ARTICLES Norw. Arch. Rev., Vol. 26, No. 2, 1993

Why Indiana Jones is Smarter Than thePost-Processualists *JOHN BINTLIFF

Department of Archaeology, Durham University, UK

Post-Processualism's influence is waning in Britain, linked to the declineof its parent Post-Modernism. Both lost credibility through attempting todominate discourse, and their negative implications for human rights. Mod-ernism and its offspring Processualism had reflected the scientism and socio-economic centralism that dominated the 20th century up until the 1970s.Jameson and Harvey have exposed their Post-Modernism as a superficialaesthetic movement spawned by Post-Fordist economics. Perceived fromthe History of Ideas this temporal succession is the recurrent oppositionbetween Positivist and Idealist philosophies. Wittgenstein's philosophyshows a 'third way' where objective and subjective approaches are comp-lementary tools for scholarship. In Cognitive Processual archaeology a prag-matic merger arises from these formerly competing traditions.

THE DECLINE OF THEPOST-PROCESSUAL ANDPOST-MODERN MOVEMENTS

In a review article of the national conferenceof Theoretical Archaeology in Britain(TAG) (held at Lampeter University inDecember 1990), I was led to comment(Bintliff 1991) that Post-Processualism wastriumphant as the leading discussion topic inBritish archaeological theory. Just one yearlater, on the occasion of the next TAG con-ference (at Leicester University in Decem-ber 1991), I was to find my evaluation of thesituation dramatically changed; reading theauspices from current discussion and pub-lication had led me to consider that theinfluence of the movement was already de-clining, and there were abundant reasons toforesee its coming demise, albeit over aperiod of several years. This paper was pre-

* A paper read at the Theoretical Archaeology Groupconference in December 1991, at LeicesterUniversity; revised January 1993.

sented in substantially its present form at thatconference.

The most recent TAG conference, just afew months ago (at Southampton Universityin December 1992), has confirmed the trend:a much publicized 'Great Debate' betweenProcessualism (Binford, Renfrew) and Post-Processualism (Tilley, Barrett) was almostuniversally judged a disappointing rerun ofan old and tired argument. In the many andvaried symposia which constituted the real'main courses' of the conference, avowedlyPost-Processualist contributions were mar-ginalized and unimpressive. In contrast, itwas a striking characteristic of many of themost impressive and innovative papers thatthey adopted an approach dubbed 'CognitiveProcessualism' by Renfrew (Renfrew 1981,1982, cf. Bintliff 1986).

This rapid shift in Post-Processualism'sfortunes is a mirror of the crumbling edificeof its intellectual parent Post-Modernism inthe Humanities. In both cases, it is para-doxically the success of these movementsthat has created the mechanism for their de-

_

92 John Bindiff

cline. The existence of an established bodyof books and papers by Post-Modernists andPost-Processualists has allowed scholars, in-cluding advocates of the movements them-selves, the opportunity for mature reflectionon the concepts involved and their potential,if any, for the future development of the rele-vant disciplines. The judgement is increas-ingly negative. In every discipline Post-Modernism is patently under siege, its ideasand practices being systematically takenapart by the growing number of its critics,not least those who some years ago espousedits cause and now condemn its failings.

What should we now seek to salvage fromthe wreck of Post-Modern archaeology? Un-til quite recently, I would have wanted torescue quite a few concepts and approachesfrom the Post-Processual era (indeed seeBintliff 1991): in the writings of Ian Hodderthis would have included the importance hehas given to the role of the individual, andthe increased awareness he has demandedfor the different experiences of ethnic groupsand women in the past. In the work of ChrisTilley and Mike Shanks I would have seen afuture for their recurrent emphasis on re-vealing strategies of power and dominanceboth in past societies and in the organizationof modern archaeology.

However, listening to current discussionsin other disciplines, a clear picture is emerg-ing of the PM agenda as inimical to the genu-ine interests of the individual, or to thoseperipheralized and subordinated sectors ofsociety such as women and ethnic minorities.

