Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PAUL A. SHACKELBARBARA J. UTILE
Post-Processual Approachesto Meanings and Usesof Material Culture inHistorical Archaeology
ABSTRACT
Discussions ofpost-processual archaeology are summarizedin order to suggest that historical archaeology is in a particularly good position to answer the post-processual critiques of the " new" archaeology and to create a contextualarchaeology that is both historically and anthropologicallyinformed and relevant. The work of four scholars is noted asparticularly influential in the development of post-processual approaches.
Current debates within archaeology as a whole,and within historical archaeology in particular ,question what is and is not possible and desirable forthe disciplines . The Society for Historical Archaeology marked its 20-year anniversary with soulsearching. The 1987 plenary session, meant to explore the discipline's potential , proposed withtentative optimism the hope that historical archaeology could indeed address " questions that count"and matter to anyone outside the discipline. In awider sense, "new" or processual archaeology isbeing challenged from several viewpoints, generally lumped together as "post processual" archaeology.
The point of this introductory essay is to placethe articles that follow within the context of thesedebates. The common concern of these paperswith qualitative interpretation-rather than primarily quantitative explication, with meaning , withactive symbolic uses of material culture, and oftenwith ideology, labels them as post-processual.They therefore have contributions to make both tocurrent epistemological negotiations within archaeology as a whole and to the definitions ofquestions that count within historical archaeology .
There are various summaries and descriptions of
the challenges to processual archaeology , illustrating the archaeological truism that there are as manypossible typologies as there are archaeologists .Hodder (e.g., 1985, 1986, 1987a, 1991), Millerand Tilley (1984), Leone (1986), Shennan (1986) ,Shanks and Tilley (1987) , Earle and Preucel(1987), Watson and Fotiadis (1990), Patterson(1990a, 1990b), and Preucel (1991c) are representative of those who seek to explain post-processualarchaeology . Yet they do not represent all compelling critiques of processual archaeology . Feministarchaeology in particular, which is often omitted inpost-processual critiques, provides an increasinglyinfluential perspective that must be acknowledged.A discussion is beyond the scope of this summarythough, and is provided elsewhere in the literature(e.g., Gero 1983; Conkey and Spector 1984; Spector and Whelan 1989; Little 1990, 1993; Gero andConkey 1991).
In the 1980s, post-processual archaeology aroseout of dissatisfaction with the new archaeology ofthe 1960s and 1970s. Miller and Tilley (1984:2) listthe following complaints against the New Archaeology: uncritical acceptance of positivism , stress onfunctionalism and environmental adaptation , behaviorist emphasis on biological directives, disdainfor emphasis on social relations or cognition orideology, lack of concern for the present socialproduction of knowledge, overemphasis on stability rather than conflict, reduction of social changeto effects of external factors, and belief in quantification as the goal of archaeology. The chargemade by post-processual archaeologists , summedup, is that "archaeology has become so rational itis dehumanized. Much of the best of archaeologyhas become not only mechanical but almost devoidof cultural context" (Leone 1986:432). There is areaction against explanations that are mechanical,whether they are materially or mentally biased .Neither ecological determinism nor structuralismadequately addresses the concerns of post-processualism. It is frustrating that to a large extent " Archaeologists have yet to realize the power of theunderstanding that the essence of human-and,hence, cultural-life is that it is both material andsymbolic simultaneously " (Conkey and Spector1984:24).
6
This simultaneity provides the basis for one ofthe most compelling aspects of post-processualismthat has come from the intellectual influence ofpost-structuralism. That goal is breaking apart dichotomies that have served as givens for structuralist interpretation. All dichotomies are subject tosplitting and reintegration, but it is breaking theidealist-materialist explanatory distinction that isone of the major goals of Hodder's (1986) programin Reading the Past . Hodder also identifies othermajor characteristics of an approach that seeks toanswer the critiques made against processualism.Contextual (i.e., post-processual) archaeologypays attention to historical context and change andto social and physical environments; acknowledgesthe active participant, active material culture, andthe active archaeologist in the present; focuses onmeaning; and conceives of the archaeologicalrecord as text or discourse.
In a commentary on what they see as a unidimensional post-processual approach, Earle andPreucel (1987:501) comment that the radical critique "rejects the scientific method and generallaws and, as alternatives to positivism, exploresthe utility of symbolic, structural, and structuralMarxist perspectives." And yet post-processualarchaeology, at least in its initial, basic conceptualization, does not reject general laws (Hodder1987a), but instead recognizes general theories ofstructuration, symbolic meaning, ideology, andpower. More recent discussions also emphasize theimportance of grounded data (Hodder 1991) andthe strong empiricist thread (Preucel 1991a:12) inmany post-processual approaches.
