PostProcessualism and Archaeology

1
Post-Processualism and Archaeology

• Scott A. Lukas, Ph.D.

2
Post-Processualism and Archaeology

• The topic of post-processualism has gained much
  attention in recent years in the field of
  Archaeology. To understand the theories and
  approaches of post-processualists, we must first
  acknowledge the contributions of Processualism as
  a school of archaeological thought.

3
Processualism

• The topic of post-processualism has gained much
  attention in recent years in the field of
  Archaeology. To understand the theories and
  approaches of post-processualists, we must first
  acknowledge the contributions of Processualism
  and a school of archaeological thought. In terms
  of epistemology, archaeological theory seems to
  "have adopted a habit of total renewal almost
  every decade" (Bintliff 1991 274). The
  tradition of hermeneutic revisionism seems to be
  expounded on the writing off of the "research
  aims and achievements of each preceding decade"
  (ibid).

4
Processualism

• The New Archaeology burst on the scene in the
  1960s with the publication of two influential
  works, Binford Binford (1968) and Clarke
  (1968). We remember the work of Lewis Binford
  from our section on the origins of the state and
  agriculture.

5
Processualisms Revolution

• Several divergent interpretations of
  processualism took root, each having an allusion
  in the processual grab-bag (1) methodological
  objectivism the "legitimate domain of scientific
  inquiry" (Patterson 1990 190) which is
  constituted by the acceptance of "a permanent
  frame of reference for determining truth,
  rationality, or reality" (Bernstein in Patterson
  1990 190, Watson, Le Blanc Redman 1971 4),
  and an entrenchment in "common sense and the
  principles of such basic sciences as geology and
  biology" (Watson 1991 275) the application of a
  "general hypothetico-deductive covering-law
  model" (Watson 1991 277),

6
Processualisms Revolution

• (2) objectification of the subject biological
  individuals, "possessing certain psychological
  characteristics, which vary in accordance with
  how much consciousness and social behavior are
  attributed to them, constitute the object of
  inquiry" (Patterson 1990 190) thus, there is
  additionally a component of (inferred)
  evolutionism as Mithen suggests in a rejection
  of post-processualism, "one cannot have a
  challenging, radical archaeology while at the
  same time rejecting the validity of an
  evolutionary approach" (Mithen 1989 491), (3)
  economic rationality individuals act in
  accordance with their conscious mental states
  they are "rational, in the sense that they act to
  maximize or optimize particular goals" (Patterson
  1990 190) such as position is also discussed by
  Simon (1969),

7
Processualisms Revolution

• (4) methodological individualism as purposed
  by Jarvie (1986, 1969 111) and Popper (1964),
  "explanations of social phenomena must be couched
  in terms of facts about individuals" (Patterson
  1990 191), (5) rigorous methodology a demand
  for a rigorous archaeological methodology in
  formulating research designs for the field and
  analytical research programmes for evaluating
  results (Redman 1991 297), has been adopted in
  many subdivisions of archaeology, not just in
  processualism, (6) systems theory an emphasis
  on a systemic view of culture comprised of a
  series of interrelated subsystems, as well as an
  acknowledgment of the importance of ecological
  relationships (ibid), (7) middle range theory
  its advocacy (Engelstad 1991 502).

8
The New Archaeology

• The writings of Binford helped create the
  momentum of the processualists and New
  Archaeology (Redman 1991 296). The
  attractiveness of the explicitly scientific
  approach of the New Archaeologists "led new
  scholars to conduct further research reexamining
  the results of earlier investigations" (ibid).
  Redman argues that "New Archaeology...had an
  important impact on the professional structure"
  of archaeology (1991 297). Watson cites three
  areas in which the New Archaeology has benefited
  both science and archaeology as a discipline (1)
  the New Archaeologists have focused "attention on
  archaeology's dependence on the more basic
  sciences" (Watson 1991 277).

9
The New Archaeology

• (2) Archaeology has directed "attention to the
  evidential relations between artifactual data and
  archaeological interpretations (ibid), (3) the
  New Archaeologists have searched for further
  insight into to the past by looking at the
  present through ethnoarchaeology (ibid 278).