CONCEPTUAL CRITIQUES

First to fall has been the bastion of Post-Modernist Architecture, indeed it has beenconvincingly argued that this always existedmore on the written page than it ever did inconcrete or steel. A tower-block housing amultinational, even if playfully decoratedwith Post-Modernist references to historicalarchitectural styles, is behind its deceptivelyironic facade, still a multinational monolith.

The Post-Modernist guru Derrida has col-laborated with an architect (Tschumi at LaVillette), but even those sympathetic to atruly Post-Modern and even Deconstruc-tionist Architecture admit that it is unlikelyto be very effective at putting a roof overour heads, not to mention other 'functional'elements such as walls, doors and rooms(Eddy 1990).

As for Literary Studies, from where muchof the Post-Modern agenda derives, thechorus of criticism of Post-Modernist read-ings has become deafening. One strikingfocus for attack is the self-promoting egotismof Post-Modern critics, who, in followingtheir credo of 'The Death of the Author', setthemselves up as more creative and inter-esting than the writers whose works they aresupposedly illuminating. It was symptomaticof the increasing distancing of both writersand critics from the Post-Modernist literaryapproach that Malcolm Bradbury and DavidLodge, significantly both of them fine con-temporary creators of literature as well asprofessional teachers of the subject, recentlywent on record (The South Bank Show,1991) as stating that Post-Modernism was amovement inimical to the creation of anynew literature.

Let us note, then, that the Post-Modernindividual, as in the deconstructionist slogan'The Death of the Author', suffers loss ofautonomy and even total fragmentation asthe unwitting instrument of floatingdiscourses. Ethnic groups and women arelikewise, in the Post-Modern approach, com-partmentalized and effectively peripheral-ized as 'the other', to be treated as an in-commensurate sphere outside of the malesphere of socio-economic power and ration-alism; they are discouraged from unified ac-tion to assert their rights, as both groupsolidarity and political action are seen aswhite, male establishment tendencies.

As for the war on power structures, it hasbeen widely pointed out in every discipline(for Geography, for example, see Curry1991:223; and for Archaeology see the in-

Why Indiana Jones is Smarter Than the Post-Processualists 93

vited comments in Shanks, Tilley et al. 1989)that the gurus of Post-Modernism (PM) andindeed Post-Processualism (PP) typically re-tain all the traits of establishment dominancestructures: they accept positions in the aca-demic teaching establishment, adopt tra-ditional modes of talk-down lecturing,cultivate establishment publishers, build up aclientele of postgraduate acolytes (especiallyrelying on the mind-closing strategy of bib-liographic exclusion), and using traditionalforms of belittling propaganda on behalf oftheir programme vis-à-vis the preceding es-tablishment agenda, strive with noise and ag-gression to dominate the minds and bodiesof the intellectual sectors of the academiccommunity. It is apposite to quote a reviewof a collection of PM geographical writingspurporting to liberate the discipline from tra-ditional elitist theorists: 'let there be no mis-take: this book is for Mandarins, not forGambian peasants or even run-of-the-millgeographers' (Tuan 1989, quoted in Curry1991:219). The reader of PP texts will doubt-less find a resonance.

If we turn specifically to a considerationof Post-Processualism, the dissolution of themain pillars of that movement is becomingreadily apparent. Ian Hodder, happy to as-sociate himself with the whole relativisticethos of Post-Modernism in his Reading thePastoi 1986 (Hodder 1986), now admits thatPost-Processualism has only posed criticalquestions and failed to give answers oralternatives. His own more recent work, forexample The Domestication of Europe (Hod-der 1990) is Structuralist rather than Post-Structuralist, dogmatically readable ratherthan unprogrammed and rewritable: in es-sence, it is an exercise in Renfrew's 'Cog-nitive Archaeology' (1982) that has tacitlydropped the Post-Modern agenda. In a re-cent lecture (Durham University, November1990) Hodder significantly referred to theneed for 'a modified objectivity', and at the1992 Southampton TAG he publicly pre-ached the importance of a Processual ap-proach to the past. Even more remarkable

was his scathing review of Shanks andTilley's version of Post-Processualism in theNorwegian Archaeological Review (Hodder1989). Here he falls out with them on twoaccounts: first, for advocating what Hoddernow feels to be futile, if mainstream Post-Modern ideas; secondly, for their total in-consistency in promoting at one and the sametime, a relativistic approach to an unknow-able past and present, and a thoroughly dog-matic, Marxist, prescriptive interpretation toboth past and present. Hodder's increasingdisillusionment with Post-Modernism andhis gradual retreat into Cognitive Processual-ism, and Shanks and Tilley's confused andinconsistent presentation of a Post-Modernagenda, are revealing of the gradual dis-integration of the Post-Processualist enter-prise.

