Handbook of Archaeological Theories

598 Pages·2007·56.32 MB·English

by  R. Alexander Bentley

Handbook of
Archaeological Theories

Handbook of
Archaeological Theories
EDITED BY
R. ALEXANDER BENTLEY,
D. G.
HERBERT MASCHNER,
AND CHRISTOPHER CHIPPINDALE
0?~)
ALTIYV\IRA
PRE 55
A Division of
ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC.
Lanham • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK
AL TAM IRA PRESS
A division ofRowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, MD 20706
www.altamirapress.com
Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom
Copyright ~ 2008 by AltaMira Press
First paperback edition 2009
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, without the prior permission of
the publisher.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Handbook of archaeological theories I edited by R. Alexander Bentley, Herbert D. G. Maschner, and Christopher
Chippindale.
p.cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
I. Archaeology-Philosophy-Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Bentley, R. Alexander, 1970-II. Maschner, Herbert D.
G. III. Chippindale, Christopher, 1951-
CC72.H36 2008
930.101 '9---dc22 2006102103
ISBN: 978-0-7591-0032-9 (cloth: alk. paper)
ISBN: 978-0-7591-0033-6 (pbk.: alk. paper)
ISBN: 978-0-7591-1360-2 (electronic)
Printed in the United States of America
8,...
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for
Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSIINISO Z39.48-1992.
Contents
1 Introduction: On Archaeological Theories 1
R. Alexander Bentley and Herbert D. G. Maschner
PART I. RESEARCH PARADIGMS
2 Culture History: A Culture-Historical Approach 11
Gary S. Webster
3 Processualism and After 29
Patty Jo Watson
4 Ecology in Archaeology 39
David R. Yesner
5 Classical Art and the Grand Tour 57
David W. /. Gill
6 Marxism 73
Randall H. McGuire
7 Agency 95
Andrew Gardner
8 Darwinian Archaeologies 109
R. Alexander Bentley, Carl Lipo, Herbert D. G. Maschner, and Ben Marler
9 Post-Processual Archaeology and After 133
Michael Shanks
PART II. IDEAS FROM NEIGHBORING DISCIPLINES
10 History and Continental Approaches 147
John Bintliff
11 Latin American Archaeology in History and Practice 165
Tom D. Dillehay
12 Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology: Theoretical Dialogues 187
