theory and practice in archaeology

《theory and practice in archaeology》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在学术论文-天天文库。

THEORYANDPRACTICEINARCHAEOLOGYThisbookaimstoshowthroughaseriesofexamplesthataninterpretivearchaeologydealingwithpastmeaningscanbeappliedinpracticetoarchaeologicaldata,andthatitcanalsocontributeeffectivelytosocialpracticeintheworldoftoday.Sevenofthenineteencontributionsincludedhavebeenspecificallywrittenforthisvolumetoactasanoverviewofthewayarchaeologyhasdevelopedoverthelasttenyears.YetIanHoddergoesbeyondthis:heaimstobreakdowntheseparationoftheoryandpracticeandtoreconcilethedivisionbetweentheintellectualandthe‘dirt’archaeologist.Facedwithpubliccontroversyovertheownershipandinterpretationofthepast,archaeologyneedsaclearimageofitself,beabletogainfunding,winpublicconfidenceandmanagetheheritageprofessionallyandsensitively.Hodderassertsthatarchaeologistscannotaffordtoignoregeneraltheoryinfavourofpracticeanymorethantheycanaffordanivory-towerapproach.Theoreticaldebateisimportanttoanydiscipline,particularlyinarchaeology,ifitisnottobecomecomplacent,self-interestedanduncriticalTheoryandPracticeinArchaeologycapturesandextendsthelivelydebateofthe1980soversymbolicandstructuralapproachestoarchaeology.Itwillbeessentialreadingforstudentsofarchaeologyandforthoseinvolvedin,andresponsiblefor,heritagemanagement.IanHodderisaReaderinArchaeologyattheUniversityofCambridge,aFellowofDarwinCollegeandaDirectoroftheCambridgeArchaeologicalUnit. MATERIALCULTURESInterdisciplinarystudiesinthematerialconstructionofsocialworldsSeriesEditors:DanielMiller,DeptofAnthropology,UniversityCollegeLondon;MichaelRowlands,DeptofAnthropology,UniversityCollegeLondon;ChristopherTilley,InstituteofArchaeology,UniversityCollegeLondon;AnnetteWeiner,DeptofAnthropology,NewYorkUniversityMATERIALCULTUREANDTEXTTheArtofAmbiguityChristopherTilleyARCHAEOLOGICALTHEORYINEUROPETheLastThreeDecadesEditedbyIanHodderEXPERIENCINGTHEPASTOntheCharacterofArchaeologyMichaelShanksTHEORYANDPRACTICEINARCHAEOLOGYIanHodderTECHNOLOGICALCHOICESTransformationinMaterialCulturessincetheNeolithicEditedbyPierreLemonnierARCHITECTUREANDORDERApproachestoSocialSpaceEditedbyMichaelParkerPearsonandColinRichardsTHESWASTIKAConstructingtheSymbolMalcolmQuinnGIFTSANDCOMMODITIESExchangeandWesternCapitalismSince1700JamesG.Carrier ACKNOWLEDGINGCONSUMPTIONAReviewofNewStudiesEditedbyDanielMiller THEORYANDPRACTICEINARCHAEOLOGYIanHodderLondonandNewYork Firstpublishedin1992byRoutledge11NewFetterLane,LondonEC4P4EEThiseditionpublishedintheTaylor&Francise-Library,2005.“TopurchaseyourowncopyofthisoranyofTaylor&FrancisorRoutledge'scollectionofthousandsofeBookspleasegotow.w.w.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”SimultaneouslypublishedintheUSAandCanadabyRoutledge29West35thStreet,NewYork,NY10001Firstpublishedinpaperback1995©1992,1995IanHodderAllrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereprintedorreproducedorutilizedinanyformorbyanyelectronic,mechanical,orothermeans,nowknownorhereafterinvented,includingphotocopyingandrecording,orinanyinformationstorageorretrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublishers.BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataHodder,IanTheoryandpracticeinarchaeology.—(Materialcultures)I.TitleIISeries930.1LibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationDataHodder,Ian.Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology/IanHodder.p.cm.(Materialcultures)Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.1.Archaeology.I.Title.II.SeriesCC173.H631992930.1–dc2091–38333ISBN0-203-64530-8Mastere-bookISBNISBN0-203-67382-4(Adobee-ReaderFormat)ISBN0-415-12777-7(PrintEdition) CONTENTSListofillustrationsviiSeriesprefaceviiiPrefacexAcknowledgementsxi1THEORY,PRACTICEANDPRAXIS1PARTISymbolicandstructuralarchaeology2SYMBOLISM,MEANINGANDCONTEXT103SYMBOLSINACTION224BURIALS,HOUSES,WOMENANDMENINTHEEUROPEANNEOLITHIC40PARTIISomeimplicationsofthenewideas5POST-PROCESSUALARCHAEOLOGY736THEORETICALARCHAEOLOGY:AREACTIONARYVIEW817ARCHAEOLOGYIN19841078POLITICSANDIDEOLOGYINTHEWORLDARCHAEOLOGICALCONGRESS1986118PARTIIIDebateandre-evaluation9THEPROCESSUALREACTION12710TOWARDSRADICALDOUBT:ADIALOGUE13511THEPOST-PROCESSUALREACTION13912TOWARDSACOHERENTARCHAEOLOGY147PARTIVPractisingarchaeology13INTERPRETIVEARCHAEOLOGYANDITSROLE15914MATERIALPRACTICE,SYMBOLISMANDIDEOLOGY17415THEHADDENHAMCAUSEWAYEDENCLOSURE—AHERMENEUTICCIRCLE18416THEDOMESTICATIONOFEUROPE20817GENDERREPRESENTATIONANDSOCIALREALITY21918WRITINGARCHAEOLOGY:SITEREPORTSINCONTEXT22619ARCHAEOLOGYANDTHEPOST-MODERN236Index241 ILLUSTRATIONS1Therelationshipsbetweentheory,practiceandsocialpractice(praxis)32Barnhouse,Orkney,Structure2193ThedistributionofNeolithicsitesonOrkney284PlanoftheSkaraBraesettlementonOrkney305PlanoftheQuanternesstombonOrkney326SiteplanoftheStonesofStenness,Orkney347ThedistributionofNeolithicchamberedtombsinAtlanticEuropeandofBandkeramiksettlementsandfindswithlonghouses448Longmoundburial.ThestructuralsequenceatFussell’sLodgeandKilham459GroundplansoflonghousesfromNeolithicEurope4610TheorientationoftombsandlonghousesinEurope4911Gallerygraves(alléescouvertes)androck-cuttombs(hypogées)fromtheSOMcultureintheParisBasin5212AnexampleofaLBKhousewithsiteditches:Building32atElsloo,Netherlands5313Comparisonoftombs(stalledcairns)andhousesintheOrkneyNeolithic5414Renfrew’ssuggestedrelationshipbetweentheoryanddata10915TheincompleteBlackBoxofsystemstheorycomparedwiththesubjectivelyperceivedboxofinterpretationtheories11116Interpretationasahermeneuticmediatingbetweenpastandpresenthermeneutics15517Therelationshipsbetweensignifiers,signifiedsandreferentsinlanguageandmaterialculture17418TheditchsectionsexcavatedindifferentyearsattheHaddenhamcausewayedenclosure18719The1981and1987areasofexcavationattheHaddenhamcausewayedenclosure18920DitchI,Haddenhamcausewayedenclosure19321LengthsoftheHaddenhamenclosureditchsegmentsinrelationtonatureofdeposits,numbersoffindsandrecuts19922ThehermeneuticspiralandtheHaddenhamcausewayedenclosure20623ClayfigurinefromCatalHuyuk21224ThedomusandagriosinsoutheastEurope214 SERIESPREFACETheMaterialCulturesseriescrossesthetraditionalsubjectboundariesofarchaeology,historyandanthropologytoconsiderhumansocietyintermsofitsproduction,consumptionandsocialstructures.Thisapproachbreaksdownthenarrowcompartmentalizationwhichhasuntilnowobscuredunderstandingofpastandpresentsocietiesandoffersamorebroadly-based(andcoherent)setofexplanations.Theserieshasdevelopedfromfrustrationwiththeconceptuallimitsimposedbyastructureofseparatedisciplines.Thesedivisionsmakelittlesensewhensomuchofthemostvaluableworkinmanyareas—inarchaeology,consumptionstudies,architecture,muscology,humangeography,anthropologyandcommunicationscience—growsfromcommonrootsandasharedintellectualframework.Thethrustoftheseriesistodevelopconceptsnecessaryforunderstandingculturalandsocialform;buttheeditors’approachreversestheprimacyoftengiventolinguisticovermaterialstructures.Thisisdeliberateafterall,althoughstructuralismborrowedfromlinguisticsittookitsmostoriginalshapethroughLévi-Strauss’sstudiesofkinship,mythandritual.Morerecentlyaparallelprocesshastakenplaceinarchitecture,whichhasbeenacrucialfocusinthedevelopmentoftheoriesofpost-modernism.Thissuggeststhattherearemanyadvantagesinattemptingtoconstructapproachestothematerialworldwhichconsciouslyproclaimthedistinctivenatureofobjectsasagainstlanguage.Thisapproach,centraltoallthebooksintheseries,shouldbeofparticularbenefittothosestudies(likearchaeology)whichhaveartifactsastheirmainfocus.Butmaterialityprovidesnewperceptionsofculturalcontextoveramuchwiderrangeofsubjectmatter.Itdemandsaconsciousprocessoflinkingtogetherthetechniquesandstrategiesofotherdisciplines.Forexample,arecognitionoftheissuesofgenderwillinfuseanhistoricallybasedstudywithadeepersetofmeanings;setthesameworkwithinananthropologicalframeworkaswell,anditsvalue(andinsights)areenhanced.Thisbroadsenseofcontextallowsustopublishworkontheculturalpoliticsofthebody,onpowersystemsofrepresentation,onfoodandgender,andtheexperienceofpossessionoralienation.Allofthemarerootedwithinamaterialisticinterpretationofculture.TheserieswillmaintainaproductivedialoguewithdevelopmentsinMarxist,aswellasstructuralist,post-structuralistandphenomenologicalthought,throughfocusingonthespecificityofthematerialworldanditsparticularformsandcontents.Yetwerecognizethatitistheverymaterialityofthatworldwhichoftenpresentsachallengetotheoryandpromotesacriticalapproachtoanalysis.Manyofthedisciplineswhichhaveaparticularconcernwithmaterialculture,suchasmuscologyandconsumptionstudies,havetendedtofeelthattheirowndevelopmentsintheoryandanalysishavebeenneglectedoverpreviousdecades.Theyhavebecome,relativelyspeaking,backwatersofthesocialscience.Thisseriesislaunchedatatimewhentherearesignsthatthisisabouttoberadicallychanged. Therearenewadvancesinculturaltheorywhicharenotmerelyfetishisticanddonotposittheobjectasdistinctfromsocialandculturalcontext.Advancesinpost-structuralismwhichhavechallengedthenotionofthesubjectmeanthatwearenowfreetoconceiveofanewapproachtomaterialculture,whichdoesnotprivilegeorreifyeitherobjectsorpersons.Inplanningandco-ordinatingtheserieswewishtodemonstrateaboveallthecurrentintellectualexcitementandpotentialforworkingwithinthisfield.Creatingmeaningfromthematerialfragmentsofthepastandthepresentnowprovidesanarenaforaddressingsomeofthefundamentaltheoreticalandphilosophicalissuesofourtime.DanielMiller,MichaelRowlandsandChristopherTilley PREFACEInpresentingacollectionofsomeofmypreviouslypublishedpapersthereisperhapsanunderstandabledesireto‘correct’allthosecommentatorswhoarguedthatIwhimsicallyshiftedfromonetheorytoanother.ThosewhoarguedthatmywritingswereconfusedandcontradictoryandthatIjustfollowedthelatesttrend,Inowhavetheopportunitytoshowthattheydidnotunderstandhowallthepiecesfitintoawhole,anoeuvre.Icanattempttoshowhowmyworkhadadevelopmentalcoherence,ifnotpredictedatthebeginning,certainlyguidedbysomebigquestionsanddominantinterests.Thereisanimpulseto‘putright’those‘mis’-readingsofmywritings.Icantrytoputthecritics‘right’andshowthemwhatIhad‘really’intendedtosay,explainwhatI‘really’meant.Itisalltoeasytoarguethatmycritics,commentators,reviewershavenotevenreadmywork.OtherssometimesseemwilfullytomisunderstandwhatIhavetosay.Itistemptingtotakethechancenowtoarguethattheyreadwhattheywantintomywriting,setmeupasastrawman,andcriticisemeforwhatIhavenotwritten.UsuallyIhavenoopportunitytorespond(see,however,Hodder1986*).Soatlast,withintheconfinesofthesecollectedpapersIcouldtaketheopportunityto‘settherecordstraight’.Iespeciallywanttocorrecttheimpressionthatmyworkhasonlybeenabouttheoryandhaslittlerelevancetowhatarchaeologistsactuallydo.PeoplearguethatIfavour‘thinkers’over‘stinkers’.PeoplesaythatthecritiqueofprocessualarchaeologywaswellestablishedbutthatIhavenothingtoputinitsplacethat‘lab’or‘dirt’archaeologistscanuse.Theysaythatpost-processualarchaeologyhasledtoanintellectualisationofdebatesothatfewpeoplewanttobeinvolved.NowIhavethechancetoshowthatthenewtheoriescanbelinkedtopractice.Theproblemsraisedbytheseimpulsesto‘puttherecordstraight’willneedfullerdiscussionfromChapter10onwards.Forthemoment,Iwishtobeginwiththewholeissueoftheoreticaldebateanditsrelationshiptoarchaeologicalpractices.*Hodder,I.(1986)‘Diggingforsymbolsinscienceandhistory:areply’,ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety52,352–6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIamgratefultoAntiquity,ArchaeologicalReviewfromCambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress,theRoyalAnthropologicalInstituteofGreatBritainandIreland,theSocietyforAmericanArchaeologyandtheUniversityofCalgaryArchaeologicalAssociationforpermissiontoreprintmaterialherewhichwasoriginallypublishedbythem.Thefollowingpaperswerefirstpublishedinthevolumeslistedbelow:Chapter3:‘Conclusionsandprospects’,inI.HodderSymbolsinAction,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982,212–29.Chapter4:‘Burials,houses,womenandmenintheEuropeanNeolithic’,inD.MillerandC.Tilley(eds)Ideology,PowerandPrehistory,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984,51–68.Chapter6:‘Theoreticalarchaeology:areactionaryview’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982,1–16.Chapter7:‘Archaeologyin1984’,Antiquity58,1984,25–32.Chapter8:‘PoliticsandideologyintheWorldArchaeologicalCongress1986’,ArchaeologicalReviewfromCambridge5:1,1986,113–19.Chapter13:‘Interpretivearchaeologyanditsrole’,AmericanAntiquity56(1),1991,7–18.Chapter14:‘Materialpractice,symbolismandideology’,ProceedingsofTheoreticalArchaeologyConference,Bergen,Bergen:HistoricalMuseum,1992.Chapter17:‘Genderrepresentationandsocialreality’,TheArchaeologyofGender,Calgary:UniversityofCalgary,ArchaeologicalAssociation,1991,11–16.Chapter18:‘Writingarchaeology:sitereportsincontext’,Antiquity63,1989,268–74.Chapter19:‘Archaeologyandthepost-modern’,AnthropologyToday,fortheRoyalAnthropologicalInstituteofGreatBritainandIreland,1990.IwouldliketothankSarahTarlowforthepreparationoftheindex. 1THEORY,PRACTICEANDPRAXISThisbookdealswithrecentdevelopmentsinarchaeologicaltheorywhichhavecometobeclassifiedwithinthesmallworldofarchaeologyas‘post-processual’,butwhichinthewiderworldwouldbetermedneo-Marxist,hermeneutic,criticalandpost-structuralist.Theheavilytheoreticalnatureofthepost-processualdebateisclearfromeventhebriefestencounterwiththeliterature(e.g.ShanksandTilley1987a;1987b;BaptyandYates1990;Hodder1991).YetIhavetitledthebookTheoryandPracticeinArchaeology.Theemphasisonpracticepartlyderivesfromadesiretoshowawiderrelevanceforpost-processualideas.Ifthesenewideasaretohavemorethanasuperficialimpact,theyneedtoberelatedtothepracticeofarchaeology.ButIhavealsosetmyselfawiderbrief.Regardlessoftheoverallimpactofpost-processualideas,thereisaneedtobreakdowntheseparationoftheoryandpracticeinarchaeology.Inmanycountrieswithalargearchaeologicalcommunity,thereissomeformofdivisionbetween,ontheonehand,theintellectual,theinterpreter,theacademic,thetheoreticianand,ontheotherhand,dirtorwhite-coatedarchaeologistsdealingwithpracticalissues.Manypeoplewouldfeelthattheyfallsomewherebetweenandtemperthesetwoextremes.Butitisoftenthecasethatthosemostinvolvedaspractitionersaresuspiciousofanduninterestedinabstracttheory.Itisprobablytruetosaythatmostarchaeologistsarenotspecificallyconcernedwiththeoreticaldiscussion,exceptperhapswhenitcreatesthespectacleofapublicoppositionaldebate.Archaeologiststendtobepragmaticanddata-oriented,fascinatedbyspecifictechnicalandhistoricalproblems.InNorthAmerica,forexample,youonlyhavetocomparetheSocietyforAmericanArchaeologymeetings(withtheiremphasisonmiddle-rangetheory,siteformationprocesses,hunter-gathererstrategiesandregionalstudies)withthemeetingsoftheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation(wheretheemphasisisonpower,gender,text,rhetoricetc.)toseetheneurosismostarchaeologistsstillfeeltowardssayinganythingwhichmighthavetopicalandgeneraltheoreticalinterest.Thelackofinterestingeneraltheorypartlystemsfromthepositivismwhichmostarchaeologistsassume,howeverweakly.Ithaslongbeenassumedthatthesourceoftheoriesandtheirinternalcoherenceisoflessconcernthanone’sabilitytotestthemagainstthearchaeologicaldata.TheNewArchaeologyofthe1960sandearly1970sdidleadinitiallytoarefreshingconcernwiththeorydevelopmentasintuitiveapproacheswerereplacedbya‘lossofinnocence’(Clarke1973)andbyaself-consciousconcernwithseparatingtheoryfromdataandprovidingrigorousmethodsforevaluatinghypotheses.Throughtime,however,thisapproachhasincreasinglyputallitseggsinthebasketofneutralmethods.Withinpositivistapproachesinarchaeologythereis,onthewhole,moreemphasisontestabilitythanthereisonwhetherthetheoriesbeingusedareinteresting,orvaluable.Sotheoreticaldiscussioninitsownrightisrelatively Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology2unimportant,becausewearesupposedtobeabletoletmethodsortoutthegoodandthebadtheories.Perhapsbecauseofthispositivism,perhapsbecauseoftheenormousdifficultyofmakingsenseoffragmentarydatafromlong-gonesocieties,perhapsbecauseofthedifficultyofsayinganythingwithanydegreeofcertaintyaboutthedistantpast,mostarchaeologistsprefertobecomeabsorbedindataandmethod.Therearealsoinstitutionaldivisionsbetweenuniversitiesandheritagemanagementwhichperhapsencouragetheseparationoftheoryandpractice.Thislatterfactorisespeciallysevereincontextsofrapidsitedestruction.Thepastisbeingdestroyedandwearewastingtimeifwegazeintoourtheoreticalnavels.Wehaveto‘getouracttogether’ratherthanbeinvolvedininternaltheoreticalwrangles.Whatisneededisadisciplinewithaclearandcertainimageofitself,abletodothejobofactingquicklyandprofessionallytosavetheheritage,adisciplineabletogainfundingandwinpublicconfidenceinconflictsoverrightstothepast.AcommonviewwasexpressedbySchifferinapublicdebateattheSocietyforAmericanArchaeologymeetingatAtlanta,Georgiain1989.‘High-levelgoals,Ithink,mostlygenerateconflictandennui,whereasmiddle-andlow-levelgoalsgenerateproductiveresearch.’Itiseasytosympathisewiththis‘let’sgetonwithit’view(foralessabsoluteversionseeFlannery1982).Theoreticaldiscussioninvolvesdefiningterms,statingpositions,settingupcategoricalboundaries.Itinvolvescreatingacoherentwholewhichisdefinedbyitsoppositiontootherwholes(forexample,cultureastextandasmeaningfullyconstitutedasopposedtocultureastoolandasman’sextrasomaticmeansofadaptation).Generaltheoriesareheavilyinfluencedbyapriorijudgementsandtaken-for-granteds.Theyareaboutourselves.Evenwhendescribingthegreatthinkersandphilosophers,itispossibletoarguethattheyareexpressingacertainwayoflookingattheworldwhichisprefigured(White1973).Butitispreciselythisprefigurednatureoftheorywhichshouldenticeustolookattheorymorecarefullyratherthanputtingourblinkersonandgettingournosesintomiddle-andlow-levelgoals.Thepurertheoryalwaysassertstheinterestsofparticulargroupsmoreobviously.ThishasbeenshownwithgreateffectbySaid(1978)inhisanalysisofthedisciplineswhichhaveconstructedthe‘orient’,whichhavereproducedoverthelongtermcertainstereotypicalviewsoftheorient,andwhichhavetherebyassertedthedominanceofthe‘Occident’.InrelationtoSaid’sanalysisitisinterestingtonoteRowlands’(1987)discussionaboutthestudyofEuropeanprehistoryasacelebrationofthepeculiardominanceoftheEuropeanoccidentagainstthestagnantanddespoticorient.Inmoregeneralterms,Fabian(1983)hasshownhowtheanthropologicalcreationof‘theother’asinanothertimeassertsthedominance,dynamismandseparationofthewest.Asaspecificexampleofthistendencyoftheorytosetuprelationsofdomination,Trigger(1980)hasshownhowdifferentphasesofNorthAmericanarchaeologistshavewrittentheAmericanIndianasunprogressiveandlackingindynamism. Theory,practiceandpraxis3Figure1Therelationshipsbetweentheory,practiceandsocialpractice(praxis)Onereasonforafullerconsiderationofpracticeistheneedtoevaluatethepracticalimplicationofourtheories.HereIamtalkingaboutpracticeinthesenseofsocialpractice.PraxisistheGreekandGermanwordforpracticeandinalongtraditionofscholarshipwhichincludesMarxithascometorefertosocialpractice(Hoffman1975).Accordingtothisview,theoryandthinkingaresocialandcannotbeseparatedfromthepracticesofsociallife.Theoryandsocialpracticearefusedandtheoppositionsbetweenfactandvalue,objectandsubjectaredemolished.Thetheoryofpraxisarguesthattheoryistransformativeandispotentiallyrevolutionary.Itassertsthatwedonotpassivelyobserve,contemplatetheworld,butthatwecreateit.Sciencecannot,therefore,beseparatedfromsociety.Evenbywritingabstracttheoryinaproverbialivorytower,apparentlycutofffromtheworld,thearchaeologistisusingandfurtheringasystemofacademicprestige,authorityandprivilegewhichhasimpactsontheconductofeducation.Suchtheoreticallabour,oftensupportedbyelitistinstitutionssuchasCambridgeUniversityanditscolleges,ispartofawiderattempttoestablishtheindependenceanddominationofintellectualendeavour.Recentlythecomplacencyoftheoreticalpracticesinarchaeologyhasbeenunderattackfromseveralquarters.Forexample,anawarenessofgenderissueshasledtoarethinkingnotonlyofimplicitandrocentricassumptionsinourtheoriesbutalsotomoregeneralcritiquesofourunderstandingofpower,dominationandsignification(GeroandConkey1991).Awholeseriesofvolumesfollowingonfromthe1986WorldArchaeologicalCongress,itselfahighlychargedandpoliticisedevent(seeChapter8),haveexpressedtheclaimsmadebyminoritygroupsagainstthetheoriesaboutthepastespousedbydominanttraditions(e.g.Layton1989a;1989b;Shennan1989;GathercoleandLowenthal1990etc).Intellectuals,includingthoseonthe‘left’,havelongspokenfromthestandpointoftheuniversal,ascontrollersoftruthandjustice.Foucault(1980,126)arguesthatacrossthedisciplines,theroleoftheintellectualhasnowchangedfromtheuniversaltothespecific.Anewconnectionbetweentheoryandsocialpracticehasbeenestablished.Astheexampleofarchaeologyshowswell,‘intellectualshavegotusedtoworking,notinthemodalityofthe“universal”,the“exemplary”,the“just-and-true-for-all”,butwithinspecificsectors,attheprecisepointswheretheirownconditionsoflifeorworksituatethem….Thishasundoubtedlygiventhemamuchmoreimmediateandconcreteawarenessofstruggles.Andtheyhavemetherewithproblemswhicharespecific,non-universal’(ibid.).Asarchaeologistsareembroiledinreburialissues,landclaims,feminism,heritagemanagementandtheplanningprocess,astheystandupincourtas‘expertwitnesses’inthemanagementofculturalresources,theyfitbetterthepictureof Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology4thespecificintellectualthantheuniversalscholarofthenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.Aswellasconsideringarchaeologicalpraxis,itisnecessarytobringtotheforearchaeologicalpracticeinamoreconventionalsense.BypracticehereImeantheapplicationoftheoryinspecificcontexts.Thereisapotentiallinkbetweenpraxisandpracticewhichcanbeexploitedinordertolimittheclosure,self-sufficiencyandself-interestofabstracttheoreticalschemes.Almostbydefinition,theorydescribesabstractionsandgeneralitieswhichgobeyondthespecificinstanceswithwhichitmaybeconcerned.Eventheorieswhichpurporttoexplainonlyparticulareventsinvolvetranslatingthoseeventsintotermswhichwecanunderstandandwhichthereforehavesomegenerality.Inmoregeneraltheory,concernedwithdefiningrulesandprinciples,thespecificinstancesareexampleswhichillustratethegeneralpoint.Inneithertheparticularnorthegeneraltypesoftheoryisthetheoryreducibletothepracticesbeingexplained.Eveninthecaseofanexhaustivecataloguetherearetheoreticalunderpinningswhichgobeyondthecataloguingpractice.Thereis,therefore,agapbetweentheoryanddata.Irealisethatthisnotionofaseparationoftheoryandpracticemightbeseenasahangoverfrompositivismandfromtheseparationofsciencefromvaluejudgement.ThisisaproblemtowhichIwillreturn(Chapter12).ButforthemomentIwishtoassertthatinrelatingtheorytodatathereisalwaysatension,aneedforadjustmentandinterpretationofthegeneralinrelationtotheparticular.Whilethehumanabilitytotwistandturnuntiltheoryanddataaremadetofitisremarkable,thereisatleastthepotentialthatinaccommodatingtheorytounexpecteddatawewillbeconfrontedbyproblemsthatforcereconsiderationofgeneraltheory.ThismaybeapioushopewhenthetheoriesarestronglygroundedinideologiesasIdemonstrateinChapter8,butinothercasesIwillarguethatwedoadjustourtaken-for-granteds(Chapters15and16).Relatingtheoriestopracticepotentiallyopensthemuptoreflectionandtotheevaluationofarchaeologicalpraxis(Chapter16).Forexample,itmightbearguedthatthehardarchaeologicalandgeologicalevidenceforthe‘antiquityofman’contributedtoashakingofbeliefsinBiblicalaccountsoforigins.Equally,thediscoveryofindigenoustraditionsofculturaldevelopmentinSouthAfricaandNorthAmericaultimatelyprovidedabasisforthecritiquesofwhitesupremacyandlegitimacy.Butitisnotenoughtofocusonpracticealone.IhavesofarbeenprovidinggristforthemillofthoselikeSchifferandFlannerywhosayweshould‘getonwith’practice.Butiftheoryisinadequateonitsown,soispractice.Schiffer(1976;1987)doesofcourseusetheoriesbutwouldclaimthatmiddle-andlow-leveltheoriescantosomeextentbeseparatedfromabstractgeneraltheoreticalargument.Otherwisehisstatementquotedearlier(p.2)wouldmakenosense.Infact,however,allmiddle-andlow-leveltheorymustinvolvehigherlevelgeneralitiesinorderforustounderstandthem,knowtheirrelevanceandplacethemwithinadisciplinaryframework.Forexample,inSchiffer’saccountofsiteformationprocesses,hisaprioriassumptions(high-leveltheory)leadhimlargelytoignoretheissueofwhetherdiscardismeaningfullyconstituted.Wecannothideinempiricism,description,fieldarchaeology,appliedscienceandmiddle-rangequestions,hopingtoavoidgeneraltheoreticalissues.Ourpracticesalwaysnecessarilyemploygeneralitiesinordertomakesenseofwhatwefindanddo.Whatwemeasureandhowwemeasureitaretheoretical.Theassumptionthatartifactsaretheresultofhuman Theory,practiceandpraxis5actionistheory.Theconceptsofasite,apot,anaxearetheoreticalanddependentonthehistoricaldevelopmentofdisciplinaryknowledge.Afterall,weusedtothinkaxeswerethunderbolts.Archaeology,perhapsmorethananyotherdiscipline,isforcedtousetheorytoconstructstatementsonthebasisofhighlyfragmentedandpartialevidence.Soifarchaeologistsjustwantto‘getonwithit’andignoregeneraltheory,theyaresimplybeinguncriticalanddoingbadscience.Buttheneedfortheoryaswellaspracticetakesmebacktopraxis.Infactmanyofthesocialimplicationsofarchaeologicalassumptionshavecomeaboutthroughtheoreticalcritique—forexample,ofthe‘manthehunter’hypothesis(GeroandConkey1991)or‘optimalforagers’.Howevermucharchaeologicaldataandcontemporarysocialpracticesconfrontarchaeologicaltheoriesandtaken-for-granteds,thereisstillaneedfortheoreticalreflectionoftheimplicationsraised.Theoryallowsthepossibilityofcritique.Buttheoryisalsoneededforarchaeologyifasadisciplineitistomakeanimpactincurrentsocietyandincompetitionwithotherdisciplines.Itisthroughtheory,whichsystematisesandformsabodyofknowledgeaccordingtospecifiedprinciples,thatthedisciplinetakesitsform.Thedisciplinesodefinedadjudicatestheappropriatedataandmethods.Itisthroughapprenticeshipinthetheoreticallyformedbodyofknowledgethatprofessionalsaredefined.Suchadisciplinarydiscourse,formedthroughtheoreticalpraxis,hastobethesubjectofcritiqueinordertoexposeitsexerciseofpowerasrepressive.Butpowerisalsoenablingandproductive(Foucault1980).Ifarchaeologyasadisciplineistoacteffectivelyinrelationtoaquicklydiminishingheritage,andifitistoachieveawiderpublicparticipationinthepast,itmustclaimacertaincoherence(Chapter12).Whileitmightbearguedthatsuchcoherencecanbegivenbycommonmethodsandtechniques,thedecisionaboutwhichmethodsareallowable(suchassystematicsamplingoropenasopposedto‘box’excavationorthecollectionofbotanicalremains)canonlybebasedontheoreticalconsiderations.Thedifficultyisthatanysuchcoherence,whileitmayhavetheadvantageofempoweringthedisciplineasawholetoplayaneffectiveroleinsociety,threatenstostiflediversity,critiqueandchange.Suchcoherenceandself-confidencemaydisempoweralternativeandsubordinatevoices.ThisisacentralproblemwhichIwillexplorelaterinthisbook.Forthemoment,Ihavearguedthatarchaeologistsusetheorywhethertheylikeitornot.The1980s,atleastinsomepartsofEuropeandAmerica,haveseenanenormousexpansionoftheoreticaldebate.Suchtheoreticaldebateisanecessarypartofaself-consciousdiscipline.Butithastoberelatedbothtopracticeandtopraxisifitisnottobecomeself-interested,complacent,inward-lookinganduncritical.Perhapsasimplerwayofmakingthesamepointwouldbetosaythatboththeoryandpractice(includingpraxis)arenecessarytoeachother.Onitsown,eithercanbecomeblindtoitsfollies,dangerousinitsimplications.Itisinthemovementacrossthegapbetweentheoryandpractice,betweenthegeneralandtheparticular,thatchangeissafeguarded.REFERENCESBapty,I.andYates,T.(1990)ArchaeologyafterStructuralism,London:Routledge. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology6Clarke,D.L.(1973)‘Archaeology:thelossofinnocence’,Antiquity47,6–18.Fabian,J.(1983)TimeandtheOther,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Flannery,K.V.(1982)‘TheGoldenMarshalltown:aparableforthearchaeologyofthe1980s’,AmericanAnthropologist84,265–78.Foucault,M.(1980)Power/Knowledge.SelectedInterviewsandOtherWritings,ed.C.Gordon,NewYork:PantheonBooks.Gathercole,P.andLowenthal,D.(1990)ThePoliticsofthePast,London:UnwinHyman.Gero,J.andConkey,M.(eds)(1991)Engenderingarchaeology,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Hodder,I.(1991)ReadingthePast,2ndedn,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Hoffman,J.(1975)MarxismandtheTheoryofPraxis,NewYork:InternationalPublishers.Layton,R.(1989a)ConflictintheArchaeologyofLivingTraditions,London:UnwinHyman.——(1989b)WhoneedsthePast?IndigenousValuesandArchaeology,London:UnwinHyman.Rowlands,M.(1987)‘Europeinprehistory’,CultureandHistory1,63–78.Said,E.(1978)Orientalism,Harmondsworth:Penguin.Schiffer,M.(1976)BehaviouralArchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.——(1987)FormationProcessesoftheArchaeologicalRecord,Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress.Shanks,M.andTilley,C.(1987a)Re-constructingArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1987b)SocialTheoryandArchaeology,Cambridge:PolityPress.Shennan,S.(1989)ArchaeologicalApproachestoCulturalIdentity,London:UnwinHyman.Trigger,B.(1980)‘ArchaeologyandtheimageoftheAmericanIndian’,AmericanAntiquity45,662–76.White,H.