Considering the progressive collapse ofPost-Modernism, Hodder's pragmatic disen-gagement is timely if he wishes to preservehis central position in future mainstreamarchaeological theory. But what are we tomake of the jarring contradictions he andmost other commentators have found in thework of Shanks and Tilley, between theirpreaching of the open text of Post-Mod-ernism and a strident Marxist activism? Con-sider these remarkable statements made bythose writers in this journal (NAR 1989): 'we[have] abandoned any attempt to create aprivileged or foundational discourse' (p. 7)and 'It is important to analyze . . . the massmedia, popular and fictional writing aboutthe past, museum presentations, and the rap-idly growing heritage industry. It also meansintervening in all these sectors, taking power,taking control' (p. 11) (Shanks et al. 1989,my emphases). I can account for the muddleof Shanks and Tilley's philosophy, and indoing so I shall also be indicating what I thinkis worth saving from the Post-Modern,Post-Processual movement, what their mostsignificant inheritance will be.

THE CONTEXTUAL CRITIQUEIronically (and Post-Modernism's favouritestyle is irony), we learn most from Post-Mod-

94 JohnBintliff

Modernism Post-modernismromanticism/Symbolismform (conjunctive, closed)purposedesignhierarchymastery/logosart object/finished workdistancecreation/totalization/synthesispresencecentringgenre/boundarysemanticsparadigmhypotaxismetaphorselectionroot/depthinterpretation/readingsignifiedlisible (readerly)narrative/grande histoiremaster codesymptomtypegenital/phallicparanoiaorigin/causeGod the Fathermetaphysicsdeterminancytranscendence

paraphysics/Dadaismantiform (disjunctive, open)

playchance

anarchyexhaustion/silence

proccss/performance/happcningparticipation

decreation/deconstruction/antithesisabsence

dispersaltext/intertext

rhetoricsyntagm

parataxismetonymy

combinationrhizome/surface

against interpretation/misreadingsignifier

scriptable (writerly)anti-narrative/pei/te histoire

idiolectdesire

mutantpolymorphous/androgynous

schizophreniadiffercnce-differcnce/trace

The Holy Ghostirony

indeterminancyimmanence

Fig. 1. Schematic differences between Modernism and Post-Modernism (from Harvey, 1989, Table 1.1.after Hassan 1985).

ernism by studying the very rise and flor-escence of the Post-Modern movementitself, if we conduct, as it were, an ar-chaeological investigation into its origins anddevelopment. Post-Modern approaches tolife, present and past, comprise a set of at-tributes which can be tabulated in contrast tothose typical for the preceding Modernist(cf. in archaeology Processualist) ap-proaches (Fig. 1), bearing in mind that in-dividual Modernist or Post-Modernistwriters may only utilize a selection of theseconcepts and moods. Clearly there is aradical change of stated agenda, supportingthe belief of Post-Processualists that theiradoption of Post-Modernist perspectivesrepresents a revolutionary shift in ways oftalking about human society.

And yet Post-Modernism is a cultural mani-festation fixed in time and space, or rather—given its esoteric and elitist tendencies (es-sentially being a kind of 'Trivial Pursuit'played mainly in university seminar rooms,and galleries of art and photography)—a sub-culture. Like any other cultural trend Post-Modernism is amenable to investigation fromthe standpoint of its contemporary historicalcontext. The rise of Post-Modernism in the1980s is certainly not a chance event, theautonomous discovery of a few clever peoplelocked away from the world, but can be shownto be a manifestation in the cultural sphere ofan underlying sea change in the socio-econ-omic conditions of the leading industrial so-cieties, and increasingly of the less developedparts of the world.