Timothy Earle
13 Evolutionary Biological Methods and Cultural Data 203
Mark Collard, Stephen Shennan, Briggs Buchanan, and R. Alexander Bentley
14 Archaeology and the Origins of Language Families 225
Peter Bellwood
15 Complexity Theory 245
R. Alexander Bentley and Herbert D. G. Maschner
v
PART Ill. RESEARCH CONCERNS
16 Simulating Society 273
Andre Costopoulos
17 Mind 283
Liane Gabora
18 Materiality 297
Timothy Taylor
19 Ethnicity: Theoretical Approaches, Methodological Implications 321
Sitln]ones
20 Gender 335
Kelley Ann Hays-Gilpin
21 Philosophy in Archaeology 351
Stephanie Koerner and Steven Price
PART IV. CONTEXTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY
22 Cultural Resource Management 375
Thomas]. Green
23 Archaeology and Society 395
Gillian Wallace
24 Archaeological Ethics in Context and Practice 409
Don D. Fowler, Edward A. folie, and Marion W. Salter
25 Toward a Postcolonial Archaeology of Indigenous Australia 423
Ian]. McNiven and Lynette Russell
PART V. THEORY INTO PRACTICE
26 Hunters and Gatherers 447
Peter Jordan
27 The Origins and Spread of Agriculture 467
Mark Pluciennik and Marek Zvelebil
28 The Archaeology of Rank 487
Kenneth M. Ames
29 Chiefdoms 515
Alex W. Barker
30 The Rise of the State 533
Reinhard Bernbeck
31 Religion 547
David S. Whitley
Index of Names 567
Index 573
About the Contributors 585
Vi CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
Introduction: On Archaeological Theories
R. D. G.
ALEXANDER BENTLEY AND HERBERT MASCHNER
THEORY IS ONE of the most hotly debated topics in the interesting, much of the literature since the early 1980s
field of archaeology. Peruse the journals and major arguing for archaeological theories based on reflexiv
publishing concerns since the mid-1960s and you will ity, critique, interpretation, and post-processualism is
find that some of the most cited papers and books are written as antitheory in its avoidance of prediction,
statements or reviews of archaeological theory. Yet generalizing principles, and testability. While these ap
major advances in archaeological theory have been proaches may be theoretical, the only theories we have
made by remarkably few people. When one thinks in archaeology that actually fit the definition of theory
of names that might be included this book, such no are Darwinism, Marxism, and certain aspects of pro
tables as Childe, Taylor, Binford, Flannery, Watson cessualism because they describe a set of propositions
(this volume), and Schiffer come to mind. A younger and expectations about how the world should work
generation certainly includes Hodder, Shanks (this that are testable against the archaeological record.
volume), Conkey, O'Brien, Tilley, Ames (this volume), This is the reason why the Marxist explanations of
Hegmon, Shennan, Crumley, and a number of others Childe often identify him as one of the first theoreti
who have made a large impact on specific aspects of cal archaeologists, while all those who went before are
archaeology ranging from gender to rock art. These seen as placing archaeological data in the explanatory
names, and the others represented in this volume, are framework of their times, such as biblical explanations
a tiny percentage of those who consider themselves for an ancient past.
archaeologists. The rest of the field looks to these writ Whereas archaeological theory should fit the ex
ers to help explain data, to understand and present the plicit model of scientific inquiry, theoretical discus
past, and to make it interesting and useful. sion of archaeology opens up the field to comment,
Ironically, the competition among the creators of revisionism, and critique from sources ranging from
archaeological theories for followers to apply them philosophy to feminism to culture studies. Taking the
(Bintliff, chapter 10; O'Brien et al. 2005:chap. 9) makes ory and theoretical critique together, almost anything
the theories less applicable, as the debate itself be becomes possible with archaeology. Consider other
comes the topic, even to a debate over what the cur topics or disciplines, like law, agricultural science, pho
rent theoretical disagreements actually are (Hegmon tography, chemistry, medicine, or industrial relations;
2003, 2005; Moss 2005). This induces the dialogue how many of them can be defined simultaneously
to become fashion rather than true theory, which the as science, art, social study, tactical landscape work,
dictionary defines as a "set of statements or principles mindless manual labor, abstract theory, objective data
devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, es collection, and vehicle for personal introspection? Ar
pecially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely chaeology attracts scholars from an endless range of
accepted and can be used to make predictions about backgrounds, and they all have a different reason for
natural phenomena" or a "plausible or scientifically pursuing it. One of us (Bentley) entered archaeology
acceptable general principle or body of principles of after earning an undergraduate degree in physics, with
fered to explain natural phenomena." a research assistantship doing neutron activation anal
The constant advance of fashionable change is one ysis on Etruscan pottery ("blasting pots:' as friends
reason why earlier efforts to build true scientific the called it). The other (Maschner) once considered a
ory in archaeology (Watson, LeBlanc, and Redman scholarship in opera before deciding on archaeology
1974; Schiffer 1976) have already been discarded in instead. Despite the countless ways of getting involved,
many quarters. Instead, nearly all archaeological the the practice of archaeology (the subject of Maschner
ory can be best defined as methods of interpretation, and Chippindale's [2005] Methods volume) is fairly
explanation, or critique, but not as theory. Equally coherent, since it aims at answering archaeological
questions through gathering and analyzing evidence. archaeological theorists often explore identities in the
