A Companion to Archaeology

Edited by

John Bintliff

Advisory EditorsTimothy Earle and Christopher S. Peebles

”A stimulating source of ideas, and a conspectus of how broadly and deeply many archaeologists are thinking about the way their discipline relates to the modern world”

Times Higher Education Supplement

“This book is clearly organized and the material presented in a fair and often innovative manner.”

Bryn Mawr Classical Review

“This volume presents a refreshingly wide set of topics, covered by an impressive and authoritative array of authors. This is archaeology understood in its broadest terms. Theory and method, ethics and practice, distant ages and recent moments, links to other disciplines, are all explored in this impressive and accessible collection.”

Ian Hodder, Stanford University

“Bintliff has assembled a broad array of talented archaeologists, who present us with a rich portrait of contemporary archaeology. Technical yet easily accessible, this important book offers a thought-provoking analysis of many of archaeology’s most pressing controversies. Both students and interested laypeople will find this a satisfying journey though the complexities of a rapidly changing, increasingly multidisciplinary archaeological world.”

Brian Fagan, University of California Santa Barbara

John Bintliff is Professor of Classical and Mediterranean Archaeology at Leiden University. His previous publications include: Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece (1977); Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean in Later Prehistory (with W. van Zeist, 1982); European Social Evolution: Archaeological Perspectives (1984); Archaeology at the Interface: Studies in Archaeology‘s Relationships with History, Geography, Biology and Physical Science (with C.F. Gaffney, 1986); Conceptual Issues in Environmental Archaeology (with D.Davidson and E. Grant, 1988); Extracting Meaningfrom the Past (1988); The Annales School and Archaeology (1991); Europe Between Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (with H. Hamerow, 1995); Recent Developments in the History and Archaeology of Central Greece (1997); Structure and Contingency in the Evolution o f L f e , Human Evolution and Human History (1999); and Reconstructing Past Population Trends in Mediterranean Europe (with K. Sbonias, 2000).

A Companion to Archaeology

Edited by

John Bintliff

Advisory EditorsTimothy Earle and Christopher S. Peebles

0 2004,2006 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 ZDQ, UK

550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

The right of John L. Bintliff to be identified as the Author of the Editorial Material in thiswork has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.

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 the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

First published 2004 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd First published in paperback 2006 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

1 2006

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A companion to archaeology / edited by John L. Bintliff. p. cm. - (Blackwell companion to archaeology)

Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-631-21302-3 (alk. paper)

1. Archaeology. I. Bintliff, J. L. (John L.) 11. Series. CC173.C65 2003

2003009296 930.1-dc21

ISBN-13: 978-0-631-21302-4 (alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-4979-2 (paperback)

ISBN-10: 1-4051-4979-5 (paperback)

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

Set in 9.5 on l l p t Sabon by Kolam Information Services Pvt. Ltd, Pondicherry, India

Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall

The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free

practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards.

For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website:

www.blackwellpublishing.com

This book is dedicated to my dear wife Elizabeth, and to our equallydear children, David, Esther, and Aileen, who all had to cope with mylengthy periods of preoccupation and absence when I was toiling at itscreation.

Contents

List of Figures x

List of Contributors xiv

Acknowledgments xvi

Introduction xviiJohn Bintliff

Part I Thinking About Archaeology 1

1 Analytical Archaeology 3Stephen Shennan

2 The Great Dark Book: Archaeology, Experience, andInterpretation 21Julian Thomas

Part II Current Themes and Novel Departures 37

3 Archaeology and the Genetic Revolution 39Martin Jones

4 Archaeology and Language: Methods and Issues 52Roger Blench

5 The Archaeology of Gender 75M. L. S. Sørensen

6 Archaeology and Social Theory 92Matthew Johnson

7 Materiality, Space, Time, and Outcome 110Roland Fletcher

8 Archaeological Perspectives on Local Communities 141Fokke Gerritsen

vii

9 Archaeology and Technology 155Kevin Greene

10 Time, Structure, and Agency: The Annales, EmergentComplexity, and Archaeology 174John Bintliff

Part III Major Traditions in Archaeology in Contemporary Perspective 195

11 Archaeological Dating 197J. A. J. Gowlett

12 Chronology and the Human Narrative 206J. A. J. Gowlett

13 Archaeology and Indigenous Peoples: Attitudes TowardsPower in Ancient Oaxaca 235Maarten Jansen

14 Classical Archaeology 253Ian Morris

15 The Archaeologies of Recent History: Historical,Post-Medieval, and Modern-World 272Charles E. Orser, Jr.

16 Animal Bones and Plant Remains 291Peter Rowley-Conwy

17 Ecology in Archaeology: From Cognition to Action 311Fekri A. Hassan

18 The Archaeology of Landscape 334T. J. Wilkinson

19 Archaeology and Art 357Raymond Corbey, Robert Layton, and Jeremy Tanner

20 Putting Infinity Up On Trial: A Consideration of the Role ofScientific Thinking in Future Archaeologies 380A. M. Pollard

21 Experiencing Archaeological Fieldwork 397John Bintliff

Part IV Archaeology and the Public 407

22 Public Archaeology: A European Perspective 409Timothy Darvill

23 Persistent Dilemmas in American Cultural ResourceManagement 435Joseph A. Tainter

24 Museum Studies 454Linda Ellis

viii

Contents

25 Relating Anthropology and Archaeology 473Michael Rowlands

26 Archaeology and Politics 490Michael Shanks

27 Archaeology and Green Issues 509Martin Bell

Index 532

ix

Contents

Figures

6.1 Conway Castle, ca. 1300: a royal castle of Edward I. 1016.2 Bolton Castle, late fourteenth century. 1026.3 Hardwick Hall, later sixteenth century. 1037.1 (a) San camps, southern Africa, 1960s ad. 1137.1 (b) Djeitun assemblage settlement plans, central Asia, fifth

millennium bc. 1137.2 (a) Gorilla lying on nest. 1177.2 (b) Plans of camps of mountain gorillas. 1177.2 (c) Spatial patterning in camps of mountain gorillas