In the same general positivist vein as Earle andPreucel, Shennan (1986:327-356) critiques whathe sees as a single new approach. He interprets thecore of the post-processual approach as a synthesisbetween neo-Marxism and symbolic-structuralism,in which neo-Marxism contributes to ideas of ideology and culture change, and the symbolic-structural approach lends ideas of ways to approachmaterial culture. The approaches complement eachother with their common denominators of rejectingthe systems approach and using ideology to understand material culture and society. Patterson(l990b), however, prefers to distinguish Marxist
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26
approaches as separate and argues that Marxistanalyses have long been used and are not necessarily post-processual.
There are also several typologies that recognizea variety of different strains within post-processualarchaeology. The work of Watson and Fotiadis(1990) contrasts cognitive, structural, and symbolicapproaches with critical and Marxist approaches.The latter, which are materialistic and concernedwith ideology, do not deny either real cultural process or the scientific method but do deny scientificneutrality. The first set views material culture astext and is focused on the interpretation (rather thantesting) of structure, symbols, and, most importantly, intracultural meaning.
Watson understands cognitive, structural, andsymbolic archaeology as " post-processual" but ina much less radical way than does Patterson(1990a), who similarly contrasts critical approaches born of the Frankfort school with poststructural approaches. Critical theory argues thatinterpretations and uses of the past are not valuefree but are influenced by contemporary politicalagendas (Wylie 1985; Leone et al. 1987). Patterson identifies two sorts of post-structural approaches. The first views the archaeological recordas text to be decoded, reifying the individual andprivileging the archaeologist as interpreter. Thisapproach stresses the importance of the individual.Collingwood 's historical approach is often citedas the ancestor to this development (Hodder1985). Scholars such as Barthes, Bourdieu,Geertz, Giddens, and Ricoeur are incorporated inpost-processual analyses to disclose meanings anddiscourses. The second approach incorporates theworks of Michel Foucault to analyze group conflicts and relations of power and domination (cf .Miller and Tilley 1984; Shanks and Tilley 1987;Tilley 1990). Patterson interprets all post-processual archaeology as necessarily rejecting structuralism and symbolic anthropology and engaging ,with post-modernism, a philosophical stance thatrejects meta-narratives (cf. Lyotard 1984), that is,the nonvulgar ideology that encompasses culturalgivens and cultural common sense . Patterson is indirect contrast with Watson and Fotiadis (1990:614), who see the "concern with cognitive sys-
POST-PROCESSUAL APPROACHES TO MEANINGS AND USES 7
terns" as rooted in earlier concerns and thereforenot presenting a necessary break with processualparadigms and procedures .
Leone (1986) provides an earlier typology inwhich he contrasts symbolic, structural, and critical approaches. Although both Watson and Patterson see his first two categories somewhat differently, all three agree on distinguishing a criticalapproach from other approaches. Symbolic, structural, and critical approaches, Leone argues, sharecommon issues concerning recursive culture, concern with meaning, critique of the function of positivism and science, and a critique of positivism.Preucel (1991b) furnishes a simpler classification,contrasting hermeneutic and critical theory againstpositivist approaches.
It is clear that the challenges to processual archaeology are not easily simplified and standardized into bounded categories. It is also obvious thatthe kinds of goals espoused by various post-processualists-particularly concerns with meanings,symbols, cognition, power, and historical context-are much more completely and convincinglyachieved within historical archaeology . Hodderwrites that:
It is partly for this reason [need for a great deal of contextualdata] that historical archaeology is an 'easier ' approach .. .the richer data allow more similarities and differences to besought along more relevantdimensionsof variation (Hodder1986:141).
Watson and Fotiadas (1990:615) also write, "Ithas not escaped the notice of processualists, andothers who are not persuaded by the symbolicstructuralist post-processualists , that virtually allof their published work so far has been within orhas relied heavily upon ethnographic and historicaldata (e.g., Leone and Potter 1988)."
From the quite cogent and telling critiques ofprocessual archaeology and from the various postprocessual approaches, historical archaeologistscan compose a compelling program in contextualarchaeology that is both historically and anthropologically informed and relevant. The focus of theseapproaches on historical and socio-cultural contexts is particularly important as archaeologistsseek to recreate and interpret human behavior and
intention. Understanding the activeness of materialculture as it is used by people is essential for suchinterpretation. Although processual and descriptive approaches have dominated the field of historical archaeology since the 1960s, they are not theonly viable approaches to historic sites and artifacts. Post-processualism works in historical archaeology because its demands are for an historically-situated social science that recognizes thecontingencies of history and knowledge. The" questions that count" in historical archaeologywill be questions that begin to address these demands.
