interpretive theory.Interpretive theory-the na tur e of th e relation-ships between archaeological patterns estab-lished by analysis and verified by experiment,and p redictions about the directly unobservableancient behavioural and environmental patter ns;largely a theory of prediction, explanation andmodel evaluation linking 4)- ) by testingexpectations derived by analogy againstobservations manipulated by analysis, given

    These are, of course, not the only areas ofarchaeological theory bu t w ith archaeologicalmetaphysical theory, epistemological theory an dlogical theory they clearly together constituteth e nucleus of th at theory-currently intuitiveor unsatisfactory but gradually being specified-which makes archaeology th e discipline it isand not merely the discipline of its operations,whether artistic, m athematic or scientific.Certainly, part of archaeological theory , animportant part of the predepositional andinterpretive theories, may be reduced to socialtheory and might conversely be derived there-from; emphasizing the great significance ofsocial as well as environmental studies for thearchaeologist. However, this is but a small partof archaeological theory and even in th isrestricted but important area the primitiveterm s an d correlated concepts of social1 the orywill require an appropriately specified trans-formation to conform with th e space, time an dsample characteristics of th e equivalent a.rchaeo-logical data. The wider area of archaeologicaltheory either treats relationships of a purelyarchaeological kind, or processes with space andtime scales for which ther e is n o social termino-logy, or patterns which nowhere survivewithin the sample of recent human behaviour.Archaeology in essence then is the disciplinewith the theory and p ractice for the recovery of

    2), 3) and 4)-

    unobservable hom inid behaviour patterns fromindirect traces in bad samples.T H E N E W P E R SP E C TI V EI n the later postwar decades I ~ ~ o s - I ~ ~ o s )heboundaries of archaeological consciousness a ndpotential receded with great suddenness. Notsurprisingly, archaeologists have been left per-plexed by this phenomenon and its uncertainconsequences. T he y have a choice-to continueto operate within the limited field space oftraditional archaeology, in which case the N ewArchaeology does not exist for the m, o r they canstep outside their former habitat and meditateupon its unsatisfactory nature and problemswhich that system could not ask or answer. Forther e exists, mathematically and philosophically,a class of problems for any language systemwhich cannot be explained in that systemscurrent form and we therefore move to newlanguages and new disciplinary systems notonly to answer former questions which couldnot be answered but also to abandon formerquestions and answers which had no meaning.Nevertheless, by the same proposition we canpredict the transience of the New Archaeologyitself-but we shou ld not confuse transiencewith insignificance.New Archaeology represents a precipitate,unplanned and unfinished exploration of newdisciplinary field space, conducted with veryvaried success in an atmosphere of completeuncertainty. W hat a t first appeared to be merelya period of technical re-equipment has pro-duced profound practical, theoretical andphilosophical problems to which the newarchaeologies have responde d w ith d iverse newmethods, new observations, new paradigmsand new theory. However, unlike its parent, theNew Archaeology is as yet a set of questionsrath er than a set of answers; when th e questionsare answered it too will be Old A rchaeology.The renewed concern with theory is refresh-ing after the furtive treatment that this crucialaspect widely received except in th e Americanschool) after the scientism a nd historicism of the1920s-30s. It re-emphasizes that such theoryexists, in however unsatisfactory a form, ineverything tha t an archaeologist does regardless

  • 7/27/2019 Clarke_loss of Innocence

    13/13

    A N T I Q U I T Yof region, material, period and culture, althoughcertainly requiring different particular valuesfor particular problems. It is this pervasive,central and international aspect of archaeo-logical theory, multiplied by its current weak-ness, which makes the whole issue of majorimportance in the further development of thediscipline.However, there are perhaps three groups ofarchaeologists who may be expected to beespecially unwilling to welcome both the newdevelopments and their theoretical conse-quences-amateurs, historical archaeologists,and practical excavators. The feeling that thevital and expanding corps of amateur archaeo-logists will be deflected by a new academic gulfis, however, largely a misconception based on aprofessional model of the amateur as anagricultural hayseed or a military buff; we riskforgetting that amateur archaeologists (theNew Amateur?)embrace professions in labora-tories, electronics industries, computerizedbusiness departments and technical factoriesand may have a better grasp of science, mathe-matics, computers and electronics then theirtemporary archaeological overlords.

    For the archaeologist of later, text-aided andtraditionally historically scaled periods therepercussions of the New Archaeology are moresubtle than drastic. The new developmentsinsist that the historical evidence be treated bythe best methods of historical criticism and thearchaeological evidence by the best archaeo-logical treatment and not some selective

    conflation of both sets of evidence and theirappropriate discipIines. The severe problemsand tactical advantages which arise from inte-grating archaeological and historical evidenceemerge as no more and no less than thosearising between archaeological and physical,chemical, biological and geographical evidence.Indeed, work in text-aided contexts willincreasingly provide vital experiments in whichpurely archaeological data may be controlled bydocumentary data, bearing in mind the inherentbiases of both.Finally, the practical excavator shouldappreciate more than any other archaeologistthe degree to which his practice is controlled byhis theoretical expectations, and these shouldaccordingly be appropriate (Clarke, 197zb,5-10}. Thus with a more explicit theoreticalawareness the practical excavator may con-tribute to a qualitative increase in under-standing rather than simply a quantitativeincrease in data. In any case, practical men whobelieve themselves to be quite exempt from anyintellectual influences are, as Lord Keynespointed out, usually the unwitting slaves ofsome defunct theorist (Keynes, 1936, 383).Archaeology is, after all, one discipline andthat unity Iargely resides in the latent theory ofarchaeology-that disconnected bundle of in-adequate subtheories which we must seek toformulate and structure within an articulatedand comprehensive system; a common theo-retical hat-rack for all our parochial hats.

    BIBLIOGRAPHYALEXANDER c. 1964. Notes on the synthesis of formCLARKE, D. L. 1968. An alytic al archaeology London).1970. Reply to comment on Analytical Archaeo-

    logy, Norwegian Archaeological Review 111,25-34.I972a. Review of explanation in archaeologyAnt ipui ty XLVI. 237-9.197zb. Models in archaeology London).

    Harvard).

    GARDIN, J.-C. ed.). 1970. Archdologie et CalculateursHARRI?, R. 1972. Th e philosophies of science Oxford).HODSON, F. R., D. G KENDALL and P. TAUTU eds.).1971. Ma them atics and the archaeological andhistorical Sciences Edinburgh).

    Paris).

    JOHNSON, LEROY. 1972. Problems in Avant Gardearchaeology, American Anthropologist LXXIV, 3366-75.

    KEYNES, J. M. 1936. Th e general theory of employ-ment interest and money London).KOLCHINA, B. A. and Y. A. SHERA eds.). 1970.Statistiko-kombinatornye metody v ArcheologiiMoscow).

    TUGGLE, H. D., A. H. TOWNSEND and T. J. RILEY.1972. Laws, systems and research designs: adiscussion of explanation in archaeology,American Ant iqui ty XXXVII, I 3-12.

    18