(Gorilla gorilla) in the Virunga Mountains, Uganda andRwanda. 117

7.3 (a) Plan and reconstruction view of a latte, the elevated housesindigenous to Guam. 119

7.3 (b) Spatial patterning in the dimensions of latte in village sitesin Guam. 119

7.4 (a) Plan of Munyimba (Ghana), a village of the Konkomba, inthe early 1970s. 121

7.4 (b) Complex spatial signature of Munyimba. 1227.5 (a) The Bororo village, Amazonia, 1950s ad: schematized ideal

of the variety of clan divisions and the material/socialnon-correspondence. 123

7.5 (b) Bororo village. 1237.6 (a) The Wang Cheng ideal. 1247.6 (b) Da-du, the Mongol Yuan Dynasty capital in north China

where modern Beijing now stands (thirteenth to fourteenthcenturies ad). 124

7.7 The operational ceiling on the duration of compact urbansettlements from circa 400 bc to the mid-nineteenthcentury ad. 127

7.8 (a) The growth and decline of the areal extent of AbbasidBaghdad, Mesopotamia. 128

x

7.8 (b) The growth and decline of the population of AbbasidBaghdad. 128

7.9 The extent of Angkor (Cambodia), late twelfth century tocirca sixteenth century ad. 130

7.10 The growth and decline of Rome and Constantinople andthe Roman and Byzantine empires. 132

7.11 The outcome triad. 13410.1 Monumental equestrian statue in Durham marketplace,

northeast England. 17810.2 Location of Montaillou, Ariege, southwestern France. 17910.3 Settlement evolution in the territory of Lunel Viel,

Languedoc. 18010.4 Rise of the royal Capetian dynasty in France during the

Middle Ages. 18310.5 Territorial competition in the later Middle Ages between the

kingdoms of England and France in the territory ofmodern France. 184

10.6 Population cycles in Provence, fourteenth to eighteenthcenturies ad. 184

11.1 Radiometric dating techniques available through thePleistocene, showing the approximate time ranges of theirapplication. 198

12.1 The lead aerosol record of Arctic ice cores gives a datedindex to production of lead and silver through thelast 5,000 years. 221

13.1 Codex Tonindeye (Nuttall), p. 36: the landscape of YutaTnoho (Apoala). 243

13.2 Monte Alban, South Platform, Stela 1: the ruler seated on themat and the throne, with his staff and nahual attributes. 245

13.3 Yucu Ndaa Yee (Tequixtepec), Carved Stone 19: Lord‘‘Roaring Jaguar’’ climbs the throne in the year 6 L. 246

13.4 Ceramic urn from Tomb 5, Cerro de las Minas, Nuu Dzai(Huajuapan): the transformation of a ruler into a fire serpent. 246

13.5 Codex Borgia, p. 29: the preparation of a hallucinogenicointment in the Temple of the Death Goddess Cihuacoatl. 248

14.1 Archaeological theory in 1988 (cartoon by Simon James). 25414.2 Archaeological theory in 1998 (cartoon by Matthew Johnson). 25516.1 Diagrammatic views of a cereal ear and spikelet (top) and

an animal skeleton (bottom), showing nomenclature used inthe chapter. 292

16.2 Frequency of animal skeletal parts, comparing the goatbones collected by C. K. Brain from modern herders’ villagesat Kuiseb River with frequencies of antelope and otheranimal bones from the hominid site of Makapansgat. 296

16.3 Seasonality of hunting and gathering at Abu Hurayra 1, Syria. 29916.4 Lengths of pig second molar from a population of modern

wild boar from Turkey compared to those from NeolithicGomolava in Serbia. 301

16.5 Animal husbandry from Bronze Age Grimes Graves, Norfolk. 302

xi

Figures

16.6 Pie charts showing plant frequencies at two Bronze Agesettlements in Denmark: Lindebjerg and Voldtofte. 303

18.1 Diagram showing the nature and preservation ofarchaeological sites along a transect through the rainfed, marginal,and desert zones. 342

18.2 The hinterland of Sohar Oman showing landscape features inthe desert, zone of survival, and zone of destruction. 343

18.3 Prehistoric field systems near Daulatabad, southeast Iran. 34418.4 Field scatters and infilled canals near Mashkan Shapir, Iraq. 34618.5 Landscape zones in the area of Lake Assad, Tabqa Dam, Syria,

showing shifts in the locations of major Uruk (fourthmillennium bc), Early Bronze Age, and Late BronzeAge centers. 348

18.6 Dhamar, highlands of Yemen. 35019.1 Attic black-figure amphora signed by Exekias, with scene

combat between Achilles and Penthesilea, ca. 530 bc. 35819.2 Bison bull in the Lascaux cave, Montignac,

southern France. 36019.3 An Aurignacian lion-human statuette from the

Hohlenstein-Stadel cave, Germany. 36019.4 Very regular Middle Palaeolithic handaxe, Lailly, Vanne river

valley, France. 36519.5 Cycladic marble figurine, ca. 2500 bc. 37219.6 Bronze ritual vessel, hu. Shang Dynasty, 1300–1100 bc. 37219.7 Olmec head, from La Venta Archaeological Park, originally

