* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download What is Archaeology?
American anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Arthur Evans wikipedia , lookup
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Bosnian pyramid claims wikipedia , lookup
Bioarchaeology wikipedia , lookup
Repatriation (cultural heritage) wikipedia , lookup
Three-age system wikipedia , lookup
Excavation (archaeology) wikipedia , lookup
Survey (archaeology) wikipedia , lookup
Industrial archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Cambrian Archaeological Association wikipedia , lookup
Evolutionary archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Underwater archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Indigenous archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Community archaeology wikipedia , lookup
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