Why Indiana Jones is Smarter Than the Post-Processualists 95

JAMESON: THE INTELLECTUALMALAISE OF LATE CAPITALISMIf Post-Modernism can be said to have beenborn with the much-publicized destruction ofa modernist housing estate in 1972 (Jencks1984), the key to its true nature was alreadyexposed in a now classic and perceptivediscussion of the emergent phenomenon byJameson in the New Left Review of 1984(Jameson 1984).

Jameson drew careful attention to theclose and logical relationship between therise of the cultural aesthetic of Post-Mod-ernism, and the rapid contemporary changesin everyday lived experience as the major in-dustrial societies moved from what has beentermed the Fordist form of capitalism into anew era, from the mid-1970s, termed 'post-Fordist' capitalism. To simplify the contrast,Fordism is typified by centralized, regionallybound, large plant economics, whether in theprivate or state sector, closely mirrored bycentrist, interventionist planning from re-gional and national state authorities. Post-Fordism is typified by decentralized, smaller-scale production centres, the fragmentationof production, the loss of regional embed-dedness, the demolition of central govern-ment interventionist programmes of the'nanny-state' variety. The significance of themid-1970s for the rapid spread of post-Ford-ism and its cultural reflector, Post-Modern-ism, is due to the series of financial crisesexperienced in all leading capitalist societiesin this era, associated with monetary in-stability, the oil crisis and the developmentof new capitalist competitors from outside ofthe Europe-USA economic bloc.

For Jameson, the emergence of Post-Modernism was effectively a symptom of theexperience of societies where traditional cer-tainties of time, place, community, politicalcommitment were being undermined by re-mote and seemingly incomprehensible forcesbeyond one's sphere of meaningful engage-ment. Submissive to this sense of instabilityand powerlessness, Post-Modernism seekscomfort by moulding itself to the mood of

the times, making a virtue out of weaknessand disillusionment. If we cannot make con-tact with the forces that control the worldaround us, have lost faith in ideologies thatpromise us that degree of control, and lifeseems an ever-changing superficial experi-ence, then that 'depthlessness' becomes aphilosophy of life, something to give way to.A classic novel, or the results of an exca-vation, are merely the stage (Tilley 1989),rather than the play, upon which we can eachas reader or excavator imagine amusing per-sonal fantasies without the risk of an authoror a real lived past imposing constraints byvoicing their beliefs and lives at us.

Ian Hodder, without recognizing this con-textual grounding to the Post-Modern move-ment, has nonetheless intelligently seenthrough the essentially paralyzing nature ofits tenets and begun his retreat to realist Cog-nitive Processualism. Shanks and Tilley,however, unwittingly provide us (Shanks,Tilley et al. 1989) with ideal case-study ma-terial for documenting how two sociallyaware, politically committed, thinking in-tellectuals of the 70s and early 80s, by jump-ing on the academically chic bandwagon ofPost-Modernism, have allowed themselvesto become the unthinking mouthpieces oflate capitalism and the New Right in the1990s. The conversion has been only partial,producing that philosophical schizophreniaso typical of their publications.

HARVEY: FLEXIBLEACCUMULATION AND THEDISSOLUTION OF COMMUNITYJameson's highly influential paperstimulated, and will now certainly be super-seded by, a remarkable book published in1989 from Britain's acknowledged leadingtheorist in Geography, David Harvey. En-titled The Condition of Postmodernity (Har-vey 1989), its very name challenges the highground of the contemporary era by closelyfollowing that of the classic Post-Modernistbook by Lyotard—The Postmodern Con-dition (Lyotard 1984).

96 John Bintliff

Harvey begins by reminding us of the well-established causative relationship that linkedthe dominance of Modernism and Positivismthroughout the first half of this century, withthe reality and general ethos of technologicaland scientific advance, and central large-scale planning in both state and businesssectors (cf. Bintliff 1986). Building on Jame-son's insights, Harvey then proceeds to docu-ment in much more detail the historicalreasons for the massive redirection ofgovernment, commerce and industry duringthe last 15 years, concentrating on the worldeconomic crises of the 1970s and the de-liberate decision by leading financial groupsto restructure towards what is now beingcalled Flexible Accumulation or post-Fordisteconomics, a process tied closely to theactivities of conservative governments indismantling statist controls over national andregional capitalism and removing socio-economic regulation.

