Post-Processual Archaeology, Exams of Archeology

Download Post-Processual Archaeology and more Exams Archeology in PDF only on Docsity!

Prepared by Priyanka.E.K Assistant Professor Dept of History Little Flower College Guruvayoor

HIS 6 E 01 - PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF ARCHAEOLOGY – ELECTIVE

COURSE

MODULE- 1

TOPIC- POST-PROCESSUAL ARCHAEOLOGY

 Post-processualism, as a movement in archaeology

 Post-Processual Archaeology is, more than anything else, a critique

of processual archaeology

 Post-processual archeology is also known as interpretive archeology.

 During the course of the 1980 s, several archaeologists (most notably Ian

Hodder; e.g. Hodder 1986 ) started to doubt the solidness of the

scientific fundaments of the New Archaeology

 The theory puts more emphasis on the archeology interpretation.

 The post- processual archeology criticized processual in several

ways.

 It just concentrated on the weaknesses of the processual

archeology.

 Generally associated with Ian Hodder & his students as a reaction

against processual archaeology of Binford

 Reaction against scientific approach in archaeology

 Postprocessual Archaeology is based on the ideological framework of postmodernism.  While Processual archaeologists had, if not a "codified" theory to unify them, then at least a common overall goal and spirit that drove them ie scientific archaeology.  Conversely, Post-processual contains ideologies as diverse as Neo- Marxism, feminist archaeology, cognitive archaeology and contextual archaeology- These viewpoints are all very different.  As a group, they are only unified by their critique of Processualism, which they consider a positivist outlook on culture.

 Post-processual archaeology began as a critical response to a set

of perceived failings of processual archaeology

 The critique primarily focused on the processual concern with adaptive technologies, its embrace of a cross-cultural anthropology at the expense of historical context, and its restrictive definition of archaeological science as ‘positivist’ (positivism, as used in archaeology, is the belief that arguments are built by testing theories against independent and objective data).  Initially a wide range of authors, including those influenced by feminism , entered into such critiques, and it was difficult to identify common themes of an alternative agenda.  The strongest impact of the post-processual critique was at first in Britain and Scandinavia, although important contributions were made from historical archaeology in the United States_._  The main struts of the post-processual critique dealt with meaning or symbolism, history, agency and critical approaches.  Within processual archaeology of the 1960 s and 1970 s it was suggested that material culture should be studied in terms of long-term adaptive processes.

 Just as New Archaeology and Annales History, post-

processual archaeology (or interpretive archaeologies, as it is

often called) is a counter-movement in essence.

 As the name clearly implies, it is a reaction to the principles

of processualism. Post-processual archaeology, however, is

not a unified movement, nor a singular theoretical paradigm.

 It is a label used to group a wide array of perspectives often

sharing not much more than a certain critique of processual

theory.

 Their greatest objection was to the positivist

argumentation, used to make broad generalizations on

the basis of archaeological data.

 According to the critics, archaeological research could not be satisfactorily valid statistically to verify or falsify hypotheses.  A second, fundamental critique was based on the importance of hermeneutics in archaeological research.  It was argued that archaeological interpretation was never neutral, but loaded with meanings.  Archaeological research is done by scholars, working in their present- day historical context, studying ancient peoples who lived in their own specific historical contexts, thus resulting in a so-called hermeneutic circle.

 Currently, there is a widespread awareness of the various post- processual critiques without rejecting all processual thought and methods.  Within the discipline of landscape archaeology it has caused a growing interest in assessing possible subjective methodological biases, as well as the acceptance of various co-existing interpretations of a single research question, resulting in different conceptualisations of the same archaeological landscape.  The main influence of post-processual theory on landscape archaeology, however, can be seen on an interpretative level.  Whereas New Archaeology and Annales History approaches tended to explain the archaeological landscape from a deterministic point of view (whether ecological or social), as a process of human adaptation to its environment, post-processual archaeologists have focused on cultural, ritual, or cognitive aspects of the landscape.