Many historical archaeologists have alreadytaken up the challenge; there are some studies thatexplore the active and symbolic nature of materialculture. Those that include more than abstract theory and seek to ground explanation in solid historical and archaeological data are still rare. Many ofthe historical archaeologists who have taken on thechallenge practice the sort of cognitive-structuralsymbolic archaeology described by Watson and donot necessarily break with time-honored models.For instance, Deetz's (1977) adaptation of Glassie's (1975) structural approach to describe changesin world view seen in architecture, gravestones,ceramics, and other items in 17th- and 18th-century New England is still quite influential. Work inthis general cognitive-structural-symbolic traditionalso includes, for example, that of Leone (1977,1984, 1988), Hodder (1987b, 1987c), Ingersolland Bronitsky (1987), Leone and Potter (1988),Beaudry (1988, 1989), Little and Shackel (1989),Praetzellis and Praetzellis (1989), and Burley(1989).
Compelling aspects of post-processual approaches can be seen in most of the typologiescited earlier . However, none of those typologiesexactly fits either the articles in this collection orstudies in historical archaeology as a whole. Forexample, Patterson (1990a) distinguishes approaches that focus on the individual from thosethat focus on power, but quite often-as seen inmany of the papers here (e.g. , Driscoll 's use ofBarrett [1981], this volume}-individual agencyand power, or the desire for power, are closelyintertwined.
8
Four scholars whose works have been most influential in the development of a post-processualhistorical archaeology are the English sociologistAnthony Giddens (1976, 1979, 1981), French anthropologist-turned-sociologist Pierre Bourdieu(1977, 1984), English anthropologist Mary Douglas (1966; Douglas and Isherwood 1979), andFrench philosopher Michel Foucault (1979) . Theirwork has been successfully incorporated into interpretation by several archaeologists (e.g. , Barrett1981; Tilley 1982; Davis 1984; Miller 1987; Wall1991; and the authors in this volume).
Giddens' (1976) and Douglas' (e.g., 1966;Douglas and Isherwood 1979) work points up the activequality of social life. Douglas' symbolic anthropology is drawn upon by several authors in thiscollection. The actions of the individual and of thegroup are interrelated and dynamic and are therefore always reproducing and changing society. According to Giddens, structures are in a continualstate of structuration, i.e. , of being created, withmeaning established as it is needed . Such meaningis neither haphazard nor ever truly fixed. Becausematerial culture is endowed with symbolic meaning, it can be actively used to create and reproducesociety. As one of its many functions material culture plays an essential and effective role in providing a medium of social domination to legitimatethe social order in structuring society (e.g ., Tilley1982).
Useful to much recent work is Bourdieu's(1977) explanation of habitus and its applicabilityto material culture studies. Habitus. as the interaction between the unconscious and the physicalworld, is learned and reinforced through interaction. Symbolic meaning plays an important role increating a strategy for the structuring of relations insociety. The creation of hierarchies with classification systems is incorporated into ideologies ofpower. The ability to read the meanings of objects ,combined with past experience, makes an objectculturally accepted or rejected by individuals or bygroups. Although Bourdieu's work is not concerned mainly with the role of material goods insociety, Bourdieu
constantly affirms the effectiveness of order embodied indetails such as dress, body movement and manners , and
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26
argues that it is a function of the mundane artifact almostalways to be regarded as an example of mere " trivia" unworthy of systematic academic study (Miller 1987:105).
Michel Foucault's work becomes particularlyuseful in the historical archaeology of modem life.Foucault argues that with the Enlightenment camenew institutional structures such as schools, families, and insane asylums that maintained class hegemony . A new surveillance technology enabledsuperordinates to monitor and guide the movements and actions of subordinates. According toFoucault, power is intricately linked to social relations. Social relations are based on power andtherefore shape and create forms of social interaction (Tilley 1990:287-288).
Continued discussion of issues addressed withinpost-processual archaeology has resulted in an almost overwhelming expansion of the number ofauthorities invoked in the development of theoretical stances. A perusal of the references cited bythe contributors to Preucel's (1991c) recent workreveals many names heretofore far removed fromarchaeological concerns. As Hodder (1991:8) remarks, however , it is necessary to move beyondtheoretical posturing . It is time to concentrate onissues such as power relations, social negotiation ,symbolic manipulation , reification , and contemporary social context. A focus on the meanings anduses of material culture supplies a concrete way toexamine these issues. It is important to note thattheoretical and methodological approaches to suchissues vary. Hodder (1991: 15) writes that "interpretive approaches at least try to understand theother in its own terms in that they look for internalrather than external criteria of plausibility. "
In contrast to some critiques, post-processualapproaches do not eschew general law; nor do theyavoid the constraints of data . It is impossible todisallow all general laws in explanations or description of societies outside the researchers' directexperience. Expectations that humans experiencethe world through their cultural constructions haveled to seemingly widely acceptable , if not yetwidely used, theories of structuration and themeaningful roles of material culture . It is important to realize, however, that goods are not equallymeaningful in all times and places .