Behind the Modernist trend of the periodto the 1960s lay an overall growth of pro-ductivity for the leading industrial countries;world trade was expanding, a fact whichcould compensate for internal failings suchas the progressive decline of those countries1

traditional industries. Corporate wealth en-abled employee wealth to rise, and govern-ment tax revenue; these surpluses could bedeployed to reinforce employee allegiancethrough bonuses and financial subsidies, or,in the case of the state, to fund state wel-farism to succour those excluded from risingincomes. The open alliance of social wel-farism and corporate philanthropism wasstrengthened by the regionalism shared byestablished businesses and the active contactpoints of local and central government (forthe latter in Britain, local councils, countycouncils, hospitals and social securityoffices). This regionalism merged effortlesslyinto most people's sense of personal root-edness into regional communities. Particu-larly in the immediate postwar cross-partywelfarist initiatives in most capitalist de-mocracies, individual fates were seen as as-

sociated in a very positive way with the socio-economic advancement of the region, the na-tion and the developed world.

In crystal clear fashion, Harvey shows ushow the 1970s crisis of capitalism, wheregrowth or even stability of production andconsumption patterns throughout the capi-talist world were thrown in the balance,marked a decisive end to these traditionalways of organizing citizens, labour and capi-tal. In the ensuing recession and the in-creasing threat of total market dominance bymore efficient and cheaper products fromEastern Asia, a new mode of economic sur-vival was born, the regime of Flexible Ac-cumulation. Both company and state deckshad to be stripped bare for action in what hasbecome an accelerating race to corner evermore insecure and deflating markets orincome.

For companies and their diminishing corestaff, the regional base is expendable: re-location at short notice, perhaps to a distantcountry, can dump a local workforce whoseexistence is tied to that enterprise. For com-pany management every stage of the pro-duction and distribution process can bedissociated from a fixed workforce and evena fixed lower management: the trend is to-ward subcontracting with the most successfulbidders and contract employees being takenon for further employment. Ideal employ-ment, overhead, and investment conditionsfor a company are those where anyone canbe dismissed at short notice or moved aroundthe country at will, and where failings at aproduction or distribution point, not leastlabour rumblings, no longer impact on com-pany fortunes since these units are replace-able through cancellation of contract. (Thisis also a good description of the current em-ployment structure of Professional Archae-ology in Britain today.) Meanwhile, in thepublic sphere conservative governments pro-gressively take down those structures of com-munity erected by prosperous welfarism,reducing every possible organ of state to freeenterprise.

Why Indiana Jones is Smarter Than the Post-Processualists 97

Thus, from every direction the individual'sidentification with communal action andshared achievement is attacked; the infa-mous injunction by a British right-wing poli-tician to the unemployed to 'get on your bike'situates the individual as an isolated ad-venturer pursuing self-centred goals, for, asMargaret Thatcher told us, 'there is no suchthing as society'. The result is, predictably,not a more democratic and more compre-hensively affluent society—the rich getricher, and the poor get poorer.

Harvey takes us further, into the totallydisorientating effects of the accelerating com-pression and indeed negation of time andspace that has accompanied the shift to post-Fordist economics: finance no longer sits tiedto heavy machines in mills that dominate theirdependent community, it flows restlesslyaround the world in money markets that areopen 24 hours a day.

In parallel with the rapacious strippingdown of business, the accelerated economiccompetition set in motion by the 1970s criseshas led to strategies that strive to increase pro-duction turnover time and promoteconsumerism as the centre of individual ex-istence. We are encouraged to live only on thesurface, pursuing fashionable extravagances.Only in the privileged circles of secure aca-demic employment and in the few remainingsubsidized research studentships could suchdisturbing, forced realignments of everydaylife become a subject for celebration, as it hasbeen in that submissive intellectual pawn ofpost-Fordist economics—the Post-Modernmovement. Post-Modernism is commonlysummed up as 'depthlessness', a view of everyexperience in life as intangible, lacking fixedsignificance. The Emperor of classic Post-Modernism has clothes—blurred images andword-games, but simply no body, no conceptof common humanity, no moral groundings,no desire to participate in politics, no sense oftradition, purposefulness. As befits a move-ment divorced from action, it is essentially anaesthetic movement, a mode of expression.