(1973)Metahistory:theHistoricalImaginationinNineteenthCenturyEurope,Baltimore(MD):JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress. Theory,practiceandpraxis7Thispageintentionallyleftblank. PartISYMBOLICANDSTRUCTURALARCHAEOLOGY 2SYMBOLISM,MEANINGANDCONTEXTFormanypeople,oneofthemostfascinatingaspectsofarchaeologyisthatitstraddlesthegulfwhichseparatestheartsfromthesciences.Morespecifically,itbringstogetherthe‘softer’humanitiesandsocialscienceswiththe‘harder’physicalandnaturalsciences.Theunderlyingreasonforthislinkisthedualcharacterofmaterialculture.Theartifactsstudiedbyarchaeologiststellusabouthistorybutnotinthelanguageofthehistorian.Thearchaeologistdealsinthingsandnotwords.Materialcultureisboththeproductofhumanpurposeandyetitismaterialfollowingthelawsofthenon-humanworld.Thetermitselfcapturesthedualityof‘material’and‘culture’.Archaeologistsincreasinglyuseabatteryofscientifictechniquestodealwiththematerialsideofthisduality.Inthe1960sand1970s,however,so-calledNewArchaeologiststriedtoextendanaturalscienceapproachintoallareasofthediscipline.Evenculturalissueswerethoughttobeaccessibleusingaphilosophyderivedfromthenaturalsciences,emphasisinggenerallaws,hypothesistestingandindependenceoftheoryanddata.Thisapproachwasmostsuccessfulinareasofculturallifesuchassubsistencewhichweremorecloselyintegratedwiththenaturalenvironment.Itpaidlittleattentiontothesocialworldandevenlesstosymbolicandideologicalissues.Usingthemetaphorofthenaturalsciences,archaeologywasseentobedealingwithonlyonehermeneutic.BythisImeanthatarchaeologistsandthedatatheystudiedwerethoughttobewithinoneframeworkofmeaning,onehermeneutic,calledwesternscience.Butitisalsopossibletoviewmaterialcultureaspartofculturalexpressionandconceptualmeaning.Itispossibletogobeyondtheimmediatephysicalusesandconstraintsofobjectstothemoreabstractsymbolicmeanings.Inthiscase,understandingmaterialcultureismorelikeinterpretingalanguagebecauseitisdealingwithmeaningswhichareonlyloosely,ifatall,connectedtothephysicalpropertiesofobjects.Thesesymbolicmeaningsareorganisedbyrulesandcodeswhichseemtobeverydifferentfromculturetocultureandwhichdonotseemtobestronglydeterminedbyeconomic,biologicalandphysicalmatters.Facedwiththishistoricalindeterminacy,thenaturalsciencemodelforarchaeologybreaksdown.Usingthemetaphorofthehumanitiesandsocialsciences,archaeologycanbeseentobedealingwithadoublehermeneutic.Aswellastheframeworkofmeaningofwesternsciencewithinwhicharchaeologistswork,thereisalsotheframeworkofmeaning,perhapsconstructedverydifferentlyandaccordingtodifferentrulesandprinciples,oftheculturebeingstudied.Theproblemthenbecomesoneofhowtotranslatefromonehermeneutictotheother.Inthetwochapterswhichfollow,thepointismadethatmaterialculturehastobeinterpretedwithinitsownhermeneutic.However,atthetimetheywerewrittenIhadnotrecognisedtheproblemoftranslatingfromoneculturetoanother.Indeed,IhadnotevenrecognisedtheworldofwesternsciencewithinwhichIworkedascultural.Myaimwas Symbolism,meaningandcontext11simplytoshowtheinadequacyofauniversalisingnaturalscienceapproachwhichtreatedobjectsasiftheywereonlyproductsofthephysicalworld.AsaresultofdetailedethnoarchaeologicalworkundertakeninAfricaandpublishedinSymbolsinAction(1982),ofwhichtheconcludingchapterisreprintedhereasChapter3,Iwantedtomakethreepoints(seealsoHodder1986).First,materialcultureismeaningfullyconstituted.AsisclearfromChapter3,Iunderstandthistomeanthatthereareideasandconceptsembeddedinsociallifewhichinfluencethewaymaterialcultureisused,embellishedanddiscarded.Allhumanactionismeaningfulnotsimplybecauseitcommunicatesmessagestootherpeople.Information-processingapproacheshavethedangerofreducingthemeaningsofobjectsto‘bits’ofinformationwhicharestudiedsimplyintermsoftheireffectivenessinconveyingmessages.Butwhethermaterialcultureisfunctioningasatoolorasinformation,itisorganisedbyconceptsandideaswhichgiveitmeaning.WhileIwouldnowdoubtthattheseconceptsarenecessarilyrigidlyorganisedinto‘codes’and‘sets’and‘structures’,ItakethelineinChapter3thatsomeformofstructuralistanalysisisappropriate.InChapter4,ontheotherhand,theorganisingschemethat‘tombsmeanhouses’derivesfrom,althoughitcannotbereducedto,aspecificsocialandeconomiccontextandisnotseenasbeingorganisedbyabstractstructures.Whetheronethinksthatourconceptsaredeeplystructuredbybinaryoppositionsandthelike(theapproachtakeninChapter3)orwhetherthemeaningsarecloselytiedtoaspecificsocialcontext(asisattemptedinChapter4),theclaimismadethatmaterialcultureisconstitutedwithinframeworksofconceptualmeaning.Althoughmaterialcultureisalwaysmeaningfullyconstituted,itcanbegivenconceptualmeaningsindifferentways.Forexample,itisimportanttodistinguishmeaningfromintention.Atonelevel,itispossibleforanarchaeologisttoaskquestionsaboutintentionssuchas‘Whatwasthepurposeoftheshapeofthatditch?’,‘Whyisthiswallmadeofturfandthatofstone?’,‘Whydoesthistomblooklikethathouse?’Merriman(1987)hasshownthatprehistoricarchaeologistscananswerquestionsabouteventhemostabstractintentions.HeshowsthatawallbuiltinIronAgecentralEuropewasbuiltlikeexamplesintheMediterraneaninordertogainprestigebyassociationwiththeexoticMediterraneancivilisations.Indeed,archaeologistsroutinelyarguethatcertainitemshavehighvalue,indicatehighstatusorgiveprestige.Inallsuchcases,thearchaeologistmustbeassumingthattosomedegreetheparticipantsintheculturebeingstudiedpurposivelygaveprestigeconnotationstotheobjectsconcerned.Afterall,itwouldbedifficulttoseehowanobjectcouldgiveprestigeifnobodyatthetimerecogniseditassuch.Eveniftheinitialproducerofanartifactdidnotintendittohaveprestige,aprestigiousobjectwouldnormallybeusedintentionally.Buttheintentionsdonotexhaustthemeaningsoftheobjects.Thisisbecausetheremaybeconceptualmeaningswhicharenotrecognisedbythemakersandusersofobjects.Unrecognisedandunintendedmeaningscanperhapsbedistinguished.Unrecognisedmeanings:ontheonehand,therearetherealmsofmeaningofwhichactorsareunconsciousoronlydimlyandinfrequentlyconscious.Weareabletoacteffectivelywithoutcallingupintoourconsciousmindsalltheculturalmeaningsofthethingswedo.Forexample,ImightshowavisitortomyhousethelivingroomanddiningroombutnotthebedroomandkitchenwithoutrealisingthatIamusingacodecommon Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology12inEnglandwhichseparatespublicfromprivateinaparticularway.Unintendedmeanings:ontheotherhand,differentpeoplewillreaddifferentthingsintoactions.Theproduceroruserofanobjectisalwaystosomedegreeuncertainabouthowtheobjectwillbegivenmeaningbyothers.Differentpeoplemightlinkthesameobjecttodifferentconceptualschemes.Withspeech,itispossibletosomedegreetomonitortheeffectsofwhatoneissayingandthenemphasise,recapitulate,rephraseasentencesothattheintendedmeaningisgotover.Butwithwriting,andwithmuchmaterialculture,thetextandtheobjectbecomeseparatedfromtheauthorandproducer.Overspaceandtime,distantfromtheirproduction,textsandobjectscanbegivennumerousmeaningsindifferentcontexts.OnehasonlytolookatthedifferentmeaningswhichhavebeengiventoStonehenge(Chippindale1983)toappreciatethewayinwhicharchaeologicalobjects,enduringformillennia,canbegivennewinterpretations.Becauseoftheseunrecognisedandunintendedareasofmeaning,andbecausedifferentgroupsinsocietycangivetheirown,oftencontrasting,meaningstothesameobjects,theemphasisplacedinChapter3onstructured‘wholes’needstobetemperedwithafullerunderstandingofsociallyembedded,conflictingmeanings.Inotherwords,conceptualschemesandsymbolicmeaningsneedtoberelatedtopractice.Inthepracticesofdailylife,whethertheybeprimarilyeconomic,socialorideological,actorsdrawuponconceptualschemesandresources,buttheydosodifferentlydependingontheireconomic,socialandideologicalpositionandintentions.IntheNubacasediscussedinChapter3,itisquitepossiblethatdeeperstudywouldhaveshownthatmenandwomenviewedthepure/impure=cattle/pig=male/femaleoppositionsdifferently(seeHodder1986).Barrett(1987b)haspointedoutinrelationtothestudypresentedinChapter4thatnoaccountisgivenofwhethertombsmeanthousestoallorjustsomepeople.Itmayofcoursebethecasethatthedifferentmeaningsgivenbygroupswithinsocietyareinsomesensesubsetsofalarger‘whole’,butsuchintegrationneedstobedemonstratedratherthanassumed.ThesecondgeneralpointthatresultedfromwritingSymbolsinActionfollowedonfromthefirst.Ifmaterialculturewasmeaningfullyconstituted,andiftheconceptualmeaningswereatleastpartlyarbitrary,thenmaterialculturehadtobestudiedcontextually.Thenotionofarbitrarinessneedssomeclarification.Ihavearguedabovethattheabstractandsymbolicmeaningsofmaterialcultureobjectscannotbereducedtotheirbiologicalandphysicalpropertiesnortotheusestowhichtheyareput.Forexample,thereisnointrinsicreligioussignificanceintwopiecesofwoodnailedtogetherintheformofacross.Tosaythatthemeaningsofmaterialcultureobjectsarepartlyarbitraryistosaythatthosemeaningscannotbedeterminedfromcross-culturalscientificstudyofthematerialpropertiesandfunctionsofobjects.Whilematerialculturemeaningsmaybehistoricallyarbitraryinthissense,theyarenotarbitraryinanothersense.Anyuseofanartifactdependsontheprevioususesandmeaningsofthatartifactorofsimilarartifactswithinaparticularhistoricalcontext.Howeverfastthatcontextischangingthemeaningsofartifactsattimetarenotarbitrarybecausetheyarepartlydependentonthemeaningsofartifactsattimet–1.Thesymbolicmeaningsofartifactsarethusnotentirelyarbitrarybecausetheyareboundedwithincontexts.Forthearchaeologistwishingtounderstandpastmeaningsofobjectsitisthusessentialtodefinethecontextwithinwhichanobjecthasassociations Symbolism,meaningandcontext13whichcontributetoitsmeaning.IwilldiscussthedefinitionofcontextmorefullyinChapter11.Forthemoment,Iwoulddefinecontextasthetotalityoftherelevantenvironment(Hodder1991,143).Thecontextofanarchaeological‘object’(includingatrait,asite,aculture)isallthoseassociationswhicharerelevanttoitsmeaning.Thistotalityisofcoursenotfixedinanywaysincethemeaningofanobjectdependsonwhatitisbeingcomparedwith,bywhom,withwhatpurposeandsoon.Thereisthusarelationshipbetweenthetotalityandthequestionofrelevance.Thedefinitionofthetotalitydependsonperspectiveandinterestandknowledge.Inaddition,thereisadynamicrelationshipbetweenanobjectanditscontext.Byplacinganobjectinacontext,thecontextisitselfchanged.Thereisthusadialecticalrelationshipbetweenobjectandcontext,betweentextandcontext.Thecontextbothgivesmeaningtoandgainsmeaningfromanobject.Contextualarchaeologythusinvolves‘thickdescription’(Geertz1973)inthesensethatitemphasisestheneedtounderstandthemeaningsofanobjectbyplacingitmoreandmorefullyintoitsvariouscontexts.Butontheotherhand,asismadeclearinChapter3,anysuchcontextualisationdependsongeneralities.AsnotedinChapter1,anyaccountofthepastinvolvestranslatingthe‘other’into‘our’terms.Wecannotevenbegintomakesenseofthearchaeologicaldatawithoutmakinggeneralassumptions.Butthedangerhasbeeninarchaeologythatthesegeneralisationshavebeenappliedwithoutsensitivity,withoutrecognitionofthataspectofhumanculturewhichishistoricallynon-arbitrary.Itisnecessarytointerpretgeneralisationsinrelationtospecificcontexts.Assuch,acontextualarchaeologyisnotrelativist.BythisImeanthatitacceptstheabilitytomovebetweenculturalcontexts,usinggeneralisations,inordertounderstandthe‘other’.Butitdoesarguethatthesegeneralisationshavetobeaccommodatedtothe‘other’contextinsensitiveand‘thick’ways.Thegeneralisationsare,intheprocess,themselvestransformed.Themovementbetweengeneralisationandcontext,likethatbetweencontextandobject,iscontinualandunstable.ThethirdmainpointthatresultedfromSymbolsinActionwasthatmaterialcultureisactive,notpassive.Thisessentialpointunderliesthefirsttwo.Itarguesthatmaterialcultureisnotapassiveby-productofhumanbehaviour.Inessenceanargumentisbeingmadehereagainstamechanisticviewofsociety.Withtheattempttoseesocietiesandhumanculturethroughapproacheschampionedinthenaturalsciences,archaeologistshadcomeinthe1960sand1970stoemphasisepredictablerelationshipsbetweenbehaviour,materialcultureandenvironment.Thusweweretoldwithstatisticalprecisionthatsettlementswithacertainfloorareawouldcontainacertainnumberofpeople,orthatburialcomplexityrelatedtosocialcomplexityinsomedirectmanner.Infact,ofcourse,societiesarenotmadeupofpeopledoggedlyfollowingahistoricalrules.Groupsinsocietyhavedifferentgoalsandstrategiesforattainingthemandtheygivedifferentmeaningstotheworldaroundthem.Asaresult,individualsfacesomedegreeofuncertaintyinapplyinghistoricalrulesinsocialaction.Becauseoftheunrecognisedandunintendedmeaningsandconsequencesofaction,monitoringandinterpretationofactionarecontinuallyneeded.Allhumanactionisthuscreativeandinterpretive.Generalruleshavetobeinterpretedinrelationtocontextinthesamewaythatarchaeologistshaveto Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology14interpretgenerali-sationsinrelationtothecontextstheyarestudying.Inbothcasesthemeaningsarenotself-evident.Theycannotbepassivelyabsorbed.Theyhavetobeactivelyconstructed.VERIFICATIONThethreepointsdiscussedaboveraiseahostofdifficultquestions.Forexample,ifmaterialcultureismeaningfullyconstituted,howcanarchaeologistsreconstructthedifferentmeaningsgiventoobjectsbylong-deadpeople?Ifmeaningsarecontextual,howdoweknowwhattherelevantcontextinthepastwas?Ifmaterialcultureisactiveandthemeaningsconstructed,howcanweusegeneralisations?Isnotthewholeattempttogetat‘their’meaningsdoomed?Howcanwehopetogetinto‘their’minds?Somearchaeologistsfindthesequestionssodifficultthattheyprefertothrowuptheirhandsandarguethatweshouldnottrytogetto‘their’meanings.Clearlythereisaview,whichIwilldiscussinChapter11,thatweshouldsimplyacceptthatarchaeologistscannotreconstructthepast.Alltheycandoisconstructit,imposeourmeaningsonthedataandleaveitatthat.InChapter11Iwillrejectthisviewastooextreme.Iwillarguethatwecantosomeextentaccommodateourconstructionstoanunderstandingof‘their’meanings.Butforthosewhodoaimtoreconstructratherthanjustconstructthepast,whatIdofindtotallyincomprehensibleistheviewthatwecandothiswithoutgettingat‘their’meanings.Manypeopleseemtoacceptthathumancultureismeaningfulandpurposiveandyetatthesametimetheyseemtoconvincethemselvesthathumanculturecanbestudiedwithoutrecoursetomeaning.Originally,theideathatitwasdifficultforarchaeologiststogainaccesstopastsymbolicmeaningswasencouragedbyanempiricismandscepticismexpressedinHawkes’(1954)ladderofinference.Accordingtothisladderitwaspossibleforarchaeologiststoreconstructpasttechnologiesandeconomieswithrelativeeaseincomparisonwithpastsocialorganisationandideas.Thisseparationofthematerialandtheculturalhasoftenbeenassociatedwithamaterialism,fromChildetoBinford,accordingtowhichitispossibletoinferthesocialandideationalfromthematerial.Manyarchaeologistswouldtodayrejectsuchapproachesandwouldacceptthatmaterialcultureisbothmateriallyandmeaningfullyconstituted.Butbecauseofthehangoverfromempiricism,positivismandmaterialism,sucharchaeologists,inthesamebreath,denythepossibilityofgettingatpastminds.Forexample,EarleandPreucel(1987)accepttheimportanceofsymbolismbutsaywecannotgetatthemindsofprehistoricpeople.ThesameistrueofBintliff(1990,13).Butwhatwouldbethepointofinterpretingpastsymbols(assymbolisingprestige,status,insideoroutside)ifwedidnotthinktheyhadthosemeaningsto‘them’?Binfordhasoftenarguedthatitisnecessarytoavoidmakinginterpretationsoftheroleofmindandsymbolicmeaningsinunderstandingbotharchaeologicaland‘actualistic’data.Butthenhesuggeststhefollowinggeneralisationthat‘ifoneplanstooccupythesiteforsometimeanddoesnotcaretohavethedebrisfromoneactivityinhibittheperformanceofanother,onedevelopsspecialuseareasperipheraltothedomesticarea’(1989,256,myitalics).Attheheartofthisgeneralisationisabelieforperception Symbolism,meaningandcontext15which‘they’held:‘onedoesnotcareto’.Atthecoreofallgeneralisationsaboutdiscardaresuchassumptionsabout‘their’minds.Asanotherexample,Barrett(1987b)arguesthatitisdubiousandunnecessarytoclaimthatwecanunderstand‘their’world.Hesayswecanstudydiscoursewithoutdiscoveringideasinpeople’sheads,andthatwecanrejecta‘text’modelformaterialcultureeventhoughheseessocialactionasmeaningful,asconstructed,asactive.‘Idonotbelievethatsuchtextsarecapableofadequatetranslation’(Barrett1987a,6).Yethiswholeapproachtodiscourseacceptsthatmaterialculturedoesnothavesingleobjectivemeanings(ibid.,9),thatthematerialworldisusedtogivesignification,andthatitisinvestedwithmeaning.Heassertsthatauthoritativecodesaresignifiedbysymbolsthroughwhich‘theparticipantsknow’(ibid.,10)andacceptthevalidityoftheconditionsunderwhichtheyact.SinceBarrettseemstorejectanaivematerialism,hemust,inordertoapplyhisapproach,interpretmeaningsin‘their’heads,despitehisrhetorictothecontrary.Andthisisindeedabundantlyclearinhisownappliedwork.Forexample,hehasstatedtheneedtogetatthe‘subjectivegeography’ofhowpeople‘perceived’theirlandscape(Barrett1989,122–3).Hehasinterpretedthelocationofacemeteryontheedgeofagriculturalfieldsasbeingdetermined‘bytheactsofgrowthandfertility’(ibid.,124).Forthisinterpretationofhowtheburialsgaveauthoritytopeopleinthepasttomakeanysenseatall,itmustbeassumedthat,atsomelevel,theideasofgrowthandfertilitywerein‘their’heads.Willy-nilly,Barretthas,liketherestofus,foundhimselfinterpretingconceptualmeaningsin‘their’heads.Ihaveneverreadanarchaeologicaltextinwhichsomeinterpretationofwhat‘they’werethinkinghasnotbeenanecessarypartoftheargument,howevermuchitmightbedeniedbytheauthor.WhenIcallsomeremainsonasiteahouseordwellingImustmeanthat‘they’useditandrecogniseditinahouse-likeway.Otherwise,presumablyIwouldcallitastoragefacilityorsomethingelse.Ofcourse,Icanclaimthattheterm‘house’isaneutrallabel,butIsuspectthattheanalysiswouldproceedratherdifferently,withdifferentconclusionsifIweretogivetheremainsothersupposedlyneutrallabelssuchasshrine,cattlebyre,orevendancefloororgamblingden!Similarly,interpretationsofwhatthingsmeantto‘them’underlie‘neutral’labelssuchassettlement,wall,pit.If‘they’didnotseethesettlementassettlement-likeandthereforedidnotuseitinasettlement-likeway,itwouldbemeaninglesstotalkofitasasettlement.EvenwhenIreconstructaneconomyfromanimalbonesonasiteImustatleastbeassumingthat‘they’thoughtoftheanimalsfromwhichthebonesderiveasusefulforfood,clothing,etc.WhenRenfrew(1982)reconstructsanancientsystemofweightsandmeasures,wemustassumethat‘they’understoodthesystemthemselves.Otherwise,howcouldithaveworked?Ihavealreadygiventheexampleofartifactswhicharchaeologistsdesignateasprestigiousorofhighorlowstatus.Howcouldanobjecthavehadprestigeorhavegivenstatusif‘they’didnotperceiveitasprestigiousorofaparticularstatus?Inmyview,theideathatarchaeologistscangetawaywithoutreconstructingideasintheheadsofprehistoricpeoplesispurefalseconsciousnessandself-delusion.Itderivesfromanearliercommitmenttoempiricism,positivismandmaterialismandfromanarrowviewofwhatscientistsdo.Itshouldbeclear,however,thattheideasthatarchaeologistsreconstructarenotnecessarilytheconsciousthoughtsthatwouldhave Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology16beenexpressedifwecouldtravelbackwardsthroughtimeandtalktopeopleinprehistory.AsImadeclearabove,thereisadifferencebetweenmeaningandintention.Nosocialactorcanbeawareofalltheextentandlevelsofmeaningswithinaparticularcontext.Fortheethnographerasforthetime-travellingprehistorian,whatissaidcanneverexhaustallthelevelsofmeaning.Onthewhole,archaeologistswilloftenconcentrateonlargerandlonger-termscalesofcontext,whichhelptoframemeaningsofwhich‘they’mayrarelyhavebeenconsciouslyaware.Ifitcanbeacceptedthatarchaeologistsdoindeedattempttoreconstructpastconceptualmeaningswhichareinsomesensein‘their’heads,theonusisonustotryandgetascloseaspossibletothosepastmeanings.Buthowarewetoknowhowclosewehavecometogettingitright?Andifanotherarchaeologistcomesupwithacompetingtheory,howcanweverifyourdifferentclaims?Animportantinitialstepinansweringsuchquestionsistoreturntothedualnatureofmaterialculture.Asmuchasartifactsareorganisedbyconceptualschemes,theyarealsomadetodosomethingintheworld.Theyarerealobjectswhichpeoplemade,held,used,exchanged,buried,discarded,etc.Weneedalsotoreturntotheideathatconceptualmeaningsexistinrelationtosocial,politicalandeconomiccontexts.Theyarenotpurelyabstract.Theyareembeddedinrealworldcontexts.Theemphasisonsymbolsinactionisthatconceptualmeaningsbothgivemeaningtoandderivemeaningfromaction.Theoryandpracticeareinarelationofdependenceandtension.Conceptualschemesthushaveeffectsonthematerialvisibleworld.Theycontributetothepatterningofthematerialworldandtheyarethemselvesconstrainedbythatworld.Althoughheavilytransformedbysurvivalandrecoveryfactors,thepatterningofmaterialremainsisrecoveredbyarchaeologists.Theassociationsofartifactsofdifferenttypesinlayersandpits,insitesandregions,incemeteriesandlandscapes,retainatraceofanoriginalpatterningwhichwasitselfproducedbyactionsinformedbyconceptualschemes.Itwouldbewrongtoclaimthatthesurvivingarchaeologicalpatterningcanbeinterpretedinasimpleandobjectiveway.Wecannothopetoavoiddealingwiththeproblemsraisedbythedoublehermeneutic.Rather,wehavetoacceptthat,inordertomakesenseofthepatternedremains,wehavetoapproachthemwithquestionsandarelevantgeneralanthropologicalandhistoricalunderstanding.Asnotedabove,archaeologistssometimesapproachthesearchforandinterpretationofpatterningbyplacingtoomuchemphasisontheuniversalityoftheirideasandmeasuringdevices.Indeed,inthestudypresentedinChapter4(Hodder1984),Imadeanumberofinvalidcross-culturalassumptionsaboutwomen,labourandland.Theseideasweresimplyimposedonthedatainwaysthatweretypicalofmuchprocessualarchaeology(cf.Barrett1987b).Imadenoattempttounderstandthetomb-houselinkintermsofparticularstrategiesasIwaslatertodobyusingtheconceptofthedomus(Hodder1990;seeChapter16).Inothercases,too,Ihadtoomuchhopeinuniversal‘objective’linksbetweenmaterialcultureanditsmeanings.Forexample,Iassumedthatmaterialculturewasorganisedbyauniversal‘language’(Hodder1986).Whileitclearlyisthecasethatweneedtousegeneralisationsandthatweneedtoworkonrefiningthemandunderstandinghowtheyworkindifferentcontexts,theycanneverbeclaimedtobeneutralorobjective.Themoreuniversalarelationship,themorelikelywearetohave Symbolism,meaningandcontext17confidenceinit,butintheendwealwayshavetoacceptthatthepastmayhavebeendifferent.Iftheydidthingsdifferentlythere,wealwayshavetointerpretourgeneralisationsinrelationtothosedifferences.WhilenowembarrassedbytheprocessualaspectsofChapter4,itisusefulindemonstratinganotheraspectoftheverificationprocedurethatarchaeologistsroutinelyuse.Aswellasreferringtogeneralitiestosupporttheirarguments,theyalsotrytofindasmuchoftheevidencethattheycanaccountforintheirtheories.Themoredatathatcanbeaccommodatedbyaparticulartheory,themorelikelywearetofinditpreferable.InChapter4theclaimthattombsmeanthousesisaclaimaboutprehistoricmeaningswhichatsomepointandatsometimewereinsomepeople’sheads.Thisclaimaboutanhistoricallynon-arbitraryandcontextualmeaningissupportedbythefactthatthis‘thought’wastranslatedintophysicalevidencebymakingthetombslooklikehouses.Theclaimalsousesgeneralitieswhichallowustolabelevidence‘houses’and‘tombs’.Butnoclaimismadeinthisworkthattombsmeanhousescross-culturally.Neitherisitarguedthatincertainsocialandeconomicconditionstombsareuniversallybuiltlikehouses.Ratheranattemptismadetosupportthetheorythattombsmeanthousesbylookingforinternallinksandassociations.Thisinterpretationisplausiblebecauseagoodnumberofspecificformallinkscanbemadebetweenthehousesandthetombsandbecauseoftemporalandspatialoverlapsbetweentheoccurrencesofthetwotypes.Similarly,theinterpretationoftheOrkneyevidenceinChapter3issupportedbytherepetitionofthesameschemeswithindifferentcategoriesofmaterial.Idonotthinkthatitwouldbepossibleto‘verify’theseinterpretationsinanyabsoluteorfinalsense.IndeedIdoubtwhetheronecanreachthistypeofcertaintywithanybutthemostbanalofarchaeologicalstatements.ButIdothinkitisclearthatfurtherevidencecouldbecollectedwhichwouldeitherstrengthenorweakentheinterpretationsmade.Forexample,inthecasesoftheEuropeantombsandhouses,furtherevidencemightshowaconsiderablegapintimebetweenthehousesandtombs,thusweakeningthehypothesisthatthetombscopiedtheearlierhouses.Orelse,furtherevidencemightshowthattheinternalorderingofspaceinthetwotypesofmonumentisclearlydifferent.OneofthereasonsforincludingChapters3and4inthisbookisthatsincetheywerewrittennewmaterialhasbeenexcavatedwhichconfirmsratherthanweakensthesuggestedmeanings.Inmyundoubtedlypartisanviewthehypotheseshavebeenpositively‘tested’bynewevidence.TakeforexamplethehypothesisthattombsmeanthousesinChapter4,andtaketheeightpointsofsimilarity.Someofthesenowseemruledout(Hodder1990).Forexample,itisnowclearthatthepitsalongthesidesofthehousesareanearlyfeatureandthuscannotbecomparedwiththeditchesalongthesidesofthelatertombs.Andthereseemstobelittleevidencefortheuseofdecorationinthehouses.Butinotherwaysthepointsofsimilarityhavebeenincreased.BothMidgley(1985)andBogucki(1987)havearguedthatthePolishtombsarelikehousesinthattheytendtoformclusteredpatternssimilarinformtotheKujavian‘villages’ofhouses.Perhapsthestrongestevidence,however,isthatinmanyareasinnorthernEuropethetombsseemtobelocateddirectlyoverearliersettlements(Midgley1985)andoverdumpsofdomesticrubbish.Theredoesseemtobeacloseassociationbetweenthetombsandhouses.Othersupportingevidencehascomefromexcavationswhichhaveshownlinks Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology18betweentheDanubiancultureswhichbuiltthelonghousesandtheconstructionofthetombs(Hodder1990).Forexample,thetrapezoidaltombofLesFouaillagesintheChannelIslandshaspotteryfromalateDanubiantradition(Kinnes1982).InBurgundy,atPassy,aseriesoflinearfunerarymonumentsassociatedwithDanubianmaterialcultureshowstheappearanceoftheideaoflineartombburialevenwithinculturesassociatedwithlonghouses(Thevenot1985).Indeed,theevidenceforalinkbetweenhousesandtombswasrecentlyseentobestrongenoughforSherratt(1990)tosuggestageneralinterpretationfortheprocessesoftransformationinnorthandwestEurope.ItisnotnecessarytoassumethatbuildersofburialmonumentsthroughoutnorthwestEurope‘remembered’theirderivationincentralEuropeanhouses.Butitispossibletoarguethatthetraditionthattombsrepresentedhouseswasalongone,asissuggestedbythefrequentsitingoftombsoversettlementsorhouses.Furtherevidencetosupportalocallinkbetweentombs,otherritualmonumentsandhousesinOrkney,asarguedinChapter3,hascomefromrecentexcavationsatBarnhouse(Richards1992).HereStructure2(Figure2)hasclosesimilaritiestothetombs,withsixrecessedchambers(asatQuanterness)orroomsplacedaroundacentralareawithhearth.Structure8allowsparallelstobedrawnbetweenhouses,tombsandthehengeatthenearbyStonesofStenness.Richards(1991;1992)emphasisesthecommonuseofsimilartypesofcentralhearth.DespitethechronologicaldifficultieswiththeargumentspresentedinChapter3(seeSharpies1985),newevidence,whichcouldeasilyhaveunderminedtheinterpretationofmeaning,hasinfactsupportedit.IdonotconcludefromtheseexamplesthatIhaveinsomeultimatewaybeenprovedrightinmyinterpretationsofthesemeaningsintheheadsofprehistoricpeoples.Ifullyexpectotherinterpretationstobesuggestedwhichoverthrowortransformmyown.Thismustalwaysbethecasewithanyhistoricaloranthropologicalreconstruction.ButIdoconcludefromtheseexamplesthatitispossibletomakestatementsaboutpastmeaningswhichcanbestrengthenedorweakenedbyconsiderationoftheevidence.Onthisbasisitispossibletopreferonehypothesis,whichfitsthedatabetter,overanother.Ofcourse,asIwillarguelaterinthisbook,archaeologistsalsohaveothergroundsforpreferringparticularhypotheses.Anditisundoubtedlythecasethatthedatathemselvescanberedefinedtofavourpreferredhypotheses.Muchastheymayseemtobe,thedataarenot‘setinstone’.Andyet,howeversubjectiveitmaybe,thepatterninginthedataisrealandthereisonlysomuchthatcanplausiblybedistorted.ThereisaveryrealsenseinwhichmyhypothesisthattombsmeanthousesinNeolithicEuropewillhavetostandthetestoftime,bothasperspectivesandtheorieschangeandasmoredataarecollectedandolddatare-examined.Afinalaspectofthestrengtheningoftheinterpretationofmeaningistoprovideaplausiblesocialandeconomiccontextwithinwhichthemeaningcanbesituatedasdiscourse(Barrett1987b).Afterallitisonlybyshowinghowthemeaningworkedinpracticethatwecansaythatwehaveproperlyprovideditwithacontext.Theattemptstoprovidesuchacontextinthefollowingchaptersarerelativelyunsuccessful,especiallyinChapter4where,asalreadymentioned,therewastoomuchdepen-denceoncross-culturalhypothesesbasedoninadequatesocialtheories.Afulleraccount(seeHodder1990)wouldinterpretthetombsasoftenprovidingastable‘home’inadispersedandrelativelymobilesettlementpattern.InanorthwestEuropeancontextwithoutlong-term Symbolism,meaningandcontext19Figure2Barnhouse,Orkney,Structure2(withpermissionofC.Richards).ComparewithFigure5.stablehousesorvillages,thetombsprovidedtheonlyfocusforstablelong-termsocialstructureswhichwereneededinanagriculturalsystemincreasinglybasedondelayedreturnsfortheinputoflabour.Thefollowingchapters,then,presentacontextualapproachtopastsymbolicmeanings.Theydemonstratethepotentialforinterpretingspecific,notgeneralmeanings.Unlikemostotherapproachesinarchaeology,thecontextualapproach,closetothickdescription,seekstoaskquestionssuchas‘Whywasthisparticularshapeordecorationofpotusedratherthananyother?’,‘Whywerethetombsthisshape?’,‘Whatspecificallydidthetombsmean?’Itisonlybyaskingsuchquestionsthatwecanunderstandthewayinwhichmaterialculturewassociallyactiveandwasinvolvedinlong-termchange.Whatthechaptersdonotdo,however,isadequatelyconsiderthesocialcontext,incorporatedifferentandcompeting‘voices’,andexploretherelationshipbetween‘their’ Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology20and‘our’contexts.Thesefailings,andothers,willbedealtwithinthelaterpartsofthebook.REFERENCESBarrett,J.(1987a)‘Fieldsofdiscourse’,CritiqueofAnthropology,7,5–16.——(1987b)‘Contextualarchaeology’,Antiquity61,468–73.——(1989)‘Timeandtradition:theritualsofeverydaylife’,inH.-A.NordstromandA.Knape(eds)BronzeAgeStudies,Stockholm:StatensHistoriskaMuseum.Binford,L.R.(1989)DebatingArchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.Bintliff,J.(ed.)(1990)ExtractingMeaningfromthePast,Oxford:OxbowBooks.Bogucki,P.(1987)TheestablishmentofagrariancommunitiesonthenorthEuropeanplain’,CurrentAnthropology28,1–24.Chippindale,C.(1983)StonehengeComplete,London:ThamesandHudson.Earle,T.andPreucel,R.(1987)‘Processualarchaeologyandtheradicalcritique’,CurrentAnthropology28,501–38.Geertz,C.(1973)TheInterpretationofCultures,NewYork:BasicBooks.Hawkes,C.(1954)‘Archaeologicaltheoryandmethod:somesuggestionsfromtheOldWorld’,AmericanAnthropologist56,155–68.Hodder,I.(1982)SymbolsinAction,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1984)‘Burials,houses,womenandmenintheEuropeanNeolithic’,inD.MillerandC.Tilley(eds)Ideology,PowerandPrehistory,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1986)ReadingthePast,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1990)TheDomesticationofEurope,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.——(1991)ReadingthePast,2ndedn,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Kinnes,I.(1982)‘LesFouaillagesandmegalithicorigins’,Antiquity,61,24–30.Merriman,N.(1987)‘Valueandmotivationinprehistory:theevidencefor“Celticspirit”’,inI.Hodder(ed.)TheArchaeologyofContextualmeanings,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Midgley,M.(1985)TheOriginandFunctionoftheEarthenLongBarrowsofNorthernEurope,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries259.Renfrew,C.(1982)TowardsanArchaeologyofMind,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Richards,C.(1991)‘ThelateNeolithichouseinOrkney’,inR.Samson(ed.)TheSocialArchaeologyofHouses,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.——(1992)‘Monumentalchoreography:architectureandspatialrepresentationinlateNeolithicOrkney’,inM.ShanksandC.Tilley(eds)InterpretativeArchaeology,London:Routledge. Symbolism,meaningandcontext21Sharples,N.(1985)‘Individualandcommunity:thechangingroleofmegalithsintheOrcadianNeolithic’,ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety51,59–74.Sherratt,A.(1990)Thegenesisofmegaliths’,WorldArchaeology22,147–67.Thevenot,J.-P.(1985)‘Informationsarcheologiques:circonscriptiondeBourgogne’,GalliaPrehistoire28,171–210. 3SYMBOLSINACTIONEnvironmentstowhichsocietiesareadjustedareworldsofideas,collectiverepresentationsthatdiffernotonlyinextentandcontent,butalsoinstructure.(Childe1949,22)Intheprecedingchaptersitwassuggestedthattherearefewareasinprehistoricarchaeologyinwhichtherehasbeensufficientemphasisonsymbolismandconceptualschemes.Suchanemphasisisofimportanceinreconstructingthepastsincematerialculturetransforms,ratherthanreflects,socialorganisationaccordingtothestrategiesofgroups,theirbeliefs,conceptsandideologies.InthischapterIwishtoconsiderbrieflysomebroaderaspectsofalessbehaviourallyandlessecologicallyorientedarchaeology.