Post-process archeology

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The post-procedural archeology , sometimes Interpretative Archeology called, is one archaeological theory that the subjectivity of archaeological emphasizes interpretations. Instead of a vaguely outlined set of commonalities, post-process archeology consists of multifaceted strands of thought that are combined into a loose structure of traditions. A variety of theoretical archaeological viewpoints have been grouped within post-processualism, including structuralism and neo-Marxism , as well as a number of different archaeological techniques such as phenomenology .

Research history

Post-process archeology is understood as a critical response to New Archeology or “procedural archeology”. Coined by the British archaeologist Ian Hodder , the term encompasses new currents in archeology that have been critically examining New Archeology since the 1980s. Leading the way in this debate were universities in England (particularly Cambridge) and Scandinavia. The newly developed approaches include structuralism adopted from France , poststructuralism, contextual archeology with the theoretical background of hermeneutics, and phenomenology . Ideas from feminist, Marxist and literary currents as well as from general cultural theory were also incorporated.

All these currents are based on the opposition to procedural archeology, of which four aspects are heavily criticized. First, their positivism , according to which interpretations can be developed on the basis of theories based on the objective knowledge of the data collected. Proponents of post-processualism, on the other hand, maintain that subjective perceptions flow into the data collection or documentation of an excavation, but especially when it comes to modeling and interpretation . Second, it is criticized that no attempts are made to explore the ways of thinking and mentalities of past social groups and to include them in the interpretations. In post-process archeology this has become a central issue. Thirdly, in procedural archeology, both the individual and the material culture would be portrayed as too passive and dependent on external influences (nature, environment). Rather, social change should include the actions of individuals. In this context, material culture is conceptualized both as a tool and as an effective tool. Fourth, the method of cross-cultural comparisons is problematic in that it neglects what is specific to a society, culture or social group, and thus history. Post-process archeology, on the other hand, is interested in the specific change of local entities in the mirror of actions.

Overall, the aim of post-process archeology was to put social practices at the center of the past interest and to investigate the meanings of symbols for archaeologically tangible social groups. In addition, the narrowing to a seemingly correct interpretation should be avoided by giving greater scope for interpretation. Until the 1990s, however, post-process archeology often remained a criticism of an older paradigm. In 1980, a conference took place under the aegis of Ian Hodder, which to this day can be regarded as the first public appearance of this new direction.

From the 1990s onwards, archaeological theory building was more closely linked to practice and post-process archeology was now also summarized under the term “interpretative archeology” for some time. It was assumed that different people with different social backgrounds automatically interpret the past differently. Hermeneutics and the recourse to literature and philosophy (including Barthes, Derrida) led post-process archaeologists to compare the past with a text that was meant to be “read” and which not only had “true” content, but depending on the reader different truths can be charged. Today there is general agreement in English-language archeology that there can be no single and best theory - a theoretical pragmatism characterizes the recent phase of post-processualism. The main exponents of post-processism are Ian Hodder , Michael Shanks , Christopher Tilley , John C. Barrett and Julian Thomas .

Symbols and meaning

In contrast to procedural archeology, which focuses on the functions, use and production method of an artifact, contextual archeology emphasizes the cultural significance of material culture. The background is based on the assumption that all components of a culture are constructed in such a way that they are always charged with meaning. Influenced by an increasing interest in linguistics, structuralism and semiotics from the mid-1970s in the humanities , the theory arose that material remains are to be viewed as symbols that can be read like a text and are subject to certain rules. Symbols are to be defined as carriers of meaning that are associated with one or more ideas. They can be not only signs and images, but also objects and installations. For example, a stove can be understood in its functional meaning as a hotplate, but can also be perceived intuitively as the center of a household. Such units of meaning can have different, even contradicting meanings in different contexts. The emphasis is on the context of objects. The object receives its concrete meaning (s) from the context and at the same time gives the context a meaning. There is therefore a dynamic interrelation between object and context. An object can also have different meaning (s) for its maker, the people who used it and for the archaeologists. Accordingly, meanings change over time and are dependent on changing contexts and interpreters. Their understanding, in turn, is linked to the context and / or the existence of relevant prior knowledge. Since objects allow multiple interpretations, meanings are always polysemic, ie there is not one correct meaning, but different, context-dependent, valid meaning. Using the cooker as an example, the principles mentioned above would look like this: The denotations for the builders of the cooker are the options for preparing warm meals and using it as a heat source for house residents. The connotations a hearth can have come from context. If the stove is the household's only source of heat, it almost certainly symbolizes its social and communicative center, which in turn is more relevant in the context of a cold climate than in the vicinity of the equator. In a child's world of experience, a hearth will have a completely different meaning than it does for an adult, although fire and its control naturally have their own symbolism, from which one could create a further chain of meaning.

