Theory – Post-Processual

In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s some archaeologists didn’t like the direction New Archaeology was taking the discipline.  They were dissatisfied and felt a need for addressing the cognitive factors of archaeology.  If you have noticed that Processualism also progressed from New Archaeology you are right.  “So how,” you might ask, “if Processualists and Post-Processualists appeared on the scene at about the same time, is Post-Processualism, post?”  That’s a good question.  Truth is, I don’t know.  This has led some to question whether there really is such a thing as Post-Processualism.  But whatever this theory is called, it does exist.  This post will describe briefly some of its most fundamental tenants of Post-Processualism as described by J. Matthews in his article “Archaeological Theory”.

Post-Processual theory holds at least 8 fundamental tenants.  The first is the rejection of the positivist view of science and the theory/data split.  The belief is that data, in its basic nature, is always theory-laden.

Second, is that interpretation is always hermeneutic.  Basically the way you study something is always affected with bias.

Third, Post-Processualists reject that material and ideal are in opposition.  Instead, they feel that they are united.  Cultural Historians used the approach of the ideal while Processualists rejected this for the material.  But Post-Processualists consider that the ancient man didn’t see either but both.

Fourth, is that archaeologists need to look at thoughts and values in the past.  The argument is that every archaeologist empathizes with the ancient man whether they admit it or not.

Fifth, is the realization that the individual is active not passive.  People were not “duped” by their environment as Binford and other Processualists would have you believe, but were intelligent thinkers who did what they wanted regardless of what society “told them to think”.  Post-Processualists prefer the bottom-up model rather than the hypothetical top-down model of Processualism.  And they prefer to look for conflicts that drive society (such as gender and class) rather than everyone just agreeing (consensus model).

Sixth, is the belief that material culture is like a text in that it can be read.  It also can be interpreted in various ways and these interpretations can be manipulated (and are manipulated even if the manipulation is not verbalized).  Culture is too complex to allow any conclusions.  And just like an author cannot control how people interpret his writing, culture is beyond any one person’s control.

Seventh, is the emphasis on context considerations (not only in the archaeological contexts, but in the archaeologist’s present context.

Eighth, meanings are always political because we are all political beings, effected and educated in a system that we reflect in our understanding of whatever we do.

I sympathize a lot more with this line of thinking than the past two (Culture History and Processualism) mostly because I am beginning to believe that culture is not something that can be pinned down.  And when we try to put culture in a jar and display it on a shelf we are over-generalizing and stereotyping.  I also believe that there is bias in everything (whether that bias is modern or ancient).  Everyone is a product of their upbringing but since we are not robots it is hard to be exact in classifying anything.  In fact, the act of classifying is to choose one feature and emphasize it over another. Which aspect is to be featured is an act of bias.  (But I am still working through these thoughts and haven’t settled on any particular view yet.)

This method of interpretation “at the trowel’s edge” is time consuming and prone to conflict (since everyone has an opinion).  I am not sure that it can be done but I like where it is going and certain of its tenants.  Thus far, I prefer this method over the past two.