San Lorenzo, Veracruz, Mexico. 37420.1 Simple model of relationship between complexity of society

and rates of environmental change. 38822.1 Schematic representation of the archaeological management

cycle. 41622.2 Comparison of principal attributes identified in

archaeological value systems. 42322.3 Bar chart showing the number of field evaluations carried

out each year in England between 1990 and 1998. 42523.1 Exploring the ruins of the American southwest. 43723.2 Discussions of how to practice cultural resource management

in American Antiquity, 1969–98. 44323.3 Discussions of archaeological significance, 1973–93. 44323.4 Implicit criteria for the National Register evaluation of

archaeological sites in northern New Mexico. 44427.1 The bog at Ravensmose, Jutland, Denmark: at the spot

marked by the stone the Iron Age Gundestrup Cauldronwas found. 517

27.2 Archaeology and nature conservation around Newbury, UK:the route of the Newbury bypass A34T, and associatedarchaeology and Holocene sediments. 518

xii

Figures

27.3 The Gwent Levels Wetland Reserve, Goldcliff, South Wales. 52227.4 View of the saline lagoons after completion. 52327.5 Holme-next-the-Sea, Norfolk: (a) ‘‘Seahenge’’ wooden circle on the

foreshore; (b) another tidal wooden feature; (c) reconstructionof the ‘‘Seahenge’’; (d) a peat block thrown up on the beach nearthe ‘‘Seahenge.’’ 524

xiii

Figures

Contributors

Martin Bell is Senior Lecturer in the Depart-ment of Archaeology, Reading University.

John Bintliff is Chair of Classical Archae-ology in the Faculty of Archaeology, LeidenUniversity.

Roger Blench, formerly of the OverseasDevelopment Institute, is a self-employedconsultant specializing in developmentanthropology based in Cambridge, atCISPAL.

Raymond Corbey is a Lecturer in Philosophyat Tilburg University and Professor in theEpistemology of Archaeology in the Facultyof Archaeology, Leiden University.

Timothy Darvill holds a Chair in Archae-ology and the Historic Environment in theSchool of Conservation Sciences, Bourne-mouth University.

Linda Ellis is Professor and Director of theMuseum Studies Program, San FranciscoState University.

Roland Fletcher is Associate Professor in theDepartment of Archaeology, University ofSydney.

Fokke Gerritsen is Lecturer in Archaeologyin the Department of Archaeology andPrehistory, the Free University of Amster-dam.

J. A. J. Gowlett holds a Chair in the School ofArchaeology, Classics and Oriental Studies,Liverpool University.

Kevin Greene is a Senior Lecturer in the De-partment of Archaeology, University ofNewcastle upon Tyne.

Fekri A. Hassan is Petrie Professor ofArchaeology at the Institute of Archaeology,University College, London University.

Maarten Jansen is Dean of the ArchaeologyFaculty and holds a Chair in Indian Ameri-can Archaeology at Leiden University.

Matthew Johnson

Martin Jones is George Pitt-Rivers Professorof Archaeological Science in the Department

Robert Layton holds a Chair in the Depart-ment of Anthropology, Durham University.

Ian Morris is Jean and Rebecca WillardProfessor of Classics and Professor of His-tory in the Department of Classics, StanfordUniversity.

Charles E. Orser, Jr. is Distinguished Profes-sor in the Department of Sociology andAnthropology, Illinois State University.

xiv

is Professor of Archaeol-ogy at the University of Southampton.

of Archaeology, Cambridge University.

A. M. Pollard holds the Chair of Archaeo-logical Science in the Department ofArchaeological Sciences, Bradford Univer-sity.

Michael Rowlands holds a Chair inMaterialCulture in the Department of Anthropology,University College, London University.

Peter Rowley-Conwy is Reader in Environ-mental Archaeology in the Department ofArchaeology, Durham University.

Michael Shanks holds a Chair in Classics inthe Department of Classics, Stanford Univer-sity.

Stephen Shennan is Chair of TheoreticalArchaeology at the Institute of Archaeology,University College, London University.

M. L. S. Sørensen is Senior Lecturer in theDepartment of Archaeology, CambridgeUniversity.

Joseph A. Tainter is Project Director ofCultural Heritage Research at the RockyMountain Research Station, Albuquerque.

Jeremy Tanner is Lecturer in Greek andRoman Art and Archaeology at the Instituteof Archaeology, University College, LondonUniversity.

Julian Thomas holds a Chair in Archaeologyin the Department of Art History andArchaeology, University of Manchester.

T. J. Wilkinson is Lecturer in Near EasternArchaeology in the Department of Archae-ology, Edinburgh University.

xv

Contributors

Acknowledgments

all

the rich variety of contemporary archaeology and archaeologists, had I not had the constantand enthusiasticHuber and Annie

xvi

The chapters in this volume were submitted between 1999 and early 2002. In late 2002 and

Lenth – who deserve very great thanks.

again in 2005 authors had the opportunity to update text and references. However, thislarge volume would not have come and remained together, as a coherent platform for presenting

support of my production and commissioning editors at Blackwell – Jane

Introduction

As someone who has been teaching archae-ology for many years, at all levels, I havebeen struck particularly over the last tenyears by the difficulty of finding a singlevolume which portrays the richness of themodern discipline in the ways archaeologiststry to understand the human past. That is notto say that there are no excellent textbookswhich systematically present key topics suit-able for students or interested laypersonsstarting up in the discipline: Kevin Greene’sArchaeology: An Introduction and Renfrewand Bahn’s Introduction to Archaeology,regularly revised, present all the main facetsof the subject. Yet for the next stage, themore advanced student or amateur, the fieldinstantly fragments. There are very goodsingle volumes on specialized aspects of thearchaeologist’s craft, such as geoprospection(Clark, Seeing Beneath the Soil), and thereare encyclopedias and compendia of keytopics (Fagan, The Oxford Companion toArchaeology; Barker, The Companion En-cyclopedia of Archaeology). Either these areexplicitly specialist reviews of subdisciplineswithin archaeology, as with the former class,or with the latter group, we are presentedwith summaries of subtopics within the dis-cipline offered in something of a ‘‘shoppinglist’’ of discrete essays retaining the characterof an encyclopedia entry. Finally, there arebooks which aim to cover the ways archae-

ologists think about the past (such as Hod-der, The Archaeological Process, orJohnson’s Archaeological Theory: An Intro-duction). In reality these are written by en-thusiastic proponents of one particularschool – the postprocessual (inspired bypostmodernist thought) – and fail to repre-sent the true range of intellectual approachesand ways of seeing that exist in the currentdiscipline.