Methods: hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is the central method of post-process archeology for deciphering symbols. An approach to foreign worlds of ideas should be achieved through the method of the hermeneutic circle . The starting point here is as extensive a collection of material as possible, with the help of which a meaningful question can be asked. The existing prior knowledge is then searched for an answer to the previously formulated question in the hope of gaining knowledge that will expand the initial knowledge. On the basis of the new knowledge, this process can be repeated at will (like a spiral) and should lead to an ever better "understanding" of past ideas. The result is a number of equivalent, possibly even contradicting interpretations, which cannot be falsified, but only have different plausibility. From the concept of the hermeneutic circle it becomes clear that no objective science is possible in this area of ​​research, because we can never be completely impartial. Prejudices of a social, political and scientific nature unconsciously influence all interpretations of the past. No “correct” and final interpretation is possible, which is why everyone is given the right to form their own opinion about the past. The hermeneutic circle is a never-ending process in which every new generation should be encouraged to re-evaluate the existing knowledge.

Multivocality

The reception of Foucault's works by post-process archeology led to an awareness of the connection between power and knowledge, especially academic knowledge. At the same time, resistance arose, especially on the part of Native Americans in the USA, against an archeology that unreflectively excavated the graves of the indigenous peoples in search of grave goods and signs of non-Western rites, housed objects and skeletons in museum cellars or even exhibited them . The resistance to this science of archeology, which was perceived as theft and continued ethnocide, was taken seriously by post-process archeology, in complete contrast to the representatives of the procedural, cultural-historical and evolutionist directions.

Initially, one spoke of the consideration of the interests of “ stakeholders ” in general, which can mean not only indigenous groups, but also landowners, communities that live close to an excavation site, the “public”, but in specific cases also religiously motivated people. Archeology initially retained the task of orchestrating such a voice. The archaeological discourse was not yet clearly ranked as being of equal value to that of “stakeholders”. The latter extreme emerged more and more clearly in the course of post-colonial considerations, when post-colonial historians and other intellectuals accused the West that the entire rationality of argument is an instrument of dominance and oppression of others. It tended to appear as if the dialogue with interested laypeople was moving in a direction in which everyone could provide an interpretation of archaeological results with equal rights. Therefore, multivocality is often sharply attacked as “relativism”, which opens the way for fascists, racists and chauvinists to legitimate discourse in archaeological spheres like minorities who have so far had no say in the interpretation of their own past. The project in Çatalhöyük is a good example of practiced multivocalism, because on the website at least interested parties can contribute their ideas for the interpretation of the project, which includes econfeminists. Other interested parties who have their say here much more clearly than is normally the case are e.g. T. local residents such as an excavation guard. Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between an unrestrictedly naive self-withdrawal, which ultimately gives the clearest voice among the stakeholders to those who a priori already have the most power, and a reflective multivocality that creates a responsible polyphony in the dialogue on all sides. Post-processism includes both.

Agency: origin and content

The agency theories belong to the post-process archeologies and are therefore part of the reaction to process-related system models and structuralism. There is no uniform definition for the concept of "agency" (English for potential for action, effect, activity). In general, it is about the archaeological examination of people's scope for action. Agency distinguishes itself from the term “behavior” used in procedural archeology, which traces the change in human cultures back to external influences such as climate, natural disasters and the like, and observes processes of history rather on large time scales. Agency is linked to the action theories of 19th and 20th century sociologists (e.g. Karl Marx , Max Weber ). Sociological theories have been incorporated into archaeological research since the 1980s, so that action theory concepts slowly found application in the fields of feminism , gender studies, and cognitive archeology. A scientific discourse on dealing with Agency did not begin until 2000 with the anthology Agency in Archeology by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John Robb .

theory

Martin Wobst deals with the connection between material culture and people's potential for action. On the one hand, the creation of an artifact has an impact on the environment, but on the other hand it also affects the human community in and by whom it was created. An artifact always has a social component. This can be worked out by evaluating the relationship between functional and non-functional parts of an artifact. Only then can it be said whether “value” was placed on optimization, whether aesthetics played a role, or whether this artifact was perhaps not given any social attention at all.

