Download What is Archaeology?

Book Reviews
WHAT IS ARCHAEOLOGY? AN ESSAY ON THE Hypotheses
Courbin (pp.22-44) delights in observing that the New
NATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH by
Archaeologists
routinely failed to test their hypotheses, dePaul Courbin (translated by Paul Bahn). The University
spite
their
ridiculing
of 'traditional' archaeologists far the
of Chicago Press, Chicago (1989). xxv + 197 pages.
same
offence.
He
notes
(pp.38-42) that even in cases where
ISBN 0 226 1l656 5 (hardcover).
hypotheses were tested, they were usually tested using the
same evidence which gave rise to the original hypothesis.
Allan Lance
The
circularity of this procedure understandably resulted
While its title suggests an investigation of the nature of
in
confirmation
(or if you like, strong corroboration).
archaeological research, What i s Archaeology? can be more
accurately described as a few well directed kicks at the
carcass of the New khaeology. When Courbin's volume Laws
A major, if not the principal, stated objective of the
was published in the original French thirteen years ago as
Qu'est-ce que l'archdologie? Essai sur la nature de la New Archaeology was the establishment of universal laws
recherche arcMologique, the debate over the merits of the of culture. With the exception of a few 'tiresome truisms'
New Archaeology had already been raging unabated in the Courbin believes that the failure to produce any such laws,
archaeological press for more than a decade. The vehe- validated or not, is ample demonstration of the barrenness
mence with which the proponents and opponents of the of such an approach to archaeology (pp.45-61). Schiffer's
New Archaedogy attacked one another, demonstrated a (1976) much acclaimed laws of cultural 'transformation'
righteous conviction for the validity of their particular (or are singled out for special attention by Courbin (pp.51-g),
particularist) approach. With a lapse of seven years be- as these purport to address the relationships between items
tween publication of the French and English editions, and manufactured, used and discarded at sites. Courbin (p.57)
a further lapse of six years since the publication of the muses that the values of many of the variables required to
English edition, at a time when both processual and post- drive Schiffer's equations can at best only be estimated,
processual archaeology have fallen from favour, one might making the laws tautological and practically useless.
assume that a critique of the now moribund New Archae- Courbin delights in the triviality of Schiffer's conclusions,
ology would be largely irrelevant to practitioners of con- summarising one thus: 'an object's manufacture span and
discard span are of equal duration, whereas this object's
temporary archaeology. This is not entirely so.
Despite the fall from grace of the epistemological total use span is, or can be, longer: in other words, you can
framework of the New Archaeology (logical positivism1 go on using a tool after the end of its manufacture and
logical empiricism), anthropologically-orientedprocessual until it is thrown away!' (p.58).
archaeology, advocated by 'Americanist' archaeologists of Theory
the late 1960s and early 1970s remains in vogue in many
The clamour for archaeological theory by Binford and
quarters. In What is Archaeology?, Courbin investigates othets, and their failure to produce any vaguely useful
the New Archaeology from the perspective of a puzzled theories, is also a source of amusement to Courbin (pp.62'traditional' archaeologist, attempting to make sense of the 74). For example, Binford, having vigorously criticised
then unceasing flow of American literature purporting to Yellen for making empirical generalisations about camprepresent the future of archaeological thought, but finding site organisation and activity location firm Bushmen camps,
only an ascendancy of style over substance.
is lambasted by Courbin (pp.72-4) for having done exactly
What is Archaeology? can be divided into two sections: the same in Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology, despite vociferthe first (Chapters 1-8). is a critique of the stated objectives ously claiming the opposite. Neo-processual archaeoloof the New Archaeology., the second gists still urging the definition of archaeological theory,
and achi-ents
(Chapters 9- 1l), offers Courbin's view on the correct theo- explain its absence as the result of inadequate data and the
retical approach to archaeology which, not surprisingly, failure by archaeologists to earnestly search for explanadiffers from that of processual archaeologists. The first tion and process.
section is by f a .the more satisfying, highlighting the many
flaws in the style, theory and practice of the proponents of Method
the New Archaeology.
Courbin contends that the main contributions made by
the New Archaeology were in the area of the formulation
Style
of models, problem definition and in methodology, parThe turgid writing style of archaeologists such as Bin- ticularly in relation to the use of statistical methods, and in
ford, Schiffer and David Clarke is a some of serious irri- the systematic study of post-depositional processes (pp.75tation to Courbin. Obvious faults of obscure language, 6, 83, 134, 157-9). He notes that while important, these
poor expression, asinine or obtuse diagrams, absence of were incidental to the major stated aims of people like
adequate referencing and re-publication of readily acces- Binford: theory building, production of laws of cultural besible articles in volumes of collected works, receive neces- haviour and 'explanation', objectives which Courbin claims
sary comment @p.xxii,72, 914, 104, 127). Cmbin's main were never achieved.
criticism, however, is directed towards the inadequacies of
the New Archaeologist's epistemology, the self-righteous The alternative
and hypocritical posturing of its proponents and, despite
Having derided the New Archaeology for its selfthe lofty claims, the paucity of substantial results.
righ teous scorn of traditional archaeology, and its failure
A ~ r d i c a Archaeology,
n
Number 41,1995
Book Reviews
to produce substantial results, Courbin in Chapters 9-11
turns to his view of archaeology. The establishment of
'Eacts', is to Courbin the ultimate aim of archaeology. Facts
which include the entire range of cultural remains and
their identification, and their associations both spatial and
temporal (p1 13). Courbin maintains that the existence of
these facts transcends the theoretical approach under which
they were collected, ample evidence of which comes from
the use by the New Archaeologists of data contained in the
previously published works of 'traditional' archaeologists
(pp.114-17). Courbin's view of the role of archaeologists
as collectors of facts also stands in contrast to the relativism and absolute scepticism of the post-processualists (e.g.