What, it seemed to me, was missing andneeded, was a single and necessarily largevolume in which I invited a cross-section ofthat great variety of archaeologists to do onething above all: talk about their field withenthusiasm and personal commitment. Inthis way I hope to provide the reader with areal feel for the breadth of our modern sub-ject. These are then very personal essays,reflecting what the contributors love andloathe, and they were asked specifically toavoid worthy ‘‘laundry-list’’ summaries oftheir field in favor of expressing their ownpriorities and the things that are most im-portant and exciting in the area of interpret-ing the past that they are internationalexperts in.

In one, however fat, volume, it has notbeen possible to include chapters coveringevery subdiscipline or approach within con-temporary archaeology, and indeed you willnow see that such encyclopedic coverage was

xvii

far from the aim of the book. Moreover, ofthe large number of scholars canvassed forpossible participation, several were unable inthe end to find the time to compose an essay.Nonetheless, in the existing 27 contribu-tions, the reader is in a position to touch thepulse of archaeological approaches to thepast, and it seems the pulse is running fastin the highly personalized essays presented inthis volume.

I would also like to mention that thestimulus to edit such a book arose from myexperience in teaching a course in compara-tive theory: Archaeology and twentieth-century thought. Whereas archaeologyseemed to focus its textbooks on encyclope-dic summaries, its introductions to special-isms within the discipline, and its theorybooks on the promotion of a particularintellectual position, other disciplines wereproducing more inclusive volumes whichcovered the entire range of ways of lookingat their discipline. My initial inspiration wasin geography, where a series of books andedited volumes by Ron Johnston (e.g., TheFuture of Geography,Geography and Geog-raphers, Philosophy andHumanGeography,and many others) explicitly address the needto offer balanced combinations of the oftencontradictory and even warring intellectualfactions which have become common inmost humanities subjects since World WarII. Another good example is Terry Eagleton’sIntroduction to Literary Theory, which won-derfully gives the reader an understanding ofthe varied ways scholars have ‘‘read’’ and do‘‘read’’ and interpret literature, while at thesame time telling us what he considers thestrengths and weaknesses of each approach,and equally importantly where he standshimself; but in the end he wants his book tobridge intellectual divides rather than re-inforce them.

The current volume also rests on theeditor’s own conviction that a healthy discip-line needs endless variety of opinions andmethods and should avoid doctrinaireideologies, yet at the same time in practicalterms the student and interested layperson

will gain little from seeing merely fragmen-tation and polarized attitudes.Much better ifwe encourage the understanding and thenapplication of a wide spectrum of ap-proaches. This is surely a plea for eclecticism,since I am opposed to the limitations whichinstantly arise when one adopts a particularperspective – whether it is an animal bonespecialist who shows no interest in how cul-ture affects what we eat, or a ‘‘high theorist’’who insists we have to read the past throughthe dark glasses of Marxism. Of course,eclecticism is in its own way a biased per-spective, as it privileges integration over fac-tionalism and champions a non-political,non-ideological stance. Put simply, it says:‘‘We don’t know what happened in the past:we need all the tools, mental and practical, atthe archaeologist’s disposal, to find out andcomprehend past societies.’’

Is this in effect a version of postmodernrelativism? Are all approaches equal? If so,why does this volume lack chapters by astro-archaeologists, ley-line advocates, and treas-ure hunters? I have elsewhere outlined myviews on how diverse approaches can becombined, without sacrificing the specialvalue of each constituent part of the eclecticbattery of methods and ways of thinking. Inthis I have been inspired by one of thegreatest of modern thinkers – the philoso-pher Ludwig Wittgenstein – and his peculiarway of seeing human intellectual endeavors(Bintliff 1995, 2000). Famously, Wittgen-stein suggested that different methodologiesand approaches are best seen as complemen-tary rather than oppositional, most strikinglyin the case of traditional friction between thehumanities and the sciences. Not only do weneed such varied approaches to understand amultifaceted world, but also they are notcommensurable: a useful contribution inone methodology is best evaluated in termsof that method, not by the standards anddoctrines of another. In archaeology, then,there should be a political approach, and itcannot be judged by the empirical and statis-tical measures of archaeophysicists trying todetermine the source of a copper object

xviii

Introduction

through laboratory analysis. But neither is itnecessary to insist that metal analyses be sub-ordinated to studies of power and gender inthe past, or even in the present. Wittgensteinargued that there are standards of good prac-tice and judgment which have to be appliedwithin professional communities of scholars,but these differ widely according to the ‘‘lan-guage game’’ or body of rules and procedureswhich have developed within each approach– and all disciplines comprise a spectrum ofsuch approaches. A good way to see theeclectic archaeologist faced with the currentvariety of ways of seeing the past is Wittgen-stein’s image of the craftsman going out on ajobwith a large bag full of tools – each ideallysuited to a particular application within theremit of the profession.

Finally, I shall offer some introductorycomments on the 27 chapters before you inthis volume, emphasizing my own reactionto each contribution.

In chapter 1, ‘‘Analytical Archaeology,’’Stephen Shennan turns to an older source ofideas in our discipline, the late David Clarke.Shennan argues that archaeology needs tofocus more on its own specific data – mater-ial culture – and believes that the study ofpatterning in past objects and structures –‘‘Archaeology is Archaeology’’ – is morethan the sum of intended actions by pasthuman actors. It is only archaeologists whocan finally see in perspective how the mater-ial past was formed, and we must be wary oflimiting ourselves to what we think pastpeoples thought about their world – espe-cially of wanting to explore the past interms of our modern concerns.