POST-PROCESSUAL APPROACHES TO MEANINGS AND USES 9
Ideology. Fields of Discourse. Structure. Meaning. Commodity . Symbol. Recursivity. Negotiation. New conceptual constructs require new vocabularies and rethinking of old. In spite of newkey words, the reader should note that the vocabulary of post-processual archaeology is not fixed.It is not final. The dialogue is still fresh, still volatile, still experimental. While competition encourages standardization, it should be understoodby those doing post-processual archaeology thatthe approach is not ready to be standardized andformalized. Perhaps the debate and seeming disorder are marks of a mature discipline. Has archaeology truly lost its innocence as it "gains maturityby being fully integrated into wider contemporarydebates" (Hodder 1986:ix)? Has the discipline really gained the maturity "to allow diversity, controversy, and uncertainty" (Hodder 1986:x)?
REFERENCES
BARRETT, JOHN C .1981 Aspects of the Iron Age in Atlantic Scotland: A Case
Study in the Problems of Archaeological Interpretation. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries ofScotland 111 :205-219.
BEAUDRY, MARY C .1989 The Lowell Boott Mills Complex and Its Housing:
Material Expressions of Corporate Ideology. Historical Archaeology 23(1):19-32.
BEAUDRY, MARY C. (EDITOR)1988 Documentary Archaeology in the New World. Cam
bridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
BOURDIEU, PIERRE1977 Outline ofa Theory ofPractice. Cambridge Univer
sity Press, Cambridge, England.1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of
Taste, translated by Richard Nice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
BURLEY, DAVID V.1989 Function, Meaning, and Context: Ambiguities in Ce
ramic Use by the Hivernant Metis of the NorthwestPlains. Historical Archaeology 23(1):97-106.
CONKEY, MARGARET W . , AND JANET D. SPECTOR1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances
in Archaeological Methods and Theory , Vol. 7, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 1-38 . AcademicPress, New York.
DA VIS, WHITNEY1984 Representation and Knowledge in the Prehistoric
Rock Art of Africa. African Archaeological Review2:7-35.
DEETZ, JAMES1977 In Small Things Forgotten : The Archaeology of
Early American Life. Anchor Press/Doubleday, NewYork.
DOUGLAS, MARY1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis ofConcepts ofPol
lution and Taboo. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
DOUGLAS, MARY, AND BARON ISHERWOOD1979 The World of Goods. Basic Books, New York.
EARLE, TIMOTHY, AND ROBERT PREUCEL1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique.
Current Anthropology 28(4):501-527.
FOUCAULT, MICHEL1979 Discipline and Punish. Vintage Books, New York.
GERO, JOAN1983 Gender Bias in Archaeology: A Cross Cultural Per
spective. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, edited by 1. Gero, D. Lacy, and M. L. Blakey. Department of Anthropology Research Report No. 23:51-57. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
GERO, JOAN, AND MARGARET CONKEY (EDITORS)1991 Women and Prehistory: Engendering Archaeology.
Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
GIDDENS, ANTONY1976 New Rules of Sociological Method . Hutchinson,
London.1979 Central Problems in Social Theory. Macmillan,
London.1981 A Contemporary Critique ofHistorical Materialism .
Macmillan, London.
GLASSIE, HENRY1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. University of Ten
nessee Press, Knoxville.
HODDER, IAN1985 Postporcessual Archaeology. In Advances in Archae
ological Methods and Theory , Vol. 8, edited byMichael B. Schiffer, pp. 1-26. Academic Press,New York.
1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, England.
1987a Comment on Timothy Earle and Robert Preuce1,Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique.Current Anthropology 28(4):501-527.
1991 Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56(1):7-18 .
10
HODDER , IAN (EDITOR)1987b The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Cam
bridge University Press, Cambridge, England.1987c Archaeology as Long-term History . Cambridge Uni
versity Press, Cambridge, England.
INGERSOLL , DANIEL., JR ., AND GORDON BRONITSKY
(EDITORS)1987 Mirror and Metaphor: Material and Social Con
structions of Reality. University Press of America,Lanham, Maryland.