10
Processualism A Summary

• 1. Processual archaeology emphasizes evolutionary
  generalizations not historical specifics. The
  processual agenda is scientific rather than
  historical, emphasizing regularities and
  correlations. Processual archaeology explicitly
  associates itself with the generalizing social
  sciences, such as economics, political science,
  sociology, and ethnology. Just as Darwin's theory
  of natural selection defined the mechanism of
  biological evolution, archaeologists can define
  theories that condition the progressive evolution
  of culture. This evolutionary perspective holds
  that specific human decisions and specific
  historical sequences were not of particular
  interest or significance in their own right.

11
Processualism A Summary

• 2. Processual archaeologv seeks universal laws.
  The ultimate goal of processual archaeology is to
  produce law-like generalizations that could be
  useful for understanding modem society.
• 3. Explanation in processual archaeology is
  emphatically scientific. Initially, the
  processual agenda depended on deductive models
  grounded in die "hard" sciences and emphasized
  the importance of absolute objectivity. More
  recent formulations stress the interplay between
  induction and deduction and the relative
  objectivity of observations.

12
Processualism A Summary

• 4. Processual archaeologv attempts to remain
  objective and ethically neutral. Processual
  archaeology tries to provide positive evidence
  about the past. Politics of the present have
  nothing to do with the ancient past, and
  processual archaeologists avoid subjectivity The
  processual agenda avoids passing moral judgments
  on people of the present or the past.
• 5. Processual archaeology defines culture as
  humanly extrasomatic means of adaptation. In
  processual archaeology, the culture concept
  squarely focuses attention on the key elements of
  environment, technology, ecology, and economy.
  Religion and ideology are considered "emic
  phenomena"-cultural add-ons with little long-term
  explanatory value.

13
Processualism A Summary

• 6. The processual agenda views culture from a
  etic perspective. Viewing culture as a
  non-biological adaptive system, processual
  archaeology could tap into a much larger body of
  established external theory (often called
  "general systems theory"). The general rules
  governing all systems-such as positive feedback,
  negative feedback, and equilibrium-could thus be
  applied to explain the behavior of the major
  parts of any particular system (regardless of the
  specifics of that system).
• 7. Processual archaeologv deals with etic
  phenomena. While not denying that people have
  their own cultural views, processual archaeology
  defines culture strictly from the perspective of
  the outside observer.

14
Processualism Critiques

• Surface cracks "began to appear in the New
  Archaeology in the late 1970s" (Patterson 1990
  191), due to internal critiques and the
  appearance of an increasingly reactionary group
  of Marxists and idealists (ibid). The
  post-processualist school argued against the line
  adopted by Binford and the processualists,
  stating that "processual archaeology has not paid
  sufficient attention to its object of inquiry, to
  the implications of its theoretical and
  methodological foundations, or to the context in
  which archaeological research was carried out"
  (Patterson 1990 191). The term
  post-processualism is used as an "umbrella term"
  for a range of archaeological and theoretical
  approaches which developed during the 1980s
  (Mithen 1989 483).

15
Processualism Critiques

• The post-processualists are united, unlike the
  processualists, in "what they are against rather
  than what they are for" (ibid). Most of the
  post-processual work takes the form of polemical
  criticisms "of what went wrong before, a
  discourse which has created strong polarizations
  in theoretical and methodologically oriented
  archaeology" (Engelstad 1991 502).

16
Post-Processualism Three Traditions

• The first, a rapidly mutating strain of
  Contextual Archaeology (Bintliff 1991 276)
  championed by Ian Hodder, is rooted in the
  thinking of Geertz, Giddens, Bourdieu, Ricoeur,
  and Barthes. It assumes that the archaeological
  record is "a text to be decoded" (Patterson 1989
  556).

17
Post-Processualism Three Traditions

• A second tradition resonates with phenomenology
  and poststructuralism (Patterson 1990 192).
  Grounding itself in the writings of Foucault, and
  engaging itself in Marxist discourse (Patterson
  1989 556), this trend focuses on the relations
  of power and domination and the specificity "of
  archaeological practices in the era of late
  capitalism" (ibid). The major proponents of the
  second strain are Michael Shanks and Christopher
  Tilley (Patterson 1990 192).