Shanks and Tilley 1987:117).
According to Courbin, once facts have been established, they can be described, elaborated upon, classified
and quantified (pp.142-6), before being used to address a
diverse range of questions such as changes in culture,
society and politics. Courbin believes that these issues are
not necessarily the domain of archaeologists and that when
we address them, we are not acting as archaeologists, but
as historians, anthropologists or sociologists @p.132-4,
148-9.154, 159).
This view that archaeology is more closely aligned
with history than anthropology continues to distinguish the
American and European approaches to the discipline. To
Courbin (p.151) this historical approach is concerned mare
with exceptions than regularities, examining the effects of
events which may have contradicted the laws of 'rational'
or logical behaviour. For Courbin, such a method is better
suited to revealing the past than is a generalising anthropological archaeology. Courbin is not the first to have
espoused this broadly descriptive approach to archaeology
and others, such as Trigger (1978) have argued its merits
more convincingly.
While many of the criticisms of the New Archaeology
made by Courbin are completely justified, his exuberance
has in places led to poor scholarship. Courbin claims that
the laws sought by processual archaeologists to explain
human behaviour deny to the individuals who lived in the
past the possibility of having acted outside the strictures of
these laws (pp.151-2). This criticism, which was also made
by 'post-processual' archaeologists, is an obvious misun derstanding or misrepresentation of the views of the New
Archaeologists, who never claimed any determinism in behavioural laws (had any been found).
Another flaw detected in the work is that in attempting
to discredit the writings of his Mte noire, Lewis Binford,
Courbin has impugned Binford's ability as a field archaeologist. Binford observed in An Archaeological Perspective that as a student he went on 'regular weekend
field trips' and was instructed by Jofhe Coe in formal
training sessions (Binford 1972:2). Courbin (1989: 136)
chooses to interpret this as the totality of Binford's fieldwork training having taken place over 'a few weekends'.
This is particularly ironic as Jofhe Coe's excavation abilities were very highly regarded by his colleagues. Richard
MacNeish (1978:242), himself the consummate field archaeologist, described Coe as 'one of the most beautiful
excavators I know'. Courbin, like many others before and
Australian Archaeolo~v.Number 4 1.1995
since, has resorted to the use of ad hominem arguments
(those which call into question the ability or knowledge of
the writer rather than their work) to criticise Binford (see
Binford 1989:296). While this is a minor flaw, on an
issue peripheral to the main thesis of What is Archaeology?, it does demonstrate that Courbin has, in places
been unnecessarily creative in the interpretation of the
work he critiques.
What is Archaeology? provides a convenient guide to
identifying some of the more obvious shortcomings in the
influential writings of the New Archaeologists of the
1960s and 1970s. Irrespective of one's views on the merits
or otherwise of a processual archaeology or on the more
limiting alternative which Courbin advocates, his book is
entertaining and very readable, in poignant contrast to the
material he reviews. A more detailed assessment of the
New Archaeology, its achievements, deficiencies and an
enticing exploration of its origins, revealed by authors who
write with the benefit of 'post post-processual' hindsight
can, however, be found in Gibbon's (1989) Explanation
in Archaeology or Trigger's (1989) A History of Archueological Thought.
References
Binford, L.R. 1972 An Archaeological Perspective. New Y d c
Seminar Press.
Binford, L.R. 1989 Debating Archaeology. San Diego: Academic Press.
Gibbon, G. 1989 Explanution in Archaeology. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
MacNeish, R.S. 1978 The Science of Archaeology? North
Scituate: Duxbury Press.
Schiffer, M.B . l976 B e h i o r a l Archaeology. New York:Academic Press.
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987 Re-Comtructing Archaeology:
Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Trigger, B.G. 1978 Time Md Tradition: Essays in Archaeological Interpretation. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh
Press.
Trigger, B.G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
QUINKAN PREHISTORY: THE ARCHAEOLOGY
OF ABORIGINAL ART m S.E. CAPE YORK
PENINSULA, AUSTRALIA by M.J. Morwood and D.R.
Hobbs (eds). TEMPUS 3. Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland (1995). vi + 208 pages. ISBN
909611 43 2. Price $29.50.
Bruno David
Quinkan Prehistory is a detailed report of Morwood's
research in southeast Cape York Peninsula. The aims of
the study were to undertake systematic research into systems of land use (including rock art) in and around Laura,
north Queensland. The 15 chapters and 4 appendices include chapters on the physical environment, both present
and past (Chapters 1 and 2), ethnography and history
(Chapters 3 and 4), rock art (Chapters 5 and 13), and eight
excavated site reports (Sandy Creek 1 m d 2, Magnificent
Gallery, Giant Horse, Yam Camp, Red Horse, Red Bluff and
Mushroom Rock) (Chapters 6-12). Chapter 14 summarises