Timothy R. Pauketat uses agency theory to interpret the emergence of social hierarchies in the Mississippi region. Agency assumes that people often have no idea how the structures they have created will affect in the long term. The stratigraphies of mounds of earth in the Mississippi region show that the mounds were raised in annual ritual construction cycles. So the builders acted according to tradition. With the maintenance of this tradition, structures were subconsciously created from which social hierarchies emerged in the long term.

The agency theories deal with the recording of individuals and their actions. Everyone makes decisions based on a (personal, social, economic, ecological etc.) situation, ie they are shaped by previous knowledge. Even the thought of being free and being able to do whatever you want goes back to specific circumstances that make it possible in the first place. This prior knowledge gives him a potential for action and thus a filtered scope for decision-making, from which a choice is finally made by weighing up. It is about researching a culturally influenced group using methods that are as precise as possible, such as B. Demography or Paleopsychology. In applying Agency, it is important to understand the background that led to the decisions that an individual or group made. An attempt is made to assign reasons and intentions to a chain of action. In order to recognize and formulate intentions, a large context must be comprehensible (physical and social environment, status of the individual and structure of the social fabric). A basic assumption is that there is no static structure of culture. Every action of an individual always has a direct and indirect effect on the culture. Thus, culture as such is never the same at two points in time, but only an approximation of abstractable characteristics.

Hodder postulates that historical processes arise through the actions of individuals. “The human power to act” is in the foreground. In the agency discourse, too, the focus is on terms such as the “free will of the individual”, the “perception of the human being through his body” and the resulting reflection of reality in objects. The aim is to approach a perspective of archaeological cultures that corresponds to the view of their original participants. A problem with this approach lies in the archaeological sources. Such a hermeneutic approach to explanation is heavily dependent on the fact that the underlying data must be very dense. This is why this can only be used sensibly at a few sites, such as Pompeii , Çatalhöyük or the “ Ötzi ”.

Criticism of Agency

A major criticism of the theories of action (Agency) is that structure-changing action was less dominant in premodern times. Targeted change can only be seen as rationally expedient in the course of industrialization. It is also criticized here that it does not go into the role of social conditions that unconsciously shape and change consciousness. The question of how consciousness arises and how it is composed is not asked. Here, humans are primarily seen as producers and consumers, which illustrates the influence of late capitalist ideas. The post-processualists also base their actions on a meaning which, however, in many cases cannot be expressed in words. At most "intuitive" meanings can be assigned to objects, ie that certain design and behavioral characteristics are taken over from social conventions or not changed or questioned. How one can distinguish between intuitive meanings in archaeological findings and explicit, discursive meanings has not yet been clarified.

Lewis Binford strongly criticized some of the theses put forward by Ian Hodder. Hodder says that archeology can explore the meanings of legacies through the process of understanding. Objects therefore have both an economic value ascribed to them and a symbolic and thus social character. But this understanding presupposes so much prior knowledge about the past that it is reluctant to create knowledge in archeology and is therefore impractical.

Further criticism relates to Hodder's assumption that archaeological remains are to be seen as codes and symbols. The situation-specific expression of their materiality and meaning is fathomable and legible. Even Colin Renfrew agrees with this criticism and considers these theoretical approaches for Hodder's not practical to implement.

The hermeneutics recognized as an approach to mental worlds of past cultures, assumes that every human individual can empathize with him foreign cultural situation in one, regardless of temporal, spatial and social differences. However, it can hardly be assumed that the spiritual worlds of the present and past cultures are similar. Since there are always only fragments from the past, a historically absolutely correct research result will never be possible. It is also difficult to use hermeneutics to argue purely rationally, because human actions not only have intended, but also unintended consequences. Behind every human action there is a world view of the actors, concepts and categorizations that are always dependent on society. This is precisely why it is important to distinguish between the past subject and the researching self. Thorough prior knowledge of the past culture is therefore essential in hermeneutics, which also gives hermeneutics a clearly error-prone data-oriented side. Another point of criticism of structuralist-hermeneutic interpretations is that they cannot be refuted, they are just more or less plausible. The opposition pairs developed from structuralist guidelines, which were taken for granted, were also criticized early on. The binary character of this thinking does not have to be timeless.