In chapter 2, ‘‘The Great Dark Book:Archaeology, Experience, and Interpret-ation,’’ by Julian Thomas, we are led into avery different worldview, the archaeologistfirst and foremost needing to be a philoso-pher, and a very particular kind of philoso-pher – one focusing on the experience ofbeing in the world. We cannot in a wayescape our own embeddedness as modernresearchers, so that encounters with past so-

cieties must be and should be translationsinto our own ways of life; past data serve tofeed our own concepts of value or meaning.

In chapter 3, ‘‘Archaeology and the Gen-etic Revolution,’’ a more global perspectivefromMartin Jones conveys the excitement ofthe fast-developing field of archaeogenetics.Sensitive to the murky history of racistmodels of biological purity and the tenden-tious use of migrationism to bolster imperi-alist ambitions during the later nineteenthand early twentieth centuries, modern stud-ies utilizing the high-technology techniquesof genetic research are nonetheless beginningto establish on a firmer basis the pathwaysof human origins and expansion over theworld, the different areas of discoveryand diffusion of the key plant and animaldomesticates involved with the shift fromhunter-gatherer to agricultural and pastoraleconomies, and finally the more recentmigrations and invasions of human groups.Jones’ belief that critical application ofscientific analyses can ward off the misuseof results by politically motivated groups is aclear provocation to other scholars whoadopt a postmodernist perspective in whichvalue-free research is an impossibility, andallows us all to think more deeply about theissues involved.

Chapter 4, ‘‘Archaeology and Language,’’by Roger Blench, likewise deals with a topicthat has had its past share of overspeculationandmurky associationswith racist or nation-alist politics. Blench showsus how the subjectof the origin and spread, as well as modifica-tion, of the world’s multitudinous languages,is finally emerging into a more analytical,politically sensitive field, in which archae-ology – rather than being an often-abusedprop – is becoming a vital tool for calibrationand testing of linguistic theories. Links togenetic research are promising, but we findthat no simple correlation between biologyand languages should be expected. Indeed,the many and varied ways in which spokencommunication systems can disperse andchange require a new sophistication inunderstanding both demography and social

xix

Introduction

processes well beyond the traditional culture¼ people concept which archaeologists alsotill recently took for granted.

In chapter 5, ‘‘The Archaeology ofGender,’’ by Marie Louise Sørensen, a ratherdifferent way of linking past experience andmodern concerns is revealed. Here we clearlysee that contemporary changes in Westernsociety regarding gender roles have had astrong effect on everyday research into pastsocieties. We want to know now whethertraditional gender stereotypes have relevanceto past societies in general, and if so how didthey arise and decay – if not, then perhaps therevelation of past variety can help us com-prehend the rapid social changes going onaround us. Sørensen admits, however, howdifficult gender research can be, workingwith material culture, unless historic sourcesare abundant.

In chapter 6, ‘‘Archaeology and SocialTheory,’’ Matthew Johnson deals with theimportance of social theory for archaeolo-gists. This is something we can all relate tofrom our daily experience, and thus under-stand why it should rank highly in archaeo-logical aims. For Johnson, human agents andtheir power to change their world are centralin social life.

In chapter 7, ‘‘Materiality, Space, Time,and Outcome,’’ Roland Fletcher seems tome to combine the material ‘‘neutrality’’ ofStephen Shennanwith the intentional humanactors of Thomas and Johnson.Material cul-ture – here, settlements – shows trajectoriesand repeated norms. These are both affectedby the aims of conscious societies and also bytheir own inbuilt pressures of structural con-sistency and directional change. The cre-ations of human culture may be more thanthe sum of their constituent parts.

Chapter 8, Fokke Gerritsen’s ‘‘Archaeo-logical Perspectives on Local Communities,’’shows the renewed importance of studyingsocial groups at small spatial scales in cur-rent research work. Perhaps owing to theconsiderable transformations in Westernsocial life since the later twentieth century,we are questioning older assumptions about

how social relations are formed, maintained,and reorganized. This chapter finely demon-strates how this exciting field is built aroundfine-detailed excavation sequences in areassuch as the Netherlands. I find it significantin the context of the underlying program ofthis edited volume that Gerritsen challengesthe assumption which has become toocommon in archaeological thinking sincethe 1960s: that older work is of little rele-vance to the research one does today. In thecase of social change, he shows that internalcultural factors may be balanced by externalpolitical or environmental factors, whensmall-scale local groups undergo importanttransformations, thus finding it valid to com-bine earlier ‘‘processual’’ and modern ‘‘post-processual’’ approaches in making sense ofthe Dutch social sequences he describes forus in his case study.

In Chapter 9, ‘‘Archaeology and Technol-ogy,’’ Kevin Greene both excites us with theneglected importance of this facet of materialculture change, and challenges our precon-ceptions about the development of humantechnologies. Just as he finds fault withthose who underplay the real significance ofimproved or effective means of production,he also reminds us that effectiveness may bedefined socially or in terms of the number ofpeople benefiting, rather than through ourmodern, elitist, Western, and high-tech view-point. The history of technology from anarchaeological perspective is certainly infin-itely less interesting as a thinly disguised nar-rative of Western triumphalism, than as aninvestigation into the varied ways cultures intime and space have perceived their methodsof producing and transforming material cul-ture, and those of others they are broughtinto contact with.