Without evidence we could not discuss theory at all. past of our species (G abora, chapter 17) or of our
Without the work of culture historians since the eigh society (Bernbeck, chapter 30). As the post-processual
teenth century (Webster, chapter 2), we might still archaeologists rightly point out (Tilley 1989), archae
view stone hand axes as the creation of lightning ological theory involves a personal agenda. There is no
bolts (Trigger 1989:47). Without the ongoing work of way to escape the fact that, given some archaeological
cultural resource management archaeologists (Green, evidence, how we narrate the past and what we think is
chapter 22), our base of evidence would be a small important about it depends on us. This is as it should
fraction of what it is. Those who recorded Upper Pa be, since research seeks what it means to be human,
leolithic art gave us what may be the earliest evidence and what our being human has meant to other people
of the developed modern mind ( Gabora, chapter 17), and the natural world. Some positions are more overt
and later rock art is often our only road into the ide than others. Gender archaeology (Hays-Gilpin, chap
ology of past nonwriting societies (Whitley, chapter ter 20 ), for example, is explored mostly by women, not
31). Classical archaeologists, some of whom openly through an imposed monopoly of the subject but out
steer clear of archaeological theory, have given us the of a natural, sustained interest in one of the most ba
most comprehensive archaeological record we have sic human relations, and a frequent power imbalance
(Gill, chapter 5). These and all the other sources of that matters most to those who directly experience
archaeological evidence (Maschner and Chippindale it. Personal experience is critical to the validity of the
2005) are the building blocks of archaeology. However, argument, as, for example, when Joe Watkins (2003)
make one mention of archaeological theory or theo provides an American Indian perspective on theory,
retical archaeology, and the coherence dissipates into power, and research prerogatives in archaeology. Each
individual pursuits. (Think of the effect dishwashing theoretical position, even if presented in an objective
detergent has on a floating film of grease.) Many who fashion, ultimately reflects the prerogatives of the re
expound on archaeological theory seem to be more searcher, with everything from those who discuss the
interested in another subject. The post-processualists physical-chemical qualities of artifacts (Gill, chapter
(Shanks, chapter 9), for example, delve into literary 5; Taylor, chapter 18) to those whose main interest is
theory and philosophy (Koerner and Price, chapter 21 ), cultural anthropology (Earle, chapter 12) and ethnog
whereas the processualists (Watson, chapter 3) were raphy, especially regarding indigenous groups world
originally inspired by ecology, physics, and cultural wide (Jones, chapter 19; Jordan, chapter 26; McNiven
anthropology. Evolutionary or Darwinian archaeolo and Russell, chapter 25).
gists (Bentley et al., chapter 8) have borrowed largely The variety of perspectives (and the reason the
from evolutionary biology (Collard et al., chapter 13). title of this volume uses "theories" in the plural) is
Classical (Gill, chapter 5) and other archaeologists the strength of archaeological theory as a whole. It is
(Bellwood, chapter 14) have developed an expertise in a human topic. What archaeology offers us on such
linguistics through their work. Marxist archaeologists personal topics as ethnicity (Jones, chapter 19), sta
(McGuire, chapter 6) cross into economics and sociol tus (Ames, chapter 28; Barker, chapter 29), inequality
ogy (Barker, chapter 29; Dillehay, chapter 11), whereas (McGuire, chapter 6), our own significance in society
cultural resource management archaeologists (Green, (Gardner, chapter 7), cultural differences (McNiven
chapter 22), among the most adept and efficient of and Russell, chapter 25), and shared resources (Fowler
field archaeologists, must also take on the unpredict et al., chapter 24), is perspective. This perspective is a
able challenge of presenting and debating archaeology natural result of our distance from societies that are
with the public (Wallace, chapter 23; Fowler et al., literally dead and buried. Asking why these societies
chapter 24). changed, and perhaps how and why ours is changing
But much more than a way of pursuing other sub too, was part of the original processual goal (Watson,
jects, modern archaeological theory is personal (see chapter 3), the same goal that has now been taken up
O'Brien et al. 2005 for a colorful history of the per by evolutionists (Bentley et al., chapter 8; Collard et al.,
sonalities in American archaeology). Like psychology, chapter 13) and computer simulation experts (Costo
it is about our own past, and many of us seek in it poulos, chapter 16).
what we look for in ourselves; Sigmund Freud's pas The post-processualist critique (Shanks, chapter 9)
sion for archaeology (Barker 1996) is no coincidence. should convince us that openness about theoretical
Instead of delving into their own childhoods, however, perspectives is better than false objectivity. In order
2 R. ALEXANDER BENTLEY AND HERBERT D. G. MASCHNER
to appear objectively scientific, social scientists and societies as well as looting and rights of property, is
postmodern theorists often invent important-sound central to archaeological ethics (Fowler et al., chapter
ing jargon for simple or ambiguous concepts, even to 25). Recognizing that, since colonial times, Western
the point of using words like "operationalize" instead archaeologists have done much of their research in
of"do," for example. Oxley and Morton's archaeologi poorer areas (Dillihay, chapter 11), cultural domina
cal buzzword generator (www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/ tion is a pervasive interest in archaeological theory.