Little wonder then, that a genuinely Post-

Processual archaeology does not recognize a'real past' (death of the historic actor as wellas the author?), decries the search for anykind of coherent social norms in the past,for links that tie people in the past withourselves, and promotes excavation astheatre (Tilley 1989). We could indeed onlyexpect that Post-Processualism would becharacterized by a self-promotion and ex-pressionism in the presence of the past thatdenies previous societies their genuine voice:attitudes that Post-Modern literary critics arenow being so justly ridiculed for.

CONTEXTUALIZINGPOST-PROCESSUALISM ANDPROCESSUALISM IN 20th-CENTURYHISTORYNow, if, as we have argued, the Processual-ism of New Archaeology was in a significantway the unwitting offspring of that centralist,techno-scientific state and commercial powerwhich has dominated the first three gen-erations of this century, and Post-Processual-ism equally the unconscious creation of thedecentralized, flexible accumulation post-Fordist world economic regime, character-istic of the last 20 years, our first conclusionhas to be this:

Behind the claims of Post-Processualismto liberate the individual, the gender-disempowered, the ethnic peripheries, be-hind the deconstruction of establishmentdominance structures—we now see revealedthe hidden hand of vast, coldly manipulativestructures deployed by a new phase of crisiscapitalism. Post-Processualism is symptom-atic of the ever-increasing remoteness ofthe individual from sources of power, ratherthan the reverse.

Secondly, for those of us concerned withthe understanding of long-term historic andprehistoric sequences, the archaeology of thePost-Modern movement teaches us the op-posite to its official dogmas: culture is not inthe least autonomous and self-creative, theright of every individual historic actor to alterand rewrite ; culture, not least Post-Modernist

98 JohnBintliff

and Post-Proeessualist culture, is intimatelybound up with the measurable mass tra-jectory of conditions of work, class, status,and the control over the forces of produc-tion—a materialist interpretation is unavoid-able.

Yes—I have clearly nailed my colours tothe mast by employing an analytical, single-minded perspective to my theme, revealingmyself as an unregenerate positivist. Mycommitment to a continuation of Processuallogic certainly originates in my critical ex-posure to the New Archaeology movementas both an undergraduate and postgraduate,during the time of its dominance in ar-chaeological theory. In thus favouring Pro-cessualism, you might reasonably beencouraged to challenge me with the im-mortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies: 'Hewould say that, wouldn't he?'.

If we were to accept the preceding analysisthat located Processualism and Post-Pro-cessualism as, in essence, epiphenomenatowed along by the successive stages of socio-economic modes of production, who am I toprivilege the preceding intellectual move-ment over the current one? Despite the con-tinual claims by both Modernism and Post-Modernism to stand aside from the drift oftime and explain the nature of life for alleras, it cannot really be denied that they areinexorably tied to specific historic contextsand find their origin, meaning and indeeddemise from secular shifts in socio-economicstructures. I might seem at risk of ceding thebattlefield at the moment of victory, if byrelativizing Processualism we opened theway to that total relativistic perspective fun-damental to Post-Modernism.

CONTEXTUALIZINGPOST-PROCESSUALISM ANDPROCESSUALISM IN THE HISTORYOF IDEAS

My first step to free us from that paradox isto point out that the contrast between ana-lytical, objectivist, positivistic philosophy,and a relativistic, subjective emotionalism is

not merely to be found by comparing theearlier part of this century with its final dec-ades, but represents a polarization that hasrecurred in cyclical form throughout the his-tory of Western philosophy. Nietzsche in the19th century famously characterized the twotraditions (Nietzsche 1872) as the Apollonianand the Dionysian', in the Arts the earlierpart of his century witnessed the supplantingof one by the other in the replacement ofClassicism by Romanticism. At the least,therefore, the 20th century mainstream para-digms represent cyclical viewpoints whoseseparate appeal has validity for many dif-ferent eras and societies. This is still com-patible with the suggestion that paradigmchange is mobilized by non-intellectualchanges in socio-economic conditions.

