Table Of ContentFront cover: Paul Nash, Equivalents for the Megaliths (1935). Nash (1889–1946)
combined elements of abstract sculpture and ancient landscapes in his paint-
ings and other works. Much of his later work engaged with contemporary
archaeological researches at Avebury and other ancient sites. Equivalents
for the Megaliths is inspired by Avebury and nearby Iron Age hillforts. It
explores tensions between abstraction, surrealism, and representation of the
landscape.
Archaeological Theory
An Introduction
Third Edition
Matthew Johnson
This third edition first published 2020
© 2020 Matthew Johnson.
Edition History
Blackwell Publishing Ltd (1e, 1999); John Wiley & Sons Ltd (2e, 2010)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to
reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Matthew Johnson to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in
accordance with law.
Registered Office(s)
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
Editorial Office
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about
Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand.
Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in
other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they
make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the
contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation
any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty
may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional
statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in
this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the
publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or prod-
uct may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding
that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies
contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist
where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may
have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Nei-
ther the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial
damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data
Names: Johnson, Matthew, 1962– author.
Title: Archaeological theory : an introduction / Matthew Johnson.
Description: Third edition. | Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell, 2019. |
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2018054785 (print) | LCCN 2018056152 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781118499375 (AdobePDF) | ISBN 9781118499382 (ePub) |
ISBN 9781118475027 (paperback)
Subjects: LCSH: Archaeology–Philosophy. | BISAC: SOCIAL SCIENCE / Archaeology.
Classification: LCC CC72 (ebook) | LCC CC72 .J65 2019 (print) | DDC 930.1–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018054785
Cover Design: Wiley
Cover Image: Equivalents of the Megaliths, Paul Nash (1889–1946). United Kingdom;
Photo credit: ©Tate, London 2019.
Set in 10/12pt Sabon by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India
Printed in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
For Jo,
who learnt to love theory
Contents
List of Figures viii
Acknowledgments x
Preface: The Contradictions of Theory xi
1 Common Sense is Not Enough 1
2 The “New Archaeology” 13
3 Archaeology as a Science 38
4 Middle‐range Theory, Ethnoarchaeology
and Material Culture Studies 54
5 Culture and Process 72
6 Thoughts and Ideologies 94
7 Postprocessual and Interpretative Archaeologies 108
8 The Material Turn 132
9 Archaeology, Gender, and Identity 156
10 Archaeology and Cultural Evolution 180
11 Archaeology and Darwinian Evolution 202
12 Archaeology and History 226
13 Archaeology, Politics, and Culture 246
14 Conclusion: The Future of Theory 260
Selective Glossary 284
Further Reading 294
Bibliography 317
Index 358
List of Figures
Preface: “You’re a terrorist? Thank God. I understood Meg to
say you were a theorist.” From Culler (1997, p. 16). xii
2.1 The gulf between present and past. 15
2.2 Front cover and illustration of burial urns from Sir Thomas
Browne, Hydriotaphia (1658). The Latin tag is from the
Latin poet Propertius: “See, I am a burden which is lifted
by five fingers.” 17
2.3 Cultures’ in space and time. From Childe (1929). 21
2.4 Piggott’s (1968) view of culture. 21
2.5 David Clarke’s (1978) systemic view of culture. 26
2.6 Glyn Daniel’s (1941) view of megalith origins. 34
2.7 Renfrew’s megaliths on Rousay, Orkney Islands, showing
“distribution of chambered tombs in relation to modern
arable land, with hypothetical territorial boundaries”
(Renfrew 1973). 36
3.1 Lon Chaney, Jr. and Lionel Atwill in Man Made Monster
(1941, Universal). 39
3.2 A selective diagram showing some schools within the
philosophy of science. 42
4.1 Present statics, past dynamics, and middle‐range theory. 55
4.2 Bordes’s Mousterian assemblage types. As redrawn by
Binford (2002). 60
4.3 Part of Hillman’s (1984) ethnoarchaeological model of grain
processing, derived from ethnographic research in Turkey,
with F indicating those points at which products are exposed to
fire and therefore preservation by charring. 63
5.1 David Clarke’s (1978) diagram of the normative view of culture. 75
5.2 A systems model of the “rise of civilization” in Mesopotamia. 83
7.1 The results of Hodder and Orton’s simulation exercise showing
that “different spatial processes can produce very similar fall‐off