In chapter 10, ‘‘Time, Structure, andAgency: The Annales, Emergent Complexity,and Archaeology,’’ John Bintliff explores fur-ther some of those themes of complex mesh-ing of past individuals and elaborate socialand cultural structures raised in Fletcher’scontribution (chapter 7). Moving betweenhuman agency – conscious or otherwise –

xx

Introduction

and complex institutions such as small andvery large political groups, between individ-ual events and tendencies only revealed attime spans well beyond human lives – re-quires well-adapted methods and ap-proaches. In this chapter a number of theseare introduced and their integration at-tempted.In chapters 11 and 12, ‘‘Archaeological

Dating’’ and ‘‘Chronology and the HumanNarrative,’’ John Gowlett shows us howvital diverse approaches can to allowarchaeologists to make interpretations ofthe past. In his case the role of datingmethods for past events and processes bothconstrains and enables us in our readings ofthe past. Putting human actions into se-quences, and calculating rates of change,proves to be fundamental to all our under-standing of how and why things may havehappened – at all timescales. In demonstrat-ing these theoretical principles, Gowlett alsotakes us on a roller-coaster tour through thecurrent versions of the human narrative –from our beginnings as undistinguishedhigher apes among other species, to the foun-dations of urban civilization.Chapter 13, ‘‘Archaeology and Indigenous

Peoples,’’ by Maarten Jansen, is a powerfuland committed essay on the need for archae-ologists to engage in entirely new ways withnative peoples, when there is strong ethnicand cultural continuity from the past soci-eties under investigation. This is all the morepressing as a moral obligation when, as sooften, these peoples remain marginalizedeconomically and politically in their owncountries, deprived even of genuine respectfor their ancestral achievements and self-awareness. A second theme raised veryclearly in this chapter is the fashion inwhich native history and prehistory hasbeen molded into preconceived ideas of thepositive evolution of such societies intomodern state structures, despite evidence tothe contrary in terms of their contemporaryplight. Nonetheless, as indicated here forMexico, and in other chapters in this volume(e.g., chapters 23 and 24), the rights of native

peoples have become formalized in a grow-ing mass of formal legislation and initiativesby academics and government organiza-tions, although much archaeological re-search remains ‘‘outsider,’’ with objectivesand concepts which need to be carefullyunpacked for inbuilt biases, not leastthrough direct engagement with the ideas,language, and memories of modern-day rep-resentatives of past communities. As well asthe intrusive obsession with state formation,Jansen tellingly criticizes our contemporaryWestern overconcern with projecting‘‘power’’ into past societies where alternativesocial concepts may have been more influen-tial.In chapter 14, ‘‘Classical Archaeology,’’

Ian Morris takes us into a field of archae-ology with a traditionally strongly defined(or even patrolled) border of interest – oneof the first such to emerge in the discipline.For Morris, a distinctive feature of currentideas in this field is the challenge to the

tion and its classical roots. As classicalarchaeology forges closer links to other his-torical archaeologies, and the boundaries toassociated civilizations in time and spaceappear more permeable, Morris draws a par-allel with the deconstruction of Orientalismas a biased, Western mode of packaging andneutralizing Islamic societies.In chapter 15, ‘‘The Archaeologies of

Recent History: Historical, Post-Medieval,and Modern World,’’ Charles Orser gives tothe study of early modern historical archae-ology a specific goal and overall purposefuldynamic, focused on the stages and effects ofglobal capitalism and globalization. Thismeans directing attention to themes such ascolonialism, ethnocentrism, capitalism, andmodernization. Archaeology has a particular

ate access to groups underrepresented evenin recent historical documents – the poor,exploited, illiterate communities, especially

xxi

Introduction

whose origins are intimately linked to a ra-founding charter of classical archaeology,

be,

dense textualsourcesvalue even here, despite the -

available, as it offers easier andmore accur-

ther supremacist view of Western civiliza-

slaves and peasants. The evidence revealed ismoving and indeed shocking, while the cru-sade is inspiring.In chapter 16, ‘‘Animal Bones and Plant

Remains,’’ Peter Rowley-Conwy, in a briefcompass, offers us a global and long-time-span vision of how he and other specialistsanalyzing ‘‘ecofacts’’ from the human pastcan painstakingly bring out central aspectsof human community life. Lifestyles andeconomies, social and ethnic differences, allcan be comprehended from the at-first un-promising debris of broken bones and burntplants and other ‘‘rubbish’’ revealed in excav-ation. One aspect clearly brought out in thischapter is the progressive refinement ofmethodology since the first studies in thisfield, and deepening of questions that cansuccessfully be asked of the material. Thereader will be struck by the complementaritybetween such empirical and scientific‘‘middle-range’’ approaches and the morehumanistic, ideological, and philosophicalchapters found elsewhere in this Companion.In chapter 17, ‘‘Ecology in Archaeology:

From Cognition to Action,’’ Fekri Hassanchallenges us to cut the Gordion knot ofdeciding whether the environmental settingof past human communities is the product ofnature or culture. Both human perceptionand action, and ecological processes inwhich humans are unwitting or knowingparticipants, are essential. Hassan warns usthat extreme culturalism, which gives noscope to natural forces, such as some currentforms of phenomenology in archaeologicalapproaches to the environment, fails to dealwith the long-term realities of human ecol-ogy as a form of mutual survival of habitatsand their varied species of occupants.In chapter 18, ‘‘The Archaeology of Land-

scape,’’ TonyWilkinson likewise sees the hu-manly occupied landscape as a unity, inwhich we cannot sacrifice considerations ofecological balance and survival, nor thepragmatic study of technology and forms ofland use, nor the role of human perception, inany thorough appreciation of how a particu-lar

and utilized by a past society. On a morepractical level, his treatment of how we canextrapolate from fragments or windows ofpalaeoenvironments is a striking insight intohow landscape archaeology is carried out inpractice.In chapter 19, ‘‘Archaeology and Art,’’

Raymond Corbey, Robert Layton, andJeremy Tanner offer a balanced comparisonof ways of approaching art for archaeolo-gists, arguing that we can and should com-bine previously polarized viewpoints whichstressed either individualistic, particularizinginterpretations, or generalizing cross-cul-tural readings. Particular case studies ofpast art can then fruitfully be placed in theways they illustrate compatibility with, ordivergence from, wider understandings ofartistic production and visual meaning,with the expectation that both are likely tobe relevant. There are exciting prospects forfuture studies in this field.In chapter 20, ‘‘Putting Infinity Up