‘WHOLENESS’ItissuggestedthatinterpretationofthepastmightmakeuseofaconceptofstructureasdemonstratedintheNubastudy(Hodder1982).Eachaspectofthematerialculturedata,whetherburial,settlementpattern,walldesignorrefusedistribution,canbeinterpretedintermsofcommonunderlyingschemes.Thesestructuresofmeaningpermeateallaspectsofarchaeologicalevidence.Eachmaterialitemhassignificanceintermsofitsplaceinthewhole.Thisisnottosaythatthepatternsinthedifferenttypesofdataarealwaysdirectmirrorimagesofeachother.Rather,theidentifiablepatternsaretransformations,oftencontrasting,disruptingorcommentingonbasicdichotomiesandtensionswithinthesocialsystemandwithinthedistributionofpower.Yettheemphasison‘wholeness’remains.Thestructuresbehindthepatterninginonetypeofdatamustbeinterpretedbyreferencetootherstructuresinothercategoriesofinformation.Anemphasisonwholenessisalsothehallmarkoftheapplicationofsystemstheoryinprocessualarchaeology.Butitispossibletoidentifydifferencesintheconceptofwholenessortotalityasusedbysystemstheoristsandasdescribedhere.Allapplicationsofsystemstheoryinarchaeologyhavebegunwithadefinitionofasubsystem,orwithalistofallsubsystems(e.g.Clarke1968;Renfrew1972).Theaimoftheanalysisisthentoexaminetheinterrelationshipsbetweenthedifferentsubsystems,andtoexplainoneintermsofitsconnectionstoothers.Indeed,itistheveryessenceofsystemstheorythatthebehaviourofonesubsystemcanbeunderstoodandpredictedfromitsfunctionallinkstoothers.Asonepartofthesystemchanges,theothersregulateandadapttoregainhomeostasis(Hill1971,407;Binford1972,20;Flannery1972,409;Plog1975,208). Symbolsinaction23Onesubsystemwhichhasrecentlybeenseenasimportantisthe‘ideational’(Drennan1976;FlanneryandMarcus1976;Fritz1978).Flannery(1972,409)acceptsthatthehumanpopulation’s‘cognisedmodel’ofthewaytheworldisputtogetherisnotmerelyepiphenomenalbutplaysanessentialpartincontrollingandregulatingsocieties.Everythingideationalisputinaseparatesubsystemandthenthefunctionallinksbetweenthisandtheothersubsystemsareexaminedintermsofregulationandmanagement.Theconceptofwholenessinarchaeologicalsystemstheorythusconcernsthefunctionalrelationshipsbetweenseparatesubsystems.Inassessingthisviewpointitshouldfirstberecognisedthatthesubsystemsareoftheanalyst’sownmaking.Shedecidesonseparatingout,forexample,everythingideational,andthenexaminesthelinksbetweencategorieswhichhavebeenarbitrarilydefined(Sahlins1976).Second,thestructureofthewholederivesfromthefunctionallinksbetweentheparts,andthereisnorealconceptofwholenessitselfexceptasaby-productoftherelationshipsbetweenparts.Fewarchaeologistshaveclaimedthatthereareabsoluteone-to-onebehaviourallinksbetweenenvironmentsandhumansocieties.Soifoneasks‘Whydoesthesystemhavetheformitdoes?’,‘Whatstructuresthewhole?’,thefunctionalviewinherentinsystemstheorycanonlyprovidepartialanswers.Ontheotherhand,itmaybeeasiertoanswersuchquestionssatisfactorilyifarchaeologistsconsiderthesymbolicprincipleswhichlinkthepartstogether.Theseprinciplespermeatethefunctionalrelationships,andtheyformthewhole.Thewholedoesnotcomefromthepartsbutfromtheunderlyingstructures.Itisnotadequatetoseparateeverythingideationalintoaseparatesubsystem.Rather,ideaandbeliefarepresentandarereproducedinallaction,howevereconomicormundane.Structuresofmeaningarepresentinallthedailytriviaoflifeandinthemajoradaptivedecisionsofhumangroups.Materialculturepatterningisformedaspartofthesemeaningfulactionsandithelpstoconstitutechangingframeworksofactionandbelief.Theconceptofwholenessfromthisstructuralpointofviewismoreabsoluteandmorefar-reachingthaninsystemstheoryasusedbyarchaeologists.Inpracticaltermstheneedforsystemstheoriststolocateseparatesubsystemshasbeenassociatedwithaconcernforidentifyingvariability(e.g.Binford1978,3).Initsannualadaptivecycle,acommunityisseenasgoingthroughdifferenttasksatdifferentpositionsonthelandscape.Indifferentenvironmentalandstrategiccontexts,differentassemblageswillbeleftasaresultofvariationinadaptivebehaviour.Sothesearchofthearchaeologistisforadaptivelylinkedvariationinculturalassemblages.Thisapproachpayslittleattentiontoschemescommontothevaryingassemblages.Binford(ibid.,3)acceptsthatadaptiveresponses‘drawuponarepertoireofculturalbackground’,butthisculturalcomponentisconsideredperipheralandunimportant.Underthisbehaviouralview,thereislittleemphasisonmethodologiesforexamininghowvariabilitycanbestudiedandinterpretedastransformationsfollowingunderlyingrules.Thatwhicharticulatesandgivesmeaningtothevariabilityisgivenlessattentionthanthevariabilityitselfanditsfunctionalrelationships.Ontheotherhand,thetraditional‘normative’emphasis(seeBinford1978)concernedwithculturalnormsandmentaltemplateshascontrastinglimitations.Heretheexaminationisoftheculturalcodesheldincommonbymembersofsocietyregardlessofthesettinginwhichtheyfindthemselves.Thisapproachislessabletocopewith Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology24variabilityandwithexpedientadaptiveresponses.Itisnecessarythentobridgethegapbetweentheemphasisonvariabilityandtheemphasisonstatic,sharednormsandtemplates.Thereisaneedtomoveawaybothfromstudyingvariabilitywithoutexaminingthestructureswhichbindthatvariabilitytogether,andfromstudyingculturalcodeswhichdonotallowforadaptiveintelligence.Inethnoarchaeologicalstudies(Hodder1982)Ihavetriedtoexaminesymbolsinaction,andIhaveshownhowstructuresofmeaningrelatetopractice—howsymbolsetsarenegotiatedandmanipulatedinsocialaction.Culturalpatterningisnotproducedbyasetofstaticfixednormsbutisboththeframeworkwithinwhichactionandadaptationhavemeaning,anditisalsoreproducedinthoseactionsandintheadaptiveresponsesthataremade.Thereisnodichotomybetweenaninterestincultureandmeaningandaconcernwithadaptivevariability.Indeed,interpretationofthepastmustintegratebothresearchaims.Theexaminationofvariabilityonitsownisinsufficient.Processual,behaviouralandsystemstheoryarchaeologyhaveaccompaniedamassivefragmentationandcompartmentalisationofarchaeologicalresearch.Thediscussionabovesuggestsoneofthereasonswhythisshouldbeso.Theemphasisinrecentarchaeologyhasbeenondefiningsubsystemsandtheirlaw-likebehaviourallinkswithan‘environment’.Theinitialneedtodefinesubsystemsinanalyticalresearchhasprovidedaframeworkforthespecialisationofmethods,theoriesandgeneralisationsrelevanttoeachsubsystem.Therearethosewhoworkonsettlementstudiesorspatialanalysis,whileotherswritebooksorconductcross-culturalresearchonburial,exchange,subsistenceeconomies,artandsoon.Despiteattemptstobreakdownthesebarriers(e.g.Flannery1976),eachsubsystemrealmisdevelopingitsownvocabularywhichisfastbecomingincomprehensibletospecialistsinotherfields.Muchoftheliterature,teachingandresearchinarchaeologyisdividedalongtheselines.Thereisaneedforintegration,whichwouldbethelogicalresultofasymbolicand‘contextual’archaeology.THEPARTICULARHISTORICALCONTEXTThetypeofprehistorythatisimpliedbyaconcernwiththemeaningfulconstitutionofmaterialculturepatterningislikelytobemoreparticularisticandlessconcernedwithcross-culturalbehaviourallaws.Materialculturepatterningcannotbederiveddirectlyfromthe‘environmental’conditionsofbehaviour.Butthisisnottosaythatsomeformofgeneralisationwillnotbeusedininterpretingthepast.IftheNubadataandsomeoftheethnoarchaeologicalinformation(Hodder1982)areconsideredasifprehistoricandarchaeological,itcanbeseenthat,ingiving‘meaning’tothefindsandinplacingtheminastructured‘whole’,twobroadtypesofgeneralisationmightbeused.1Symbolicorstructuralprinciplesoccurwidelyalthoughtheyareusedandemphasisedindifferentwaysineachsociety.IntheNubacase,thestructuraloppositionsclean/dirty,male/femaleandlife/deathwouldbeseentobemarked.Thesesymbolicprinciplesarefoundinmostsocieties,andknowledgeofthemaidstheanalysisintheparticularcase.TheidentificationandanalysisofsymmetryintheNubaartanddecorationmightmakereferencetogeneralstudiesoftypesofsymmetry(e.g.Washburn1978).Wemightalsoincludegeneralisationsconcerning Symbolsinaction25therelationshipsbetweenstructuralprinciples.Forexample,intheNubacase,Douglas’(1966)modelforthelinkbetweenpure/impureandanemphasisoncategorisationisapplicable.2Aswellasgeneralisationsconcerningstructuresandsymbolicprinciplesthemselves,therearealsomodelsandanalogiesconcerningthewaymangivesmeaningtoactions.Suchgeneralisationsgiveindicationsaboutthewaybeliefsandconceptscanbeintegratedintosocialandecologicalstrategies,andaboutthewaythestructuresofthefirsttypeofgeneralisationareusedinday-to-daylife.Inchapter8(Hodder1982),Douglas’modelfortherelationshipbetweentheprinciplepure/impureandsexdichotomieswasdescribed,whileithasalsobeensuggested(ibid.)intheaccountsoftheNjemps,NubaandBritishGypsiesthatdependentsubgroupswithinlargerdominantsocietiesoftenhaveastrongsenseofpurityandboundedness,andplaceanemphasisonclassificationandcategorisation.Despitetheuseofthesetwotypesofgeneralisation,theinterpretationofeachsetofmaterialculturedataisunique.Thegeneralprinciplesarerearrangedintouniquepatternsineach‘whole’.Theparticularnatureofeachsetofculturaldataoccursfortworeasons.iThegeneralsymbolicprinciplesofthefirsttypeareassembledinparticularways.InthearchaeologicalstudyoftheNuba,itwouldfirstbenecessarytoidentifytheparticularuseofgeneralstructuraloppositionssuchasclean/dirty,life/death,male/femaleandthedegreeofemphasisonclassificationandcategorisation.IncomparingtheMoroandMesakinareas(ibid.)itwouldbenotedthatdecorationsurroundszoneswithmorerefuse,suggestingthemarkingofboundariesbetweencleanandunclean,whilethedecorationaroundtheflourinthegrindinghutsandinthetoiletareasmightalsobeidentified.Manyoftheritualsmarkingthelife/deathboundarycouldberecoveredarchaeologically,andifthegravefillsweresievedsomeideaoftheassociationofgrainwithdeathmightbefound.Withinthecompounds,thedivisionintotwohalves,maleandfemale,couldbeidentifiedinthedistributionofmaleandfemaleartifactsandintheoverallarrangementofthedifferenttypesofbuildings.Anemphasisonsymboliccategorisationandseparationwouldberecoveredfromthedistributionsofcattleandpigbones,andbodyandskullbones,whileintheartoftheNubaaseriesofsimplebutdistinctruleswouldbefound.Itwouldalsobenecessarytoexaminetherelationshipsbetweenthesedifferentsymbolicoppositions.Itwouldbefoundthatcattle/pigcouldbeassociatedwithmale/femalebecauseoftheassociationofmaleitemswithcattleremainsincattlecampsandinburials,andbecauseoftheassociationoffemaleitemswithpigs.Somale/female=cattle/pigratherthanpig/cattle.Thisisaparticularrelationship.Intheart,generalprinciples(rotationalsymmetryetc.)areassembledbytheideaofaparticularcrossorstardesign.Theparticularwaytheelementsarearrangedintoawholeisaidedbygeneralhypothesesconcerningtherelationshipsbetweentypesofsymbolicprinciple.TheNubadichotomyclean/dirtycouldbelinkedtotheemphasisoncategorisationandboundednessbyposingDouglas’(1966)modelconcernedwithpurity.Bysuggestinganadditionaldichotomysuchaspure/impure,itmaybeeasiertotiedifferentcomponentsintothe‘whole’.Butthearrangement Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology26pure/impure=cattle/pig=male/female=clean/dirty=life/deathisparticularandspecifictotheNubacontext.iiReallyinseparablefrom(i),exceptinthestagesofanalysis,isthearticulationofthesymbolismandbeliefsinsocialandecologicalaction.InthearchaeologicalstudyoftheNuba,referencecouldbemadetomodelsandanalogiesinthesecondtypeofgeneralisation.Economicevidenceandtheregionaldistributionsofculturalma-terialwouldindicatetheovertseparationofadistinctNubagroupwitheconomicandresourceinterchangewiththeirmorewidelyspreadneighbours(theArabs).Theminority,dependentbutsymbolicallyseparatepositionofthehillcommunitiesinrelationtotheArabsisconsistentwiththeoverallconcernwiththemarkingofconceptualboundariesandwiththeprincipleofpurity.AlthoughinthiscasetheNubafitoneofthemodelsin(2),wecannotpredictthatthesameintegrationofstructureandpracticewilloccurinallsimilarsocialandecologicalenvironments,northatmaterialculturewillalwaysbeinvolvedinthesameway.Othergroupsinsimilarsituationsmaymanipulateconceptsandmaterialsymbolsdifferently.AstheNubacommunitiesundergoradicalchanges,without-migration,closercontactswithArabs,andthebreak-upoffamilygroupings,interestgroupshavechosentoemphasisecertaintraditionalvaluesandcertainconceptshavecometothefore.Theideologicalmanipulationofsymbolismtojustify,disrupt,maskorcommentonaspectsofsocialrealitywasexaminedespeciallyinthestudiesinBaringoandZambia(Hodder1982).Ineachparticularcontext,beliefsandmaterialsymbolsarenegotiatedandmanipulatedindifferentwaysaspartofindividualandgroupstrategies.Becauseofthetransformationsin(i)and(ii),wecannotpredictwhatmaterialculturepatterningwillresultinanyhumanandphysicalenvironment,butwecaninterpretthepastbyusingourcontemporaryknowledgeofsymbolismandideologies(1and2).Therecanneverbeanydirectpredictiverelationshipsbetweenmaterialcultureandsocialbehaviourbecauseineachparticularcontextgeneralsymbolicprinciples,andgeneraltendenciesfortheintegrationofbeliefandaction,arerearrangedinparticularwaysaspartofthestrategiesandintentsofindividualsandgroups.The‘whole’isparticular,dependentoncontext.Anarchaeologyinwhichanemphasisisplacedontheparticularwaythatgeneralsymbolicandstructuralprinciplesareassembledintocoherentsetsandintegratedintosocialandecologicalstrategiescanbecalleda‘contextual’archaeology.Theadvantageoftheterm‘context’isthatitcanbeusedtoreferbothtotheframeworkofconceptsandtothearticulationofthatframeworkinsocialandecologicaladaptation.AsintheNubaexample,aculturalitemorasocialorecologicalactioncanbeinterpretedintermsofitsplacewithinastructuredsetorwhole.Butthenotionofcontextmustbeextendedtoincludehistoricalcontext.Theframeworkwithinwhichactionsandstrategiesaregivenmeaningisbuiltupovertimeandateachnewdevelopmentthisframeworkisitselfalteredandtransformedfromwithin.ThestructuresatphaseBcannotbeunderstoodwithoutreferencetothestructuresinphaseA.IntheNubastudy,theideologywhichaccompaniesthepresentchangesandfluxderivesfromatraditionalframeworkwithalonghistory.IntheexampleoftheMerinaofMadagascar(Hodder1982,Chapter9),the Symbolsinaction27idealofstabledescentgroupswhichcontrastswiththeday-to-daylinksandsocialrelationsderivesfromanolderstructureofbeliefs.Equally,referencetothehistoryofaparticularculturaltraitisfundamentallyimportantintheinterpretationofitspositionandusewithinanewphase.AmongsttheDorobo(ibid.,Chapter6),theMaasaiqualityoftheculturalitemsiscritical,whilespearandweapontypesmaybeborrowedfromsuccessfulgroupswithintheBaringoarea(ibid.,Chapter4)preciselybecausethetypeshaveahistoryofassociationwithhighlyesteemedwarriorgroups.APPLYINGTHECONTEXTUALAPPROACHINARCHAEOLOGYIthasbeensuggestedasaresultoftheethnoarchaeologicalstudiesthatmaterialcultureismeaningfullyconstituted.Materialculturepatterningtransformsstructurallyratherthanreflectsbehaviourallysocialrelations.Interpretationmustintegratethedifferentcategoriesofevidencefromthedifferentsubsystemsintothe‘whole’.Ithasalsobeensuggestedthateachparticularhistoricalcontextmustbestudiedasauniquecombinationofgeneralprinciplesofmeaningandsymbolism,negotiatedandmanipulatedinspecificways.IhavealreadyindicatedbrieflyhowthesepointsmightbefollowedupinthepracticeofarchaeologybyimaginingwhattheNubawouldlooklikeifdugup.Thisis,ofcourse,aslightofhand.Itisnownecessarybrieflytodescribeatrulyarchaeologicalanalysiswhichillustratesthepointsmadesofarinthischapter.Thecasestudycannotbeexhaustivelydescribedhere.Itisintroducedsimplyasanillustration,todemonstratethefeasibilityandpotentialoftheapproachandtoprovidesomeflavourofitsnature.LateNeolithicOrkneyThearchaeologicalstudyconcernsthelateNeolithicontheIslandsofOrkneyinnorthernBritain(Figure3).InOrkney,settlementshavebeenexcavatedatSkaraBrae(Childe1931;D.V.Clarke1976),Rinyo(ChildeandGrant1939;1947)andattheKnapofHowar,PapaWestray(TraillandKirkness1937;A.Ritchie1973;1975).Excavationsofcommunalburialtombshaveprovidedgeneralinformationonritualandform(Henshall1963),whiletherecentexcavationsatQuanterness(Renfrew1979)provideanimportantaccountofthedetailanddatingofanOrkneytomb.The‘henges’ofStenness(J.N.G.Ritchie1976)andBrogarrepresentathirdtypeofsiteonOrkneyconnectedwith‘ritual’butnotdemonstrablyprimarilyconcernedwithburial.Thesettlements,burialsandritualsitesalloccurwithinarelativelysmallarea,theOrkneyIslands,andarelativelyshortperiodoftime,thesecondhalfofthethirdmillenniumbe.Itispossible,then,tocomparetheinformationexcavatedfromthedifferenttypesofsite.Withinthetermsofthe‘processual’approachinarchaeologysuchcomparisonofinformationfromdifferenttypesofsitewould,ashasbeenshown,beofinterest.Indeed,inthesitereportofQuanterness,itisstated(Renfrew1979,160)thatthecomparisonofQuanternessandSkaraBraeshouldallowthespecialfactorsgoverningtheselectionofthefaunausedinfunerarypracticestobeassessed.Yetsuchacomparisonisnevercarriedoutinthereport,andthereisnocomparisonoftheinformationfromthedifferent Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology28Figure3ThedistributionofNeolithicsitesonOrkney.Source:Renfrew1979typesofsite.Aswasindicatedabove,thislackofintegrationisparadoxicallysymptomaticofmuchofrecentarchaeology.Thesystemsapproachinvolvestheseparationofspheres,subsystems,andthentheanalysisofthelinksbetweenthem.Buttheinitialseparationhindersthefurtherintegration.Allthatcanbeachievedisademonstrationofthepossiblefunctionallinksbetweensubsystems,andthereisnomethodforexaminingthestructurewhichrunsthroughthewhole.Asystemsframeworkhasnotprovidedmethodsortheorieswhichwouldfocusattentiononthecomparisonof Symbolsinaction29faunalmaterialfromaburial(suchasQuanterness)andasettlement(SkaraBrae).Thesetwotypesofsiteareinseparatesubsystemsandthefunctionallinksareobscure.ItisperhapspartlyforthisreasonthatacomparisonbetweenthedifferenttypesofsiteisnevercarriedoutintheQuanternessreport.Ontheotherhand,thefocusofinterestinthecontextualapproachispreciselyonthecomparisonofinformationfromdifferentsphereswithinthesameculturalframeandontheidentificationofcommonstructuralschemes.Sowhatsimilaritiesanddifferencesdooccurbetweenthesettlement,burialandritualsites?Ingeneral,therearemanysimilaritiesintheartifactsfound.OntheOrkneymainland,GroovedWareisfoundatallthreetypesofsite,asareparticularartifactssuchasahighlydistinctivedecoratedthree-spikedmaceheadwhichoccursatbothSkaraBraeandintheQuoynesschamberedcairn.Yettherearealsomajordifferencesintheartifactsfoundinthedifferenttypesofsite.AlthoughthemainlandOrkneypotteryisallofthesameGroovedWaretradition,therearedistinctions.AttheSkaraBraeandRinyosettlements,decorationismoreelaborateandmorecommonthanattheQuanternesstombandStennesshenge(althoughsuchdifferencescouldbeduetovariationinrecoverymethods,withmoreattentionpaidtodecoratedpotteryintheearlierexcavationsofthesettlements).ApplieddecorationiscommonatthesettlementsbutrareatQuanternessandabsentfromthesmallsampleatStenness.SomeparticulardecorativemotifsoccuratQuanternessbutnotatSkaraBrae(ibid.,79).Whilemanyofthesepotterydifferencescouldbeduetochronologicalvariationwhichistooslighttobeidentifiedbyradiocarbondating,thedistinctionsaresupportedinotherspheres.Forexample,beads,extremelycommonatSkaraBraewheretheyoftenoccurinlargeconcentrationsin‘stores’,areextremelyrareintheburialandritualsites.Thefaunalassemblagesalsovarybetweenthedifferentsitetypes,althoughthediscussionhereishamperedbyonlyapproximaterecordingofthefaunalmaterialandbythefactthatsomeoftherecentexcavationshaveyettoresultinfullypublishedbonereports.Yettherearecertainlydifferencesinthepercentagesofanimalbones(cattle,sheep,pig)presentinthedifferenttypesofsite.Therearealsodifferencesintheagesoftheanimals.TheboneswhichoccurinboththeSkaraBraeandKnapofHowarsettlementsindicatelargeproportionsofveryyoungcattlewithsheepbeingofallages,whilethissituationisreversedattheQuanternesstomb.Herethereareverymanyyoungsheepbutrelativelyfewyoungcattle.Differentpartsoftheanimalcarcassesarealsopredominantinthedifferenttypesofsite.Childe’sSkaraBraereportgivesindicationsofthepresenceofallpartsoftheanimalcarcassincludingskull,jaw,ribsandvertebrae.AlthoughtheaccountoftheSkaraBraeanimalbonesisinadequateforthepurposesofdetailedcomparisonwiththetombsandhenge,thelattersitesaredistinctiveinshowingalackofparticularpartsoftheanimalcarcass.AtQuanternessthesheepbonesincludemanylimbsandfeet,butfewskullfragments.AtStennessbothcattleandsheeparerepresentedbyveryfewribs,vertebrae,scapulaeandskulls.Themagnitudeofthesevariationsisconsideredinbothbonereportstobetoogreattobeduetodifferentialsurvivalandsomeculturalselectionisassumed.Sotheartifactualevidence,includinganimalbones,fromOrkneysuggestsmajordifferencesbetweenthesettlement,burialandritualsites,andinparticularbetweenthesettlementsandtheothertwotypesofsite.Althoughslightchronologicalvariationmay Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology30accountforsomeofthesedifferences,thesubstantialseriesofradiocarbondatesfromOrkneydemonstratecontemporaneityinthelatethirdmillenniumbe.Itwouldalsobepossibletoarguethatthecoastalsettlementsites,partlydependentonfish(D.V.Clarke1976)andshells,aredifferentfromother,asyetunexamined,inlandsiteswhoseassemblagesmayprovetobemoresimilartotheinlandhengesandtombs.Thiswouldseemtobeadifficulthypothesistosupportinviewoftheshortdistancesfrominteriortocoast,andinviewoftheartifactualevidenceofthesocialandeconomicintegrationofthedifferentsites(similarpotterystylesandotherartifacttypes)butitmustremainacompetinghypothesistobeexaminedbyfuturefieldwork.Inanycasethereisotherevidenceofthespecialconceptualimportanceoftheboundarybetweenlifeanddeath,settlementandtomb,inOrkney.ThisevidenceresidesinthelongsequenceofcomplexritualthatcanbeassociatedwithdeathasaresultofthedetailedanalysesbyChesterman(inRenfrew1979)ofthehumanbonesfromQuanterness.Analysisofthebleachedconditionofthebones,theirfragmentationandplacinginthetomb,suggestedexcarnationofthebodiesoutsidethecommunaltombs,selectionofcertainpartsofthebody,andtheplacingofthesepartsinthetombs.Thereisalargepreponderenceoffeetoverhandbones.InthetombtheboneswereburntinaFigure4PlanoftheSkaraBraesettlementonOrkney.Source:Clarke1976.ReproducedbypermissionoftheController,HMSOcentralfire.Allthis,andtheveryexistenceoftheselargeburialstructures,suggestthespecialimportanceattachedtothelife/deathboundaryintheparticularcontextoflateNeolithicOrkney.Whilesuchevidenceofthespecialdistinctivenessoftheboundariesbetweenlife(settlement)anddeath(burial)andritual(henge)isunlikelytobeofanysurpriseto Symbolsinaction31archaeologists,itisimportantformypurposestodocumenttheimportanceoftheboundariesbeforemovingontoafurthercharacteristicoftheOrkneydata.Thisfurtheraspectisthatwhatisreconstitutedoneachsideoftheboundarieshasmanystructuralequivalencies.StructuralsimilaritiesacrossconceptualboundariesTheoverallplansoftheSkaraBraeandRinyosettlementsaremarkedlycellularwithhutsleadingofflongcorridorsand,withinthehuts,small‘cupboards’leadingoffthecentralarea(Figure4).Theentrancestoboththehut‘cells’andthecupboard‘cells’aresmallandlow.InthecentresoftheSkaraBraehutsthereisalwaysahearthsurroundedbystonesplacedonedge.Adjacenttotheheartharefrequentlyfoundartifactssuchasflintandstonetools,boneadzesandpiercingtools.Althoughthehearthisusuallyseenascentral,manyofthehutshavetheentrancedoorslightlytotherightofthehearthonentering(e.g.huts2,4,5inFigure4).Despitetheslightlyoff-centrepositionofthehearthanddoor,thehutsdemonstrateaclearleft/rightsymmetry(asseenbyapersonstandinginthehutentrance).Theoverallplanshowssimilarfeatures,inparticularthe‘beds’,intheleftandrightoftheapproximatecentralaxisfromthedoortothehearthtothe‘dresser’atthebackofthehut.Yetcloserexaminationshowsthatthisapparentsymmetryhidesrepeateddifferences,leftfromright.Therighthandbedisalwayslarger(1.5to2mlong)thanthelefthandbed(1.1to1.7m).Childerecords(1931,15)thatreceptacles(forexampleofwhalebone)containingtracesofpaintalwaysoccurundertheleftbed,whilebeadsarealsodistinctivelyontheleftside(ibid.).Itwouldbetemptingtorelatethisright/leftdifferencetomale/female.However,suchaninterpretationisnotpartofmyargumentandotherinterpretationsarepossible—forexample,anadult/childdistinctionorsomedifferenceinfunctionwhichisnotinvolvedinsex,ageorstatusdifferentiation.Whiletheleftandrighthalvesofthehutsshowbothsymmetryandopposition,thereisalsoacross-cuttingdistinctionbetweentheinteriorofthehuts,behindthehearths,andthefrontofthehutsbetweenthehearthsandtheentrances.Thebackhalfofthehutcontainsamajor‘dresser’setinthebackwall,andfrequentlycontains‘limpetboxes’setinthefloor.Thepreciseinterpretationofthefunctionsofthesefeaturesisunclearalthoughsometypeofstorageisusuallysupposed(D.V.Clarke1976).AttheRinyosettlement(ChildeandGrant1939)alargepotwasfoundinarecessinthewallfacingthedoorinhutD.NearthehearthandthefrontofthehutarethemainactivityareasatSkaraBrae(asseeninthedistributionsoftools)andtheright-handnearcornerisinterpretedbyChilde,especiallyinhut7,asakitchenordiningarea.Afinalcharacteristicofthearrangementofinformationinthehutstobementionedhereisthepositioningofsomeengraveddecorationaroundthewallswithinthesettlementandhuts.ThemainstructuralcomponentsoftheSkaraBraesettlement,apparentlyduplicatedinthelessextensivelyexcavatedRinyosite,arethecellulararrangementwithcellslinkedbysmall,lowandoftenlongentrances,thehearthapproximatelyonthecentralaxisofthehutwiththeentranceslightlytotheright,theleft/rightsymmetryandopposition,and Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology32thedecorationoftheinsideofthesettlementboundary.Manyofthesestructuralcharacteristicsalsooccurinthechamberedtombs.Mostobviously,theoverallplanofthetombsiscellular,withsixchambersleadingoffthecentralchamberatQuanterness(Figure5)andQuoyness,andwiththreesidechambersatMaesHowe.AtQuanterness,asatSkaraBrae,theentrancesarelow,narrowandlong.Figure5PlanoftheQuanternesstombonOrkney(comparewithFigure2,p.22).Source:Renfrew1979Thisparallelbetweenthecellularstructureofthesettlementsandchamberedtombsissoobviousthatithasrarelybeenremarkedorthoughttobeofimportance.ButtheparticularsimilaritybetweenthesettlementsandburialsonOrkneymainlandisgivenspecialsignificancebyacontrastwiththesettlementsandtombsonthemorenortherlyislands.OnRousayandthenorthernislesafewchamberedtombsdooccur,butthegreatmajorityofthetombsare‘stalledcairns’.Thetombsherearemadeupofsinglegalleriesdividedatintervalsbystonespartiallyinsertedintothelongsides.The‘stalled’aspectisalsofoundattheKnapofHowarsettlementonPapaWestray(Figure13,p.61).Thetwo Symbolsinaction33hutsexcavated(TraillandKirkness1937)aredividedintotwoorthreesectionsbystonesprojectingoutofthesidewalls.AlthoughaspectsoftheSkaraBraestructureoccurattheKnapofHowar,suchasthepositioningofcupboardsmainlyattheendofthehutoppositetheentrance,andthelocationofbedstothesides,thelinearpartitioningintosegmentsisclearlydifferentandcomparablewiththestalledcairns.AfurtherdistinctiveaspectoftheOrkneysettlementsisthecentrallocationofthehearth.IntheQuanternesstomb,evidenceofburningisconfinedtothecentralchamberanddoesnotoccurinthesidechambers.Theremayalsobesomeindicationofmoreburninginthecentralpartofthecentralchamber.Tothesides,leftandright,ofthemaincentralchamberarehigherconcentrationsofhumanbonesandhigherdensitiesarealsofoundinthesidechambers.Pottery,animalbonesandotherartifactsaremorecommoninthecentralareaofthemainchamber.Theoverallarrangementofburningandartifactsatthecentre,withlowerartifactdensitiesandhigherhumanbonedensitiesattheedges,isaparalleltothecentralhearthandartifactsinthehutswiththebeds,dressersandstoragefacilitiesaroundthesides.Theoffsetentrancesinthehutsareparalleledintheplacingofthesidechambersinmanyofthetombs.Forexample,atQuoynesstheentrancesareoffsettotherightastheyareinthehuts.Theplansofallthetombsshowaleft/rightsymmetryashasalreadybeenidentifiedintheconcentrationsofhumanbonesatQuanterness.Thedecorationaroundthesidesofthechambersinthetombsissimilartothehutsbothinitsrectilinearzig-zagcontentandinitsplacingoftenroundentrancestosidechambers(inthehutsthedecorationoftenoccursaroundentrancestodifferenttypesofsidecubicle).Thesettlementsandtombsthusdemonstratemanystructuralparallelswhichmustbeexaminedagainsttheextensiveritualsurroundingthelife/deathboundary.SomeofthesamestructurescanbeidentifiedinthehengeatStenness(Figure6).Atthecentreofthestonecircleisarectangularsettingofstonesonedgeandthereisevidenceofburning,particularlyintheformofburntsheepbones,withinthisfeature.Theshape,position,constructionandcontentsofthisfeatureareparalleltothehearthsinthehuts.Theaxisfromthehengeentrancetothecentralsquareofstonesdividesthehengeintotwosymmetricalhalves,butthebonesfromtheditchessurroundingthetwohalvesindicateanoppositionwithinthesymmetry.Whilesheepbonesarefoundintheditchtotheleftoftheentrance,nosheepbonesarefoundtotheright.BehindthecentralstonesettingatStennessarepits,oneofwhichcontainsaconcentrationofpurebarleywhileanothercontainsthelowerpartofapot.Thesepitsbehindthecentralstonesettingareanalogoustothestoragetanksandfacilitiesbehindthehearthsinthehuts.ThereisanadditionalstructuralparallelbetweentheMaesHowetombandtheStennesshenge:bothhavebanksoutsidetheditches. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology34Figure6SiteplanoftheStonesofStenness,Orkney,showingtheringofstones(numbers1to12),theouterbankandinnerditch,andthecentralsettingofstones.Source:J.N.G.Ritchie1976Thestructuralsimilaritiesbetweenthesettlements,tombsand‘ritual’hengeshavebeendescribed.Theparallelsconcernthecellulararrangementwithcomplexentrances(notfoundinthehenges—seebelow),thehearthpositionaspartofacentre/peripherypattern,aleft/rightsymmetryandopposition,andafront/backdivision.Theexistenceofthesestructuralequivalenciesoneachsideofmarkedboundaries(e.g.betweensettlement(life)andtomb(death)suggeststhattheactivitiescarriedoutineachcontextreconstitutedandreinforcedparticulardimensionsoforder.Inritualandindeaththestructureisfirstbrokendownattheboundariesandthenreconstitutedontheotherside,reinforcingandnaturalisingtheday-to-dayorderoflifeinthesettlements. Symbolsinaction35YetindiscussingthehengeatStennessonemajoraspectofthestructurewasnotexamined.NeithertheRingofBrogarnortheStonesofStennessareinanysensecellularinplan.Thehengeshavecentresandencirclingrings;theyhavenocubiclesnorcellsnorlongnarrowentrances.Everythingisorganisedaroundonecentre,andinthistheplanofthehengedeniesorleavesoutthemulti-centredformwhichissodistinctiveofboththeburialandsettlementplans.HengesandchangeInonerespecttheOrkneyhengesreversethesettlementandburialstructures.Toexaminethisdifferenceinstructureitisnecessarytobegintoexaminechangesthroughtime.Renfrew(1979)hassuggestedthattheearlierNeolithiconOrkneyischaracterisedbyanegalitariansociety.Thisconclusionisderivedfromtheformanddistributionofburials,settlementsandartifactsinOrkneywhichshownoindicationofranking.ButinthelaterpartoftheNeolithic(latesecondmillenniumbe)afewmonumentsoflargerscalewereconstructedsuchasMaesHoweandthehengesthemselves.ThemajormonumentsoccurincloseproximityinthecentralpartofmainlandOrkneyandforthefirsttimesuggestsomeformofcentralisedorganisation.Itshouldbeemphasisedthatthesettlementsandmanyofthetombscontinueinuseduringbothperiods.ThesuggestedchangefromlocalandequivalentcommunitiestosomedegreeofcentralisationissupportedbyevidencefromotherpartsofBritain.ThechangeinburialmayindicatearealchangeinOrkneysocialorganisation.Butcarbon14fortheOrkneysequenceisofparticularinterestinthatthedatesplacetheStennesshengeearlierthantheMaesHowetomb.AbridgebetweenthedecentralisedandthecentralisedphasesoftheOrkneyNeolithicoccursinthe‘ritual’ofthehenges.Thedenialintheritualsitesofanaspectofthestructurefoundintheotherclassesofsitemarksacontrast.ThisritualcontrastinstructureissimilartowhatTurner(1969)hastermed‘antistructure’.Turnersuggeststhatitisofteninthesacredor‘holy’underminingofstructurethatthestructuralorderisinfactrevitalised.Thereconstitutionofstructureoutofcontrastisoftenassociatedwithafeelingofcommunityhecalls‘communitas’.ThecentrallocationofthehengesintheOrkneyIslandssuggestsageneralcommunityfocusinritualevenpriortothedevelopmentofaneliteanditindicatesthatsignificancemayreasonablybegiventothelackofcellularstructureinthehenges.ThelaterassociationoftheespeciallylargetombofMaesHowewiththesecentralhengesistakenhereasindicatingthatthe‘communitas’andsubversioninritualweremanipulatedsothattheybecameassociatedwiththeemergingstatusgroup.Theelitecoulddevelopoutofthepre-existingsystemonlythroughtheritualreversalofstructure,fromcellulartocentred,withinanotherwisefamiliarsettinginwhichthesettlementandburialactivitieswererepeatedandsupported.Theonepartofthestructurewhichwaschangedconcernedthenewcentredarrangement,thelackofequivalentcells.Ahengeexpressedinoneunittheimagesinnumerousindividualcomponentsinsettlementsandburials.Itprovidedaritualsymbolofunitywhichcouldinturnbeusedtosupportanelite.Inaddition,thereconstitutionofthesettlementstructureinaritualsettingassociatedwithadominantgroupmayindicatethatknowledgeaboutritualandthesymbolicsignificanceofdailyactivitieswascontrolledbyhigh-statusindividualsandcontributedtotheirlegitimation. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology36ReturningtotheearlierNeolithicinOrkney,relatedargumentsmaybeusedtoaccountforthesimilaritybetweenburialandsettlementforms.AlthoughRenfrewhasdescribedsocietyatthisearlierstageasegalitarian,seniormalesorlineageheadswouldhavebeensociallydominantwithinlocalgroups(Bloch1975)andtheburialritualmayhavelegitimatedtheirauthoritythroughtieswiththeancestors(FriedmanandRowlands1977).Theburialform,asanimageofthesettlementform,wouldrelatetheancestors,thepastandtheritualtothedailyactivitieswithinthesettlements.Thelinksmadeinthiswaybetweenseniors,ancestors,burialandsettlementwouldacttolegitimatethedominanceofseniorsandtheircentralfocusindailyactivitieswithinsettlementsandinthesocialrelationstheresymbolised.TheincreaseddominanceofthesocialgroupburiedatMaesHowewasalsobasedonthemanipulationofafamiliarorganisationofspacewithinthetombandonsymbolicreferencesintheburialritualtothemundaneactivitiesoftheindividualsinhabitingsettlementssuchasSkaraBrae.ReviewoftheOrkneystudySincethearchaeologicalanalysisoftheOrkneymaterialwasintroducedhereasanillustration,itmaybehelpfultoexaminetheprocedureofanalysisinordertoreferbacktothemoregeneralconclusionsatthebeginningofthischapter.(a)‘Wholeness’.IntheinitialstageoftheOrkneyanalysisasetofstructuralrelationshipswasidentifiedandthen‘tested’acrossdifferentspheres(settlement,burialandritual)andindifferentregions(mainlandandnorthernOrkney).Itwasnotassumedthatthestructureineachsphereshouldreflectthatinothers,butrathertransformationsandcontrastswereidentified.Thisstageofanalysis,demonstratingandidentifyingpattern,tookupthemajorpartoftheaccount.InthesecondstageanideawastakenfromTurnerthatstructureandantistructurereinforceeachother,thatstructureexistsinreferencetoantistructureinritual.Thishypothesisexpressesaprincipleconcerningthewayinwhichhumansconstructmeaning.Itisnotabehaviourallawsinceitdoesnotsay‘iftherearecertainconditions,thentherewillbeaninterplaybetweenstructureandantistructure’.Rather,itsuggeststhatstructureandantistructurearelogicallylinked.