LEONE, MARK P.1977 The New Mormon Temple in Washington, D.C. In
Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Material Things, edited by Leland Ferguson. Special Publication Series No. 2:43-61 . Society for HistoricalArchaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
1984 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Using the Rules of Perspective in the William PacaGarden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology,Power , and Prehistory , edited by Daniel Miller andChristopher Tilley, pp. 25-35 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
1986 Symbolic, Structural and Critical Archaeology. InAmerican Archaeolo gy Past and Future , edited byD. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, pp.415-438. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1988 The Relationship between Archaeological Data andthe Documentary Record: 18th-Century Gardens inAnnapolis, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 22(1):29-35 .
LEONE, MARK P. , AND PARKER B. POTTER, JR .
(EDITORS)1988 The Recovery ofMeaning : Historical Archaeology in
the Eastern United States. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, D.C.
LEONE, MARK P ., PARKER POTTER, JR ., AND
PAUL A . SHACKEL1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropol
ogy 28(3):823-302 .
LITTLE, BARBARA J .1990 Post-Processual Archaeology and the Hermaphro
ditic Mind. Paper presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association,New Orleans, Louisiana.
1993 "She was an example to her Sex" Possibilities forFeminist Historical Archaeology. In The HistoricChesapeake : Archaeological Contributions , editedby Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. , in press.
LITTLE, BARBARA J., AND PAUL A. SHACKEL1989 Scales of Historical Anthropology: An Archaeology
of Colonial Anglo-America. Antiquity 63:495-509.
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26
LYOTARD , JEAN-FRANc;OIS1984 The Postmodern Condition : A Report on Knowledge ,
translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi.University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
MILLER, DANIEL1987 Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Basil
Blackwell, Oxford.
MILLER, DANIEL, AND CHRISTOPHER TILLEY1984 Ideology, Power, and Prehistory: An Introduction.
In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited byDaniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, pp. 1-15.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
PATTERSON , THOMAS C.1990a History and the Post-Processual Archaeologies. Man
24:555-566.1990b Some Theoretical Tensions within and between the
Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:189-200.
PRAETZELLlS, ADRIAN , AND MARY PRAETZELLIS1989 " Utility and Beauty Should Be One" : The Land
scape of Jack London's Ranch of Good Intentions.Historical Archaeology 23(1):33-44.
PREuCEL, ROBERT W.1991a Introduction. In Processual and Postprocessual Ar
chaeologies, Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by Robert W. Preucel. Center for Archaeological Investigations , Occasional Paper No. 10:1-14.Southern II1inois University, Carbondale.
1991b The Philosophy of Archaeology. In Processual andPostprocessual Archaeologies, Multiple Ways ofKnowing the Past, edited by Robert W. Preucel.Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 10:17-29. Southern IIlinois University, Carbondale.
PREUCEL, ROBERT W. (EDITOR)1991c Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies, Mul
tiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Center for Archaeological Investigations , Occasional Paper No. 10.Southern IIlinois University, Carbondale.
SHANKS, MICHAEL, AND CHRISTOPHER TILLEY1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology, Theory and Practice.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
SHENNAN , STEPHEN1986 Toward a Critical Archaeology? Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 52:327-356. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
SPECTOR , JANET D., AND MARY K. WHELAN
1989 Incorporating Gender into Archaeology Courses. InGender and Anthropology, Critical Reviews for Research and Teaching , edited by Sandra Morgen, pp.65-94. American Anthropological Association,Washington, D.C.
POST-PROCESSUAL APPROACHES TO MEANINGS AND USES 11
TILLEY , CHRISTOPHER1982 Social Formation, Social Structures and Social
Change. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology,edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 26-38 . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
1990 Michel Foucault: Towards an Archaeology of Archaeology. In Reading Material Culture : Structuralism, Hermeneutics and Post-Structuralism, edited byChristopher Tilley, pp. 281-347 . Basil Blackwell,London.
WALL, DIANA DIZEREGA1991 Sacred Dinners and Secular Teas: Constructing Do
mesticity in Mid-19th-Century New York. HistoricalArchaeology 25(4):69-81.
WATSON, PATTY Jo, AND MICHAEL FOTIADIS1990 The Razor's Edge: Symbolic-Structuralist Archaeol
ogy and the Expansion of Archaeological Inference.American Anthropologist 92(3):613-629.
WYLIE, ALISON1985 Putting Shakertown Back Together: Critical Theory
in Archaeology. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 4:133-147 .
BARBARA J. LITTLE
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
COLLEGE PARK , MARYLAND 20742
PAUL A. SHACKEL
DIVISION OF ARCHAEOLOGY
HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
P.O. Box 65HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA 24524