18
Post-Processualism Three Traditions

• The third manifestation of post-processualism is
  a "line, concerned with communication and
  ideology," (Patterson 1989 556) that derives
  inspiration from Althusser and Habermas (ibid).
  The advocates of this third school argue that
  "archaeology as ideology is part of the present
  and reveals the historical specificity of both
  knowledge claims and rationality" (Patterson
  1989 556) one of its major proponents is Mark
  Leone (Patterson 1990 193).

19
Post-Processualism Their Challenge

• The post-processualists call for reflexivity
  within archaeology they are especially
  interested in context they argue that knowledge
  comes from a dialogue between subject
  (archaeologist) and object (the archaeological
  record) they abandon the search for an objective
  reality and they believe that the "New
  Archaeology's primary failing is its overemphasis
  on validation and efforts to be objective"
  (Redman 1991 300-1). The post-processualists
  have advocated Marxism, symbolic anthropology,
  hermeneutics, structuralism and poststructuralism
  (Engelstad 1991 502, Leone 1982) as alternatives
  to the Middle Range theory of the processualists.
  The post-processualists have been adamant in
  challenging the methodological assumptions of the
  processualists (Patterson 1990 194).

20
Post-Processualism Their Contributions

• The post-processual school, in some peoples'
  minds, has offered a positive contribution to
  archaeology in the following areas (1) its
  emphasis on a critical examination of the
  archaeologists social responsibility (Bintliff
  1991 275), (2) it "distances us from
  unquestioning readings of all archaeological
  publications as 'fact-sheets' (ibid 276), (3)
  the post-processualists strain encourages
  multiple views about the past, "promoting greater
  sensitivity to the experience of women in the
  past, of ethnic minorities, and of the non-élite
  'people without history'" (ibid).

21
Post-Processualism Summary

• 1. The post-processualists reject cultural
  evolutionary generalizations. The post-processual
  critique has argued that cultural evolution's
  racist views of the past have developed because
  of reliance on the (western) notion of progress."
• 2. The post-processual critique rejects the
  processual search for universal laws. Consistant
  with postmodem interpretivism, the
  post-processual critique holds that such
  universals of human behavior simply do not exist.

22
Post-Processualism Summary

• 3. Post-processualism rejects the emphasis on
  strictly scientific methods. Post-processual
  critics point out, quite correctly, that much of
  the early processual literature rigidly adhered
  to rote rules of evidence and interpretation.
  Many involved in the post-processual critique
  have shown a manifest distrust of science in any
  form (particularly during the earliest years of
  the critique).

23
Post-Processualism Summary

• 4. The post-processualist critique rejects the
  processual emphasis on objective and ethical
  neutrality. To understand the past, many
  post-processual archaeologists argue, one must
  develop an empathetic, particularistic approach
  to it. So-called empathetic explanations of the
  past consider not only human thoughts and
  decisions, but also such highly subjective
  elements as affective states, spiritual
  orientations, and experiential meanings.
  Empathetic approaches assume that the inner
  experience of humanity is worthy of study both
  for its own sake and as a clue for interpreting
  the human past.

24
Post-Processualism Summary

• 5. Post-processualism rejects the systemic view
  of culture. The "systems" approach, a central
  tenet of the processual agenda, has been
  ridiculed by post-processual archaeologists as
  "the robotic view of the human past." The
  systemic view of human society suggests a
  coordinated, uniform "organism" responding only
  to environmental pressures. But to many
  post-processualists, a society comprises
  conflicting individuals, groups, families, and
  classes, whose goals are not necessarily
  identical and whose interests and actions are in
  conflict with the "adaptive" success and
  "functional" needs of the cultural system as a
  whole. This perspective allows for internal
  social dynamics as a significant engine of
  change, rather than merely a passive agent in
  systemic change instituted from the "outside."

25
Post-Processualism Summary

• 6. Post-processualism rejects the processual
  emphasis on etic phenomena. Reversing the
  adaptive stance of processual archaeology, the
  post-processual critique is based on a mentalist
  (emic) view of culture, emphasizing the role of
  artifacts as important symbols of social
  interaction.

26
Post-Processualism Summary

• The central topics of the post-processual
  critique-gender, power, ideology, text,
  discourse, rhetoric, writing, structure, history,
  and the role of the individual-have come to
  dominate some areas of archaeology.