On Trial,’’ Mark Pollard takes on those cur-rent archaeological theorists who reject‘‘scientism’’ in archaeology and the strongposition that hard science professionalshave carved out as specialist collaboratorson archaeological projects. Pollard arguesthat science with a capital S has and willcontinue to play a vital role in achievingrecognizable landmark insights from thepast of relevance to the future. Yet, at thesame time, he demonstrates that technicalscience in archaeology has come more andmore to depend on data and refinementsemerging from archaeological insights, thusmaking a dialectical model of the relation-ship between archaeological chemists, physi-cists, and biologists, etc. and archaeologiststhe most realistic model. On the other hand,by stressing the importance of clear and test-able procedures, Pollard – to my mind –reminds us of the complementary way thatparts of the archaeological process gravitatetowards ‘‘scientism’’ in judging successfuloperations, while others feel that their kindsof work – perhaps in artistic, emotional,symbolic, political readings and researches

xxii

Introduction

stretch of countryside was lived in

into the past – succeed better with more hu-manistically oriented, hermeneutic and em-pathetic skills. As noted elsewhere in thisintroduction, such a Wittgensteinian viewof subdisciplinary variety is for me a sourceof strength rather than conflict. Another aim,however, of Pollard’s contribution is to chal-lenge the postmodernist concern withuniqueness: tautologically all archaeologicalsites are unique, even each trench or bone,but not only does privileging each item orlocality run against financial realities formodern-day professional archaeology, butalso it fails to meet the requirement to evalu-ate the wider significance archaeological re-search should try to achieve to justify itself asa source of general knowledge beyondmean-ingless description. This is a point well ex-pressed that demands all our attention.

In chapter 21, ‘‘Experiencing Archaeo-logical Fieldwork,’’ John Bintliff challengesmost accepted versions of the raison d’etrefor archaeological activity. Underminingclaims that archaeology primarily serves thenation or the public, this essay claims insteadthat delving obsessionally into the relics ofpast societies is an inherited biological pro-pensity closely related to grassroots scientificresearch, a human drive to take apart theworld that has had survival value for ourspecies. Thinking about archaeology (i.e.,theory) is most useful when it helps us locatenew sources of data, but generally merelyreflects passing intellectual fashions thatwill not survive in the longer-term know-ledge-base of the discipline, and – provoca-tively – this kind of activity is rather poor inskill-level compared to practical archae-ology. Real progress in archaeology can bemeasured in the rising mountain of struc-tured knowledge of what happened in thepast, continually constraining or even elim-inating weaker models, while strengtheningbetter models, of the key processes involvedin its trajectory and character.

In chapter 22, ‘‘Public Archaeology:A European Perspective,’’ Timothy Darvillexposes the conflict, past and present, overour archaeological heritage and its use for

modern purposes. Both manipulation forpolitical ends and attempts at neutral re-search and presentation can be shown.Today, the ever-increasing role of publicarchaeology as opposed to academic univer-sity and museum-based research calls forcareful attention not only to the interpretivegoals sought by the latter, but also to the day-to-day realities of public interest and finan-cial responsibility in which the former aredeeply embedded.

In chapter 23, ‘‘Persistent Dilemmas inAmerican Cultural Resource Management,’’Joseph Tainter gives us an American view-point on the same topic of heritage archae-ology. This contribution is a passionate pleato reopen the debate on the nature of publicarchaeology, particularly the imbalance be-tween financial goals and academic value.Since the latter constantly gets updated, oldlists of what sites can tell us – such as condi-tion the amount of money and attention theyare allocated by public archaeology – fail tohelp us gain better insights into the past.

In chapter 24, ‘‘Museum Studies,’’ LindaEllis takes us into another prime sector ofarchaeology with which the public or publicinstitutions are closely involved. The re-markable and accelerating processes of ques-tioning within the last generation as to whatmuseums are for and what they do or shoulddo are well exposed, and placed in the histor-ical contexts of how museums have evolved.A strong set of opinions is given on issues ofeducation, repatriation of objects, and theplace of museums in contemporary society.

In chapter 25, ‘‘RelatingAnthropologyandArchaeology,’’ Michael Rowlands shows amasterful understanding of the tortuous rela-tions between these two disciplines. He takesa strongly political reading of the dominanceof Western origin myths and colonial–imper-ial worldviews in the ways in which botharchaeology and anthropology have strivento write the story of the development ofhuman social forms. The challenge of global-ization is not so much the further spread ofsuchWestern ideologies, but the possibility ofbackward flows from other cultures in terms

xxiii

Introduction

of alternative ways of conceiving society andsocial change. Another theme is the currentconvergence between the two disciplinesthrough a common interest in the activeroles material culture can play in both repro-ducing and aiding the transformation ofhuman societies.

In chapter 26, ‘‘Archaeology and Politics,’’Michael Shanks offers us a (characteristic-ally) strong argument for the consciouspoliticization of archaeology and archaeolo-gists. He makes a powerful case for the his-tory of our discipline as dominated bypolitical ideologies and manipulations,claiming that the modern situation is no dif-ferent from earlier versions of our subject.Archaeology has never been a ‘‘value-free’’empirical subject, nor can it be; indeed,Shanks sees little role for it unless it is anactive force in contemporary debates aboutthe nature of human society now and for the

future. Archaeology is less a mode of scien-tific discovery than a mode of cultural pro-duction firmly locked into modern issues.

In chapter 27, ‘‘Archaeology and GreenIssues,’’ Martin Bell also confronts us withdebates very much of the moment, surround-ing a discipline of relatively recent emergencebut with major political influence: ecology.Many of the themes of this contribution arerevelatory. If we care about nature conser-vation there is a problem as to what is anatural environment. What are the vital ar-guments for identifying which fragments ofour past environmental context mean some-thing important to us today? Can environ-mental history be deployed to help us predictand influence global environmental futures?Many other important issues in human en-gagement with the physical world – past,present, and future – are skillfully set forthin this passionately argued contribution.