(b)Theparticularcontext.Thehypothesiswasthenmadethatthestructuraltransformationscouldhavebeenmanipulatedaspartofsocialaction(thedevelopmentofanelite),soinfluencingthepar-ticularwayinwhichhierarchisationoccurred.Itwassuggested(againfromTurner)thattheorganisationofritualmayprovide‘communitas’,andthefurtherhypothesiswasthenmadethatthissenseofcommunityinanearlierphasecouldbeappropriatedbyanemergingelitetoformanewsysteminthefollowingphase.Hereageneralfunctionalmodelhasbeenused,butunderstandingoftheparticularwayinwhichhierarchisationhaddevelopedbytheendoftheperiodiscontributedtobythestructuralanalysis.Thestructureinthelaterphaseistransformedoutofthestructureintheearlierphase,manipulatedaspartofthestrategiesofgroupswithinsocieties. Symbolsinaction37SUMMARYANDSOMEFURTHERPROSPECTSTheethnoarchaeologicalstudiesinKenyaandZambia(Hodder1982)ledtoarealisationthatsymbolsareactivelyinvolvedinsocialstrategies.Becauseoftheactiveinvolvement,thesymbolsmaybeusedtomask,exaggerateorcontradictcertaintypesofinformationflowandsocialrelationships.TheSudanexample(ibid.)showedthattheformofthesetransformationsdependsongeneralconceptualprinciples.Anarchaeologywhichacceptsanddevelopsthesepointswouldprobablyberelativelyparticularisticinthesensethattheconceptualframeworkwithinwhichhumansactedandconstructedmeaningwouldbeseenasbeinguniquetoonespatialandhistoricalcontext.Theconceptualframeworkitselfwouldbeseenashavingbeenbuiltupstrategicallyfromgeneralandwidelyfoundprinciples.Thevariousprinciplesarecombinedtoprovideastructurewhichrunsthroughthewholeofthematerialculturepatterning,throughallthetypesofarchaeologicalevidence.Thedifferentsubsystemsandthebehaviouralvariabilityfromsitetositeareinterpretedintermsoftheprinciplesandconceptswhichplayapartinallsocialandecologicalactions.Butitisinsufficientmerelytodescribewhatmightbedoneinarchaeologyinreactiontotheethnoarchaeologicalstudies,sointhischapterIhaveprovidedabriefarchaeologicalillustration.Theparticularinterpretationsprovided,likemostexplanations,willultimatelybeprovedtobewrong.Buttheverypossibilityofproofanddisproofisimportantindemonstratingthefeasibilityoffollowingupthegeneralimplicationsoftheethnoarchaeologicalwork.Thearchaeologicalexampleinthischaptersuggeststhatstudiesandinterpretationsofthepastmaybeabletoincorporatesymbolicprinciplesandtheframeworkwithinwhichhumansgivemeaningtotheiractions.Asthequoteatthebeginningofthischapterindicates,theconclusionsreachedinthisbook(Hodder1982)arehardlynew.Manyofthesuggestionsmadehereinrelationtoprehistoryareacceptedwithinhistoricalarchaeology(Deetz1967;Glassie1975;Ferguson1977;Leone1977;Schmidt1978).YetIthinktheconclusionshavebeenworthdescribinginviewofthefunctional,behaviouralandecologicalemphasesinmanyrecentprehistoricstudies.Recentapproachesinmanyfieldsofarchaeologicalresearchweredescribedandcontrastedwiththeideasresultingfromtheethnoarchaeologyin(Hodder1982,Chapter9).Theprospectsforthefurtherdevelopmentofanon-behavioural,contextualarchaeology,dependtoalargeextentonthefurtherexpansionofethnoarchaeologicalinvestigations.Weneedtoknowmuchmoreabouttheroleofmaterialculturepatterninginreproducingconceptualframeworks,andabouttheideologicalmanipulationofmaterialitemsinsocialandecologicalstrategies.Onabroaderfrontthereisaneedforarchaeologiststointegratetheoriesandideasfromawiderangeofstudiesconcernedwithstructure,meaningandsocialaction.Theprospectisforadebateinarchaeologyconcerningstructuralism(Lévi-Strauss1963;Piaget1971)anditsvariouscritiques(Sperber1974;Pettit1975;Bourdieu1977),post-structuralism(Ardener1978;Harstrup1978),structural-Marxism(FriedmanandRowlands1977;Godelier1977)andcontemporarysocialtheory(Marsh,RosserandHarré1978;Giddens1979).Whatis Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology38meantbyconceptssuchasideology,legitimation,power,symbolandsocialstructuremustbearguedwithinthearchaeologicalliteratureandtheconceptsmustbeincorporatedintointerpretationsofthepast.Theethnoarchaeologicalstudiespresentedinthisbook(Hodder1982)haveresultedintheaskingofmanymorequestionsthanhavebeenanswered.Buttheyhaveatleastsuggestedtheurgencyofdevelopingabroaderarchaeology,morefullyintegratedintothesocialsciences.REFERENCESArdener,E.(1978)‘Someoutstandingproblemsintheanalysisofevents’,inE.Schwimmer(ed.)TheYearbookofSymbolicAnthropology,London:Hurst.Binford,L.R.(1972)AnArchaeologicalPerspective,NewYork:AcademicPress.——(1978)NunamiutEthnoarchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.Bloch,M.(1975)‘Propertyandtheendofaffinity’,inM.Bloch(ed.)MarxistAnalysesinSocialAnthropology,London:ASA.Bourdieu,P.(1977)OutlineofaTheoryofPractice,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Childe,V.G.(1931)SkaraBrae.APictishVillageinOrkney,London:KeganPaul.——(1949)SocialWorldsofKnowledge,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Childe,V.G.andGrant,W.G.(1939)‘AStone-agesettlementattheBraesofRinyo,Rousay,Orkney’,ProceedingsoftheSocietyofAntiquariesofScotland73,6–31.——(1947)‘AStone-agesettlementattheBraesofRinyo,Rousay,Orkney’,ProceedingsoftheSocietyofAntiquariesofScotland81,16–42.Clarke,D.L.(1968)AnalyticalArchaeology,London:Methuen.Clarke,D.V.(1976)TheNeolithicVillageatSkaraBrae,Orkney:1972–73Excavations:anInterimReport,Edinburgh:HMSO.Deetz,J.(1967)InvitationtoArchaeology,NewYork:NaturalHistoryPress.Douglas,M.(1966)PurityandDanger,London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.Drennan,R.D.(1976)‘ReligionandsocialevolutioninFormativeMesoamerica’,inK.Flannery(ed.)TheEarlyMesoamericanVillage,NewYork:AcademicPress.Ferguson,L.(ed.)(1977)HistoricalArchaeologyandtheImportanceofMaterialThings,SocietyforHistoricalArchaeology,SpecialSeriesPublication2.Flannery,K.V.(1972)‘Theculturalevolutionofcivilisations’,AnnualReviewofEcologyandSystematics3,399–426.——(1976)TheEarlyMesoamericanVillage,NewYork:AcademicPress.Flannery,K.V.andMarcus,J.(1976)‘FormativeOaxacaandtheZapoteccosmos’,AmericanScientist64,374–83.Friedman,J.andRowlands,M.(eds)(1977)TheEvolutionofSocialSystems,London:Duckworth.Fritz,J.M.(1978)‘Paleopsychologytoday;ideationalsystemsandhumanadaptationinprehistory’,inC.Redman(ed.)SocialArchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.Giddens,A.(1979)CentralProblemsinSocialTheory,London:MacmillanPress.Glassie,H.(1975)FolkHousinginMiddleVirginia:aStructuralAnalysisofHistoricalArtifacts,Knoxville:UniversityofTennesseePress. Symbolsinaction39Godelier,M.(1977)PerspectivesinMarxistAnthropology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Harstrup,K.(1978)‘Thepost-structuralistpositionofsocialanthropology’,inE.Schwimmer(ed.)TheYearbookofSymbolicAnthropology,London:Hurst.Henshall,A.S.(1963)TheChamberedTombsofScotland,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.Hill,J.N.(1971)‘Reportonaseminarontheexplanationofprehistoricorganisationalchange’,CurrentAnthropology12,406–8.Hodder,I.(1982)SymbolsinAction,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Leone,M.(1977)ThenewMormontempleinWashingtonDC’,inL.Ferguson(ed.)HistoricalArchaeologyandtheImportanceofMaterialThings,SocietyforHistoricalArchaeology,SpecialSeriesPublication2.Lévi-Strauss,C.(1963)StructuralAnthropology,NewYork:BasicBooks.Marsh,P.,Rosser,E.andHarré,R.(1978)TheRulesofDisorder,London:Routledge.Pettit,P.(1975)TheConceptofStructuralism:aCriticalAnalysis,Dublin:GillandMacMillan.Piaget,J.(1971)Structuralism,London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.Plog,F.T.(1975)‘Systemstheoryinarchaeologicalresearch’,AnnualReviewofAnthropology4,207–24.Renfrew,C.(1972)TheEmergenceofCivilisation,London:Methuen.——(1979)InvestigationsinOrkney,London:SocietyofAntiquaries.Ritchie,A.(1973)‘KnapofHowar,PapaWestray’,DiscoveryandExcavationinScotland1973,68–9.——(1975)‘KnapofHowar,PapaWestray’,DiscoveryandExcavationinScotland1975,35–7.Ritchie,J.N.G.(1976)‘ThestonesofStenness,Orkney’,ProceedingsoftheSocietyofAntiquariesofScotland107,1–60.Sahlins,M.(1976)CultureandPracticalReason,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Schmidt,P.R.(1978)HistoricalArchaeology.AStructuralApproachinanAfricanCulture,Westport,Connecticut:GreenwoodPress.Sperber,D.(1974)RethinkingSymbolism,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Traill,W.andKirkness,W.(1937)‘Howar,aprehistoricstructureonPapaWestray,Orkney’,ProceedingsoftheSocietyofAntiquariesofScotland71,309–21.Turner,V.W.(1969)TheRitualProcess,London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.Washburn,D.K.(1978)‘AsymmetryclassificationofPuebloceramicdesigns’,inP.Grebinger(ed.)DiscoveringPastBehaviour,NewYork:AcademicPress. 4BURIALS,HOUSES,WOMENANDMENINTHEEUROPEANNEOLITHICThehistoryofresearchonthemegalithicmonumentsofwesternEuropeprovidesaclearillustrationofthedeleteriouseffectsofthesplitbetweenhistoricalandprocessualapproachesinarchaeology.Inthispaper,someoftheseeffectswillbeillustrated,butthen,usingessentiallythesamematerial,analternativeapproachwillbeexamined.Aperspectivethattreatstheevidenceasideologicallyinformedrepresentationscanresolvethepreviousdichotomiesandindicatethepotentialinthestudyofprehistoricsocialrelations.InitiallytheNeolithictombsandmonumentswereseenascausedbyaspreadofmegalithbuildersorofthemegalithicidea(Montelius1899;Childe1925;1957;Crawford1957;Daniel1958).Forexample,Piggott(1965,60)sawtheadoptionorpropagationofthecollectivechamberedtombslinkedtoaspreadofnewreligiousideas,andthelinkbetweenmegaliths,frameworksofideasandworldpicturescontinuestobestressedby,forexample,Kinnes(1981,83).Recently,however,somearchaeologistshavecriticisedthisuseofhistoricalanddistributionalargumentsandhavesuggestedthattheoccurrenceofmegalithscannotsimplybeexplainedinculturalterms(forexample,Chapman1981,72).Insomeofthesemorerecentworkstherehasbeenatendencytobeconcernedmainlywithgeneralisations,suchastheuseofmegalithsasmarkersofterritory,orofsocialandeconomictensions.ThishashadtheeffectofremovingmegalithsandNeolithicburialsfromtheirhistoricalcontextinwesternEurope,andfromthedomainoftheideological,bywhichIrefertomeaningfulsocialactionandnegotiationwithinspecifichistoricalcontexts.SeveralwritershaveemphasisedtheroleofNeolithicmegalithicmonumentsinwesternEuropeassocialcentres(Case1969;Fleming1972;1973;Reed1974;Kinnes1975;Whittle1977;Jarman,BaileyandJarman1982).Specificallyreactingagainstdiffusionistarguments,Renfrew(1976)hassuggestedasocialroleforthetombsasterritorialmarkersinsegmentarysocieties.Acentralquestionposedconcernedtherestrictedoccurrenceofmegalithsonthe‘Atlanticfacade’—westernEurope(France,Britain,Spain,Portugal,Netherlands),northwestEurope(ScandinaviaandnorthGermany),andthewesternMediterranean(southFrance,ItalyandthewestMediterraneanislands).Renfrewsuggestedthatterritorialmarkerswereneededinthisareabecauseofgreaterpopulationstresswhichitselfhadtwosources.First,thewestwardspreadoftheNeolithicwashaltedbytheAtlanticcoastsuchthatbirthrateshadtobecutbackaspopulationreacheditssaturationpoint.Excesspopulationcouldnolongersplitoffandexpandwestwards.Theresultingsocialstresswasfurtheraggravatedbyasecondfactor,theexistinghighlevelsofhunter-gatherer-fisherpopulationsintherichcoastalandestuarineregions.Thesetwoconditionsledtothebuildingoftombsfortheancestorstoactasfociforequivalentsegmentaryunits. Burials,houses,womenandmen41Chapman’s(1981)anti-diffusionistargumentsarebasedonanhypothesissuggestedbySaxe(1970)andGoldstein(1980)anditisclaimedthatintermentincemeteriesormonumentswillemergeinperiodsofimbalancebetweensocietyandcriticalresources.LateMesolithiccemeteries,NeolithiccentralEuropeancemeteries,andthemegalithsofwesternEuropeareseenasrelatedtoincreasingterritorialbehaviourandtheuseand/orcontrolofcrucialbutrestrictedresources.Thefirstproblemwithsuchargumentsisthatitappearsdifficult,ifnotimpossible,toidentifysocialstressorrestrictedresourcesinthegeneraltermsusedbyRenfrewandChapman.InreferencetoRenfrew’sargumentthereisnoevidencethatdemographicstresswasgreaterinAtlanticEuropethanincentralEurope.ThereisgoodevidenceofconcentratedMesolithicoccupationinareaswhichdonothavemegaliths(forexampleGeupel1981,andinsoutheastEurope,Srejovic1972).TheadoptionofagricultureinwesternEuropewasoftendifferentfromthatincentralEurope(thereisevidenceforslowandgradualadoptioninBritain,andinsouthFrancewherecerealswerenotcultivateduntilwellafterthefirstanimaldomesticates)andtherateofpopulationgrowth(ifanyprovestohaveoccurred)isunknown.CertainlythereisnoevidenceforhigherpopulationdensitiesinwesternthanincentralEurope.Indeed,duringtheperiodofmegalithicmonumentconstruction(approximatelyfourthtosecondmillenniaBC),muchoftheclearestevidencewehaveof‘fillingup’oftheenvironmentanddenseoccupationcomesfromcentralEurope(Meier-Arendt1965;Sielman1972;Kruk1980).ChapmanrecognisesthisfactandsuggeststhatboththemegalithsofwesternEuropeandtheinhumationcemeteriesofcentralEuropearelikeresponsestoanimbalancebetweensocietyandcriticalresources.Buthowisonetorecogniseterritorialbehaviourandtheuseandcontrolofrestrictedresources?Almostbydefinition,allsocietiesandallanimalspecieshavesuchcharacteristics.Certainly,followingMeillassoux(1972—adequatelycriticisedbyWoodburn1980),oneofChapman’sownsources,onewouldexpectallagriculturalsocietiestohaveaneedtocontrolrestrictedresources.Butitisnotsomuchthelackofevidenceofsocialandeconomicstress,territorialityandrestrictedresourcesthatismyconcernhere,andIwillbeusingthesamesourcesofevidenceintheinterpretationtobeofferedinthispaper.Rather,thesecondandmoreimportantcriticismconcernstheweaklinkbetweenburial,megalithicmonumentsandtheprocessesdescribed.InRenfrew’smodel,itisnotatallclearhowmegalithicmonumentshelpedtocontrolthebirthrate.Anymarkerorinhumationcemeterycouldhavefunctionedasafocusorasasymboloftheancestors.Chapman’sargumentsareverygeneralandhishypothesisisdescribedasbeingasrelevanttoLepenskiVir,whereburialunderhousesisreferredtoasindicatingformaldisposalareas(1981,75),astoinhumationcemeteriesandmegalithicmonuments.Itisevenimpliedthatarolesimilartoformalburialisplayedbyenclosedhabitationsites(ibid.,78).AsKinnes(1981,86)remarks,‘acentralplaceforanysocialgroupmightbeamortuarysite:equallyitcouldbeanyotherstructure,boulderortree’.InbothRenfrew’sandChapman’sandinotherworkofthistype,themegalithicmonumentslosemostoftheirspecificity.Megalithsareseenasindicatingmoresocialstressandactingasbetterfocithanothertypesofburial,andintheSaxeandGoldsteinmodel,theformalburialisseenaslegitimatingcontrolofresourcesbyreferencetotheancestors.Butlargeenclosedsettlements,significantpointsinthephysicallandscape,distinctiveportableartifactsorenclosedurnedcremation Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology42cemeteriesmighthavedoneequallywell.Themegalithicmonumentshavenotreallybeenexplainedatall.Closelylinkedtothissecondpointisathird,thatnoattemptismadeinrecent,‘processual’studies,toaccountfortheformofthemegalithicmonumentsthemselves(see,however,Fleming1973).Whilethereisgreatvariationintypeofmonument,mostauthorscitegeneralsimilaritiesinpassageandgallerygravesandassociatedartandritualwhichoccurinmany,ifnotall,thevariousareaswhereNeolithicmegalithicmonumentsarefound.Thereareroundmounds,rectangularandtrapezoidalmounds.Thereareearthenandstonebarrows,timberandstonechambers.Thereisoften,butnotalways,evidenceofmultipleinterments,excarnationofthebodiespriortoburialinthetombsandofcarefularrangementofthebones.Thefacadesofthetombsareoftenelaborate,andareassociatedwithhighartifactdensitieswhileinmanycases,fewartifactsarefoundwithinthetombs.Thetombsareoftenorientatedinspecificdirections.Widespreadsimilaritiesarenotjustalatephenomenonbutoccuratanearlystage,forexampleatHoedicandTeviec.Allthisdetail,andmuchmore,islostinthecross-cultural,processualapproachthathasbeenappliedrecently.Theexplanationsprovidedhavebeeninadequatebecausethereisadisproportionateamountofinformationthathastobeleftaside.TheprocessualstudiesofRenfrewandChapmanandtheotherscitedabovehavebeenwidelyacceptedanddiscussed,butinviewofthecriticismsaboveitisarguedherethatalternativeexplanationsmustbesought.TheinabilityofrecentinterpretationstoaccountforthemegalithicmonumentsofwesternEuropederives,inthisauthor’sview,fromtheartificialsplitmadeinarchaeologybetweenhistoryandprocess.Itwillbecomeclearinthisarticlethatapreviousgenerationofarchaeologistsattractedbythemegalithicproblem(suchasChilde,Clark,Daniel,Piggott),butdubbeddiffusionist,historicalorevenculturalistbyprocessualarchaeologists,wereconcernedwithmegalithsasmegaliths.Theydidconsiderthemonumentsintheirownrightwithinaspecifichistoricalcontext.Theyattemptedtoexplaintheshape,orientationandcontentofthetombsandthetombritual.Howeverinadequatetheirresults,themeaningofthetombsandmonumentsthemselveswasconsidered.Morerecentlyarchaeologistsmovedtoanoppositeandmoreextremepositioninwhichthemeaningofthetombs,whattheysignifiedinaparticularhistoricalcontext,wasentirelydisregarded.Thisreactionagainstaconsiderationofspecificculturalmeaningnecessarilyledtoafailureoftheattemptsataprocessualandfunctionalexplanation.Theprocessualexplanationscouldnotcopewiththerichnessofinformationrelatingtothethingstobeexplained.Sinceonehadnoideawhat,forexample,theshapeofthetombmeantinitsparticularhistoricalcontext,onecouldhaveabsolutelynoideaofhowitmighthavefunctioned.Evenifonewascontentonlytoexplainthefactthatmegalithsexisted,therecouldagainbenosuccessfuloutcome.Itcanneverbepossibleto‘test’thehypothesis,orsupporttheanalogy,thatthetombsfunctionedasterritorialmarkersorlegitimatedrightstoresourceswithoutalsohavingsomehypothesisconcerningthemeaningofthetombsinthesocietyandtimeperiodconcerned.ThetombsandmonumentsoftheNeolithicinwesternEuropehadsymbolicassociationsandmeaningsandthismeaningfulcontextmustbeconsideredifwearetounderstandhowtheyworkedwithinsocialprocesses.Butequally,archaeologistsworkingwithinanhistoricalandculturalframeworkhadlimitedsuccessbecausesymbolicmeaningwasdiscussedwithlimitedreferencetosocial Burials,houses,womenandmen43process,functionandlegitimation.Itisthedividebetweentheconsiderationofhistoryandparticularsymbolicmeaningsontheonehandandtheconsiderationofprocessandfunctionontheother,adividesetupandencouragedbythe‘NewArchaeology’ofthesixtiesandseventies(Hodder1982a),whichhasheldbackexplanationinarchaeology.TheproblemofthemegalithsofwesternEuropeisjustoneexampleofthedifficultiesthathavearisen.Anyrigorousandadequateexplanationmustallowthatsymbolicmeaningandsocialprocessareactivelyandrecursivelyrelatedandmustapplyintegratedsocialmodels.Inparticular,thedichotomysetupbetweenmeaningandfunctionhadtheeffectthatideologybecameaproblematicareaofenquirywhichcouldhavenosuccessfulissue.Therehas,ofcourse,beenarecentincreaseinattemptsmadewithinaprocessualframeworktodiscussideologyandlegitimation,andthehypothesisofSaxeconcerningtheuseofburialtolegitimateaccesstoresources,andappliedbyChapmantoEuropeanNeolithicburials,isanexampleofsuchdevelopments.But,asalreadyindicated,suchaframeworktendstorelegateideologytoanepiphenomenonoftheassumedprimacyoffunctionalcontingenciesanddoesnotadequatelyconsidertheparticularsymbolicmeaningsofthemonumentsandrituals.TheSaxehypothesisnotonlypresentsarelativelypassiveviewofsociety,butalso,andmoreclearly,itdisregardstheculturalcontextsocentraltoideologyandideologicalfunctions.Whenindividualsactsocially,andrepresenttheiractionstoothers,theynecessarilydosowithinaframeworkofmeaning,andthisframeworkisrelativeandhistoricallyconstructed.Withoutconsiderationoftheculturalcontextonecannothopetounderstandtheeffectsofpastsocialactions.Whileanumberofrecentarticleshaveexaminedmegalithicmonumentsassymbolicandassociallyactive,legitimatinginternalsocialstrategies(Gilman1976;Tilley1981;Hodder1982b;ShanksandTilley1982;Shennan1982),theyhaveagainfailedadequatelytoconsidertheparticularityofthehistoricalcontextinwhichmegalithsarefound.Itistheaimofthisarticle,however,firsttodemonstratethatthereisconsiderableevidencethatmanyoftheearthenandchamberedtombsofwesternEuropereferredsymbolicallytoearlierandcontemporaryhousesincentralEuropeand,toalesserextent,inwesternEurope(Figure7).Thetombssignifiedhouses.ToexaminethesignificanceofthissymbolicassociationitwillthenbenecessarytoassessthesymbolicandsocialcontextoflonghousesincentralEurope.ItwillbeshownthatthereisevidenceforelaborationofdomesticspaceandthatthiselaborationofhousesanddomesticpotteryincreasesandthendecreasesthroughtimeintothelaterNeolithic.ItwillbearguedthatthetypeofhouseandpotterysymbolismidentifiedinthecentralEuropeanearlyandmiddleNeolithicisappropriateinasocialcontextwhereprimarysocialstrategiesrevolvearoundmale-femalerelationships,whicharethemselveslinkedtocompetitionbetweenlineagesforcontroloflabour.Itwillbearguedthatlongbarrowburialandlonghousesaretwowaysofcopingwithandinvolvingmaterialcultureinsimilarsocialstrategiesandthattheexistenceofthelongmoundtraditioncanonlybepartiallyexplainedintermsofadaptivebehaviour.Rather,thewaymegalithswereinvolvedactivelyinsocialstrategiesinwesternEuropedependedonanexistinghistoricalcontext.Theexistenceofthetombs,theirformandfunctioncanonlybeadequatelyconsideredbyassessingtheirvalue-ladenmeaningswithinEuropeanNeolithicsociety. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology44Figure7ThedistributionofNeolithicchamberedtombsinAtlanticEurope(horizontalshading),andofBandkeramiksettlementsandfindswithlonghouses(verticalshading)TOMBSANDHOUSESManytimberandstonechamberedtombsinAtlanticEuropeareenclosedwithinarectangularortrapezoidalmound(Figure8).TheapparentsimilaritybetweentheseshapesandtheplansofLinearbandkeramik(LBK),Stichbandkeramik(SBK),LengyelandRössenhousesincentralandeast-centralEuropeinthefifthandfourthmillenniabe(Figure9)hasbeennotedbymanyscholars,althoughsignificantlynotbythoseexplicitlyespousingaprocessualview(Renfrew1976;Chapman1981)oranecologicalapproach(Jarman,BaileyandJarman1982).Daniel(1965,86)speculatedthatOscarMonteliusmaynothavebeensowronginthinkingthattheEuropeanpassagegravesmayhavebeenlithicfuneraryversionsofwoodendwellinghouses.Childe(1949a),Sprockhoff(1938) Burials,houses,womenandmen45andGlob(1949)comparedthelongcairnsandbarrowsofnorthernandnorth-centralEuropewithlonghouses.TheuseofLBKhousesasamodelforthelongmoundtraditionhasbeensuggestedbyCase(1969),Ashbee(1970),Whittle(1977,221),Kinnes(1981,85),Powelletal.(1969)andadetailedcasehasbeenmadebyReed(1974)andMarshall(1981).GrahameClark(1980,96)notedthatthetrapezoidalburialmoundsofBrittanyandKujaviarecalldomestichousestructuresassociatedwiththeLengyelcultureofnorth-centralEuropeandthetrapezoidalhousesoftheIronGatesonthelowerDanube.ThelonghousesofcentralEuropecoverthelatefifthandfourthmillenniabe.Theearthandstonelongbarrowsontheotherhandcoverthelaterpartofthefourthmillenniumandcontinueinuseindifferentareasintothelatethirdandearlysecondmillenniabe.Referencetoformalsimilaritiesbetweenthehousesandtombsthusimpliestransformationfromthehousestothetombs.Intheanti-diffusionistframeworkwithinwhichsomearchaeologistshaverecentlyworkedthestylisticsimilaritiesbetweenhousesandtombshaveeitherbeendisregarded,aswehaveseen,orvariousalternativeandmorefunctionalexplanationsof‘coincidental’similaritieshavebeensought(Fleming1973).Itisnecessary,therefore,togobeyondthenumerousgeneralstatementsofaffinityandtoshowthattherearesufficientnumbersofsimilaritiesbetweenhousesandtombstomakeFigure8Longmoundburial.Thestructuralsequenceat(a)Fussell’sLodge,(b)Kilham.Source:Kinnes1981 Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology46Figure9GroundplansoflonghousesfromNeolithicEurope.1:Postoloprty,Czechoslovakia;2:BrzescKujawski,Poland;3:Biskupin,Poland;4:Aldenhoven,Germany;5:Zwenkau,Germany;6–7:Geleen,Netherlands.Source:Marshall1981the‘nullhypothesis’ofnodiffusionappearunreasonable.ButitisofinteresttonoteattheoutsetthatthesimilaritiesbetweenlonghousesandlongtombsaresuchthatBarkaer,longthoughttobeasitecontaininglonghouses,hasrecentlybeenconvincingly Burials,houses,womenandmen47reinterpretedasasitewithlongburialmounds(Glob1975;Madsen1979).Sincelonghousesandlongburialmoundsoverlapchronologicallyinthesecondhalfofthefourthmillenniumbe,itisintheculturesofthatperiodincentralandeast-centralEuropethatweshouldsearchfortheclosestparallelsfortheburialmonumentsofAtlanticEurope.BoththeRössenandLengyelculturesofcentralandeast-centralEuroperespectivelycontinueintothisperiodandbothhaverectangularandtrapezoidallonghouses.ItistheconstructionandshapeofthesehousesthatprovidethefirsttwospecificparallelsfortheAtlanticlongburialmounds(seeFigures8and9).First,timberlongbarrowseitherhavecontinuousbeddingtrenchesforthewallsorlinesofposts,orsomemixtureofthetwo,andthesamevarietyisfoundforthehouses.Second,Soudsky(1969)suggeststhatthedistinctivetrapezoidalhouseformdevelopsonlyaftertheearlyNeolithicincentralEurope,anditisclearlyassociatedwiththeSBK,RössenandLengyelcontexts.However,someLBKhousesatElsloo,Netherlands,alreadybegintoshowatrapezoidalform.Forthetombs,theFussell’sLodgelongbarrow,datedtothesecondhalfofthefourthmillenniumbe,hastracesofverticaltimbersinitstrapezoidalenclosureandmusthavelookedfromtheoutsideverysimilartothetrapezoidaltimberedhousesofcentralEurope.EarthenlongbarrowsaregenerallytrapezoidalinshapeinBritainandmoretriangularinPoland.TrapezoidalbarrowsarealsoknownfromDenmarkandnorthGermanybutintheseareasrectangularbarrowsaremorecommon(Madsen1979,318)andcanbecomparedwiththerectangularlonghouseswhichcontinueinusealongsidethetrapezoidalforms.Trapezoidalcairns,limitedbyawallorbyboulders,arefoundinBritainintheSevern-Cotswoldgroup,Clyde,IrishCourtcairnsandintheOrkney-Cromartylongcairns.Therearealsoexamplestoparalleltherectangularearthbarrows(Ashbee1970,90).RectangularandtrapezoidalchamberedcairnsalsooccurinBrittanyandtheParisBasin.Whiletherectangularandtrapezoidalshapesofthehousesandbarrowscanbecompared,itshouldbeemphasisedthattheformalsimilaritiesdonotimplyequivalenceofsize.Reed(1974,46)notesthatwhilethelengthsofagoodmanysouthEnglishlongbarrowsfallcomfortablywithintherangeofLBKandRössenlonghouses,mostlongbarrowsareabouttwicethewidthandlengthofmostlonghouses.Marshall(1981)inadetailedquantitativestudyhasshownthattheearthenlongbarrows,thegallerygravesoftheSevern-CotswoldgroupandoftheScottish-Irishgrouparegenerallylargerandwiderthanthetrapezoidallonghousesbutthattheratiobetweenlengthandmaximumwidthissimilar,especiallywhencomparingthetrapezoidalhousesandthegallerygraves.Thusthetombsstudiedarenormallylargerthanthehousesbuttheyretainthesameshape.Afurtherpointofcomparisonbetweenhousesandtombsconcernsorientation,sincebothgenerallyhavetheirlongaxisalignedE-WorNW-SE.However,itisfirstnecessarytoconsiderthepositionoftheentranceofthehousesandtombs.Thisisnormallyatthebroaderendofthetrapezoidalhouses,andthemainburialchamberandentrancefacadeinthelongbarrowsarealsoatthebroaderendalthough,incertaincases,otherburialchambersinthebarrowcanbeenteredfromtheside.Itisatthebroadendofthetrapezoidalhousesthatbreaksoccurinthewallfoundations,andanentranceisclearlyvisibleinthispositionatPostoloprty(Figure9:1).ThehighestconcentrationsofartifactsoccuroutsidethepresumedentranceatthewiderendofthetrapezoidallonghousesatBrzescKujawski(BoguckiandGrygiel1981).Whileitispossiblethatthetombsare Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology48broaderandhigheratoneendinordertoaccommodatethestoneorwoodenchamber,ratherthanbecauseofanyformalsimilaritywithtrapezoidallonghouses,suchanargumentignorestheorientationofthebuildings:thatthebroaderendofthetrapezoidaltombsandhousesisgenerallytowardstheeastorsoutheast.Madsen(1979,318)notesthatinBritain,Poland,northGermanyandDenmarkthebroaderendofthetrapezoidalearthenlongbarrowsistotheeast.InBritainColtHoarenotedin1812thattheearthenlongbarrowshadthebroadendpointingtotheeast.InBrittanytheentrancesofthepassagegravesaregenerallytothesoutheastespeciallyinthecaseofthelongpassageddolmens(L’Helgouach1965,76–9).Theentrancesofthegallerygravesinthesameareaaretotheeast.TheCotswold-SeverntombsmainlyfacetowardstheeastandinShetlandtheentrancesfaceeastorsoutheast,asdothestalledOrkneycairns.Burl(1981)providesotherexamplesoftheoveralltendencyforthebroaderendsoftrapezoidalmoundsortheentrancesofrectangularorcircularpassagegravemoundstofaceeast.Thisisnottosaythatexceptionsdonotexist.TheClavapassagegravesandringcairnsofnortheastScotlandgenerallyfacesouthwestandthechamberedtombsonArranshownopreferredorientation.However,theoveralltendency,particularlyoflongbarrows,isfortheentranceandthebroaderendtofaceeastandsoutheast(Figure10).Soudsky(1969)hasdemonstratedthatthebroaderendoftrapezoidallonghousesfacessoutheast,inthequadrantbetwen90°and180°fromnorth.Therectangularlonghousesare,likethetombsandtrapezoidalhouses,orientatedNW-SE(seeMarshall1981forquantitativedata).Butthelocationoftheentrance(s)inthesehouseshasnotbeendeterminedwithanycertainty.Inviewofthesimilaritywithtrapezoidalhousesitwouldseemlikelythattheentranceisatthesoutheastend.Certainly,itisthenorthwesternendwhichoftenhasacontinuousbeddingtrench,whilethesidesareoftenflankedbycontinuousditchesfromwhichitispresumedthatearthwastakentoformthedaubwalls.Thusitseemslikelythatthesoutheasternportionoftherectangularlonghousescontainedtheentrance,andfourthmillenniumbemodelsofhouseshavetheentranceatoneshorterend(Piggott1965,46).However,asideentrancehasattimesbeenclaimedforLBKlonghouseswiththe‘Y’postsinthecentralsectionofthehousebeingusedtoframeadoor(Meyer-Christian1976).Startin(1978)suggeststhatthe‘Y’postsfunctionedasabraceagainstlateralwindsandthereisnoevidenceofanentranceinthecentralsidearea.Thus,thethirdpointofsimilaritybetweenlonghousesandlongbarrowsisthattheentranceinthetrapezoidalformsisatthebroaderend,whilethefourthsimilarityisthattheentrancesofthetrapezoidalandrectangularformsgenerallyfacetheeastorsoutheast.Thefifthpointisthatthereisconsiderableelaborationoftheentranceitself.Thelongbarrowsandpassagegravesfrequentlyhavelargefacades,with‘horns’pointingforwardsfromtheentrance,forecourtsandantechambers.Thereisoftenevidenceforritualsandofferingsinthefore-courtarea,leadingtoadistinctionbetweentheouter,entranceareawithmanyartifacts,andtheinnertombfrequentlywithfewartifactstoaccompanytheskeletalremains.Theentranceisoftenblockedbymassiveboulders,butmayequallybea‘false’entrance,therealentrancebeingtothesideofthemound.Manyofthesecharacteristicsarefoundinbothstoneandearthenbarrows.Woodenporcheswhichhavebeeneffectivelyblockedbyposts,asatFussell’sLodge,recalltheso-called‘falseportals’oftheSevern-Cotswoldlaterallychamberedstonelongbarrows(Ashbee1970, Burials,houses,womenandmen4992).ThereisasimilaremphasisonfacadesandmostoftheScandinavianearthenbarrowshaveasubstantialtransversebeddingtrenchintheeasternendholdingatimberfacade.InBritainandScandinaviathefacadesometimeshasprojectionsatthesidesforming‘horns’(e.g.Lindebjerg(Madsen1979),EastHeslerton,SkendlebyandWillerbyWold(Ashbee1970)).ThesevariouscharacteristicsarealsofoundinthelonghousesofcentralEurope.Sideprojectionsor‘horns’atthebroader,easternendoftrapezoidallonghousesarefoundat,forexample,Inden-Lamersdorf,ZwenkauandBrzescKujawski(Soudsky1969)andadistinctentranceareahasbeenidentifiedatPostoloprtyandBiskupin(ibid.).Occupationhorizonshavealmosteverywherebeenremovedbylaterlandusebut,asalreadynoted,thelateLengyelsitesofBrzescKujawskiandBiskupininthePolishlowlandshavethehighestconcentrationsofrefusepitsneartheentrance.Figure10TheorientationoftombsandlonghousesinEurope.A:Armoricangallerygraves(L’Helgouach1965);B:Armoricantombswithshortandmediumpassages(L’Helgouach1965);C:Armoricantombswithlongpassages(L’Helgouach1965);D:EarthenlongbarrowsfromthesouthernandnorthernregionsofBritain(Ashbee1970);E:RectangularandtrapezoidalNeolithiclonghouses(Marshall1981);F:MegalithictombsinHolland(Bakker1979)Thereisgoodevidenceofatripartitedivisionofthelonghouseswhichcantosomeextentbeparalleledinthetombs.IthaslongbeenrecognisedthatLBKhousesaredividedintothreesectionsalthoughthecentralsectionmayoccuronitsownorwithonlyoneofthetwoendsections.Inlinewiththefifthpointmadeabove,theclearestdivision Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology50ofthetrapezoidallonghousesisthatwhichseparatestheroomattheentranceortheentranceareafromtheinnerportionofthehouse.Forexample,intheRössentrapezoidalhouseatDeiringsen-Ruploh(Günther1973)acleardivisionoccursone-thirdofthewayintothehouse.AtPostoloprtytheinteriorareawithfourhearthsispartitionedofffromtheentranceroom(Soudsky1969).InhisreviewofthetrapezoidallonghouseSoudskynotesthatmanyshownoevidenceofanyinternaldivisions,butwherethereisoneitistripartite,withantechamber,centralmainroomandstoreattheback.AtBochum-Hiltrop,forexample,thereisapartitionseparatingoffthebackthirdofthehouse.ThesmallerRössenandlaterhouseswhicharedividedintotworoomswillbediscussedbelow,butonceagainthedivisionofspaceoftenoccursone-thirdofthewayintothehouse,neartheentrance,intheclassic‘megaron’plan.Theearthentombsfrequentlyshowasimilardivision,withthemainburialchamberoccurringinthethirdofthemoundnearesttheentranceinBritainand/orinthecentralportioninScandinavia.AtBygholmNorremark,ahousebeneaththebarrowhascleartracesofathreefolddivision,whileatSkibshojandTroelstruptheeasternthirdispartitionedfromthewesterntwo-thirds(Madsen1979).AsimilardivisioninBritaincanbeseenatKilham(Figure8:b).MultiplepartitioningoflongbarrowsisageneralcharacteristicinbothBritainandScandinavia,butitisthegallerygravesoftheParisBasinthatagainshowthespecificprincipleatwork.The‘alléescouvertes’aredividedone-thirdofthewayin(Figure11)andinBrittanythegallerygravesnormallyhaveanantechamberandsometimesabackroom.Therockcuttombs(hypogées)oftheParisBasinareoftendividedintothreedistinctrooms,theinnerroombeingthelargestandcontainingthemajorityoftheskeletalremains.Itshouldberecognisedthat,incomparinglonghousesandFrenchgallerygravesparallelsarebeingsoughtacrossatleastamillennium,fromthelatefourthmillenniumtothelatethirdmillenniumbc.Itisnotthecontentionherethatthehousesactedasdirectandimmediateanalogiesforthelatethird-andearlysecond-millenniagallerygraves,andthereareintermediaryformsinvariouspartsofAtlanticEurope.Ageneralandcontinuousunderlyingtraditionisclaimed,lastingmillennia,findingsurvivingexpressionindifferentwaysatdifferenttimesindifferentplaces.Theseventhpointofcomparisonbetweenlongtombsandlonghousesconcernstheuseofdecoration.Thestone-builthousesatSkaraBrae,Orkney,containedstonesincisedwithgeometricdecorationsimilartothatfoundincontemporarychamberedtombsonOrkney,ofteninsimilarpositionsaboveandnearentrancesandwithinrooms(Hodder1982c).TherichdecorationoftombsinwesternEuropehaslongbeenofinterest,thedecorationoccurringonthesidesofgalleriesandtransepts,oncapstones,andintheParisBasinforexample,particularlyintheentrancearea(Figure11).ThedecorationoflonghousesincentralEuropemaybelesswidelyrecognisedbecauseofthenon-survivingtimberanddaubstructuresandremovaloftheoccupationhorizon.However,modelsofhousesfrequentlyhavedecorationsimilartothatonDanubianpottery.DecoratedwallsoccuratKaranovoinsoutheastEuropeanddesignsresemblingpotterydecorationarefoundonfourth-millenniumbchousesinHungary(Piggott1965,90).NeolithichutsatGrossgartachhavewallplasterwithredandwhitezig-zagsonayellowbackground.Specificlinksbetweendecorationintombsandthedomesticcontextarealsosuggestedbythefrequentsimilaritiesbetweenthedesignsusedinthetombsandondomesticpottery.Whileitwillbeshownbelowthatspecialfuneraryorritualdecoratedpottery