WITTGENSTEIN AND THE 'THIRDWAY'A rounded vision of how the Apollonian andDionysian, Modernist and Post-Modernistapproaches can exist in useful com-plementarity can be found in the maturereflections of Ludwig Wittgenstein (Monk1990), often viewed as the most influentialphilosopher of this century. Indeed, considerthe paradox that both Modernists and Post-Modernists claim him as a key figure in theirintellectual underpinnings. However, as re-cent lively discussion of his works reveals,neither tradition does the breadth of histhought full justice, but rather takes selec-tions of his insights to suit their narrower per-spectives.

For Wittgenstein, philosophy ended itswork in his demonstration that disputesabout the absolute 'truth' of propositionswere a meaningless exercise. In reality whenwe use certain concepts we are merely em-ploying valid counters in legitimate moveswithin specific language games; each sphereof discourse has its own set of terms, andour use of words or concepts in one languagegame is incommensurate with that appro-priate to another. From this position Post-Modernists claim Wittgenstein as a pioneer

Why Indiana Jones is Smarter Than the Post-Processualists 99

of a purely relativistic view of concepts, butonly by disregarding the crucial commentaryby Wittgenstein on language games: terms ofdiscourse are not free-floating mind-worldsdisconnected from reality but—Wittgensteinstresses—words have no value at all deprivedof action, and social action at that. Themeaning of terms is defined, reproduced andredefined purely in the context of group be-haviour; it is what people do and say abouttheir doing that defines discourse.

For Wittgenstein the recognizable majordiscourses in any society are bound to mutualnetworks of action and behaviour; as wehave seen with Modernism and Post-Mod-ernism, the discourses of social planning orof aesthetics likewise operate in the ex-perience of social everyday life. We cantherefore discuss the current state of societywithin the discourse of Feminism, or Marx-ism, situating the observed social worldaround us within those terms of debate ap-propriate to such ideal, morally foundedideological projections; but we can equallywell plot the distribution of power, residenceand wealth from a modernist pattern-seekingperspective, utilizing dynamic models toaccount for variability in the data culledeclectically from every conceivable source oftheory; the two activities would be equallyvalid but not commensurate, in Wittgen-stein's view; the reality of spatial patterningis a positivistic discourse of one kind, thenature of the ideal society is quite anotherlanguage game.

Modernism claims less: in the end its es-sence is a methodology for recognizing andcreating order, and this has variously servedtotalitarian regimes and social welfarism.The Dionysian, Idealist position claimsmore: it eschews rational analysis in favourof inspiration; it is a discourse of emotionalrelease which has led to a progressive self-awareness of the potential of the individualhuman spirit, but also, as might be seen inthe case of Martin Heidegger, can encouragean obsession with the concept of 'being' thatis too easily perverted into fervent support

APOLLONIANEMPIRICALPOSITIVIST

MODERNISM

PROCESSUALISM

DIONYSIANIDEALIST

ROMANTIC

POST-MODERNISM

POST-PROCESSUALISM

ARCHAEOLOGY AS A HUMAN SCIENCE OFCOMPLEMENTARY

DISCOURSESFig. 2. The future of archaeological theory.

for the aggressive Will, and even into theblood and soil mysticism of the Third Reich.

CONCLUSION

We can and must complement our dis-courses, and cannot expect them to displaceeach other permanently; better to value theirdifferent angles of view and the different pur-poses they serve. What use are wonderfulstatistical correlations if we cannot use thepast to serve the present? On the other hand,what credit can we give to a view of the pastwhich abuses its realities in the cause of bla-tant political propaganda? The future of ar-chaeological theory (Fig. 2), if hopefullyWittgensteinian in the proper sense of a fullunderstanding of his theories, will acknowl-edge these complementary spheres of analy-sis in archaeology, give scope to therecognition of obscure species by a patientpalynologist and the disciple of Foucaultspiralling into verbal vortices over the oddword in an antique letter to the Society ofAntiquaries. This will be Archaeology as aHuman Science.