yccweb/aids/buzz.htm) and Michael Bryson's post Certain approaches, like Marxism (McGuire, chapter
modern title generator (www.brysons.net/generator) 6), are centered on how inequality is almost inevitable
appropriately ridicule the proliferation of academic and how the haves are in constant conflict with the
jargon. This tendency toward word creation is coun have-nots. Even without private property, however,
terproductive, as its proliferation becomes irreversible. people still compete for prestige and status (Ames,
For example, we are now stuck with the ridiculous chapter 28). This, as much as material possessions,
pseudoscientific terms "processualism" and "post-pro is the currency that defines the hierarchies of the
cessualism:' Using these words with friends outside chiefdom (Barker, chapter 29) or even state societies
archaeology would elicit laughter; is there any topic (Bernbeck, chapter 30).
on earth that does not involve a process? The ways One archaeological issue that revolves around cul
in which novelists create plots, chemicals react, gos tural domination is the prehistoric spread of agricul
sip spreads news, rocks form and change, and phi ture around the world during the Holocene (Pluciennik
losophers criticize other philosophers are all processes. and Zvelebil, chapter 27). From Europe, to Southeast
This is not to disparage either of these fields (Wat Asia, to sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific, the ancient
son, chapter 3; Shanks, chapter 9). Each has brought ancestry of the majority of modern people lies at least
archaeology to greater sophistication and relevance partly in the first colonizing farmers. Furthermore,
in the real world. The point is that the terms given the languages spoken by the majority of people in the
to these rich bodies of ideas and used within them, world today may be descended from the languages
through pressure to appear scientific or to sound like spoken by the earliest farmers (Bellwood, chapter 14).
a French philosopher, alienate the public and even our This is a debated issue, however, with expert archae
peers through the muddled thinking that jargon pro ologists, geneticists, and linguists on either side of
motes (Service 1969; Bentley 2006). the debate, some favoring more indigenous hunter
Even worse, there are plenty of examples of the gatherer cultural and genetic ancestry for a particular
potentially calamitous consequences of false objectiv area, some more colonization (Bellwood, chapter 14;
ity in archaeology, such as the twisting of the work of Pluciennik and Zvelebil, chapter 27). As a necessary if
Herbert Spencer, who was deeply critical of imperial perhaps not sufficient condition, agriculture enabled
ism and sought solutions to social problems (McGee the rise of state societies (Bernbeck, chapter 30); and,
and Warms 2004:25), which led infamously to the as Diamond ( 1997) accessibly described, descendants
Social Darwinism of the past century (Sumner 1914). of those earliest states were the basis for European co
Phony intellectualism is an injustice to the public, lonialism (McNiven and Russell, chapter 25).
since archaeology is a shared resource that must be Rather than mire themselves in the countless ways
accessible; otherwise it becomes an irrelevant hobby some people dominate others, other archaeological
or privileged intellectual luxury. How archaeology is theorists prefer to focus on how people have been
presented to the public is therefore just as important as dominated by nature, or else how people dominate na
what there is to present (Wallace, chapter 23). ture through niche construction. This is perhaps most
Academic theory can become obscure and jargon common in the study of hunter-gatherers (Jordan,
laden as scholars compete for prestige and intellectual chapter 26), which has traditionally focused on eco
dominance (O'Brien et al. 2005, chapter 9). Academ logical adaptation (Yesner, chapter 4), owing largely
ics, while striving to be or at least appear to be objec to the influence of Julian Steward and later formalized
tive, seek status and prestige as much as anyone else, if as human behavioral ecology (Bentley et al., chapter
not more so. This is not surprising given that domina 8). This was an outgrowth of the New Archaeology
tion is intrinsic to human relationships, whether im (Watson, chapter 3), which applied a kind of natu
plicitly or explicitly. An awareness of how ideas from ral mechanics to larger-scale human societies. The
archaeology might be used against the less powerful, promotion of the natural sciences in archaeology, for
including the direct impact of archaeology on native which the New Archaeologists deserve much credit
Introduction 3