Burials,houses,womenandmen51doesexist(forexampleinChasseyandnorthEuropeancontexts),thedecoratedpotteryoftheearlierBretonNeolithic,forexample,hasconcentricarcdesignsrecallingthosefoundinthetombsinthesamearea.Theuseoffeaturessuchasaneyemotifon‘pots,bonesandstones’inSpainandelsewhereinAtlanticEuropehasbeendescribedbyCrawford(1957,60).Eighth,bothlonghousesandburialmoundsarefrequentlyassociatedwithditchesflankingthelongsides(seeFigures8and12)althoughinsomecasesthetombs(forexampleGiants’Hill,Skendlebyearthenlongbarrow)alsohaveditchesattherearand/orfront.QuarryditchesalongthebarrowsareanormalfeatureinBritainandPolandbutarelesscommoninScandinaviaandnorthGermany(Madsen1979,318).Whileitcanofcoursebeclaimedthatsuchditchesaresimplyfunctionalconsequencesoftheneedtoprovidematerialforthehousewallsorbarrowmounds,thereisnonecessaryrelationship:thematerialcouldhavebeenobtainedfromelsewhere,orfromdifferentlyshapedhollows.Whateverthereasonfortheconstructionofthesideditches,theydoexhibitacloseformalsimilaritybetweenthehousesandthemoundswhichsuggestsonetypeofmonumentevokedtheother.Infactthereareoftenprecisesimilaritiesbetweentheditchesinthetwocases.Botharefrequentlyirregularinoutline(forexample,seeWillerbyWold(Ashbee1970,39))andaresometimesdugasaseriesofinterconnectingpits.Inviewoftheothersimilaritiesbetweenthehousesandtombsnotedabove,itisarguedherethatthesimilarityintheformandplacingofthequarryditchesissignificant.EightpointsofsimilaritybetweenNeolithichousesincentralEuropeandlongburialmoundsinAtlanticEuropehavebeenidentified,althougheachcomparisoninvolvesanumberofmoredetailedattributes.Themainpointscanbesummarisedasfollows.1Constructionofhousesandearthenlongbarrowsincludesuseofcontinuousbeddingtrenches,linesofsimplepostsandsomecombinationofthetwotechniques.2Trapezoidalandrectangularshapeswithsimilarlength/maximumbreadthratiosfortrapezoidalforms.3Theentranceofthetrapezoidalmoundsandhousesareatthebroaderend.4Theentrancesoftherectangularandtrapezoidalhousesandbarrowsfrequentlyfacetowardsthesoutheast.5Theentrancesareelaborated,specificallywithfacades,antechambers,‘horns’,oractivityconcentrations.6Thereisatripartitedivisionofthelonghouseormound,althoughfrequentlyonlyonedivisionisfoundone-thirdofthewayalongthelengthfromtheentrance.7Tombsandhousesfrequentlyhaveinternaldecoration.8Ditchesflankthelongsidesofhousesandbarrows.Thislistofsimilaritiesconcernsspecificallythelongbarrows,gallerygraves,rectangularandtrapezoidallonghouses.Butothertraditionsareknownsuchasthecircularhouseandthepassagegravewithcircularorpolygonalinnerchamber.Ithasalreadybeennotedthatsomescholarshavedrawnparallelsbetweenhousesandtombsforthesetypesalso(Daniel1965,86).Clark(1980,96)hasdrawnspecificattentiontothedomesticconnotationsofthestone-builtritualhearthsinHoëdicandTeviec(seebelow)andinthetrapezoidaltombsofKujavia,andtheburningfoundatthefrontofmanytombsmay Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology52Figure11Gallerygraves(alléescouvertes)androck-cuttombs(hypogées)fromtheSOMcultureintheParisBasin.Source:Bailloud1964 Burials,houses,womenandmen53Figure12AnexampleofaLBKhousewithsiteditches:Building32atElsloo,NetherlandsrecalltheelaboratestonehearthsinhousesatLepenskiVironthelowerDanube.Incomparingthehouses,tombsandritualmonumentsintheNeolithicoftheOrkneyIslands,similaritieswerenotedinthecentralpositionofastone-linedhearthorareawithburningandoccupationdebris,intheleft/rightsymmetry,andintheuseofthebackareaforstorage.SimilaritiesbetweenthehousesandtombsofSkaraBraeandQuanternesswereobservedintheuseofdecoration,inthecellularplan,andinthelongnarrowentrances(Hodder1982c).Inaddition,intheOrkneyIslands,theprotrudingsidestonesatintervalsalongtheinteriorwallsofthe‘stalledcairns’areconstructionallyandformallysimilartothedivisionsintheKnapofHowarhouses(Figure13).Asinanyanalogicalargument,anyonepointofcomparison,onitsown,couldbeseenascoincidental.Butasthenumbersofsimilaritiesincreaseitbecomesunreasonabletoargueforalackofanysignificantrelationship.ItisclaimedherethatspecificparallelsexistinthefourthmillenniumbcbetweenhousesincentralEuropeandcontemporarytombsinAtlanticEurope.ButthereisalsoalongerEuropeantraditionfromthelatefifthtotheearlysecondmillenniabcwhichcanbefollowedatdifferenttimesindifferentareas.Forexample,theearlyNeolithicLBKhousesinthelatefifthandearlyfourthmillenniashowmostoftheeightcharacteristics,whilethegallerygraveswhichcontinueinuseintotheearlysecondmillenniuminBrittanyandtheParisBasincontainaspectsofthesamestyle.ThereiscontinuityinthetraditioninEuropethroughoutthewholeperiodalthoughparticularareas,suchastheParisBasin,mayonlyhavesurvivingevidenceintermittently.Insomelocalareas,suchastheOrkneys,theideaoftombsrepresenting Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology54houses(andviceversa)takesonaparticularlocalform.IntheChannelIslandsalinkbetweentombsandthedomesticcontextissuggestedbythefindingofquernsatLaHougueMaugerandLaHougueBie.Figure13Comparisonoftombs(stalledcairns—A,B,C)andhouses(D)intheOrkneyNeolithic.A:KierfeaHill;B:KnoweofCraie;C:KnoweofYarso;D:KnapofHowar Burials,houses,womenandmen55Althoughlocalexamples,asintheOrkneys,servetogiveweighttotheoverallrelationshipbetweenhousesandtombs,itistherelationshipbetweenlonghousesandlongtombsthatistheprimaryconcerninthisstudy.IthasbeensuggestedthatthelongburialmoundsevokesymbolicallytheearlierandcontemporarylonghousesofcentralEurope.Thecomplementarityintimeandspaceofthelongbarrowsandhousesneedstobeemphasised.Notonlyaretherelevanttypesofhousesearlierthanandoverlappingintimewiththelongbarrows,buttheyalsohaveadifferentspatialdistribution(Figure7),beingfoundincentralandeast-centralEuropewheretheyaremainlyassociatedwithsingleinhumationgravesandinhumationcemeteries.ThereisclearspatialoverlapbetweenlonghousesandlongmoundsintheParisBasin,buthereearlyNeolithicandDanubianhouseswithinhumationcemeteriesarefollowed,afteraninterval,bylateNeolithicchamberedtombs,andsomesimilaroverlapsoccurinnorthwesternEurope.However,thetombsarelargelyconfinedtoAtlanticEuropewherehousesaresmallandvariedinappearance.Putcrudely,thelonghousesoccurearlierinthecentreofEurope,whilethelongburialmoundsinAtlanticEuropebeginlater,overlapintime,andcontinuelater.Itisaquestion,then,ofthetransmissionandtransformationofanidea,awayofdoingthings,fromeasttowest,andfromsettlementtoburial.WhilecertainaspectsofthesymbolicmeaningofthemegalithicmonumentsofwesternEuropehavebeensuggested(essentiallythattheyevokedhouses),itisinsufficientsimplytocatalogueformalsimilarities.Howevermanypointsofcomparisoncanbefoundbetweentombsandhouses,furthersupportforthehypothesiscanbeprovidediftheformsbeingdiscussedcanbeplacedwithinasocialcontext.Inotherwords,thehypotheticalsymbolicmeaningcarriesgreaterconvictionifitcanbeseentoplayapartwithinadevelopingworldofpractice.Itisnecessarytoconsiderwhytombswerebuiltlikehouses.Ifthesymbolicevocationcanberecognisedtoplayanactivepartwithinthesocietiesbeingconsidered,itbecomesstillmoreunreasonabletorejecttheformalsimilaritiesascoincidental.Thecloselinkbetweenformandfunction,historyandprocessishereapparent.Anyrestrictionofthestudytoonesideoftheunityisinadequate.Thenexttask,then,istoexaminetheplaceofthelonghouseswithintheearlyandmiddleNeolithicsocietiesofcentralandeast-centralEurope.Itwillthenbepossibletoreturntothelongburialmounds,andconsiderwhattheymighthaveevokedandhowtheymighthavefunctionedideologicallyintheirownsocialcontext.LONGHOUSESANDCENTRALEUROPEANSOCIETYBecauseoccupationandhabitationhorizonshaverarelysurvivedincentralEuropeansettlementsitisdifficulttoassessthefunctionscarriedoutinthedifferentsectionsoftheNeolithiclonghouses.InthetrapezoidalhouseatPostoloprty,Bohemia,fourhearthshavebeenidentifiedintheinnerroom(Figure9:1andSoudsky1969),butthereislittleotherdirectandreliableevidence.Inferenceconcerningthefunctionofthree-andtwo-roomedlonghousesincentralEuropehasthereforebeenbasedonsmallerhousesofthefourthandthirdmillenniabcincentralEuropeandadjacentareas.Forexample,inthetwo-roomedhousesatAichbühlandRiedsachsenontheFederseemoor(Schmidt1930–6) Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology56aclayovengenerallyoccurredintheouterroomintheinnerright-handcornerwithanopenhearthimmediatelyinfrontofit.Intheinnerroomtherewasalsoanovenoranopenhearth,generallyagainstthepartitiontotherightofthedoor.AhearthorovenoccursinbothroomsattheTripolyesettlementatAriuşdinTransylvania.AtNiederwilinthePfyncultureinSwitzerlandintheearlythirdmillennium,thirtyone-ortwo-roomedhouseshavehearthsinsideoneorbothrooms(WaterbolkandVanZeist1978).AtKaranovoinBulgaria,bythethirdmillenniumbcatripartitedivisionofthehousesoccurs.Soudsky(1969)suggeststhattheantechamberhasareligiousfunctionbecauseoftheoccurrenceoffigurines,thelargecentralroomisforthemainhabitation,andtheinnerroomhascookingfunctionsasindicatedbythefindsofgrindingstones,storagejarsandhearths.AsChildewasalreadyabletoremarkinhis1949reviewofhousetypesintemperateEurope,thetimberbuildingsnorthoftheBalkanshavebeencomparedwiththemegaraoflateNeolithicThessally‘adnauseam’.Soudsky(1969)hasre-emphasisedthesimilaritiesinthebipartitewithsmallfrontroomandtripartiteplans,particularlyinthepresenceofa‘forecourt’entrancearea.Overall,SoudskysuggeststhattheLBK,SBK,RössenandLengyelrectangularandtrapezoidallonghouseshadafrontantechamber,amaincentralroom,andabackstore.IntheverydifferentsettlementofSkaraBraeontheOrkneyIslands,theentranceleadsintosingle-roomedhouses,withthemainoccupationareainthecentrearoundthehearth,andthemainstorageareaattherear(Childe1931;Hodder1982c).Thefunctionstowhichparticularroomswereputwillhavevariedthroughtimeandspace,butthemainpointtobeemphasisedhereisthatalinearorganisationofspaceandofactivitiesoccurred,fromthefronttotheback.TheentranceoffourthandthirdmillenniahousesincentralEuropewas,asfaraswecanobserve,universallyinoneoftheshortersides.Fromthere,aseriesofroomsanddifferencesinactivityledtothebackenclosedendofthehouse.AtAriusdtheinnerroomisratherhigherthantheouterroom(Childe1949b).ItisofinterestthatintheLBKhousesitisoftenonlythebackend(thenorthwestend)thathasacontinuousbeddingtrench.Spaceisgradedfromfronttobackinthatthebackcannotbereachedexceptbygoingthroughthefrontroomsoractivityareas.Thelongrectangularandtrapezoidalshapesreinforcethegradedsequence.Elaborationoftheentranceareanotedinthehouses,furtheremphasisesthedistinctionbetweenafrontorpublicareaandtheinnerrecessesofthehouses.Thetrapezoidalshapeitself,withtheentranceatthebroaderofthetwoshortends,bringsthefrontintoprominenceinrelationtotheback.Anumberoftrapezoidallonghouses,forexampleatPostoloprty,BylanyandBochum-Hiltrop,haveanalcoveontherightafterentering,betweentheantechamberandcentralroom.AtPostoloprtythealcoveoccursatthepointwherearitualfoundationdepositwasfound.Inthefoundationtrenchwererecoveredastoneboxmadeofgrindingstonescontainingpottery,abonepin,andbonesincludingapig’sskull.Soudsky(1969)hassuggestedthatthesmallalcovethushadaritualfunctionandhasdrawnparallelswiththeritualanimaldepositsintheTripolyeculture.Throughtime,thesizeandelaborationofhousesincreaseandthengraduallydecrease.Ithasalreadybeennotedthatbytheendofthefourthmillenniumsmallrectangularhouses,stillwiththetripartiteorbipartitedivisionandentranceatashortend,occurincentralEurope.Inthelatefourthandearlythirdmillenniasmalltwo-roomedhouses Burials,houses,womenandmen57occurintheMichelsbergculture,butformuchofthethirdmillennium,smallunicellularhousesaremorecommoninHorgenandBadencontextsandinBritainandintheTRBcultureinAtlanticEurope.Thelatterhousesshowlittleelaborationandcomplexityofthedomesticcontext,andthereislessoftheearlierseparationofactivities.AnotheraspectofthedomesticcontexttowhichthearchaeologisthasreadyaccessinthecentralEuropeanNeolithicispottery.Howeverproduced,themajorityofthepotteryseemstohavehadadomesticuseanditoccursrichlyinassociationwithhouses.ModelsofpotsinusewithinhousesareknownfromsoutheastEurope(Childe1949b;Clark1952),andthesimilaritybetweendesignsfoundonpotsandonhouseshasalreadybeendescribed.ThroughoutEuropethereisacleartrendforthegradualdisappearanceofelaborate,decoratedpotteryintheperiodunderconsideration,inlinewiththegradualdisappearanceoflargeandcomplexhousestructures.IntheDanubianareasintheearlyNeolithicthereismuchfine,decoratedand,inthesoutheast,paintedpottery.ThecomplexityandrichnessoftheLBKpotteryatfirstincreasesthroughtime(Hodder1982b)anddecoratedpotterycontinuesin,forexample,theRössenculture.ButbythetimeoftheMichelsbergcultureinthelatefourthandearlythirdmillenniabc,decoratedpotteryisrare.AsimilarsequencehasbeennotedinHungary(Sherratt1982).TheearlyKörösphasehasdispersedsettlementandnon-complexpottery,butthepotteryofthefollowingTiszaphaseiselaborate,associatedwithlonghousesanddefendedaggregatedsettlement.IntheensuingTiszapolgarphasepotteryislittledecoratedandhousesaresmallanddispersed.IntheParisBasin,decoratedpotteryoccursinassociationwithlonghousesbutisrareinthefollowingChasseyandSOMphaseswhenthesubstantiallonghousesarenolongerfound.InBrittanypotterydecorationismoreelaborateintheearlyphases(L’Helgouach1965).TheincreaseandthengradualdisappearanceofdecorationandformalcomplexityintheTRBsequencehasbeendocumentedindetailfortheNetherlands(Hodder1982b).InJutland,Denmark,Gebauer(1978)hasnotedthatritualvesselformslikeclayladlesandpedestalledbowlsareonlypresentintheearlypartofthemiddleNeolithicTRBandtheamountoffineornamentedpotterygraduallyreduces.Converselythestoragevesselsincreasemarkedlythroughtime.Goingfartherafield,theearlyNeolithicpotteryinsouthFranceislargelyrestrictedtofine,decoratedwares.Similarly,inCalabriainsouthItaly,theearlyStentinellopotteryisfineandrichlydecorated,butthroughtimetheamountofcoarsepotterygraduallyincreasesandbytheDianaphaseinthethirdmillennium,potteryisplain.Ingeneral,then,theNeolithicofthelatefifthandfourthmillenniaincentralEurope,incontrasttothethirdmillennium,ischaracterisedbygraduallyincreasingelaborationofthedomesticcontextthroughtheorganisationofspaceandactivities,ritualanddecoration.Itisnowpossibletoconsiderthisdomesticsymbolicelaboration,andthusthesignificanceofthelonghouses,inthecontextofcentralEuropeanNeolithicsociety.Itiswidelyacceptedthatsocialgroupswereatthistimesmall-scale,largelyacephalous,althoughwithsomedegreeofdifferentiationbetweenlineagesgraduallyemerging.Settlementpatternevidenceshowsthegradualincreaseinsizeofsmall,dispersedpopulationunits.Bythelatefourthandthirdmillenniavillages,oftendefended,occurbutthedegreeofinternalsocialdifferentiationinsettlementandburialremainsslight.Asaresultofethnoarchaeologicalstudiesonsmall-scale,dispersed,acephalouslineagegroupsineastAfrica,andasaresultofmoregeneralcomparativestudies,ithas Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology58beenpossibletosuggestthehypothesisthat‘insmall-scalelineage-basedsocietiesinwhichthemajorconcernistoincreaselabourpower,thecontrolofwomenbymenandthenegotiationofpositionbywomenwillbecomethedominantfeatureofsocialrelationsandwillofteninvolveculturalelaborationofthedomesticsphere’(Hodder1985,157).Thishypothesisinvolvestworelationshipswhichneedtobeexplained.Thefirstconcernsthelinkbetweendomesticsymboliccomplexityandmale-femalenegotiationofsocialposition,andthesecondconcernsthelinkbetweenmale-femalerelationshipsandthecontrolofreproduction.IntheBaringodistrictinKenya,itwasnotedthatcontainersweredecorated,housecompoundswerelargeandtheinternalarrangementofhouseswascomplexinareasandinsocietiesinwhichlineagegroupsweretryingtoexpandandtocompetewithothergroupsthroughincreasedreproduction.Therestrictingresourcewaslabourratherthanland,andwomenasreproducerscouldnegotiatesocialpositionbutmenwereconcernedtocontrolwomenandtheirreproduction.Putmoregenerally,thematernalandpaternallinescompetedforthecontrolofoffspringandlabourpower.Womenoccupiedafocalpointinthistension,asthereproducersoflabour,anditwasintermsofthecontrolofwomenandthedomesticcontextandintermsofthenegotiationofpowerbywomenthatsocialconflictandmuchmaterialpatterningdeveloped.Thedomesticcontextwasthescenefortheplayingoutofcompetitionbetweenlineagesbasedonthecontrolofwomen,andwomenusedsuchstrategiesasthedecorationoffoodcontainersinordertodrawattentiontoandincreasetheirfocalrole.Arelatedargument,withdirectrelevancetothetypeofuseofspaceidentifiedinthisstudy,ismadebyDonley(1982).TheSwahilihousesontheeastAfricancoast(andsimilartoIslamichousesinseveralpartsoftheworld)areinternallydividedintoalinearsequenceofrooms.Oneentersatoneoftheshorterendsofthehouseandproceedsthroughtheroomstotheback.Theroomsarehigherasonemovesinwards,andtheybecomemoreprivateandsecluded.Decorationisusedtoprotectareasofdefilement.DonleydemonstratesthattheelaborationoftheSwahilidomesticcontextisconcernedwithcontroloverwomenandofthepurityofdescentgroups.WhilethewidersocialandpoliticalcontextoftherecenteastAfricancoastdiffersmarkedlyfromthecentralEuropeanNeolithic,alinkbetweendomesticsymbolicelaborationandthepositionofwomenhasbeenrecognisedinawiderangeofsocietiesfromBraithwaite’s(1982)studyinsouthSudan,toOkely’s(1975)interpretationofGypsysociety,andtotheSouthAmericangroupsexaminedbyHugh-Jones(1979).Althoughitwouldbedifficulttoplacemuchrelianceontheseethnographicanalogieswithoutacarefulconsiderationofthecontextsinvolved,thewidespreadrelationshipbetweenvaryingelaborationofthedomesticcontextandthevaryingpositionofwomenissuggestive.ThissuggeststhatthetypeoforganisationofspacefoundinthelonghousesofcentralEuropeislikelytobelinkedtosocialstrategiesofcontrolandseclusion.Wearenotdealingherewithhousesorroomswithmultipleaccess,withcourtyardplansoragglomerationsofsinglerooms.Innerroomscanonlybereachedthroughouterrooms,inalinearsequence.Theinnerroomsaresecludedandaccessiscontrolled.Also,houseandpotterydecorationdrawsattentiontothedomesticspaceandtofoodanddrinkwhichmustatleastpartlyhavebeenpreparedbywomen.Thepreparationandprovisionoffoodinthedomesticcontext,foradultsandoffspring,has Burials,houses,womenandmen59greatsymbolicpotentialinanysocietyconcernedwiththereproductionandexpansionofitslabourpowerandwiththecontroloveritsreproductiveandproductivepotential.Theelaborationofthedomesticworldaspartofmale-femalerelation-shipsoccurscross-culturallyinavarietyofdifferentsocialcontexts.ButintheearlyNeolithicofcentralEuropearelevantcontextisimmediatelyapparent.Settlementinitiallyspreadintorelativelyemptybutrichandeasilyworkedareasofloesssoil.Itisclearthatlabour,notlandwouldhavebeenthelimitingresource.Competitionbetweengroupswouldhavebeenintermsofcontroloverreproduction.Productivesuccesswouldhavedependedonwomenasreproducers,anddescentgroupswouldcompeteforthecontrolofthelabourpowerofoffspring.Inallthis,womenandthedomesticworldwouldhaveplayedacentralrole,thefociofsocialtensions.Theelaborationofthematerialculturewaspartofthestrategiesofmenandwomen,throughmaternalandpaternallines,toobtainaccesstolabour.Asthesocialprocessoflineagecompetitionbuiltupthroughtime,controlofwomeninthehouseandsettlement,andthusofdescentandlabour,wouldhaveassumedanincreasedimportance,withwomenasthefocalpointsofreproductionandexchange.Throughtime,housesbecamemoresubstantial(Sherratt1982),potterymoredecorated,figurinesmoreelaborate(ibid.).Theagglomerationofsettlements,aprocessseeninthefourthmillenniuminmanypartsofcentralEurope,notonlyallowedgreatercontroloverwomenanddescent,butalsoallowedcooperationbetweenwomenleadingtoagreaterneedtosecludeandcontrolthemthroughtheorganisationofhousespace.Throughthelatefifthandearlyfourthmillenniaallaspectsofmaterialculturefrompotteryandhousestofigurinesandsettlementorganisationdemonstrateattemptstousematerialstonaturaliseandmarkoutthepositionofwomeninthedomesticcontext.Inthiswaythecentralimportanceandpowerofwomenasreproducersandasthenodesoflinkstootherlineageswasemphasisedbuttheywerealsosecludedandcontrolled.Themultivalent,ambiguousnatureofmaterialculturewasplayedtothefull.Bythelatefourthandthirdmillennia,however,thereisincreasedevidencefor‘fillingup’oftheenvironment,furtherexpansionofsettlementontolessproductivesoils,theuseoftheploughandincreaseduseofsecondaryanimalproducts(Sherratt1981).Gradually,throughtime,landbecamethemajorlimitingresource,notlabour.AsGoody(1976)andIngold(1980)havenoted,insocieties(suchashoeagriculturalistsandmilchpastoralists)wheretheamountofresourcesinthepossessionofaproductiveunitisadirectfunctionoflaboursupply,therewillbelittleattempttorestrictinheritancetoparticulardescentlinesand,aswehaveseen,competitionbetweendescentlinesforthecontroloveroffspringwillleadtomultipledescentclaimsandaffiliationsofindividuals.Butwhere(asamongstploughagriculturalists)thereisascarcityofproductiveresourcesratherthanlabour,therewillbeapressuretorestrictthenumberofdependantsinahouseholdandtoconfinetherangeofpotentialheirstodirectdescendants.Thusaslandbecamethecriticalresourceasaresultofthecompetitionbetweendescentgroups,womenwouldhavelessabilitytonegotiatetheirsocialpositionsincetheywouldnolongerbeatthefocusofthecompetingclaimsbetweendescentlinesforthecontrolofoffspring.Thedomesticcontextwouldnolongerberelevantasaforumforsymbolicelaboration.Housesdecreaseinsizeandbecomesimpleinconstructionandcontent,potteryisplain,theroleofwomeninthedomesticcontext(butnotnecessarilyinotherspheres)isdevalued. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology60Fromanotherpointofview,thedecreaseinhousesizeandtheremovalofdecorationfromthedomesticcontextcanbeseenasanactiveprocess.The‘closing’oflineagegroupsandtherestrictionofdescentmustinvolvestrategiesoflegitimationinordertoexcludecertainindividualsfrominheritanceandaccesstoresources.Theremovalofelaborationfromthedomesticcontextdevaluesthewomanasreproducerandtheclaimstoinheritancemadethroughwomen.Theremovalofcomplexityfromdomesticspaceandfrompotterydecorationhelpstoestablishabsolutecontrolofdescentlinesbylineageheads.Thewomanislessabletouseherpositionasreproducertopromotecompetingclaimsfromothergroups.Itwouldbeofinterest,inviewoftheabovehypothesis,toexaminechangesinpotteryproductioninthelatefourthandthirdmillenniabc.Forexample,theuniformityoftheplainChassey,Michelsberg,Dianaandotherpotterymayprovetoindicatespecialistandcentralisedproduction,andPeacock(1969)hasdemonstratedpetrologicallythecentralisedmanufactureofplainHemburywareinsouthwestEngland.Sincesuchincreasesinthescaleandorganisationofproductionareoftenlinkedtoshiftstomalepotters(Balfet1966),itwouldbepossibletoseethechangesinthethirdmillenniumasinvolvingremovalofpotteryanditsassociatedsymbolismfromthedomesticsphereofproductioninordertoincreasemaledominanceandcontrol.However,muchworkremainstobedoneontheorganisationofNeolithicpottery-productionbeforesuchanhypothesiscanbeentertained.IthasbeensuggestedthatthelonghousesofcentralEuropewerelargeandelaborateandwereinternallyorganisedsothattheyplayedapartinthecompetitionbetweendescentgroupsforthecontroloverreproductionandlabour.Themajordivisioninthehousesbetweenentranceandinterior,betweenoutsideandinsideispartofthestrategyofseclusionbymenofwomenandcontrolofmaternalties.Thetrapezoidalformhasbeenexplainedaspartofthesamecontrasts,frontagainstback.Soudsky(1969)suggeststhatthetrapezoidalshapegivesabetteraerodynamicqualityagainstincreasedwinds.ThereislittleevidenceforchangesinNeolithicwindspeedandsuchanhypothesiscarrieslittleconvictioninrelationtothetrapezoidalshapeofthelongbarrows.Climaticargumentshavealsobeensuggestedfortheorientationoflonghouses.Marshall(1981)showsthatmodernwinddirectionsareconsiderablymorevariedthanarethelonghouseorientations,butreconstructionsofcentralandeasternEuropeanNeolithicwindpatternshavesuggestedapredominanceofnorthwesterlies.However,evenifwinddirectionispartoftheexplanationofthelonghouseorientations,therelationshipbetweenhouse,windandorientationcouldhavebeeninvestedwithfurthersignificance.Certainlytheequivalentorientationofmanylongmounds,theconstructionsofwhicharelesslikelytohavebeenharmedbyweatherandwind,arguesthattheplacingofthehousesandmoundswassignificant.Relationshipstothewinds,sun,moonorstarscouldhaveproducedahigherauthority,anaturalisationofthesocialprocessescentredonthehouseitself.LONGMOUNDSItisnowpossibletoreturntoAtlanticEuropeandtoconsiderthesocialcontextofthe Burials,houses,womenandmen61longburialmounds.ThespreadoffarmingintowesternEuropefromcentralEuropeandtheMediterraneanoccurredmainlyinthelaterfourthandthirdmillenniaaspartoftheprocessofinfillandintensificationnotedabove(Whittle1977).Thereisevidenceofploughingunderbarrowsanditseemslikelythatarangeofsecondaryanimalproductswasinuse,allowingoccupationofawidervarietyofenvironments.Inlinewiththehypothesisalreadypresented,housesaresmallandthereislittleelaborationofdomesticspace.AnumberofindividualhutsareknowninBritain,andatKnardrup,Denmark,anearlyNeolithicTRBsettlementconsistedofthreesmallsingle-celledhouses(Larsen1957).Initially,however,thereislikelytohavebeenaconcerntoincreasereproductionandlabourpower.InthefirststagesofagriculturaldevelopmentaspectsofthedomesticcontextsuchaspotterymayhavebeenmarkedoutandemphasisedaspartoftheprocessesalreadyoutlinedandtheearlyappearanceofdecoratedpotteryinScandinaviaandBrittanyhasbeenmentioned.Generally,however,theAtlanticfacadeischaracterisedbypoorandcrudelydecoratedorundecoratedpotteryinrelationtothewaresofcentralandsoutheastEurope,andthoseareaswithdecoratedpotterychangetoplainerpotteryduringthethirdmillennium.Accordingtothemodelsusedinthisstudy,theAtlanticNeolithicshouldincludesocietiesinwhichthelimitingresourceisproductiveandinwhichattemptsaremadetorestrictandcontroldescent.ItisinthesametermsthatthelongmoundsaredescribedbyChapman.ButitisnowpossibletoreconsidertheseburialmonumentsinthelightofthesymbolicassociationswithcentralEuropeanlonghouses.ThetransferenceoftheNeolithichouseformtowesternEuropeanburialinvolvedalargenumberofspecificandcomplexsymbolicmeaningswhichmustaffectthewaythefunctionsofthetombsareinterpreted.Theassociationbetweenthehouseformandmale-femalerelationshipsisstrengthenedbyaconsiderationofthetombs.Herethesurvivingart,whetherfromstonemonumentsinMaltaorFrance,showscleardepictionsofwomenandfemalebreasts.InthetombsoftheParisBasinshowninFigure11,thesedepictionsareoftensetbesidedrawingsofaxes,althoughthemaleconnotationsofthelattercannotbedemonstratedwithanycertainty.Otheraspectsofthetombsemphasisetheprinciplesalreadyidentified.Inparticulartheelaborationoftheentrancearea,thefacadesandforecourts,theclosingofthetombsandthedifferenceinritualandartifactsinsideandoutsidethetombsallindicatethesameconcernswithaninner/outerdichotomy,withcontrolandseclusion.Nomoreeloquenttestimonyofthelatterprinciplescouldbeprovidedthanthefalseportals.Innearlyalltypesofchamberedtombtheorganisationofspaceislargelysequentialandcontrolled,andseveralofthetemplesatTarxieninMaltahavethesamestructureashasbeenidentifiedforcentralEuropeanhouses—thereisanoveralltrapezoidalformasonemovesfromthelargefrontchamberstothesmallrearchambers.Butthelongmoundsarenothouses,theyaretombs.Theybringtheabovesignificationtothecontextoftheancestors,deathandthepast.Alsothecontextisnotoneofeverydayexperience.Thelongmoundsformaseparateritualcontext.Linkscanbemade,then,betweenthecontrolofreproduction,ancestorsandritual.Butthereareotheraspectsofthetombsandtheburialritualwhichneedtobeincludedinanyexplanation.Thefirstinvolvescommunalityandparticipation.Thelabourinvolvedintheconstruictionofstoneandearthtombsitselfinvolvesparticipationbythegroupanditisforthisreason,and Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology62becauseoftheirmonumentality,thattheyhavebeenseenassocialandterritorialfoci.Participationisalsoseeninotheraspectsofthetombs.InparticularthepartitioningofthemoundsatSouthStreetandBarkaer,forexample,hassuggestedthedivisionoftheconstructiontaskbetweendifferentworkgroups.Similarly,thediscontinuousnatureofthelongbarrowditchesatWorBarrowandelsewhere(Ashbee1970,47)recallsthediscontinuousconstructionofcausewayedenclosuresinBritainandthesuggestionmadebyStartinandBradley(1981)thatdifferenttaskgroupswereinvolved.Ashaslongbeenrecognised,thetombsareusuallycommunalinnatureandprovideaspecialfocusforthegroupasawhole.Therearrangementofskeletalremainsandthe‘mixing’ofbonescanagainbeseenasdenyingandresolvingwithin-groupdifferences.Itcanevenbesuggested,followingLévi-Strauss(1969),thattheremovaloffleshfrombonesmaybeassociatedwithrelationshipsbetweenthematernalandpaternalsides,withcontinuityandorder(Rowlands1980,51).Asecondaspectofthesymbolismofthetombsconcernstheirorientation.Asalreadydescribed,manyofthelongtombsarealignedaxiallysothattheentrancesfacetothesoutheast.TheClavapassagegravesarealignedtocertainpositionsofthemoonandsun(Burl1981).ThereisnoneedtoevokeNeolithicastronomer-priestsandmathematiciansforgeneralrelationshipsto,forexample,therisingsun.Theconcernwithtimeandwiththemovementsofthesunandmooninrelationtoburialandthemundaneworldprovideahigherauthorityforthesocialstrategiessymbolisedandmediatedinthetombs.Theorientationtothesunandmoonprovidedanaturalisationofthesocialorder.Havingoutlinedvariouscomponentsofthesymbolismofthelongburialmoundsitisnowpossibletoseehowtheymayhavebeenusedinsocialstrategies.IthasbeensuggestedthataninitialconcernofsocialunitsinAtlanticEuropeinthelatefourthandearlythirdmillenniamayhavebeentocontrolwomenasreproducers.IntheearlystagesoftheAtlanticNeolithic,strategiessimilartothoseoutlinedforcentralEuropemayhavebeenfollowed.Butthroughtime,againasincentralEurope,extra-lineagetiesestablishedthroughwomenwouldhavebeenrestrictedandcontrolled,andithasbeenshownthatareaswhichdohavedecoratedpotteryintheearlyphasesoftheNeolithic(TRBinScandinaviaandHollandforexample)graduallyloseelaboratedecoration.ButinAtlanticEuropeinbothearlyandlaterphases,thepositionofwomenisemphasisedinthecontextofcommunalritual,outsidethedomesticsphere.Herewomenaredepictedandthedomestic‘house’contextiselaborated.Womenasreproducers,asthesourceandfocusofthelineage,areherecelebrated.Butonlyinthehouseoftheancestorsdoesthisoccur,inacontextinwhichcommunalparticipationisstressed,andinwhichdifferencesaredenied.Domestichousesthemselves,andinsomeareaspottery,arerarelyelaborate.Womenasreproducersandtheirpositioninthedomesticcontextare,inthecontextofritual,appropriatedforthelineageasawhole.Theirservicesareforthelineagealoneandthiscontrolislegitimatedbytheancestorsandbyhigherauthorities.TheabovehypothesisisseenasplausiblebecauseitaccountsfortherichnessandcomplexityofmegalithicburialritualandforotheraspectsofthedatafromtheNeolithicofEurope.Thereisapotentialforthecollectionandconsiderationoffurtherdatatosupportorthrowdoubtonthehypothesis.Inparticular,moreinformationisneededoneconomicsubsistencestrategies,ontheorganisationofcraftproduction,ontheinternalorganisationofhouses,onpotterydesign,onthesymbolismofaxesandsoon.Ihavenot