But according to Manfred Eggert , post-processualism stimulated a self-critical reflection with its radical questioning of the conceptions of processualism, which led to a rethinking of traditional positions. Even after Bernbeck, the post-process approaches have greatly expanded the debates about theories and the background of knowledge in archeology. Archaeological research at the synthesis level can no longer be imagined without them.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Johnson (1999) : p. 98 f.
  2. ↑ Johnson (1999) : p. 101.
  3. ↑ Reinhard Bernbeck , Theorien in der Archäologie (Tübingen 1997) 271–294.
  4. ↑ Michael Shanks, Post-Processual Archeology and After . In: R. Alexander Bentley - Herbert DG Maschner - Christopher Chippindale, Handbook of Archaeological Theories (Lanham 2008) 133-143.
  5. ↑ Reinhard Bernbeck, Theorien in der Archäologie (Tübingen 1997) 271–294.
  6. ^ Matthew Johnson, Archaeological Theory: An Introductio n (Oxford 1999) 98-115.
  7. ^ Ian Hodder, Post-Processual and Interpretive Archeology . In: Archeology: Paul Bahn - Colin Renfrew (eds), The Key Concepts (New York 2005) 207-211.
  8. ↑ Michael Shanks, Post-Processual Archeology and After . In: Alexander Bentley - Herbert DG Maschner - Christopher Chippindale (ed.), Handbook of Archaeological Theories (Lanham 2008) 133-143.
  9. ^ Ian Hodder, Post-Processual and Interpretive Archeology . In: Paul Bahn - Colin Renfrew (eds), Archeology: The Key Concepts (New York 2005) 207-211.
  10. ^ Bruce G. Trigger, A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge 1996) 444-478.
  11. ^ Ian Hodder, Post-Processual and Interpretive Archeology . In: Paul Bahn - Colin Renfrew (ed.), Archeology: The Key Concepts (New York 2005) 207-211.
  12. ↑ Reinhard Bernbeck, Theorien in der Archäologie (Tübingen 1997) 271–294.
  13. ↑ Robert W. Preucel, Robert - Stephen A. Mrozowski, (ed.), Contemporary Archeology in Theory. The New Pragmatism. (New York 2010)
  14. ^ Ian Hodder, Post-Processual and Interpretive Archeology . In: Paul Bahn - Colin Renfrew (eds), Archeology: The Key Concepts (New York 2005) 207-211.
  15. ↑ Michael Shanks, Post-Processual Archeology and After . In: Alexander Bentley - Herbert DG Maschner - Christopher Chippindale (ed.), Handbook of Archaeological Theories (Lanham 2008) 133-143.
  16. ↑ Michael Shanks, Post-Processual Archeology and After. In: Alexander Bentley - Herbert DG Maschner - Christopher Chippindale (Ed.), Handbook of Archaeological Theories (Lanham 2008) 140
  17. ↑ Reinhard Bernbeck, Theorien in der Archäologie (Tübingen 1997) 281
  18. ^ Ian Hodder (ed.) Symbolic and structural archeology (Cambridge 2007).
  19. ↑ Hans Peter Hahn, Things as a Sign of a Blurred Relationship. In: U. Veit (Ed.) Traces and Messages: Interpretations of Material Culture (Tübingen 2003) 29–52.
  20. ↑ Reinhard Bernbeck, Theorien in der Archäologie (Tübingen 1997) 278.
  21. ↑ Ian Hodder, Reading the Past (Cambridge 1986) 49-53.
  22. ^ Matthew Johnson, Archaeological Theory: An Introduction (Oxford 1999) 102f.
  23. ↑ Michael Shanks - Christopher Tilley, Re-Constructing Archeology. Theory and Practice (Cambridge 1992) 108-110.
  24. ^ Matthew Johnson, Archaeological Theory: An Introduction (Oxford 1999) 106.
  25. ↑ Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe (Princeton 2002).
  26. ^ Kathryn Rountree, Archaeologists and Goddess Feminists at Çatalhöyük. An experiment in multivocality. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 2007, 7–26.
  27. ↑ Sadrettin Dural, "Protecting Catalhoyuk: Memoir of an Archaeological Site Guard." Contributions by Ian Hodder. Translated by Duygu Camurcuoglu Cleere (Walnut Creek 2007).
  28. ^ J. Habu - C. Fawcett - JM Matsunaga (eds.), Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies (New York 2008).
  29. ^ John Robb, Beyond Agency. World Archeology 42, 2010, 493-520.
  30. ↑ Marcia-Anne Dobres - John Robb, Agency in archeology (London 2000) Tab. 1
  31. ^ John Robb, Beyond Agency. World Archeology 42, 2010, 493-520.
  32. ↑ Martin Wobst, Agency in (spite of) material culture . In: Marcia-Anne Dobres - John Robb, Agency in archeology (London 2000).
  33. ↑ Timothy R. Pauketat, The tragedy of the commoners . In: Marcia-Anne Dobres - John Robb, Agency in archeology (London 2000).
  34. ↑ George L. Cowgill, "Rationality" and contexts in agency theory . In: Marcia-Anne Dobres - John Robb, Agency in archeology (London 2000) 51-60.
  35. ↑ George L. Cowgill, "Rationality" and contexts in agency theory . In: Marcia-Anne Dobres - John Robb, Agency in archeology (London 2000) 55f.
  36. ↑ George L. Cowgill, "Rationality" and contexts in agency theory . In: Marcia-Anne Dobres - John Robb, Agency in archeology (London 2000) 56f.
  37. ↑ George L. Cowgill, "Rationality" and contexts in agency theory . In: Marcia-Anne Dobres - John Robb, Agency in archeology (London 2000) 57–59.
  38. ↑ Jürgen Habermas, A kind of claims settlement . Small Political Writings VI (Frankfurt am Main 1987) 229–294.
  39. ^ J. Muller, The New Holy Family . In: RW Preucel (Ed.), Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past (Carbondale 1991) 251-264.
  40. ^ Matthew Johnson, Archaeological Theory. An Introduction (Oxford 1999)
  41. ↑ Reinhard Bernbeck, Theorien in der Archäologie (Tübingen 1997) 314.
  42. ^ Ian Hodder, Post-Processual and Interpretive Archeology . In: Paul Bahn and Colin Renfrew (eds), Archeology: The Key Concepts (New York 2005) 207–211.
  43. ^ Reinhard Bernbeck, Theories in Archeology (Tübingen 1997).
  44. ↑ Preucel, Robert W. and Stephen A. Mrozowski (ed.), Contemporary Archeology in Theory. The New Pragmatism . (New York 2010).
  45. ^ H. Seiffert, Introduction to the Philosophy of Science , Vol. 2 (Munich 1991) 136.
  46. ↑ Reinhard Bernbeck, Theorien in der Archäologie (Tübingen 1997) 223–230.
  47. ↑ H. Seiffert, Introduction to the Philosophy of Science , Vol. 2 (Munich 1991) 104–122.
  48. ^ Reinhard Bernbeck, Theories in Archeology (Tübingen 1997).
  49. ^ Reinhard Bernbeck, Theories in Archeology (Tübingen 1997).
  50. ^ Reinhard Bernbeck, Theories in Archeology (Tübingen 1997).