27
Post-Processualism Critiques

• Bintliff (1991) prepares a critique of the
  post-processualists by citing Hodder's
  "theoretical instability" (274) as this doyen of
  post-processualism has followed a variety of
  theoretical approaches throughout the years an
  outdated and deterministic geographic spatial
  analysis approach, French structuralism, and
  finally post-modernism and post-processual
  contextualism (Bintliff 1991 274). Much in this
  same schizophrenic vane, Hodder's Reading the
  Past "vacillates incomprehensibly between a
  practical programme for reconstructing the
  intentions behind past behaviour...and a view
  that we only project modern preconceptions into
  'an essentially unknowable past" (Bintliff 1991
  276).

28
Post-Processualism Critiques

• Thus, one of the criticisms of the
  post-processualists has been its hypocritical
  stance. This is exemplified in a feminist
  criticism of post-processualism which offers that
  the post-processualists, although arguing for the
  need of reflexivity in one's work, have denied
  this tenant by assuming a "singularly male
  readership and a singularly male authorship"
  (Engelstad 1991 511). Additionally, there is
  the argument that post-processualism, and
  post-modernism, is not a unity programme of
  inquiry (ibid), unlike the processual school.

29
Post-Processualism Critiques

• Another critique has been dubbed the 'Exclusion
  Principle' (ibid 275) essentially, the argument
  is that the post-processualists, through devious
  hermeneutics, have made their discourse exclusive
  through the continual referencing of modernist
  and post-modernists critical thinkers, such as
  Habermas, Foucault, and others, perhaps not
  accessible to all people. Another criticism
  leveled is that post-processualism is grounded
  purely in faith (Mithen 1989 483), and such a
  disposition ultimately leads to a
  "hyperrelativism" (Trigger 1989) in which the
  rule of power becomes the only benchmark
  (Patterson 1990 195).

30
Post-Processualism Conclusions

• The needs for many theories and methodologies of
  archaeology.

31
References

• Bintliff, John
• 1991 "Post-modernism, rhetoric and scholasticism
  at TAG the curent
• state of British archaeological theory."
  Antiquity 65274-8.
• Engelstad, Ericka
• 1991 "Images of power and contradiction feminist
  theory and post-
• processual archaeology." Antiquity 65502-14.
• Flannery, Kent V.
• 1973 "Archaeology with a Capital 'S'." In
  Research and Theory in
• Current Archaeology. C. Redman, ed. Pps.
  47-53. NY John Wiley
• Sons.
• Jarvie, I.C.
• 1969 The Revolution in Anthropology. Chicago
  Henry Regnery Company.
• 1986 Thinking About Society Theory and Practice.
  Dordrecht
• D. Reidel Publishing Company.

32
References

• Leone, Mark P.
• 1982 "Some Opinions about Recovering Mind."
  American Antiquity
• 47(4)742-760.
• Mithen, Steven
• 1989 "Evolutionary Theory and Post-Processual
  Archaeology."
• Antiquity 63483-94.
• Patterson, Thomas C.
• 1989 "History and the Post-Processual
  Archaeologists." Man 24555-66.
• 1990 "Some Theoretical Tensions within and
  between the Processual
• and Postprocessual Archaeologies." Journal of
  Anthropological
• Archaeology 9189-200.
• Peebles, Christopher S.
• 1989 "From History to Hermeneutics The Place of
  Theory in the Later
• Prehistory of the Southeast." Unpublished
  manuscript. Bloomington
• Indiana University.

33
References

• Popper, Karl R.
• 1964 The Poverty of Historicism. NY Harper
  Row Publishers.
• 1966 The Open Society and Its Enemies.
  Princeton Princeton
• University Press.
• Redman, Charles L.
• 1991 "Distinguished Lecture in Archaeology In
  Defense of the
• Seventies- The Adolescence of New Archaeology."
  American
• Anthropologist 93(2)295-307.
• Simon, Herbert A.
• 1969 The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge
  The MIT Press.
• Trigger, Bruce
• 1989 "HyperRelativism, Responsibility, and the
  Social Sciences."
• The Canadian Review of Scoiology and
  Anthropology. 26776-797.

34
References

• Watson, Richard A.
• 1991 "What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished."
  Current
• Anthropology 32(3)275-281.
• Watson, Patty Jo, Steven LeBlanc and Charles
  Redman
• 1971 Explanation in Archaeology. NY Columbia
  University Press.