Burials,houses,womenandmen63consideredtheevidencefromthesoutheastofEurope,orthesignificanceoffigurines.Butthestepssofartakenindicateatleastthepotentialofanapproachwhichintegratesthestudyofmeaningandfunction.Otherexplanationsarenotsomuchwrongaslimited.Ihavetried,inthissection,toincorporatereferencetoexistingtheoriesconcerningwesternNeolithicburialandsociety.Itispossibletoseenowwhyandhowcollectivemonumentalburialsactedasterritorialmarkersandlegitimatedaccesstorestrictedresourcesandsuchargumentshavebeendevelopedandextendedbytheconsiderationofmeaningandanactivesocialcontext.OtherhypotheseswhichcanbeincorporatedconcernthedevelopmentofsocialhierarchyinrelationtomegalithsinAtlanticEurope(Renfrew1979;Shennan1982).InreferencetotheOrkneyNeolithic,ithasbeensuggestedthatacentralisedhierarchydevelopedthroughthecontrolofritualswhichwererepresentedasbeingforthesocietyasawhole(Hodder1982c).Byrepeatinginoneritualcentrethepatternsofactivityfoundwithindispersedgroups,themajorhengesandthosecontrollingtheritualsinthehengescouldrisetodominance.Itwasthroughtheappropriationofritualsforthelargersocietythatindividuallineagescouldcometodominateothers(cf.Friedman1975).Similarly,inwesternEuropegenerally,eachburialmoundformedthefocusformembersofadescentgroup.Becausetheburialhousewasthehouseofthewholedescentgroup,thosesectionsofalineagemostcloselylinkedtotheburialritualcouldrisetodominancethroughtheideologyofcommunalcare.Theeldersorsub-groupsmostcloselyconnectedwiththetombscouldcontrolthereproductionandcontinuationofthelineageitselfandwouldbelegitimatednotonlybythesymbolismofreproduction,communalityanddenialofdifferences,butalsobyappealtohigher,‘natural’authorities.Inthelarger-scalecompetitionbetweentomb-centredlineagegroups,thosegroupswhichperformedandactedmorecompetentlyinrelationtothesymbolismandmeaningofthetombscouldalsocontrolandincreaseproductiveresourcesmoresuccessfullyandwouldbeabletorisetoasuperiorposition.AsShennan(1982)hasnoted,communalburialisinmanyareasassociatedwith,butalsomasks,increasingsocialdifferentiation.ATLANTICANDCENTRALEUROPECOMPAREDAsdescribedinthisarticleandintheworkof,forexample,Chapman(1981),Sherratt(1981)andWhittle(1977),similarsocialandeconomicdevelopmentsoccurredinwestandcentralEuropeduringtheNeolithic.InbothareascompetitionforproductiveratherthanreproductiveresourcesbecamethemajorconcerninthelatefourthandthirdmillenniaBC.Thereiswidespreadevidenceforsettlementinfill,expansionofsettlementintolessproductiveareas,andintensificationasseenintheuseoftheploughandsecondaryanimalproducts.Inbothareas,asdescribedbythemodelofIngold(1980)andGoody(1976)andutilisedinthisstudy,attemptsweremadeinconjunctionwiththesedevelopmentstorestrictinheritanceandto‘close’lineagegroups.WhythenarelongmoundspartoftheseprocessesinAtlanticEurope,butnotincentralEurope?OnetypeofexplanationfortheoccurrenceoflongmoundburialinAtlanticbutnotcentralEuropeconcernsecologicalconditions.ThegreatervarietyofsubsistenceresourcesavailableintheAtlanticzone(Clarke1976)mayhaveledtodifferent Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology64adaptationsandthemegalithicmonumentscouldbeseenaspartofa‘technocomplex’(Madsen1979).IthasbeenshownabovethatargumentsforhigherpopulationdensityinAtlanticEurope,leadingtogreaterstressandcompetitionandhencetomegaliths,havelittlesoundbasis.Thereis,however,somegroundforviewingmonumentalmoundburialasbeinglinkedtogreatermobilityofsettlementinAtlanticEurope.Jarman,BaileyandJarman(1982)havedocumentedthefrequentoccurrenceofcommunalburialmoundsinareasoflowarablepotential,includingthelimestoneplateauxofsouthernFranceandithasbeensuggestedthatthetombsintheNetherlandsprovidedafocusfordispersedandrelativelymobilegroups.Withinsuchanhypothesis,thetombsashouseswouldbeappropriatesymbolsofcontinuity,stabilityandthelineageitself.Ontheotherhand,thereislittleevidencethatanysignificantdifferenceexistedbetweendegreesofdispersalincentralandwesternEuropebythethirdmillenniumbc.Asalreadynoted,bythelatefourthandthirdmillenniabc,settlementhadexpanded,amorevariedsuiteofenvironmentswasinuse,andevidenceforlong-termstableoccupationisinfrequent.ItisdifficulttoargueforanymajordifferenceineconomicadaptationincentralandAtlanticEuropeatthistime.Equally,monumentalburialoccursinagreatvarietyofecologicalcontextsinAtlanticEurope.Forexample,insouthernSwedenClark(1977)notesmegalithictombsonbothhigh-qualityandonverypoorsoilassociatedwiththeuseofcoastalresources.TombsconnectedwithalargelyfishingeconomyareknownfromtheScillyIsles(Clark1980,98)andfromCarrowmore,Ireland(Burenhult1980a;1980b;1981).Frequently,however,theyoccurinpredominantlyagriculturalcontexts.Itisnotpossibletoseemegalithsaslinkedtoanyonesubsistencestrategy,inanyoneenvironment.Evenifsucharelationshipweretobesubstantiated,itisnotpossibletoderiveaburialritualdirectlyfromatypeofsubsistence.ThetypesofadaptationthatoccurredinAtlanticEuropewereenabledbythesameframeworkofmeaningthatproducedthetombs,andatwo-wayinteractionbetweencultureandecologymustbeassumed.AtlanticEuropeischaracterisedbyaseriesofburialandothertraitswhichgotomakeupatraditionwhichneedstobeexplainedinitsownterms,initsownhistoricalcontext.Thisisnottosaythatastaticsetofideasdeterminedtheproductionoflongbarrows,sincewehaveseenhowthesymbolismofthetombsandofpotterywasactivelyinvolvedinsocialchange,asamediumforaction.Itmaybehelpfultoconsiderthehistoricaltraditionasa‘copingsystem’whichenabled,butwasalsochangedby,practicaldecisionsandtheireffects.ItispossibletoargueinIberia,Brittany,England,IrelandandScandinaviaforsomelocalcontributiontotheemergenceofmegalithicburial.TheimportantevidencefromHoëdicandTeviecinBrittanyforaMesolithicoriginforaspectsofthemegalithicandcommunalburialtraditionisunderlinedbytheuncalibratedC14dateof4625±300bcfromHoëdic.AtTeviecinhumationsingraveswithuptosixindividualsarefoundinclearmausoleawithpilesofstonesonthebodies,whileatHoëdicsmallslabsofstoneswereplacedoverthegraves(PequartandPequart1954).Thereisevidenceinbothplacesfortheadditionofbodiesandremovingearlierbonesintoapilewithaskullontop,inthestyleofmanyNeolithicmegalithicrituals.AlthoughevidenceforMesolithicburialislimited,itwouldbepossibletoargueforanearliertraditionofvariousaspectsofthe Burials,houses,womenandmen65megalithicburialritualinAtlanticEurope.ButthedifferencebetweenAtlanticandcentralEuropedoesnotonlyconcerntheuseofmegaliths.MonumentalburialinvolvesanemphasisonritualoutsidethedomesticcontextwhichisalsoseeninotherspheresandinothertimesinAtlanticEurope.TheprecisenatureoftheritualactivitiesatEnglishcausewayedcampsisyettobedeterminedbutwasfrequentlyonanimpressivescale(Mercer1980).InScandinavia,settlementsarenotknowninsidecausewayedcamps(Madsen1977).ThegeneraltraditionofmajorritualmonumentscontinuesintothelatethirdmillenniumandthesecondmillenniuminBritainwherehengesactasdistinctiveritualcentreswithvaryingdegreesofoccupationalactivity.FromCarnactoStonehengeandtothe‘temples’ofMalta,AtlanticEuropeischaracterisedbyaninvestmentinseparate,nondomesticritualwhichiswhollyalientothecentralEuropeantradition.InthelatterareaandinsoutheastEurope,‘ritual’intheformoffigurines,foundationdepositsandshrinesdoesoccur,butwithinhousesandsettlements,closelylinkedtothedomesticcontext.InAtlanticEuropetheritualisoutsidethedomesticcontext,oratleastitextendsintoaseparatesphereonwhichmostoftheartandculturalelaborationoftencentre.Ihaveshownhowthesedifferencesinthetraditionsofthetwoareaswererelatedtogenerallysimilarsocialstrategies.Inotherwords,tworatherdifferentcopingsystemsweredescribed,andtheseinvolvedsimilarsuccessfuladaptationsinthetworegions.Therealsoseemstobeevidenceforcontinuityinthetraditionfromearlierintolatertimesandamajorconcernmustbetoexaminethelonger-termhistoricalcontinuities.Shennan(1982)hasnoteddifferencesinthedevelopmentofhierarchyandintheadoptionofmetallurgyinthetwoareas.Inaddition,IfinditprovocativeandpotentiallyexcitingtonotethatintheUpperPalaeolithicinEuropepaintedcavesarefoundinwesternEuropebutnotincentralEuropedespitecarefulresearchinthelatterarea,despitetheexistenceofappropriatecaves,anddespitetheoccurrenceofportableartindomesticcontextsincentralEurope.UpperPalaeolithiccaveartislargelyconfinedtoAtlanticEuropeandoftenoccursinclearlynondomesticcontexts,incavesandpartsofcaveswhicharenotusedforhabitation.OthersimilaritiesinthetraditionwhichcanbeexaminedarethatthePalaeolithicartusesmethodswhichdemonstrateparticipation(Marshak1977)andtheresolvingofdifferences(Conkey1982).Clearlytheidentificationofthesecontinuitiesrequiresfurtherresearchandfurtherpapers,butthepossibilityexistsofidentifyinglong-termculturaltraditionswhichareactivelyimplicatedinsocialchange.CONCLUSIONIntheaboveaccountthemegalithshavebeenplacedwithinasocialcontext.ThisarticlethuscontinuesinthedirectionstakenbyRenfrew,Chapman,FlemingandReed.However,therearetwodifferencesfromsuchwork.First,Ihavenotbeenconcernedsimplywiththegeneralappearanceofsocieties—territorialbehaviourandtheuseofrestrictedresources.Allsocietieshavesuchcharacteristics,butcompetitionandaccesstoresourcesvarystructurallyindifferentsocieties.Inthisarticle,followingGoodyandIngold,Ihaveusedamodelthat,intheEuropeanNeolithic,competitionwasinitially Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology66basedoncontrolofreproductionbutlaterproductiveratherthanreproductiveresourcesbecamethelimitingfactor.IthasbeensuggestedthattheseorganisationaldifferencesareassociatedintheNeolithicwithchangesinpatternsofinheritance,intherelationsbetweenmaternalandpaternalclaimsonoffspringandresources,andintherelationsbetweenmenandwomen.Themodelallowsthemundaneandubiquitousarchaeologicalevidenceofhousesandpotstobeincorporateddirectlyinmodelsofsocialchange.Theseartifactsactideologicallyinthesensethattheyareinvolvedinobjectifyingandgivingmeaningtosocialstrategies.Inthefirstphasethedomesticcontextisthecentralfocusofcompetingclaimstoreproductiveresources.Materialcultureisusedtoformaworldinwhichwomenaretobeemphasised,celebratedbutcontrolledasreproducersofthelineage,andinwhichwomenandextra-lineagetieshaveacentralimportance.Inthesecondphasethedomesticcontextiswithdrawnfromitscentralfocusbychangesinmaterialculture,andthesechangesarepartofthedevelopingsocialcontrolofproductiveresources.Competingclaimstotheinheritanceofthoseresources,whetherlandorlivestock,arerestrictedbyde-emphasisinganddevaluingthedomesticcontext,theroleofwomenasreproducersandtheextra-lineageties.Inreachingsuchaconclusion,andinrelatingthehypothesistomegalithicburial,ithasbeennecessary,incontrasttopublished‘processual’studies,toconsidertheparticularhistoricalsignificanceofhouses,moundshapes,decorationandorientation,andthisistheseconddifferencefromthe‘processual’studiesofmegaliths.Individualscanonlyactsociallywithinideologieswhicharehistoricallycontingent.Theparticularsymbolismofartifactscanbeexaminedbyconsideringassociationsofformanduse,andbyshowingthatthesymbolicsignificancesinferred‘makesense’withinactivesocialstrategies.Ithasbeenpossibletoseethediffusionofanidea,ofastyleofconstruction,asasociallyactiveprocess.ThehouseformwhichdiffusedfromcentralEuropetoAtlanticEuropeanburialhadthesignificanceofadomesticcontextinwhichreproductivepotentialandthecontrolofthatpotentialweremarkedout.InAtlanticEurope,however,thissignificance,furtherelaboratedbytheuseofartdepictingwomen,wastransformed.Inaritualandancestralburialcontext,femalereproductionwasappropriatedbythelineageandcompetitionbetweenmaternalandpaternalclaimstoreproductiveandproductiveresourceswasresolvedinanon-domesticcontext.Allaspectsofburialandotherritualscanbelinkedtothesameconcernwithlegitimatingcontrolofreproductiveandproductiveresourcesthroughanideologyofcommunalworkandparticipationforthelineage.Ultimatelytheideology,thewayofcoping,associatedwiththemegalithsofwesternEuropecannotbeexplainedonlyintermsofsocialstrategiesandadaptivepotential.WhileideasandpracticesdiffusefromcentraltoAtlanticEurope,thelatterareatransformsthemeaningsandusesthesymbolisminratherdifferentways.WhileenvironmentaldifferencesbetweenAtlanticandcentralEuropecanbeidentified,thesuccessfuladaptationstothoseenvironmentscannotbeexplainedsolelyintermsofthoseadaptations.Thereismuchscopeforexaminingthevariedappearancesindifferenttimesandindifferentareasofthe‘style’oftheNeolithicoftheAtlanticfacade.Whileonlybriefreferencehasbeenmadetopossibilitiesofremarkablecontinuitiesin‘waysofdoingthings’inAtlanticEurope,itisnownecessarytoexaminefurtherthehistoricaltraditionwhichgivestheappearanceofmonumentalburialitsspecificity.Theplaying Burials,houses,womenandmen67outofthehistoricaltraditionofAtlanticEuropemustbeunderstoodpartlyinitsowntermsandthetaskisscarcelybegun.REFERENCESAshbee,P.(1970)TheEarthenLongBarrowinBritain,London:Dent.Bailloud,G.(1964)LeNeolithiquedansleBassinParisien,supplementtoGalliaPrehistoire2.Bakker,J.A.(1979)‘July1878:LukisandDrydeninDrente’,AntiquariesJournal59,9–18.Balfet,H.(1966)‘EthnographicobservationsinNorthAfricaandarchaeologicalinterpretationofthepotteryoftheMaghreb’,inF.R.Matson(ed.)CeramicsandMan,VikingFundPublicationinAnthropology4.Bogucki,P.andGrygiel,R.(1981)ThehouseholdclusteratBrzescKujawski3:small-sitemethodologyinthePolishlowlands’,WorldArchaeology13,59–72.Braithwaite,M.(1982)‘Decorationasritualsymbol:atheoreticalproposalandanethnographicstudyinsouthernSudan’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Burenhult,G.(1980a)TheArchaeologicalExcavationatCarrowmore,G.BurenhultsFörlag,Stockholm.——(1980b)TheCarrowmoreExcavations:ExcavationSeason1980,StockholmArchaeologicalReports7,InstituteofArchaeology,UniversityofStockholm.——(1981)TheCarrowmoreExcavations:ExcavationSeason1981,StockholmArchaeologicalReports8,InstituteofArchaeology,UniversityofStockholm.Burl,A.(1981)‘“Bythelightofthecinerarymoon”:chamberedtombsandtheastronomyofdeath’,inC.L.N.RugglesandA.W.R.Whittle(eds)AstronomyandSocietyinBritainDuringthePeriod4000–1500BC,BritishArchaeologicalReportsBritishSeries88.Case,H.(1969)‘SettlementpatternsintheNorthIrishNeolithic’,UlsterJournalofArchaeology32,3–27.Chapman,R.(1981)‘Theemergenceofformaldisposalareasandthe“problem”ofmegalithictombsinprehistoricEurope’,inR.Chapman,I.KinnesandJ.Randsborg(eds)TheArchaeologyofDeath,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Childe,V.G.(1925)TheDawnofEuropeanCivilisation,1stedn,London:KeganPaul.——(1931)SkaraBrae,London:KeganPaul.——(1949a)‘TheoriginofNeolithiccultureinnorthernEurope’,Antiquity23,129–35.——(1949b)‘Neolithichouse-typesintemperateEurope’,ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety15,77–85.——(1957)TheDawnofEuropeanCivilisation,6thedn,London:Routledge.Clark,J.G.D.(1952)PrehistoricEurope:theEconomicBasis,London:Methuen.——(1977)‘TheeconomiccontextofdolmensandpassagegravesinSweden’,inV.Markotic(ed.)AncientEuropeandtheMediterranean,Warminster:ArisandPhillips.——(1980)MesolithicPrelude,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology68Clarke,D.L.(1976)‘MesolithicEurope:theeconomicbasis’,inG.Sieveking,I.H.LongworthandK.Wilson(eds)ProblemsinEconomicandSocialArchaeology,London:Duckworth.ColtHoare,R.(1812)TheAncientHistoryofSouthWiltshire,London.Conkey,M.(1982)‘Boundednessinartandsociety’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Crawford,O.G.S.(1957)TheEyeGoddess,London:PhoenixHouse.Daniel,G.E.(1958)TheMegalithBuildersofWesternEurope,London.——(1965)‘Editorial’,Antiquity39.Donley,L.(1982)‘Housepower:Swahilispaceandsymbolicmarkers’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Fleming,A.(1972)‘Visionanddesign:approachestoceremonialmonumenttypology’,Man7,57–72.——(1973)Tombsfortheliving’,Man8,177–93.Friedman,J.(1975)Tribes,statesandtrasformations’,inM.Bloch(ed.)MarxistAnalysesandSocialAnthropology,London:MalabyPress.Gebauer,A.B.(1978)‘TheMiddleNeolithicFunnelBeakercultureinsouth-westJutland.Ananalysisofthepottery’,Kuml1978,117–57.Geupel,V.(1981)‘ZumVerhältnisSpätmesolithikum-FrühneolithikuminmettlerenElbe-Saale-Gebiet’,MesolithikuminEuropa.VeröffentlichungendesMuseumsfürUr-undFrühgeschichtePotsdam14/15,102–12.Gilman,A.(1976)‘BronzeAgedynamicsinsoutheastSpain’,DialecticalAnthropology1,307–19.Glob,P.V.(1949)‘Barkaer,Danmarksaeldstelandsby’,FraNationalmuseetsArbejdsmark1949,5–16.——(1975)‘Dedødeslangehuse’,Skalk1975,6.Goldstein,L.G.(1980)MississippianMortuaryPractices:aCaseStudyofTwoCemeteriesintheLowerIllinoisValley,NorthwesternUniversityArchaeologicalProgram,ScientificPapers4,Illinois:Evanston.Goody,J.(1976)ProductionandReproduction,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Günther,K.(1973)‘EineneueVariantedesmittelneolithischenTrapezhauses’,Germania51,41–53.Hodder,I.(1982a)‘Theoreticalarchaeology:areactionaryview’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1982b)‘SequencesofstructuralchangeintheDutchNeolithic’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1982c)SymbolsinAction,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1985)‘Boundariesasstrategies:anethnoarchaeologicalstudy’,inS.GreenandS.Perlman(eds)FrontiersandBoundariesinPrehistory,NewYork:AcademicPress.Hugh-Jones,C.(1979)FromtheMilkRiver,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Ingold,T.(1980)Hunters,PastoralistsandRanchers,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Jarman,M.R.,Bailey,G.N.andJarman,H.N.(1982)EarlyEuropeanAgriculture,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Kinnes,I.(1975)‘MonumentalfunctioninBritishNeolithicburialpractices’,World Burials,houses,womenandmen69Archaeology7,16–29.——(1981)‘Dialogueswithdeath’,inR.Chapman,I.KinnesandK.Randsborg(eds)TheArchaeologyofDeath,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Kruk,J.(1980)TheNeolithicSettlementofSouthernPoland,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries93.Larsen,K.A.(1957)‘StenalderhusepåKnardrupGalgebakkez,Kuml1957,24–43.Lévi-Strauss,C.(1969)TheElementaryStructuresofKinship,2ndedn,Boston:BeaconPress.L’Helgouach,J.(1965)LessepulturesmegalithiquesenArmorique,Rennes.Madsen,T.(1977)‘ToftumnearHorsens.AcausewayedcampfromthetransitionbetweenEarlyandMiddleNeolithic’,Kuml1977,180–4.——(1979)‘Earthenlongbarrowsandtimberstructures:aspectsoftheearlyNeolithicmortuarypracticeinDenmark’,ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety45,301–20.Marshak,A.(1977)‘Themeanderasasystem:theanalysisandrecognitionoficonographicunitsinUpperPalaeolithiccompositions’,inP.J.Ucko(ed.)ForminIndigenousArt,London:Duckworth.Marshall,A.(1981)‘EnvironmentaladaptationandstructuraldesigninaxiallypitchedlonghousesfromNeolithicEurope’,WorldArchaeology13,101–21.Meier-Arendt,W.(1965)DiebandkeramischeKulturimUntermaingebiet,Bonn.Meillassoux,C.(1972)‘Fromreproductiontoproduction’,EconomyandSociety1,93–105.Mercer,R.J.(1980)HambledonHill:aNeolithicLandscape,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.Meyer-Christian,W.(1976)‘DieY-PfostenstellunginHäusenderälterenLinearBandkeramik’,BonnerJahrbücher176,1–25.Montelius,O.(1899)DerOrientundEuropa.Okely,J.(1975)‘Gypsywomen:modelsinconflict’,inS.Ardener(ed.)PerceivingWomen,London:MalabyPress.Peacock,D.(1969)‘NeolithicpotteryproductioninCornwall’,Antiquity43,145–9.Pequart,M.andPequart,S.-J.(1954)Hoëdic,Anvers:DeSikkel.Piggott,S.(1965)AncientEurope,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.Powell,T.G.E.,Corcoran,J.X.W.P.,Lynch,F.andScott,J.G.(1969)MegalithicEnquiriesintheWestofBritain,Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress.Reed,R.C.(1974)‘Earthenlongbarrows:anewperspective’,ArchaeologicalJournal131,33–57.Renfrew,C.(1976)‘Megaliths,territoriesandpopulations’,inS.J.DeLaet(ed.)AcculturationandContinuityinAtlanticEurope,DissertationesArchaeologicaeGandenses,Brugge:DeTempel.——(1979)InvestigationsinOrkney,London:SocietyofAntiquaries.Rowlands,M.J.(1980)‘Kinship,allianceandexchangeintheEuropeanBronzeAge’,inJ.BarrettandR.Bradley(eds)SettlementandSocietyintheBritishLateBronzeAge,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsBritishSeries83.Saxe,A.A.(1970)‘Socialdimensionsofmortuarypractices’,Ph.D.Dissertation,UniversityofMichigan.Schmidt,G.(1930–6)SteinzeitlicheSiedelungeninFederseemoor,Augsburgand Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology70Stuttgart.Shanks,M.andTilley,C.(1982)‘Ideology,symbolicpowerandritualcommunication:areinterpretationofNeolithicmortuarypractices’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Shennan,S.(1982)‘Ideology,changeandtheEuropeanEarlyBronzeAge’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Sherratt,A.(1981)‘Ploughandpastoralism:aspectsofthesecondaryproductsrevolution’,inI.Hodder,G.IsaacandN.Hammond(eds)PatternofthePast,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1982)‘Mobileresources:settlementandexchangeinearlyagriculturalEurope’,inC.RenfrewandS.Shennan(eds)Ranking,ResourceandExchange,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Sielman,B.(1972)‘DiefrühneolithischeBesiedlungMitteleuropas’,inJ.Lüming(ed.)DieAnfängedesNeolithikumsvomOrientbisNordeuropa5a,Köln:Fundamenta.Soudsky,B.(1969)‘Etudedelamaisonneolithique’,SlovenskáArcheologia17,5–96.Sprockhoff,E.(1938)DieNordischeMegalithkultur,BerlinandLeipzig.Srejovic,D.(1972)Europe’sFirstMonumentalSculpture:NewDiscoveriesatLepenskiVir,London:ThamesandHudson.Startin,W.(1978)‘Linearpotteryculturehouses:reconstructionandmanpower’,ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety44,143–59.Startin,W.andBradley,R.(1981)‘SomenotesonworkorganisationandsocietyinprehistoricWessex’,inC.L.N.RugglesandA.W.R.Whittle(eds)AstronomyandSocietyinBritainDuringthePeriod4000–1500BC,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsBritishSeries88.Tilley,C.(1981)‘Conceptualframeworksfortheexplanationofsocio-culturalchange’,inI.Hodder,G.IsaacandN.Hammond(eds)PatternofthePast,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Waterbolk,H.T.andVanZeist,W.(1978)Niederwil,eineSidelungderPfynerKultur,BerneandStuttgart.Whittle,A.W.R.(1977)TheEarlierNeolithicofSouthernEnglandanditsContinentalBackground,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsSupplementarySeries35.Woodburn,J.(1980)‘Huntersandgathererstodayandreconstructionofthepast’,inE.Gellner(ed.)SovietandWesternAnthropology,London:Duckworth. PartIISOMEIMPLICATIONSOFTHENEWIDEAS 5POST-PROCESSUALARCHAEOLOGYPROCESSISTOOIMPORTANTTOBELEFTTOTHEPROCESSUALISTSOnthewhole,theworkdescribedinthepreviouschapterswasblissfullyoblivioustotheeffectsof‘our’contextontheinterpretationsofpastsymbolicmeanings.Indeed,aswillbeseeninChapter9,muchofarchaeologyhasbeenabletoincorporateaconcernwithmeaningwithoutrecognisinganycrisisinthewaythatweconceiveofthediscipline.However,twodevelopmentsledtoaquestioningofthiscomplacentview.Thefirstwastherecognitionofadilemmainthephilosophyofarchaeology.ThisissuewasdiscussedinthepaperreprintedhereasChapter7,butithasbeenmorewidelyandfullydiscussedbyWylie(1989).Thedilemmaexistedbeforeanyattempttointerpretpastsymbolism,butitwasthrownintofocusbythatattempt.Inessencetheproblemisthatarchaeologistshadespousedfirstempiricistandthenpositivistperspectivesaccordingtowhichtheycouldonlytesthypotheseswhichconcernedtheobservableworld.Andyetarchaeologistswanttogobeyondtheirdatatomakestatementsaboutthedynamicsofpastsocieties.Theywanttomakestatementsaboutbehaviour,economicandsocialstructuresandsoonwhichgobeyondthedataandarenotthemselvesobservable.Archaeologistsfeltthattheycouldignorethisdilemmasolongastheycouldarguefordeterministiclinksfromthematerialtothenon-material.Buttheattempttogetatpastsymbolismunderminesanysuchargument.Theverydefinitionofasymbolnormallyincludessomereferencetoitsarbitrarynature.Fewpeoplewouldarguethatthesymbolicmeaningofanartifact,evenifitishistoricallynon-arbitrary(seeChapter2),canbedeterminedcross-culturally.Howcouldapositivistapproachpossiblydealwiththearbitrarynatureofthesign?Thedilemmawasexacerbatedasthenotionofmaterialcultureasatextbegantotakeclearerform.Intheprecedingchapterstheviewthatmaterialcultureismeaningfullyconstitutedhastakenusclosetotherealisationthatthemeaningofanartifactdoesnotderivesimplyfromitsproductionbutalsofromitsuseandperceptionbyothers.Themainpurposeoftheclaimthatinsomerespectsthemetaphorofthetextisappropriateformaterialculture,istomovearchaeologistsawayfromthenotionthatthedataareapassiverecordwithonlyonemeaning.Differentpeoplewillhavereadthe‘text’differently(Chapter2),indifferentcontexts.Itisnotalargeleapfromthislaststatementtotherealisationthatarchaeologiststoo,intheirdifferentandchangingcontexts,will‘readthepast’differently.Ifthemeaningofatextisnotequivalenttotheintentionoftheauthor,orthecontextofproductionanduse,butincludesthereadingsmadeby‘them’andby‘us’,thenhowcanweknowhow‘they’werereadingthematerialculture?Isanyreadingmadebyarchaeologists,andindeedbynon-archaeologists,equallyvalid?The Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology74spectreofrelativismhauntsarchaeology,andisexpressedinthechapterswhichfollow(Chapters6–8).Thesecondimportantdevelopmentwhichheraldedamoveawayfromprocessualarchaeologyintheearly1980swastheintroductionofabroadersocialtheory.Anglo-Americanarchaeologyhadclungtopositivism,functionalismandadaptationlongaftertheseperspectiveshadbeencritiquedandtransformedinneighbouringdisciplinessuchassociology,socialandculturalanthropology,philosophy,geography,andlinguistics.Muchasarchaeologyhadtriedtokeepitselfhermeticallysealedfromthesepost-positivistdevelopments,thenewideaswerebeginningtoseepin.Forexample,inCambridgeinthelate1970sandearly1980sanewgroupofresearchstudentscametogether,severalofwhomhadhadtraininginthenewradicaldirectionsinanthropologyorwereinvolvedpoliticallyasfeminists.OthersbecameinfluencedbytheworkofGiddensatCambridgeandfeltastrongcommitmenttosocialandpoliticalinvolvement.Tothisgroupofresearchstudents,thevisionofarchaeologyasanobjectivescienceandthenotionofsocietiesadaptingtotheirenvironmentsseemedcomplacentandpoliticallysuspect,aswellasbeingtheoreticallynarrowandout-of-stepwithexcitingdebatestakingplaceinotherdisciplines.Outofthesetwodevelopments,andoutofthesocialandpoliticalconcernswhichfuelledthem,acritiqueofprocessualarchaeologydevelopedwhichcametobetermedpost-processualarchaeology(Hodder1985).ThemainpointsofthiscritiqueareprovidedinChapter6(seealsoChapter3).Overalltheaimofpost-processualarchaeologywastobreakdownsixoppositionswhichhadbeensetupbyprocessualarchaeology.Thefirstwastheoppositionbetweennormandadaptationorsituationalexpediency.Ratherthanseeingcultureasnormative,staticandinvariant,hinderingadaptation,post-processualapproachesseecultureasbeingthemediumthroughwhichadaptationoccursandasbeingtransformedintheprocess.Culture,normandmeaningareprocesses,notthings,integraltoallpracticalaction.Thesecondprocessualdichotomywhichneededtobebrokendownwasbetweenmaterialismandidealism.Whilepost-processualarchaeologistsdonotrejecttheimportanceofmaterialconstraintsonsocietiesandmayevenemphasisethem,theyaccepttheneedtoincorporatemeaning,values,symbolism.Theyseekthedialecticalprocesseswhichlinktheidealandthematerial.Third,post-processualarchaeologistsrejecttheseparationofsystemandstructure.ThroughtheinfluenceofMarxismandstructuralism,theysearchforstructureslyingbehindsystemswhichmayincorporateconflict,tensionandcontradiction.Fourth,manypost-processualarchaeologistsrejectanyabsolutedichotomybetweensocietiesandindividuals.Whiletheydonotexpectthatarchaeologistscan‘see’individualsorthattheintentionsofindividualsshapedthecourseofhistory,theyoftenseektherelationshipsbetweenagencyandstructure.Theyareconcernedwithmaterialcultureasactive,beingusedmeaningfullytofurthersocialinterests.Fifth,post-processualarchaeologistsrejecttheseparationofthegeneralandtheparticular,anthropologyversushistory.Whilemanywouldemphasisethespecificityofculturalphenomena,mostwouldalsoaccepttheneedtotranslatethatspecificityintothecontemporaryworldthroughgeneralisation.Finally,post-processualarchaeologistsdebatetherelationshipbetweensubjectandobjectratherthanseeinganypossibilityofaradicalseparationofthetwo.ThisissuewillbediscussedatlengthinChapter11. Post-processualarchaeology75Inallthesewayspost-processualarchaeologistsareopentoseeingprocessesratherthanthingsorcategories.Societiesandsystemsarecontinuallybeingrenegotiatedfromdifferentperspectivesandaccordingtoconflictinginterests.Materialculturemeaningsarecontinuallybeingreconstitutedandreread.Theyarenotfixedbutarefluid,varyingaccordingtocontext.Textandcontextformandtransformeachother.Agentsconstructrolesinthedailypracticesoflife.Pastandpresenttransformeachotherinthepracticesofarchaeology.Inalltheseways,post-processualarchaeologistsseektobreakdowncategories,entitiesandessencesandtoembracearadicalnotionofprocess,accordingtowhichallaspectsofsocietiesaresituated,contextual,changing,moving,dialectical.Whileprocessualarchaeologypresagedsomeofthesepointsinitsemphasisonvariabilityandsituationalexpediency,theprocessualistviewofprocesswashighlyrestricted.Categoriesweresetapartanddichotomised(norm/adaptation,ideal/material,system/structure,subject/object,etc.).Evolutionarystagesandsocietaltypeswerereified.Economicandsubsistencesystemsweredivorcedfromtheirculturalcontext.Intheseandmanyotherways,thepositivismofprocessualarchaeologyledtoasimplisticandthoroughlyunprocessualview.Itiscertainlythecasethatthearchaeologyofprocessistooimportantanissuetoleavetotheprocessualistsalone(withapologiestoRenfrew1982,23).Bybreakingdownthedichotomieswhichunderpinnedprocessualarchaeologyafullyprocessualapproachcanbeattained,ironicallybythepost-processualists.Post-processualarchaeologyneedstobuildontheemphasisonprocessandexpediencyinprocessualarchaeologyandmakeitacentralpartofarchaeologicaltheory.Butperhapsthemainunderlyingthemeinpost-processualarchaeology,whichexplainsthetypesoftheorieswhichhavebeenespousedandthetypesofcritiqueswhichhavebeensetup,isvaluecommitment.Ontheonehand,archaeologyseemedtohavebecomeincreasinglyesoteric,scientific,distant.Ontheotherhand,theawarenessbythegeneralpublicofheritageissuesanditsfascinationwiththepastseemedtobeincreasing,atleastinBritain.Theoryseemeddivorcedfrompracticeinthecommunity.Thesupposedlyvalue-neutralscienceofarchaeologywasshowntobefullofandrocentricassumptionsandbiases.Aroundtheworldestablishmentarchaeologywasbeingconfrontedbyminorityvoiceswithdifferentconceptionsoftheirpasts.Ratherthanclosingthedoorstothiswiderdebate,post-processualarchaeologistswishtotransformthenatureofthedisciplinesoastoincludeothervoices.Suchanopeningupleadstoaconfrontationparticularlywiththesubject/objectdivide.Butitalsoopensallessentialismtocritique.DIVERSITYIhavesofartalkedofpost-processualarchaeologyasifitwasunified.Certainlytherewasacoherenceintheaspectsofprocessualarchaeologywhichwereseenasmostinneedofcritique.Butnearlyallthestatementsmadeinthelastfewparagraphswouldbedisagreedwithbyoneoranotherself-proclaimedpost-processualarchaeologist.Aspost-processualarchaeologistshaveturnedfromcritiquetothepresentationofsocialtheoryandepistemology,thedifferencesanddivisionshavestartedtoemerge.Theclearestandmostsustainedstatementofapost-processualposition,byShanksandTilley(1987a;1987b)hasbeenseenbysomecommentatorsasbeingeclecticorcontradictory,ashas Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology76myownwriting.Post-processualarchaeologists,however,oftencelebratethisdiversity.Theyaresimplypost-,anddonotneedtosetupanewdominatingparadigm.Theyemphasisediversityandmultiplevoices.EvenBinford,attheendofarecentbook,isledtomuseastowhetheritstitle,DebatingArchaeology,isnotmoreappropriatetoasociallyembeddedsciencethantooneclaiminganon-culturalobjectivity(Binford1989,485).Iwouldseeseveralstrandsrunningthroughthisdiversity(seeShennan1986).ThefirstisMarxism.SinceMarxismisitselftodayhighlydiverseitisdifficulttobepreciseaboutitsimpactonpost-processualarchaeology.CertainlyinBritainandScandinaviatheinfluenceofstructural-Marxism,throughtheworkofFriedmanandRowlands(1977),hasbeenconsiderable(forexample,Bender1978;FrankensteinandRowlands1978;Gledhill1978;Kristiansen1981).Theseapproachesplacedanewemphasisoninternalcontradictionandconflictleadingtochange,andtheygavesocialratherthaneconomicrelationsadominantrole.But,ratherthanfittingintoaspectsoftheMarxisttraditionwhichemphasisedexplanationasbeingspecificandhistoricalandwhichproblematisedtherelationshipbetweenhypothesesanddata,thearchaeologicalapplicationsofAlthusserianstructural-Marxismoftenretainedanevolutionism,materialismandpositivismwhichdidlittletothreatentheprocessualparadigm.Itwas,bycontrast,theMarxistnotionsofideology,however,whichdidleadtoamorefundamentalre-evaluation(MillerandTilley1984).Ratherthanrestrictingideologytothedominantideology,ithasbeenpossibletoseeideologyasrelatedtointerest.Differentgroupsinsocietyareabletodevelopcompetingideologies.Thusideologyisconstructedwithinrelationsofdominationandiscloselyconnectedwithpower.TheinfluenceofFoucault(1977)hasbeenconsiderableinthatpowerisseenasbeingpartofapower/knowledge/truthnetwork(ShanksandTilley1987a;1987b).Poweroverothersthroughthecontrolofmaterialresourceshastobelinkedtothevaluation,prestigeandknowledgeallocatedtothoseresources.Evensubordinategroupsareabletomanipulatethemeaningsofmaterialcultureinordertoresistandactagainstoppression.WhilethecontributionofadistinctivelyMarxistperspectivetotheseideasisdifficulttodistinguish,recentpublications(e.g.Miller,RowlandsandTilley1989;McGuireandPaynter1991)haveshownacloseaffiliationwithpost-processualconcerns.Kohl(1985,112)talksofa‘subtlerhistoricalmaterialismalongwhichideasandmaterialsactivelyandcontinuouslyinteractwithoneanother’.IfsomewesternEuropeanMarxistarchaeologyhasbecomeblurredasithascontributedtoandmergedwithpost-processualarchaeology,thesamecanbesaidforstructuralism.AsnotedinChapters2–4,theinitialinfluenceofstructuralismwasimportantbecause,likeMarxism,itintroducedthenotionofstructuresbehindsystems.Italsoprovidedamethodforapproachingsymboliccodes.Butthecritiqueofstructuralism(outlinedinChapter6)wasquicklyestablished.Withinacontextualarchaeology,theemphasisonstructuredframeworksofmeaningisretained,atleastintheinitialstagesofanalysisbeforethetransformationofmeaningsinsituated,practicalcontextsisexplored.Post-processualarchaeologistsmaystillemploystructuralistoppositionsintheirattemptstoreconstructspecifichistoricalcontexts.Thefurthertransformationofstructuralismintopost-structuralismprovidesanotherstrandofpost-processualdiversity.Opposedtothereconstructionoforiginalcontextualmeanings,andopposedtothenotionofagency, Post-processualarchaeology77post-structuralistarchaeologyexplores‘floating’chainsofsignifiersandleadstoaradicalunderminingofthedisciplineofarchaeology(seeChapter11).Athirdstrandwithinpost-processualarchaeologyisthatinfluencedbyvariousformsofcriticaltheory.AssociatedparticularlywiththeworkofLeone(1982;Leone,PotterandShackel1987),thisapproachhasemphasisedtheroleofarchaeologyinfurtheringthedominantideologiesofcapitalismandhasexploredalternativewaysofempoweringpeopletocritiquetheseideologies.Onceagaintheseideashavebeenabsorbedintopost-processualarchaeologyandaredifficulttodistinguish,althoughtherearecertainlydifferencesinthecommitmentsexpressedtowardsscienceandobjectivity.Afourthstrandisfeminism.Ihesitatetoincludethiscomponentsinceimportantdifferenceshaveemergedbetweensomepost-processualwritingandgenderarchaeology(GeroandConkey1991).Forexample,theapparentcommitmenttosomeformofrelativismandfree-playinpost-structuralistwritingappearsinsufficientlyengagedpoliticallyforsomefeminists,anditunderminestheirclaimsconcerningtherealmaterialoppressionofwomeninsociety.Nevertheless,Iwouldarguethatfeminismformsanimportantcomponentinpost-processualarchaeology,becauseofitsconcernwithmeaning,othervoices,agency,power,processandthepastasconstruction.Indeed,manyofthemoreactiveearlypost-processualwritershavesincespearheadedtheintroductionofapoliticallyawaregenderarchaeology(e.g.Moore1986;GeroandConkey1991;Wylie1991).Thereismuchvariationwithingenderarchaeologyandsomeattemptssimplytoreconstructwhatwomenweredoinginthepastfiteasilyintoaprocessualapproach(e.g.Ehrenberg1989).However,apoliticallyactivegenderarchaeologycertainlycontributesto,aswellasconfronts,avalue-committedarchaeology.Itmightbearguedthat,givenallthediversitywithinandoutsidepost-processualarchaeology,thereislittlepointinusingacommonterm.ThisisparticularlytruewhenweincludetheaccommodationsbeingmadewithinprocessualarchaeologywhichwillbediscussedinChapter9.Theseblurthedistinctionsbetweenprocessualandpost-processualarchaeology.Perhapsthe‘post-processual’termisaploywhichattemptstoincorporateeverythingnewwhichishappeninginarchaeologyunderoneumbrella.Perhapsasdivisionsoccurandcompromisesaremadearchaeologywill,likeothersocialsciences,simplyembracediversityaspartofitsmatureexistence.Post-processualarchaeologywouldthenhaveplayeditsroleinopeningupthedisciplinetoreflection,criticismanddiversity.Iwouldmyselfbehappytostopusingtheterm.ButIwillnotdosowhere,asinNorthAmerica,processualarchaeologyremainsadominantforce.Forme,post-processualarchaeologyrepresentsapoliticalstruggle—astruggleagainstaclosedviewofsciencewhichmeasuresquantitiesofneutralobjectsandforanopenviewwhichseeksoutqualities,valuesandsubjects.CONCLUSIONInthechapterswhichfollow,InowfeelIwastooeagerinmyattempttoredressthebalancebetweenscienceandsociety.Instressingtheothersideofwhatshouldbedialecticalrelationshipsbetween,forexample,subjectandobject,particularandgeneral,Idistortedtheircomplexityandintricacies.Itistruethatarchaeologistshadalways Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology78emphasisedtheseparate,objectivenatureoftheirdataandthedistancebetweentheoryanddata.Thisviewwastakenbyempiricistsandpositivistsalike.Theformersawfactsasself-evident,andthelatter,whileacceptingthatthefactswerenotself-evidentandthattheorywasnecessary,stillsawthedataasobjectiveandsome(middle-range)theoriesasindependent(Binford1989).Iwantedtopointoutthatnotenoughattentionhadbeenpaidtothesubjectivityofthedata.Thiswasmypost-processualclaim,andmystrengthoffeelingonthisissuewassupportedbythedebateoverthe1986WorldCongress(Chapter8).HereIfeltImetexactlytheclosed,entrenchedpositionswhichIhadtheoreticallylinkedtoapositivistscience.ButIwenttoofarinstatementssuchas‘theoryanddataarenotopposedandtheyareneverconfronted’(Chapter7).Iwouldarguethatthisstatementisvalidifby‘data’wemeanourobservationsandlowlevelinterpretations.ButInolongerthinkthestatementvalidifitdeniestherealityofthepatternedremains.Thedatamightnotbeobjectivebuttheyarereal,existingoutsideourobservationofthem.Archaeologistsdofrequentlydiscoverunexpectedpatterns.Adialecticbetweentheoryandrealdatadoesoccur,evenifitisnotasimplefeedbackloop(Chapter7).ThenotionthattheoryanddataconstituteeachotherwillbediscussedinChapter12.Iwouldalsonownolongersupportrelativismandtherejectionofscience,unlessbyscienceismeantanarrowviewofscienceaspositivist.RatherIwouldargueforascienceinthesenseofanhistoricalbodyofknowledgeandadebateinformedbythatknowledge.Theeventsafterthe1986WorldCongresshaveproducedarosierpicturethancouldbepresentedduringthewritingofChapter8.ItiswidelyrecognisedthatthecampaignofsanctionsagainstSouthAfricacontributed,inhoweversmallaway,totheendofapartheid.AnewWorldArchaeologicalCongresshasbeenformed(Ucko1987,andseethefirsttwovolumesoftheWorldArchaeologicalBulletin),aconstitutionestablished,andsuccessfulconferencesheld.Thisactivenewbodyiscom-mittedtoworldparticipationandseemsinaveryrealsensetohavebrokenthestrangleholdofEuropeandNorthAmericaonworldarchaeology.Othervoicesandotherarchaeologiesarebeingheard.Theimpressivelistofpublicationsfromthe1986WorldCongress(UnwinHymanOneWorldArchaeologyseries)includesarticlesbyindigenousarchaeologistswhichconfrontmanyofthetaken-for-grantedsofwesternscience.ArbitrarilyIwouldsingleoutaBolivianarchaeologistwhopresentsalternativenotionsofhistory,prehistory,timeandsequenceandsituateswesternconceptionswithinthecontextofdomination(Condori1989).Itdoesindeedseemtobethecasethatarchaeologycanincluderatherthandominatealternativevoiceswithoutlosingitsdisciplinaryorscientificcoherence.REFERENCESBender,B.(1978)‘Gatherer-huntertofarmer:asocialperspective’,WorldArchaeology10,204–22.Binford,L.(1989)DebatingArchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.Condori,C.M.(1989)‘HistoryandprehistoryinBolivia:whatabouttheIndians’,inR.Layton(ed.)ConflictintheArchaeologyoflivingtraditions,London:Unwin Post-processualarchaeology79Hyman.Ehrenberg,M.(1989)WomeninPrehistory,London:BritishMuseum.Foucault,M.(1977)DisciplineandPunish,NewYork:VintageBooks.Frankenstein,S.andRowlands,M.J.(1978)‘TheinternalstructureandregionalcontextofEarlyIronAgesocietyinsouth-westGermany’,BulletinoftheInstituteofArchaeology15,73–112.Friedman,J.andRowlands,M.J.(eds)(1977)TheEvolutionofSocialSystems,London:Duckworth.Gero,J.andConkey,M.(eds)(1991)EngenderingArchaeology,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Gledhill,J.(1978)‘FormativedevelopmentintheNorthAmericanSouth-West’,inD.Green,C.HaselgroveandM.Spriggs(eds)SocialOrganisationandSettlement,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries47.Hodder,I.(1985)‘Post-processualarchaeology’,inM.Schiffer(ed.)AdvancesinArchaeologicalMethodandTheory8,NewYork:AcademicPress.Kohl,P.(1985)‘Symboliccognitivearchaeology:anewlossofinnocence’,DialecticalAnthropology9,105–18.Kristiansen,K.(1981)‘EconomicmodelsforBronzeAgeScandinavia—towardsanintegratedapproach’,inA.SheridanandG.Bailey(eds)EconomicArchaeology,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries96.Leone,M.(1982)‘Someopinionsaboutrecoveringmind’,AmericanAntiquity47,742–60.Leone,M.,Potter,P.B.andShackel,P.(1987)‘Towardacriticalarchaeology’,CurrentAnthropology28,251–82.McGuire,R.andPaynter,R.(1991)TheArchaeologyofInequality,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Miller,D.,Rowlands,M.andTilley,C.(1989)DominationandResistance,London:UnwinHyman.Miller,D.andTilley,C.(eds)(1984)Ideology,PowerandPrehistory,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Moore,H.(1986)Space,TextandGender,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Renfrew,C.(1982)TowardsanArchaeologyofMind,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Shanks,M.andTilley,C.(1987a)ReconstructingArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1987b)SocialTheoryandArchaeology,Cambridge:PolityPress.Shennan,S.J.(1986)‘Towardsacriticalarchaeology?’ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety52,327–56.Ucko,P.(1987)AcademicFreedomandApartheid:theStoryoftheWorldArchaeologicalCongress,London:Duckworth. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology80Wylie,A.(1989)‘Archaeologicalcablesandtacking:theimplicationsofpracticeforBernstein’s“Optionsbeyondobjectivismandrelativism”’,PhilosophyoftheSocialSciences19,1–18.——(1991)‘Gendertheoryandthearchaeologicalrecord:whyistherenoarchaeologyofgender?’,inJ.GeroandM.Conkey(eds)EngenderingArchaeology,Oxford:BasilBlackwell. 6THEORETICALARCHAEOLOGY:AREACTIONARYVIEWFUNCTIONALISMANDTHENEWARCHAEOLOGYIndefiningfunctionalism,asimplifiedversionofRadcliffe-Brown’s(1952)accountwillbeusedsincehisapproachcanbeshowntobeclosetothatfollowedbymanyNewArchaeologists(thosewhointhe1960sand1970swereconcernedwithexplanationsandapproachesofthetypesoutlinedbyBinfordandhisassociates).Functionalismintroducesananalogybetweensocialandorganiclife.EmileDurkheim(RèglesdelaMethodeSociologique1895)definedthe‘function’ofasocialinstitutionasthecorrespondencebetweenitandtheneedsofthesocialorganism.Inthesamewaythatthestomachprovidesafunctionforthebodyasawholeandallowsittosurvive,soanyaspectofapastsocietycanbeassessedintermsofitscontributiontotheworkingofthewholesociety.Asocietyismadeupofinterrelatedpartsandwecanexplainonecomponentbyshowinghowitworksinrelationtoothercomponents.Buttheseareallverygeneralstatements,andthereisroomforagreatvarietyofviewswithinthesegeneralpropositions.Indeed,Radcliffe-Brown(1952,188)statedbluntlythatthe‘FunctionalSchooldoesnotreallyexist;itisamyth’.Functionalismoftenappearstobelittlemorethana‘dirtyword’usedbytheopponentsofanthropologistssuchasMalinowski,BoasandRadcliffe-Brownhimself,anditmayconveylittlemeaning.SoifitistobeusedoftheNewArchaeology,amorespecificdefinitionneedstobeprovided.Theconceptoffunctioniscloselylinkedtothenotionofsystem.InthemiddleoftheeighteenthcenturyMontesquieuusedaconceptionofsocietyinwhichallaspectsofsociallifecouldbelinkedintoacoherentwhole.WhatComtecalled‘thefirstlawofsocialstatics’heldthattherearerelationsofinterconnectionandinterdependence,orrelationsofsolidarity,betweenthevariousaspectsofsociety.Itispossibleanalyticallytoisolatecertaingroupsofparticularlycloseinterrelationshipsassystems.Accordingtothefunctionalistviewpointasstatedinsystemstheory,societiesreachahealthyorganicequilibrium,calledhomeostasis.Plato,intheFourthBookofhisRepublic,sawthehealthofasocietyasresultingfromtheharmoniousworkingtogetherofitsparts.TheGreeksdistinguishedgoodorder,socialhealth(eunomia),fromdisorder,socialillness(dysnomia),whilethenotionofmalfunctionandsocialpathologywasacentralconcernofDurkheim.(Inrecentsystemsarchaeology,pathologieshavebeenlistedandtheireffectsexaminedbyFlannery(1972).)Pathologiesoccurduringperiodswhentheorganicunityandequilibriumareupsetasaresultofmaladaptation.Asocietycanonlycontinuetoexistifitiswelladjustedinternallyandexternally.Threetypesofadaptationcanbedistinguished.Thefirstconcernstheadjustmenttothephysicalenvironment,theecologicaladaptation.The Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology82secondistheinternalarrangementandadjustmentofcomponentsofthesocietyinrelationtoeachother.Finally,thereistheprocessbywhichanindividualfindsaplacewithinthesocietyinwhichhelives.Itisthroughthesethreetypesofadaptationthatsocietiessurviveandevolve.Manyanthropologistsandarchaeologists,however,havediscussedchangelargelyintermsofecologicaladaptation,themeetingofexternalconstraints.Itisanecologicalfunctionalismwhichprevailstodayinarchaeology.Inthischapterthetermfunctionalismreferstotheuseofanorganicanalogyandtotheviewpointthatanadequateexplanationofapastsocietyinvolvesreferencetosystem,equilibriumandadaptationasoutlinedabove.Althoughfunctionalism,andspecificallyecologicalfunctionalism,weremainstaysofthetheoreticalframeworkofanearliergenerationofarchaeologistssuchasGordonChildeandGrahameClark,theyhavebecomemorewidelyimportantasaresultoftheNewArchaeologyofthe1960sand1970s.Indeed,processualandsystemsarchaeologyisalmostbydefinitionafunctionalistarchaeology.AsLeach(1973a,761–2)pointedout,‘Binford’sremarkthat“behaviouristheby-productoftheinteractionofaculturalrepertoirewiththeenvironment”maybeproto-typicalofthe“new”archaeology,buttoasocialanthropologistitreadslikeaquotationfromMalinowskiwritingatthetimewhennaivefunctionalismwasatitspeak—thatistosayabout1935.’Thisviewistooextreme,butRenfrew(1972,24)alsostatesthattoexamineconnectionsbetweensubsystemsasinsystemstheory‘is,ofcourse,simplyastatementofanthropologicalfunctionalism,thatdifferentaspectsofacultureareallinterrelated’.Thedegreetowhicharchaeologyhasadoptedafunctionalistconceptionofsocietyandcultureisapparentinthewritingsofthemajorfiguresofthe‘new’discipline.Althoughthearchaeologicalcontributionsofthesewritersdiffer,thenotionsoforganicwholes,interrelatedsystems,equilibriumandadaptationcanallbeidentifiedmostclearly.Forexample,inFlannery’ssystemsmodelforthegrowthofcomplexsocieties,thejobofself-regulationwithinthesocioculturalsystem‘istokeepallthevariablesinthesubsystemwithinappropriategoalranges—rangeswhichmaintainhomeostasisanddonotthreatenthesurvivalofthesystem’(1972,409).AccordingtoBinford(1972,107)‘wecan…expectvariabilityinandamongcomponentsofasystemtoresultfromtheactionofhomeostaticregulatorswithintheculturalsystemservingtomaintainequilibriumrelationshipsbetweenthesystemanditsenvironment’.Similarly,forClarke(1968,88),‘thewholeculturalsystemisinexternaldynamicequilibriumwithitslocalenvironment’.‘Equilibriumisdefinedasthatstateinwhichdislocationamongstthecomponentvarietyisminimised.…Dislocationmostfrequentlyarises…whendifferentnetworksindependentlytransmitmutuallycontradictoryinformation—presentingananomalyatnodesinthestructureofthesystem.Socioculturalsystemsarecontinuouslychanginginsuchawayastominimisethemaximumamountofimmediatesystemdislocation’(ibid.,129).AccordingtoHill(1971,407),asetofvariablesisonlyasystemiftheir‘articulation…beregulated(maintainedinsteady-state)byhomeostaticprocesses’.Theimportanceofmaintainingequilibriumwiththe‘environment’hasalsobeenemphasisedbyRenfrew(1972).Indeed,man’srelationshipwiththeenvironmentisseenbyhimasoneofthemainaspectsofsystemstheory.‘Thewholepurposeofutilisingthesystemsapproachistoemphasiseman-environmentinterrelations,whileatthesametime Theoreticalarchaeology83admittingthatmanyfundamentalchangesinman’senvironmentareproducedbymanhimself(ibid.,19–20).‘Culture…isessentiallyahomeostaticdevice,aconservativeinfluenceensuringthatchangeinthesystemwillbeminimised.Itisaflexibleadaptivemechanismwhichallowsthesurvivalofsocietydespitefluctuationsinthenaturalenvironment’(ibid.,486).Thusitisthoughtthathumansocioculturalsystemscanbedescribedasiftheywereadaptingtothetotalsocialandenvironmentalmilieu.Renfrew(1972,24–5)talksofthe‘essentialcoherenceandconservatismofallcultures…thesociety’s“adjustment”or“adaptation”toitsnaturalenvironmentismaintained:difficultiesandhardshipsareovercome’.AsimilarviewisexpressedbyBinford(1972,20):‘Changeinthetotalculturalsystemmustbeviewedinanadaptivecontextbothsocialandenvironmental.’IndeedBinford’sdefinitionofculture‘astheextrasomaticmeansofadaptationforthehumanorganism’(ibid.,22)isoneofthemaintenetsofsystemsarchaeologists.‘Culture,fromasystemicperspective,isdefined…asinteractingbehaviouralsystems.Oneasksquestionsconcerningthesesystems,theirinterrelation,theiradaptivesignificance’(Plog1975,208).‘Cultureisallthosemeanswhoseformsarenotunderdirectgeneticcontrol…whichservetoadjustindi-victualsandgroupswithintheirecologicalcommunities….Adaptationisalwaysalocalproblem,andselectivepressuresfavouringnewculturalformsresultfromnonequilibriumconditionsinthelocalecosystem’(Binford1972,431).Thefunctionalistandprocessualemphasisinarchaeologyaimedobjectivelytoidentifyrelationshipsbetweenvariablesinculturalsystems.Therewasanaturallinktoanempiricalandpositivistconceptofscience.‘Themeaningwhichexplanationhaswithinascientificframeofreferenceissimplythedemonstrationofaconstantarticulationofvariableswithinasystemandthemeasurementoftheconcomitantvariabilityamongthevariableswithinthesystem.Processualchangeinonevariablecanthusbeshowntorelateinapredictableandquantifiablewaytochangesinothervariables,thelatterchanginginturnrelativetochangesinthestructureofthesystemasawhole’(ibid.,21).Thisstatementdemonstratesthelinkbetweenfunctionalismandaconceptionofexplanationasthepredictionofrelationshipsbetweenvariables.Itisthoughtthattherelationshipscanbeobservedempiricallyandquantificationcanbeusedtoassessthesignificanceofassociations.Thewayisthusopenforrecoveringcross-culturalgeneralisations,and‘thelawsofculturalprocess’(ibid.,199).AlthoughBinford(1977,5)appearsmorerecentlytohavedoubtedtheexplanatoryvalueofcross-culturalstatistics,theaboveattitudestoexplanationhaveattimesbeendevelopedintoarigidhypothetico-deductivemethodbasedonareadingofHempel(e.g.FritzandPlog1970;Watson,LeblancandRedman1971).CRITIQUEOFFUNCTIONALISMIdonotintendtoexaminetheproblemsofapplyingsystemstheoryinarchaeology(Doran1970),orwhethersystemstheoryhasreallyaidedarchaeologistsintheirfunctionalistaims(Salmon1978).Rather,Iwanttoconsiderthecriticismsoffunctionalismitself.Martins(1974,246)describesthecritiqueoffunctionalismasan Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology84initiationritedepassageintosociologicaladulthood,andIhavesuggestedelsewhere(Hodder1981)theneedforawiderdebateinarchaeologyconcerningthevariouscritiquesofandalternativestoecologicalfunctionalism.Manyoftheproblemsandlimitationsoftheorganicanalogyasappliedtosocialsystemshavelongbeenrecognised.Radcliffe-Brown(1952,181)notedthatwhileananimalorganismdoesnot,inthecourseofitslife,changeitsform,asocietycan,inthecourseofitshistory,undergomajororganisationalchange.Otherproblemsarenotinherenttotheapproachbutresultfromtheparticularemphasisthatisgivenbyarchaeologists,perhapsasaresultofthelimitationsoftheirdata.Forexample,asystemsapproachwhichassumesthathomeostaticequilibriumisthenaturalstateofthingsresultsinthenotionthatallchangeultimatelyhastoderivefromoutsidethesystem.Negativefeedbackoccursinreactiontooutsidestimuli,andpositivefeedbackanddeviationamplifyingprocessesneedinitialexternalkicks.AccordingtoHill(1977,76)‘nosystemcanchangeitself;changecanonlybeinstigatedbyoutsidesources.Ifasystemisinequilibrium,itwillremainsounlessinputs(orlackofoutputs)fromoutsidethesystemdisturbtheequilibrium.’Theresultofthisviewhasbeentoplacegreatemphasisontheimpactofsupposed‘independent’variablesfromoutsidethesocioculturalsystemunderstudy.Thefavouriteexternalvariableshavebeenenvironmentalfactors(e.g.Carneiro1968),long-distancetrade(Renfrew1969),andpopulationincrease(Hill1977,92),althoughitisnotoftenclearwhythelatterisassumedtobeanindependentvariable.Littleadvancehasbeenmadeinthestudyoffactorswithinsocietiesthataffectthenatureofchange(see,however,FriedmanandRowlands1977).ButFlannery(1972)hasshownhowthesystemsapproachcanbeextendedtoincludeinternalforcesofchangeandthoseformsofinternaladaptationwithintheorganicwholewhichhavebeendescribedabove.Amorefundamentallimitationofthefunctionalistviewpointcentresontheinadequacyoffunctionandutilityinexplainingsocialandculturalsystems,andontheseparationmadebetweenfunctionalutilityandculture.Allaspectsofculturehaveutilitarianpurposesintermsofwhichtheycanbeexplained.Allactivities,whetherdroppingrefuse,developingsocialhierarchies,orperformingrituals,aretheresultsofadaptiveexpedience.Butexplanationissoughtonlyintermsofadaptationandfunction.Theproblemwithsuchaviewpointisnotsomuchtheemphasisonfunctionsinceitisimportanttoknowhowmaterialitems,institutions,symbolsandritualoperate,andthecontributionoftheNewArchaeologytosuchstudiesisimpressive.Itisratherthedichotomywhichwassetupbetweencultureandadaptiveutilitywhichrestrictedthedevelopmentoftheapproach.Inarchaeologythesplitbetweencultureandfunctiontooktheformofanattackonwhatwastermedthe‘normative’approach.InBinford’s(1965)rebuttalofthe‘normativeschool’,hereferredtoAmericanarchaeologistssuchasTaylor,WilleyandPhillips,Ford,RouseandGiffordwhowereconcernedwithidentifyingcultural‘wholes’inwhichtherewasanideationalbasisforthevaryingwaysofhumanlifewithineachculturalunit.Sucharchaeologistsaimedatidentifyingthenormativeconceptsinthemindsofpeoplenowdead.Binfordmorespecificallycriticisedthenormativestudieswhichtriedtodescribethediffusionandtransmissionofculturaltraits.Itisnotmyconcernheretoidentifywhetherthenormativeparadigm,ascharacterisedbyBinford,everexisted.Certainly,aswillbeshownbelow,EuropeanarchaeologistssuchasChildewerealreadyableto Theoreticalarchaeology85integrateaconcernwithculturalnormsandanotionofbehaviouraladaptability.ButinBinford’sview,thenormativeapproachemphasisinghomogeneousculturalwholescontrastedwiththestudyoffunctionalvariabilitywithinandbetweenculturalunits.Thenormativeschoolwasseenashistoricalanddescriptive,notallowingexplanationintermsoffunctionalprocess.Sohemovedtoanoppositeextremewhereculture,norms,formanddesignhadonlyfunctionalvaluein,forexample,integratingandarticulatingindividualsandsocialunitsintobroadercorporateentities.InfactBinfordsuggestedthatthedifferentcomponentsofculturemayfunctionindependentlyofeachother.Functionalrelationshipscouldthusbestudiedwithoutreferencetoculturalcontext,andregular,stableandpredictablerelationshipscouldbesoughtbetweenvariableswithinsocialsystems.Asaresult,anabsolutegulfwasdrivenbetweennormativeandprocessualstudies.‘Anapproachisofferedinwhichcultureisnotreducedtonormativeideasabouttheproperwaysofdoingthingsbutisviewedasthesystemofthetotalextrasomaticmeansofadaptation’(Binford1972,205).Morerecently(1978a)Binfordhasstillmoredearlyseparatedthestudyofnormsfromthestudyofprocess.HehasattackedthehistoricalandcontextualemphasisofKroeberandKluckhorn(ibid.,2).Ontheonehand(ibid.,3),artifactsarethereflectionsofthementaltemplatesofthemakersandtheseideasinthemindsofpeoplecannotadaptintelligentlytonewsituations.Ontheotherhand,culturalvariabilityissimplytheresultofadaptiveexpedience.Hecouldask(ibid.,11)‘dopeopleconducttheirongoingactivitiesintermsofinvariantmentaltemplatesastotheappropriatestrategiesregardlessofthesettinginwhichtheyfindthemselves?’Indeed,hisNunamiutethnoarchaeologyisintroducedasanattempttoidentifywhetherfaunalremainscouldbestudiedasbeing‘culture-free’.Culturalbiascanonlybeidentified(ibid.,38)whenananomalyoccurs;whentheadaptivelyexpedientexpectationsarenotfound.Thedichotomysetupbetweencultureandfunctionlimitsthedevelopmentofarchaeologicaltheorybecause‘functionalvalueisalwaysrelativetothegivenculturalscheme’(Sahlins1976,206).Allactionstakeplacewithinculturalframeworksandtheirfunctionalvalueisassessedintermsoftheconceptsandorientationswhichsurroundthem.Thatanitemorinstitutionis‘goodfor’achievingsomeendispartlyaculturalchoice,asistheenditself.AtthebeginningofthischapterDurkheim’sdefinitionofthefunctionofasocialinstitutionasthecorrespondencebetweenitandtheneedsofthesocialorganismwasdescribed.Buttheneedsofthesocietyarepreferredchoiceswithinaculturalmatrix.Itfollowsthatfunctionandadaptationarenotabsolutemeasures.Alldailyactivities,fromeatingtotheremovalofrefuse,arenottheresultsofsomeabsoluteadaptiveexpedience.Thesevariousfunctionstakeplacewithinaculturalframework,asetofideasornorms,andwecannotadequatelyunderstandthevariousactivitiesbydenyinganyroletoculture.AnidenticalpointismadebyDeetz(1977)inhiscomparisonofculturaltraditionsintwohistoricalperiodsinNorthAmerica.Theabovediscussionisparticularlyrelevanttothefunctionalistviewofmaterialitems.Asalreadynoted,Binfordassumesthatcultureisman’sextrasomaticmeansofadaptation.AccordingtoDavidClarke(1968,85)‘cultureisaninformationsystem,whereinthemessagesareaccumulatedsurvivalinformation’.Inthiswaymaterialcultureisseenassimplyfunctioningattheinterfacebetweenthehumanorganismandthesocialandphysicalenvironmentinordertoallowadaptation.Ithasautilitarianfunction Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology86(Sahlins1976).Theresultofthisviewisthatculturalremainsareseenasreflecting,inafairlystraightforwardway,whatpeopledo.Evenworkondepositionandpost-depositionalprocesses(Schiffer1976),whileaddingcomplexitytothesituation,stillassumesthatmaterialcultureissimplyadirect,indirectordistortedreflectionofman’sactivities.Thisisacontinuationofearlierviewsofmaterialcultureas‘fossilisedaction’.AsFletcher(1977b,51–2)haspointedout,materialcultureisseensimplyasapassiveobjectoffunctionaluse;amereepiphenomenonof‘real’life.Butthereismoretoculturethanfunctionsandactivities.Behindfunctioninganddoingthereisastructureandcontentwhichhaspartlytobeunderstoodinitsownterms,withitsownlogicandcoherence.Thisappliesasmuchtorefusedistributionsand‘theeconomy’asitdoestoburial,potdecorationandart.Linkedtotheseparationoffunctionandculturehasbeenthedecreasedemphasisonarchaeologyasanhistoricaldiscipline.Ifmaterialitemsandsocialinstitutionscanbeexplainedintermsoftheiradaptiveefficiency,thereislittleconcerntosituatethemwithinanhistoricalframework.Theevolutionaryperspectivehasemphasisedadaptiverelationshipsatdifferentlevelsofcomplexity,butithasnotencouragedanexaminationoftheparticularhistoricalcontext.However,itissuggestedherethattheculturalframeworkwithinwhichweact,andwhichwereproduceinouractions,ishistoricallyderivedandthateachcultureisaparticularhistoricalproduct.Theuniquenessofculturesandhistoricalsequencesmustberecognised.WithintheNewArchaeologytherehasbeenagreatconcernwithidentifyingvariability.Butinembracingacross-culturalapproach,variabilityhas,intheabovesense,beenreducedtosameness.Diachronicsequencesaresplitintophasesinwhichthefunctioningofsystemscanbeunderstoodinsynchronictermsasinstancesofsomegeneralrelationship.Thedichotomybetweendiachronyandsynchronyislinkedtothesplitbetweencultureandhistoryontheonehandandfunctionandadaptationontheother.Theresolutionoftheculture/functiondichotomywhichissoughtinthisbook(Hodder1982c)willalsoreintroducehistoricalexplanationasalegitimatetopicofconcerninarchaeology.AnotherlimitationofthefunctionalistperspectiveoftheNewArchaeologyistherelationshipbetweentheindividualandsociety.Thefunctionalviewgiveslittleemphasistoindividualcreativityandintentionality.Individualhumanbeingsbecomelittlemorethanthemeanstoachievetheneedsofsociety.Thesocialsystemisorganisedintosubsys-ternsandroleswhichpeoplefill.Therolesandsocialcategoriesfunctioninrelationtoeachothertoallowtheefficientequilibriumofthewholesystem.Infact,however,individualsarenotsimplyinstrumentsinsomeorchestratedgameanditisdifficulttoseehowsubsystemsandrolescanhave‘goals’oftheirown.Adequateexplanationsofsocialsystemsandsocialchangemustinvolvetheindividual’sassessmentsandaims.Thisisnotaquestionofidentifyingindividuals(HillandGunn1977)butofintroducingtheindividualintosocialtheory.SomeNewArchaeologistshaverecognisedtheimportanceofthis.