The present paper was presented in es-sentially its present form at the 1991 TAGconference. Since then, as noted in my in-troduction, another TAG, in fact a 'EU-ROTAG' with a record 750 delegates, has

100 John Bintliff

met at Southampton. The most remarkablefeature of this latest conference was the wayin which speaker after speaker, British andContinental, displayed a total disregard foraffiliation to 'Processualist' or 'Post-Pro-cessualist' factions, and deployed an eclecticattitude to the various objectivist and sub-jectivist approaches debated over in the last20 years. Yet equally consistently, this mer-ger of formerly oppositional traditions withina new pragmatics of practice, saw thespeaker grounding his or her feet onevidence, an archaeological record, testabil-ity. The Theoretical Archaeology of the1990s is undeniably going to be 'CognitiveProcessualism' (cf. Renfrew 1981, 1982): inrecognizing this, we are also surely seeing thefirst steps towards a hybrid 'Human Scienceof Archaeology' as prefigured in the firstdraft of this paper a year earlier.

THE PHILOSOPHICALSPECULATIONS OF INDIANA JONESNow it seems pretty clear to me that theworld's most famous archaeologist,Professor Indiana Jones, is a follower ofWittgenstein. Although he has not left ussuch an impressive philosophical oeuvre asthe Cambridge luminary, we do possess arare statement of Professor Jones's com-mitment to the key propositions of theTractatus Logico-Philosophicus and thePhilosophical Investigations.

In an admittedly rare classroom scene dur-ing that memorable biopic Indiana Jones andthe Last Crusade, our hero is seen addressinga large class of adulating students. Thetheme: nothing less than 'The Nature of Ar-chaeology'. After commenting that the disci-pline is 95% library work (an assertion whichthe rest of the film makes no attempt to sup-port, if we except the scene where Indianaand his attractive assistant are engaged inskullduggery beneath a library floor), Pro-fessor Jones throws out a culminatoryaphorism: 'Archaeology is about Facts; ifyou want the Truth, go next-door to the Phil-osophy Department!'

And that's why, gentle reader, IndianaJones is smarter than the Post-Processualists.

REFERENCES

Bintliff, J. L. 1986. Archaeology at the interface:an historical perspective. In Bintliff, J. L. &Gaffney, C. F. (eds.), Archaeology at the in-terface, 4-31. BAR Int. Ser. 300, Oxford.

Bintliff, J. L. 1991. Post-modernism, rhetoric andscholasticism at TAG: the current state ofBritish archaeological theory. Antiquity 65,274-278.

Curry, M. R. 1991. Postmodernism, language,and the strains of Modernism. Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers 81, 210-228.

Eddy, D. H. 1990. Review of Postmodern Sophis-tications by David Kolb. Times Higher Edu-cation Supplement, December 7th, 1990, 21.

Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Post-modernity. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the Past. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Hodder, I. 1989. Comments on archaeology intothe 1990s. Norwegian Archaeological Review22(1), 15-18.

Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe.Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Jameson, F. 1984. Postmodernism, or the culturallogic of late capitalism. New Left Review 146,53-92.

Jencks, C. 1984. The Language of Post-ModemArchitecture. London.

Lyotard, J. 1984. The Postmodern Condition.Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Monk, R. 1990. Ludwig Wittgenstein. JonathanCape, London.

Nietsche, F. W. 1872. Die Gehurt der Tragödieaus dem Geiste der Musik. Leipzig.

Renfrew, C. 1981. Space, time and man. Trans-actions of the Institute of British GeographersN.S.6, 258-278.

Renfrew, C. 1982. Towards an Archaeology ofMind. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge.

Shanks, M., Tilley, C. and Invited Comments1989. Archaeology into the 1990s. NorwegianArchaeological Review 22(1), 1-54.

Tilley, C. 1989. Excavation as theatre. Antiquity63, 275-280.