References

Bintliff, John 1995. ‘‘‘Whither archaeology?’ revisited.’’ In M. Kuna and N. Venclova,Whither

Archaeology?, pp. 24–35. Prague.

Bintliff, John 2000. ‘‘Archaeology and the philosophy of Wittgenstein.’’ In C. Holtorf and

H. Karlsson, Philosophy and Archaeological Practice, pp. 152–72. Goteborg.

xxiv

Introduction

Part IThinking AboutArchaeology

1

Analytical Archaeology

Stephen Shennan

The mere recognition and definition of an activity by the production of aconcomitant set of artefacts constitutes the transmission of information ora message . . . A child brought up amongst motor-cars and skyscrapers isdifferently informed to another child born amongst stone axes and pig-hunts.

Clarke (1968: 86)

Introduction

Archaeology today is subject to the tyrannyof the present. Its ideas are reduced to theirsources in contemporary or recent societyand subject to retrospective disapproval.That the origins of culture history go backto dubiously motivated nationalism, or that‘‘New Archaeology’’ can be seen as an aspectof 1960s American imperialism, encouragesthe assumption that the approaches have nointrinsic value, rather as if the origin of someof Darwin’s ideas in nineteenth-century cap-italist economics should justify discardingthe theory of evolution by natural selection(cf. Klejn 1998). With the rise of the culturalheritage movement more interest is devotedto the ownership of archaeological materialand its political and economic implications,than what the material tells us about thepast. Furthermore, the focus of interpret-ation now places archaeologists in the roleof ethnographers of a lost ‘‘ethnographicpresent,’’ struggling hopelessly against the

fact that the people we need to talk to arelong dead and most of the residues of theirlives long decayed. One example is the cur-rent preoccupation with how prehistoricpeople perceived past landscapes, wherestudies leave it willfully unclear whether theperceptions proposed are those of the investi-gator or of the past people being studied.Finally, our desire to see people in the pastas the active, knowledgeable agents webelieve ourselves to be, means requiring allmaterial culture variation to result from self-conscious identity signaling and all change tobe the outcome of the conscious choices ofindividuals with existentialist mentalitieswho walk clear-sightedly into the future.

In contrast, this chapter assumes that theaim of archaeology is to obtain valid knowl-edge about the past. It tries to show thatarchaeologists do not need to be failed eth-nographers. It argues that there are dia-chronic patterns in the past which we candiscern retrospectively but of which peopleat the time would have been totally unaware,

3

or only perceived from a limited perspective,and which can only be explained from thepoint of view of the present-day archaeolo-gist. This does not mean that we are con-demned to producing teleological accountsof ‘‘progress’’ leading to the present, but thatwe should investigate the past in a way thatplays to archaeologists’ strengths, whichundoubtedly lie in the characterization oflong-term patterning in past societies. Fur-thermore, such investigations should providea basis for supporting their claims, whichgoes beyond mere assertions on the part ofthe investigator appealing to some undefinednotion of plausibility. Accordingly, this chap-ter is an argument for Analytical Archae-ology in both the senses intended by Clarke:the characterization of diachronic patternsand processes through the application ofanalytical methodologies.

Diachronic Patterns and CultureHistory

Within the American or European traditions,the only archaeological approach which hasever studied diachronic patterning in thearchaeological record seriously is culture his-tory, originating with Kossinna andChilde inEurope and with Kroeber and Kidder inNorth America. Its aims involved the charac-terization of cultural traditions, includingspatial extent and changes through time.These two versions differed significantly.

InEurope ‘‘cultures’’were characterizedbydistinctive artefact types associated chrono-logically, geographically, and contextually.They were represented by static distributionmaps of particular periods, leading to changebeing seen as the comparison of successive‘‘snapshot’’ maps. Partly this was becauseEuropean cultural descriptions were qualita-tive rather than quantitative; for example,cultures might be defined by the presence ofa particular kind of painted pottery.

In North America, in contrast, the ap-proach developed by culture history wasquantitative, with the construction of so-

called ‘‘battleship curves’’: chronologicallyordered sequences showing the frequency ofdifferent stylistically defined ceramic types insuccessive assemblages (see Lyman et al.1997). Through time these types showed acharacteristic pattern of origin, followed byincreasing popularity to a peak, in turn suc-ceeded by decline and disappearance. Theresulting double-lenticular curve had theshape of a battleship hull. By looking atpatterns in these curves for particular sitesor regions it was possible to see that atcertain points in time there were majorbreaks in such sequences, where severaltypes came to an end and others started;more commonly, there was a more gradualpattern of different types coming into fash-ion and going out again.

What both European and American ver-sions of culture history shared, was an inter-est in explaining cultural change and a set ofassumptions making this possible. The cen-tral assumption was that the spatial orchronological entities identified representedhuman group traditions. It followed fromthis that major changes occurred throughthe replacement of one tradition by anotherand therefore of one people by another, atleast where material culture production wasdomestic rather than in the hands of special-ists. Within the European tradition, this ideasuited the relatively short timescales avail-able for change, and the nationalistic viewof peoples as historical actors having pastsand destinies. Lesser changes were seen asresulting from diffusion. Both migrationand diffusion were considered unproblem-atic concepts.

When the New Archaeology emerged inthe 1960s, there was some interest in de-veloping the culture historical ideas (e.g.,Deetz 1965), but the dominant Binfordianstrand rejected norms and traditions. Ittook the view that the key to understandingculture change was to see the artefactsproduced by human communities as ameans of adaptation, rather than as reflec-tions of population replacement or culturalinfluence. In detail though, its protagonists

4

Stephen Shennan