literature

  • Timothy K. Earle, Robert W. Preucel: Processual Archeology and the Radical Critique. In: Current Anthropology 28/4, Chicago 1987, pp. 501-538.
  • Ian Hodder (Ed.): Symbolic and Structural Archeology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1982, ISBN 0-521-03550-3 .
  • Ian Hodder: Burials, houses, men and women in the European Neolithic. In: Daniel Miller, Christopher Tilley (Eds.): Ideology, Power and Prehistory . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1984, pp. 51-68.
  • Ian Hodder: The Domestication of Europe. Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Blackwell, Oxford 1990.
  • Ian Hodder (Ed.): Archaeological Theory Today. Polity, Cambridge 2001, ISBN 0-7456-2269-0 .
  • Ian Hodder, Scott Hutson: Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archeology. 3. Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003, ISBN 0-521-52884-4 .
  • ER Leach: Concluding address. In: Colin Renfrew (Ed.): The Explanation of Culture Change. Models in Prehistory. Duckworth, London 1972.
  • André Leroi-Gourhan : Les Religions de la Préhistoire . Presses Universitaires de France, Paris 1964.
  • Sam Lucy: Housewives, warriors and slaves? : Sex and gender in Anglo-Saxon burials. In: J. Moore, E. Scoot (Eds.): Invisible People and Processes. Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archeology. Leicester University Press, London and New York 1997, pp. 150-168.
  • Matthew Johnson: Archaeological Theory. An Introduction. Blackwell, Oxford 1999, ISBN 0-631-20296-X .
  • Daniel Miller: Modernism and suburbia as material ideology. In: Daniel Miller, Christopher Tilley (Eds.): Ideology, Power and Prehistory Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1984.
  • Daniel Miller, Christopher Tilley: Ideology, Power and Prehistory . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1984.
  • Colin Renfrew, Paul Bahn: Archeology. Theories, Method and Practice. 4th edition. Thames & Hudson, London 2004, ISBN 0-500-28441-5 .
  • Julian Thomas: Reconfiguring the social, reconfiguring the material. In: MB Schiffer: Social Theory in Archeology . University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City 2000, pp. 143-155.
  • Bruce G. Trigger: A History of Archaeological Thought . 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York 2007, ISBN 978-0-521-60049-1 .