‘Whilethebehaviourofthegroup,ofmanyindividualunits,mayofteneffectivelybedescribedinstatisticaltermswithoutreferencetothesingleunit,itcannotsoeasilybeexplainedinthisway.Thisisaproblemwhichprehistoricarchaeologyhasyettoresolve’(Renfrew1972,496).Thelackofresolutionisinherentinthefunctionalistemphasisinarchaeology.Furthercriticismoffunctionalistarchaeologyconcernstheemphasisoncross-cultural Theoreticalarchaeology87generalisations.Afteraninitialphaseinwhichethnoarchaeologywasusedlargelytoprovidecautionarytalesand‘spoilers’(Yellen1977),theconcernhasbeentoprovidecross-culturalstatementsofhighpredictivevalue.Becauseofthepreferredhypothetico-deductivenatureofexplanation,itbecameimportanttoidentifyrulesofbehaviourandartifactdepositionwhichwereusedregardlessofculturalcontext.Asalreadynoted,suchanapproachwasfeasiblebecausetheparticularhistoricalandculturaldimensionsofactivityweredenied.Differentsubsystemswereidentified,suchassubsistence,exchange,settlement,refusedisposalandburial,andcrossculturalregularitiesweresought.Sincetheroleofculturalandhistoricalfactorswasnotexamined,itwasnecessarilythecasethattheresultinggeneralisationseitherwerelimitedtomechanicalorphysicalaspectsoflifeorweresimplisticandwithlittlecontent.Someaspectsofhumanactivityareconstrainedbydeterministicvariables.Forexample,itisdifficultforhumanstowalkbare-footedonspreadsoffreshlyknappedflint,ortoworkorsitinornearthesmokeoffires(Binford1978b;Gould1980).Certaintypesofbonedoholdmoreorlessmeatormarrow,andtheyfractureindifferentways(Binford1978a;Gifford1978).Theseedssortedbywindduringwinnowingdependpartlyonwindvelocityandseeddensity(Jones,pers.comm.).Smallerartifactsaremoredifficultforhumanstoholdandfindthanlargeartifactsandsothepatternsoflossmaydiffer(Schiffer1976).Cross-culturalpredictivelawsorgeneralisationscanbedevelopedforthesemechanicalconstraintsonhumanbehaviour,andethnoarchaeologyhasbeenmostsuccessfulinthesespheres,butattemptstoextendthisapproachtosocialandculturalbehaviourhavebeenseverelycriticisedasisshownbythedebateoverthehypothesisputforwardbyLongacre(1970),Deetz(1968),andHill(1970)(e.g.AllenandRichardson1971;Stanislawski1973),andtheresulthasbeenthefrustrationimpliedbyFlannery’s(1973)characterisationofMickeyMouselaws.Assoonasanyhumanchoiceisinvolved,behaviouralandfunctionallawsappearsimplisticandinadequatebecausehumanbehaviourisrarelyentirelymechanistic.Theroleofethnoarchaeologymustalsobetodefinetherelevantculturalcontextforsocialandecologicalbehaviour.Linkedtotheemphasisoncross-culturalfunctionallawsistheideaof‘predictingthepast’(Thomas1974).Thepercentagesofmodernsocietiesinwhichwomenmakepots(Phillips1971)orinwhichsizeofsettlementisrelatedtopost-maritalresidence(Ember1973)aredifficulttouseasmeasuresofprobabilityfortheinterpretationofthepastbecausemodernsocietiesarenotindependentnordotheycomprisearandomorrepresentativesampleofsocialforms.Moreimportant,however,isthelackofidentitybetweenpredictionandunderstanding.Itispossibletopredictmanyaspectsofhumanbehaviourwithsomeaccuracybutwithoutanyunderstandingofthecausalrelationshipsinvolved.Equally,agoodunderstandingofasocialeventmaynotleadtoanabilitytopredicttheoutcomeofasimilarsetofcircumstances.Levelsofprobabilityandstatisticalevidenceofcorrelationarenosubstituteforanunderstandingofcausallinksandoftherelevantcontextforhumanaction.Theuseofmathematicalandstatisticalformulaewhichprovidegoodfitstoarchaeologicaldataleadstolittleunderstandingofthepast.Myowninvolvementinspatialarchaeology,asphereinwhichstatisticalpredictionhasbeenmostsuccessful,hasshownmostclearlythatpredictionhaslittletodowithexplanation.Theembraceofthehypothetico-deductivemethodandpredictioninrelationto Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology88interpretationofthepasthasallowedthedefinitionofindependentlevelsoftheory.Adistinct‘middle-rangetheory’hasbeenidentifiedbecauseithasbeenassumedthatobjectiveyardsticksorinstrumentsofmeasurementcanbeobtainedforthestudyofpastsystemsandtheirarchaeologicalresidues(Binford1978a,45).Wehavegeneraltheoriesofsocialdevelopmentandlower-leveltheoriesconcerningtheformationofthearchaeologicalrecord.Similarly,Clarke(1973)suggestedthatpre-depositional,depositional,post-depositional,analyticalandinterpretivetheoriescouldbedistinguisheddespitetheexistenceofoverallcontrollingmodels.Thisseparationoflevelsortypesoftheoryispartlypossiblebecauseofamodelofmanwhichseparatesdifferentfunctionalactivitiesandsetsuppredictiverelationshipsbetweenthem.Thus,depositionaltheorycanbeseparatedfrominterpretivetheorybecauseartifactdepositionisadaptivelyexpedientandcanbepredictedwithoutreferencetowidersocialtheories.Thehypothesesconcerningsocialinstitutionsandsocialchangearethoughttobedifferentinnaturefromthehypothesesconcerningtherelationshipbetweensocietyandmaterialculture.Butbothmaterialitemsandtheirdepositionareactivelyinvolvedinsocialrelationsandwecannotseparateindependentlevelsoftheory.Frameworksofculturalmeaningstructureallaspectsofarchaeologicalinformation.Leone(1978)hasshownmostclearlyhowdata,analysesandinterpretationsareinextricablylinked.Thedifferenttheoreticallevelsshouldbecongruent,andbeyondnaturalprocessestherecanbenoinstrumentsofabsolutemeasurement.TheaimoftheNewArchaeologywastoshowtherationalityofinstitutionswithrespecttotheirenvironments.Themaincriticismsofthisgeneralapproachasdescribedaboveareasfollows.(1)Thedichotomysetupbetweenculturalformandobjectivefunctionalexpedienceismisleading,andmaterialitemsaremorethantoolsholdingsurvivalinformation.(2)Thefunctionalistviewpointisunabletoexplainculturalvarietyanduniquenessadequately.(3)Socialsystemsbecomereifiedtosuchanextentthattheindividualcontributeslittle.(4)Thecross-culturalgeneralisationswhichhaveresultedfromfunctionaliststudiesbyarchaeologistshavebeenunabletoidentifyvalidstatementsaboutsocialandculturalbehaviourbecausetherelevantcontextisinsufficientlyexplored.(5)Differentlevelsortypesofhypothesishavebeenidentified,butinfactallhypothesesareandshouldbeintegratedwithinacoherentsocialandculturaltheory.Thisvolumeseekstorespondtothesecriticismsbydevelopingalternativeapproaches.Iwishtobeginbyconsideringvariousdefinitionsof‘structure’.STRUCTUREASSYSTEM,PATTERNANDSTYLEIntheprecedingdiscussionoffunctionalism,referencehasbeenmadetotheadaptiveutilityofmaterialitemsandinstitutionswithinsocialandculturalsystems.Subsystems(pottery,settlement,social,economic,etc.)canbeidentifiedanddiscussedincross-culturalperspective.Withineachsocioculturalsystemaparticularsetofsystemicrelationshipsisproducedinordertomeetlocalneedsatparticularmomentsintime.Intheanalysisofsuchsystems,thewords‘system’and‘structure’areinterchangeable.Thesystem(orstructure)istheparticularsetofrelationshipsbetweenthevariouscomponents;itisthewaytheinterrelationshipsareorganised.WithinNewArchaeology, Theoreticalarchaeology89then,structureisthesystemofobservablerelations.Structureisthewaythingsaredoneandit,likeindividualitemsandinstitutions,isexplainedastheresultofadaptiveexpedience.Thefunctionalistviewofstructureisapparentindiscussionsofsocialorganisation,socialrelationsorsocialsystems,noneofwhicharedistinguishedfromsocialstructure.ThetermsocialstructureisusedbyNewArchaeologiststorefertobands,tribes,chiefdoms,states,aswellastoreciprocal,redistributiveandprestigetransactions.Socialstructureisobserveddirectlyinburialandsettlementpatternswherethevisibledifferentiationinassociationsandformsisseenasreflectingrolesandactivitiesorganisedinrelationtoeachother.Thestructureofsocialrelationsasawholeisorganisedsoastoallowadaptationtosuchfactorsasthedistributionofenvironmentalresources(uniformorlocalised),theavailabilityofprestigeitemsorvaluedcommodities,andtherelationshipswithneighbouringsocialgroups.Insuchsystemicstudiesthecloserelationshipbetweentheterms‘structure’and‘pattern’isapparent.Inidentifyingsocialandeconomicstructuresvariouspatternsareanalysed.Thesepatternsincludethedistributionsofsettlementsofdifferentsizesandfunctionsacrossthelandscape,thedistributionsofartifactsandbuildingsinsettlements,thedistributionsofresources,thedistributionsofartifactsamonggravesincemeteries,theregionaldistributionsofexchangeditemsandtheregionaldistributionsofartifactsininteractionorinformationexchangespheresor‘cultures’.Thesevariouspatternsare‘objective’andareimmediatelysusceptibletostatisticalmanipulation,quantificationandcomputerisation.Theconcernwithpatternallowsthelegitimateuseofawiderangeofscientificsoftware,includingnumericaltaxonomyandspatialanalysis.Theidentificationofpatternandtheimplementationof‘analyticalarchaeology’isextendedtostudiesofarrangementsofattributesonindividualartifacts,where‘pattern’isoftenequivalentto‘style’.Theanalysisofpotteryandmetaldecoration,andoftheformofartifacts,leadstothedefinitionof‘types’basedontheassociationofattributes.Artifactstylesareinterpretedashavingutilitarianornon-utilitarianfunctions;theyaretechnomic,sociotechnicorideotechnic(Binford1972).Styleisinvolvedinthesupportofgroupsolidarity(Hodder1979)andthepassingonofinformation(Wobst1977).Infunctionalistarchaeology,structureisexaminedassystem,organisation,distribution,pattern,orstyle.Itisproducedbypeopleattemptingtoadapttotheirenvironments.Likeanyartifact,structureisatoolforcoping.Ifcultureisatoolactingbetweenpeopleandtheenvironment,andiftheterm‘culture’describestheparticularadaptiveorganisationproducedineachenvironmentalcontext,thenstructureisalsosimilartoculture.Acultureisseenasthewaymaterialbitsandpiecesareassembledandassociatedinageographicalareainordertoallowhumanadaptation.STRUCTUREASCODEInthischapterIwishtodistinguishbetweensystemandstructure(Giddens1979),bydefiningstructurenotassystem,patternorstyle,butasthecodesandrulesaccordingtowhichobservedsystemsofinterrelationsareproduced.Severalarchaeologicalstudieshavemadeacontributiontotheanalysisofstructureascode,andsomeexamplesare Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology90discussedhere.WithinstudiesofPalaeolithiccaveart,Leroi-Gourhan(1965)hasmadespecificinterpretationsofsignsasmaleorfemaleandhassuggestedvariouscodesforthecombinationandrelativeplacingofthesignswithinthecaves.Marshak(1977)identifiedspecificinterpretationsofsymbolsasdangerousandherelatedthestructureassociatedwiththemeanderincavearttothegeneralflowandparticipationindailylife.Conkey(1977)identifiedgeneralaspectsoftherulesoforganisationofUpperPalaeolithicart,suchas‘thenon-differentiationofunits’,anddidnotattempttoprovideaspecificmeaningintermsofsocialorganisation.Alltheseanalyseswereconcernedtoidentifycodesorrules,butthenatureoftheinterpretationofthesestructuresandoftheirrelationshiptosocialstructuresvaried.Studiesoflaterartifactandpotterydesignhaveoftentendedtowardsastillmoreformalemphasisinthatlittleattentionispaidtothesocialcontextinwhichstructuresareproduced.ThelinguisticmodelhasbeendevelopedmostfullybyMuller(1977)inhisanalysisofthegrammaticalrulesofdesign.Hiswork,andWashburn’s(1978)definitionofdifferenttypesofsymmetry,donotresultinanyattemptattranslatingculturalmeaningandsymbolism.Rather,Washburnusessymmetrysimplyasanadditionaltraitforthediscoveryofpopulationgroupcompositionandinteractionspheres.Suchanalysescanbe,andhavebeen,carriedoutwithoutanymajorchangeinfunctionalisttheoriesofsociety.SomeoftheworkontheidentificationofsettlementstructureshasalsoinvolvedlittlecriticismoftheNewArchaeology.Clarke’s(1972,828and837)identificationofstructuraltransformations(bilateralsymmetryrelatingtomale/female)intheIronAgeGlastonburysettlementappearsasaperipheralcomponentofasystemsanalysis.Aclearlinkismadebetweenthegenerativeprinciplesofthesettlementdesignandthesocialsystem.Isbell’s(1976)recognitionofthe3000-yearcontinuityinsettlementstructureintheSouthAmericanAndes,despitemajordiscontinuitiesinsocialandeconomicsystems,raisesmorefundamentalproblemsforsystemicstudiessincestructureisseentocontinueandliebehindadaptivechange.Fritz’s(1978)interestingaccountofprehistoricChacoCanyoninnorthwesternNewMexicoshowsthattheorganisationofhouses,towns,andregionalsettlementcanbeseenastransformsofthesameunderlyingprincipleinwhichwestissymmetricaltoeast,butnorthisasymmetricaltosouth.Thisstudyisconcernedtolinktheorganisationofsocialsystemstounderlyingstructures.ThestructuralistanalysisofaNeolithiccemeterybyVandeVelde(1980)hasrelatedaims.Fletcher’s(1977a)workonthespacingbetween‘entities’—posts,walls,doorposts,potsandhearths—insettlementsisconcernedlesswithsocialstrategiesandmorewithorderingprincipleswhichcarrylong-termadaptivevalue.Hillieretal.(1976)haveidentifiedapurelyformallogicforthedescriptionofalltypesofarrangementofbuildingsandspaceswithinsettlements.Theaboveexamplesaredrawnfromprehistoricarchaeologybutstructuralstudieshaveanimportantplaceinhistoricalarchaeology(Frankfort1951;Deetz1967;Glassie1975;Ferguson1977;Leone1977).Whilemanyoftheprehistoricandhistoricarchaeologystudiesexplainstructureintermsofsocialfunctionsandadaptivevalues,theyalsointroducethenotionthatthereismoretoculturethanobservablerelationshipsandfunctionalutility.Thereisalsoasetofrules,acode,which,liketherulesinagameof Theoreticalarchaeology91chess,isfollowedinthepursuitofsurvival,adaptationandsocio-economicstrategy.InanethnographicanalysisoftheNubainSudan,ithasbeenshownthatallaspectsofmaterialculturepatterning(burial,settlement,artifactstyles)mustbeunderstoodasbeingproducedaccordingtosetsofrulesconcernedwithpurity,boundednessandcategorisation(Hodder,1982a).Individualsorganisetheirexperienceaccordingtosetsofrules.Communicationandunderstandingoftheworldresultfromtheuseofacommonlanguage—thatis,asetofruleswhichidentifyboththewaysymbolsshouldbeorganisedintosets,andthemeaningofindividualsymbolsincontrasttoothers.Materialculturecanbeexaminedasastructuredsetofdifferences.Thisstructuredsymbolisingbehaviourhasfunctionalutility,anditmustbeunderstoodinthoseterms.Butitalsohasalogicofitsownwhichisnotdirectlyobservableaspatternorstyle.Thestructuremustbeinterpretedashavingexistedpartlyindependentlyoftheobservabledata,havinggeneratedandproducedthosedata.TheconcernwithmaterialcultureastheproductofhumancategorisationprocessesisdescribedbyMiller(1982).Itissufficienttoemphasiseherethatthevariousstructuralistanalysesofcodescanbeclearlydistinguishedfromfunctionaliststudiesofsystems.Bothstructuralistsandfunctionalistsareconcernedwithrelationshipsandwiththewaythingsandinstitutionsareorganised.Inotherwords,bothareconcernedwith‘structure’ifthatwordisdefinedinaverygeneralway.Butthereisadifferenceinthatthelogicanalysedbyfunctionalistsisthevisiblesocialsystem(thesocialrelations)whichexistsseparatelyfromtheperceptionsofpeople.ForLeach(1973b;1977;1978),structureisanidealorderinthemind.ForLévi-Strauss(1968),itisaninternallogic,notdirectlyvisible,whichistheunderlyingorderbywhichtheapparentordermustbeexplained.ButforLévi-Strauss,thestructureoftenappearstolieoutsidethehumanmind(Godelier1977).Structuralists,includingLeachandLévi-Strauss,claimthatadequateexplanationofobservedpatternsmustmakereferencetounderlyingcodes.CRITICISMSOFSTRUCTURALISMTheproblemsandlimitationsofthedifferenttypesofstructuralismarediscussedby,forexample,Giddens(1979),andinthischapteronlythosecriticismswillbeexaminedwhichareparticularlyrelevanttothethemestobedebatedinthisbook(Hodder,1982c).Amajorproblemconcernsthelackofatheoryofpractice(Bourdieu1977).ThestructuralismofSaussure,whichusesalinguisticmodel,separateslangueasaclosedseriesofformalrules,astructuredsetofdifferences,fromsemanticandreferentialties.Theformalsetofrelationshipsisdistinctfromthepracticeofuse.Similarly,Lévi-Straussidentifiesaseriesofunconsciousmentalstructureswhichareseparatedfrompracticeandfromtheabilityofsocialactorstoreflectconsciouslyontheirideasandcreatenewrules.Inbothlinguisticandstructuralanalysesitisunclearhowtheinterpretationanduseofrulesmightleadtochange.Howanindividualcanbeacompetentsocialactorisnotclearlyspecified.Asinfunctionalism,formandpracticalfunctionareseparated.Thefailurewithinstructuralismandwithinstructuralistanalysesinarchaeologytodevelopatheoryofpractice(concerningthegenerationofstructuresinsocialaction)hasencouragedtheviewwithinfunctionalistarchaeologythatstructuralismcanonly Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology92contributetothestudyofnormsandideaswhichareepiphenomenal.Thegulfbetweennormativeandprocessualarchaeologyhasbeenwidenedsince,ontheonehand,structuralistapproachescouldbeseenasrelatingtoideasdivorcedfromadaptiveprocesseswhile,ontheotherhand,itwasthoughtbyprocessualiststhatsocialchangecouldbeexaminedadequatelywithoutreferencetothestructureofideas.Someofthestructuraliststudiesidentifiedabove,suchasthosebyMullerandWashburn,makelittleattempttounderstandthereferentialcontext.Thenotionofa‘mentaltemplate’canbecriticisedinasimilarveinbecauseitenvisagesanabstractsetofideasorpictureswithoutexaminingtheframeworkofreferentialmeaningwithinwhichtheideastaketheirform.Inother,moreintegratedstudies,suchasthosebyFritzandMarshak,thesocialandecologicalcontextsofthestructuresidentifiedareexamined,butthelinkbetweenformandpracticeisinsecureandnorelevanttheoryisdeveloped.Ontheotherhand,worksuchasthatofFlanneryandMarcus(1976),whichfitsbetterintothefunctionalistmould,relatesallformtofunctionandstructuralanalysisislimited.Fewarchaeologicalstudieshavemanagedtoprovideconvincingaccountsoftherelationshipbetweenstructureascodeandsocialandecologicalorganisation.Otherlimitationsofstructuralismcanberelatedtotheabove.Asinfunctionalism,theroleoftheindividualisslight.Infunctionalismtheindividualissubordinatetotheimperativesofsocialco-ordination.InthestructuralismofLévi-Strausstheindividualissubordinatetotheorganisingmechanismsoftheunconscious.Thenotionofa‘norm’intraditionalarchaeologyimpliesastructuredsetofculturalruleswithinwhichtheindividualplayslittlepart.Thedichotomybetweensynchronyanddiachrony,staticsanddynamics,existsinstructuralismasitdoesinfunctionalism.Structuralanalysescanincorporatetimeasadimensionforthesettingupofformaldifferences,buttheroleofhistoricalexplanationisseentobeslightintheworkofLévi-Strauss,andthereislittleattempttounderstandhowstructuralrulescanbechanged.Structuresoftenappearasstaticconstraintsonsocieties,preventingchange.Structuralismdoesnothaveanadequatenotionofthegenerationofchange.Whilethemainconcernofreactionstostructuralismistodevelopanadequatetheoryofpractice(Piaget1971;1972;Bourdieu1977;Giddens1979),othercriticismshaveconcentratedonthemethodsofanalysis.Structures,becausetheyareorganisingprinciples,arenotobservableassuch,andthisistruewhetherwearetalkingaboutanthropology,psychologyorarchaeology.Theycanonlybereachedbyreflectiveabstraction.Thus,structuresofparticularkindscouldbesaidtoemergebecausetheanalystislookingforthem,tryingtofitthedataintosomeexpectedandhypotheticalstructuralpattern.Buthowcansuchhypotheseseverbefalsified(Pettit1975,88)?Forstructuralismtobeaworthwhilepursuit,itmustbepossibletodisproveaweakhypothesis.However,Pettitfeelsthatrejectionofstructuralisthypothesesisimpossible,atleastinregardtomyths,foranumberofreasons(ibid.,88–92).Forexample,theinitialhypothesisinstructuralistanalysisoftenisnecessarilyvaguesothattheanalystcangivehimselfroomtoshiftthehypothesistoaccommodatethenewtransformations.Also,becausetherearefewrulesonthewayinwhichstructuresaretransformedintodifferentrealities,onecanmakeuptherulesasonegoesalong.Byusingsufficientingenuity,anytwopatternscanprobablybepresentedastransformationsofeachother. Theoreticalarchaeology93ThusthestructuralmethodofLévi-Strauss‘ishardlymorethanalicenceforthefreeexerciseofimaginationinestablishingassociations’(ibid.,96).Thereiscertainlyadangerthatarchaeologistsmaybeabletoselectarbitraryaspectsoftheirdataandsuggestawholeseriesofunverifiabletransformations.ThesecriticismsarediscussedindetailbyWylie(1982).HereIwishtonotethatPettit’sattackisdirectedatthoseformalandstructuralanalyseswhichtakelittleaccountofthereferentialcontextofsocialaction.Withinastructuralisminwhichatheoryofpracticehasbeendeveloped,Pettit’scriticismshavelessforcebecausethestructuraltransformationsmust‘makesense’aspartofachangingandoperatingsystem.Abstractformalanalysismustbeshowntoberelevanttoaparticularsocialandhistoricalcontext,anditmustleadtoanunderstandingofthegenerationofnewactionsandstructuresthroughtime.Alltheabovecriticismsofstructuralismhaveconcernedtheneedtoexaminethegenerationofstructureswithinmeaningful,activeandchangingcontexts.Thecriticismsofbothfunctionalismandstructuralismcentreontheinabilityoftheapproachestoexplainparticularhistoricalcontextsandthemeaningfulactionsofindividualsconstructingsocialchangewithinthosecontexts.Archaeologyinparticularhasmovedawayfromhistoricalexplanationandhastriedtoidentifycross-culturaluniversalsconcerningeitherthefunctioningofecologicalsystemsor(rarely)thehumanunconscious.Thereisaneedtodevelopacontextualarchaeologywhichresolvesthedichotomyevidentinfunctionalismandstructuralismbetweenculturalnormandsocietaladaptation.ARCHAEOLOGYASACULTURALSCIENCETheapproachesdevelopedbythemajorityoftheauthorsinthisvolume(Hodder1982c)arenotstructuralistinthattheytakeaccountofthecriticismsoftheworkof,forexample,LeachandLévi-Strauss,madebyvarious‘post-structuralist’writers(Ardener1978;Harstrup1978).Yettheinsightsofferedbystructuralismmustberetainedinanyadequateanalysisofsocialprocesses,anditisforthisreasonthatIhavenotdeletedthetermstructuralismfromthepapersinthisbook(e.g.Wylie(1982);seealsotheterm‘dialecticalstructuralism’usedbyTilley(1982)).Evenifstructuralismasawholeisgenerallyrejected,theanalysisofstructurehasapotentialwhichhasnotbeenexhaustedinarchaeology.StructuralanalysesinvolveaseriesofapproachesdescribedbyMiller(1982).Importantconceptswhichcanberetainedfromstructuralismincludesyntagmandparadigm.Syntagmreferstorulesofcombination,andto‘sets’ofitemsandsymbols.Inburialstudiesitmaybenoted,forexample,thatparticular‘costumes’canbeidentifiedwhichareassociatedwithparticularsub-groupswithinsociety.Therulesofcombinationdescribethewayinwhichitemsorclassesofitem(e.g.weapons)placedononepartofthebodyareassociatedwithotherclassesofitemonotherpartsofthebody.Similarly,setsofitemsmaybefoundtooccurinsettlements.Syntagmaticstudiescanalsobeappliedtothecombinationofattributesonartifacts,andHodder(1982d)describesrulesforthegenerationofDutchNeolithicpotterydecoration.Paradigmreferstoseriesofalternativesordifferences.Forexample,intheburialstudy,abroochoftypeAmaybe Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology94foundwornontheshoulderincontrasttoapinorabroochoftypeBplacedinthesamepositiononotherskeletons.Eachalternativemaybeassociatedwithadifferentsymbolicmeaning.Butinallsuchstructuralanalysestheparticularsymbolusedmustnotbeseenasarbitrary.‘Highstructuralist’analysesaredirectedtowardsexaminationsofabstractcodes,andthecontentorsubstanceofthesymbolitselfoftenappearsarbitrary.However,thesymbolisnotarbitrary,asisseenby,forexample,theplacingofasymbolsuchasacrown,associatedwithroyalty,onthelabelofabottleofbeerinordertoincreasesales.Thecrownisnotchosenarbitrarilyinastructuredsetofdifferences.Rather,itischosenasapowerfulsymbolwithparticularevocationsandconnotationswhichmakeitsuseappropriatewithinthesocialandeconomiccontextofsellingbeerinEngland.Thecontentofthesignaffectsthestructureofitsuse.Barth(1975)hasdemonstratedelegantlythatmaterialsymbolisationcannotbedescribedsimplyassetsofcategoriesandtransformations,howevercross-cuttingandcomplexonemightallowthesetobe.Cultureistobestudiedasmeaningfullyconstituting—astheframeworkthroughwhichadaptationoccurs—butthemeaningofanobjectresidesnotmerelyinitscontrasttootherswithinaset.Meaningalsoderivesfromtheassociationsanduseofanobject,whichitselfbecomes,throughtheassociations,thenodeofanetworkofreferencesandimplications.Thereisaninterplaybetweenstructureandcontent.Theemphasisonthesymbolicassociationsofthingsthemselvesisnotonlyadeparturefrompurelyformalandstructuralistanalyses.Italsobreakswithotherapproachesinarchaeology.Inprocessualanalysesofsymbolsystems,theartifactitselfisrarelygivenmuchimportance.Anobjectmaybedescribedassymbolisingstatus,maleorfemale,orsocialsolidarity,buttheuseoftheparticularartifactclass,andthechoiceofthesymbolitself,arenotadequatelydiscussed.Similarly,traditionalarchaeologistsusetypesasindicatorsofcontact,culturalaffiliationanddiffusion,butthequestionofwhichtypeisusedforwhichpurposeisnotpursued.Thesymbolisseenasbeingarbitrary.Inthisbook(Hodder1982c)anattemptismadebysomeoftheauthorstoassesswhyparticularsymbolswereusedinaparticularcontext.Forexample,theshapeofNeolithicburialmoundsisseenashavingbeenappropriatebecausetheshapeitselfreferredbacktoearlierhouses,andsuchreferencesandevocationshadsocialadvantageinthecontextinwhichthetombswerebuilt(Hodder1982d).Thestructuralandsymbolicemphasesleadtoanawarenessoftheimportanceof‘context’ininterpretationsoftheuseofmaterialitemsinsocialprocesses.Thegenerativestructuresandthesymbolicassociationshaveaparticularmeaningineachculturalcontextandwithineachsetofactivitieswithinthatcontext.Althoughgenerativeprinciplessuchaspure/impure,ortherelationsbetweenpartsofthehumanbody(seeShanksandTilley1982),mayoccurwidely,theymaybecombinedinwayspeculiartoeachculturalmilieu,andbegivenspecificmeaningsandassociations.Thetransformationofstructuresandsymbolsbetweendifferentcontextscanhavegreat‘power’.Forexample,ithasbeennotedelsewhere(HodderandLane1982)thatNeolithicstoneaxesinBritainandBrittanyfrequentlyoccurinritualandburialcontexts,engravedonwalls,asminiaturesorassoftchalkcopies.Theparticipationoftheseaxesinsecularexchangeswouldevoketheritualcontextsandcouldbeusedtolegitimateanysocialdominancebasedonprivilegedaccesstotheseitems.InastudyoftheNeolithicinOrkney(Hodder Theoreticalarchaeology951982a)ithasbeensuggestedthatthesimilaritiesbetweenthespatialstructuresinburial,non-burialritual,anddomesticsettlementcontextswereusedwithinsocialstrategiestolegitimiseemergingelites.Sofar,ithasbeensuggestedthatmaterialitemscometohavesymbolicmeaningsasaresultbothoftheiruseinstructuredsetsandoftheassociationsandimplicationsoftheobjectsthemselves,butthatthemeaningsvarywithcontext.Itisthroughthesevariousmechanismsthatmaterialitemsandtheconstructedworldcometorepresentsociety.Butwhatisthenatureofrepresentationinhumanculture?Inparticular,howshouldsocialrelationsbetranslatedintomaterialsymbols?ForNewArchaeologiststhesequestionsarerelativelyunproblematicsinceartifacts(whetherutilitarian,socialorideological)aresimplytoolsforadaptiveefficiency.Symbolsareorganisedsoastomaximiseinformationflowandthereisnoconceptinsuchanalysesoftherelativityofrepresentation.Itisinstudiesofrepresentationthatconceptsofideologyplayacentralrole,andalthoughthereisconsiderabledivergenceofviewswithinthisbook(Hodder1982c)onthedefinitionandnatureofideology,itisatleastclearthatthewayinwhichstructuredsetsofsymbolsareusedinrelationtosocialstrategiesdependsonaseriesofconceptsandattitudesthatarehistoricallyandcontextuallyappropriate.Ihavedemonstratedelsewhere(Hodder1982b),forexample,thatsocialrankingmayberepresentedinburialritualeitherthrougha‘naturalising’ideologyinwhichthearbitrarysocialsystemisrepresentedasoccurringinthematerialworld,orthroughanideologyinwhichsocialdominanceisdeniedanderadicatedinartifactsandintheorganisationofritual.Thisexampledemonstratestwoextremesintherepresentationandmisrepresentationofsocialrelations,butitservestoindicatethatallmaterialpatterningisgeneratedbysymbolicstructureswithinaculturalmatrix.Burialpattern,then,isnotadirectbehaviouralreflectionofsocialpattern.Itisstructuredthroughsymbolicallymeaningfulcodeswhichcanbemanipulatedinsocialstrategies.Archaeologistsmustacceptthatdeathandattitudestothedeadformasymbolicarenaofgreatemotiveforcewhichisemployedinlife.Similarargumentscanbemadeinrelationtootheractivitiesinwhichmaterialcultureisinvolved(Hodder1982a).Throwingawayrefuseandtheorganisationofdirtareusedinallsocietiesaspartsofsocialactions(see,forexample,theusebyHippiesofdirtanddisorderinthe1960sand1970sinwesternEuropeandNorthAmerica).Equally,thepreparationoffood,cookingandeatinghavegreatsymbolicsignificanceinforming,maskingortransformingaspectsofsocialrelations.Potteryshapesanddecorationcanbeusedtomarkout,separateofforconcealthesocialcategoriesandrelationshipsplayedoutinthecontextoffoodpreparation,storageandconsumption.Thereisnodirectlinkbetweensocialandceramicvariability.Attitudestofoodandtheartifactsusedineatingactivitiesplayacentralroleintheconstructionofsocialcategories(asisseen,forexample,intheusebyHippiesandPunksofnatural‘health’andunnatural‘plastic’foodsincontemporarywesternEurope).Similarhypothesescanbedevelopedforthewearingofornamentsonthebody,theorganisationoftheproductionofpotteryandmetalitems,andtheorganisationofspacewithinsettlementsandhouses.Beforearchaeologycancontributetothesocialsciences,itmustdevelopasaculturalscience.Theconcernmustbetoexaminetheroleofmaterialcultureintheideologicalrepresentationofsocialrelations.Excavatedartifactsareimmediatelycultural,notsocial,andtheycaninformon Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology96societyonlythroughanadequateunderstandingofculturalcontext.Materialsymbolisationisnotapassiveprocess,becauseobjectsandactivitiesactivelyrepresentandactbackuponsociety.Withinaparticularideology,theconstructedworldcanbeusedtolegitimisethesocialorder.Equally,materialsymbolscanbeusedcovertlytodisruptestablishedrelationsofdominance(seeBraithwaite1982).Eachuseofanartifact,throughitspreviousassociationsandusage,hasasignificanceandmeaningwithinsocietysothattheartifactisanactiveforceinsocialchange.Thedailyuseofmaterialitemswithindifferentcontextsrecreatesfrommomenttomomenttheframeworkofmeaningwithinwhichpeopleact.Theindividual’sactionsinthematerialworldreproducethestructureofsociety,butthereisacontinualpotentialforchange.The‘power’ofmaterialsymbolsinsocialactionderivesnotonlyfromthetransformationofstructuresbetweendifferentcontextsorfromtheassociationsevokedbyparticularitemsorforms.Itresidesalsointheambiguousmeaningsofmaterialitems.Unlikespokenlanguage,themeaningsofmaterialsymbolscanremainundiscussedandimplicit.Theirmeaningscanbereinterpretedandmanipulatedcovertly.Themultiplemeaningsatdifferentlevelsandthe‘fuzziness’(Miller1982)ofmaterialsymbolscanbeinterpretedindifferentwaysbydifferentinterestgroupsandthereisacontinuingprocessofchangeandrenegotiation.Itisessentialtoseematerialsymbolsasnotonly‘goodtothink’,butalso‘goodtoact’.Artifacts,theorganisationofspaceandritualareembeddedina‘means-to-end’context.Theeffectsofsymbols,intendedandunintended,mustbeassociatedwiththeirrepeateduseandwiththe‘structuration’ofsociety.Symbolicandstructuralprinciplesareusedtoformsocialactions,andtheyareinturnreproduced,reinterpretedandchangedasaresultofthoseactions.Thedichotomybetweennormativeandprocessualarchaeologyisthusby-passedbythenotionthatsymbolicstructuresareinacontinualstateofreinterpretationandchangeinrelationtothepracticesofdailylife.Becauseoftheemphasesoncontextandonthecontinualprocessofchangewhichisimplicatedinmaterialpracticesandsymbolisation,archaeologicalenquiryisofanhistoricalnature.Artifactsandtheirorganisationcometohavespecificculturalmeaningsasaresultoftheiruseinparticularhistoricalcontexts.TheexamplesofthecrownandtheNeolithicbarrowshavebeenprovidedabove.Theenquiryisalsohistoricalbecausetheintendedandunintendedconsequencesofactionaffectfurtheraction.Theyformasettingwithinwhichfutureactorsmustplay.Theapproachesexploredinthisbook(Hodder1982c)areneitheridealistnormaterialist.Theyattempttobridgethegapbetweentheseextremes.Ontheonehand,itishopedthatthemajorcriticismsofstructuralism,asoutlinedabove,areavoided.Theaimisnottoidentifycognitiveuniversals.Itisnotintendedtoencouragethenotionthatmaterialitemsaresimplyreflectionsofcategoriesofthemind,ortodevelopabstractlinguisticanalysesofmaterialsymbolism.Archaeologyisseenasanhistoricaldisciplineconcernedwiththeactiveintegrationofculturalitemsindailypractices.Structuresareidentifiedinrelationtomeaning,practicesandchange.Verificationisaidedbytheuseofmodelsconcerningthewaysinwhichstructuresareintegratedinaction.Themodelsidentifythecomponentswhichmakeupculturalcontexts.Theysuggestrelevantcausalrelationshipswithinadaptivesystems.Ontheotherhand,attemptsaremadetoanswerthevariouscriticismsoffunctionalismdescribedearlierinthischapter.Itisclearthattheapproachesoutlinedherecanbe Theoreticalarchaeology97describedasextensionsoftheNewArchaeologyinthatthereisacontinuedconcernwithsocialprocessesandwiththeuseofmaterialitemsinthoseprocesses.Sinceprocessualstudiesinarchaeologyhavebeensocloselylinkedtofunctionalismitisnecessarytoindicatethatthesuggestionsmadeherecanavoidthevariouscriticismsofthatschool.Asignificantdevelopmentisthattheculture/functionandstatics/dynamicsdichotomiesaredeniedsincemeaningandideologyareinextricablytiedtodailypractices.Inadditionattemptsaremadetolocatetheindividualasanactivecomponentinsocialchange,sincetheinterestsofindividualsdifferanditisintheinterplaybetweendifferentgoalsandaimsthattherulesofthesocietyarepenetrated,reinterpretedandreformed.Thecross-culturalgeneralisationswhicharetobedevelopedareconcernedlesswithstatisticallevelsofassociationinsummaryfilesofmodernsocietiesandmorewithcarefulconsiderationsofrelevantculturalcontexts.Finally,allaspectsofarchaeologicalendeavourbecomeinfusedwiththesamesocialandculturaltheories,thesamemodelsofman.Theoriesconcerningtherelationshipbetweenmaterialresiduesandthenon-materialworldareplacedwithinoveralltheoriesofsocietyandsocialchange.THEHISTORICALCONTEXTOFASYMBOLICANDSTRUCTURALARCHAEOLOGYWhiletheideasputforwardherecanbeseentoprovideanextensionoftheNewArchaeology,anaskingofadditionalquestions,itwouldbemisleadingtoclaimthattheaimsofacontextualorculturalapproacharealtogethernew.TheviewsarereactionaryinthesensethattheyhavecertainsimilaritiestotheattitudesofanoldergenerationofBritishprehistorians.WriterssuchasChilde,Clark,DanielandPiggottplacedasimilaremphasisonarchaeologyasanhistoricaldiscipline,theyeschewedcross-culturallaws,andtheysawmaterialitemsasbeingstructuredbymorethanfunctionalnecessities.Theysawartifactsasexpressionsofculturallyframedideasandtheywereconcernedprimarilywiththenatureofcultureandculturalcontexts.Manytraditionalarchaeologistsacknowledgedthatartifactswereultimatelyexpressionsofideasspecifictoeachculturalandhistoricalcontext.Thesearchaeologistswere‘normative’inthesensedescribedbyBinford.ButBritishprehistoriansoftenfounditdifficulttoapplytheiraimsinpracticesincetheideationalrealmwasseenasbeingunrelatedtothepracticalnecessitiesoflife.Daniel(1962,129)assertedthat,althoughprehistoryusedscientificmethods,itwasahumanity(anartorhumanscience)partlybecauseitwasconcernedwithmanasaculturedanimal,withatransmittablebodyofideas,customs,beliefsandpracticesdependentonthemainagentoftransmission,language.ThusartifactssuchasAcheulianhandaxes‘areculturalfossilsandtheproductofthehumanmindandhumancraftsmanship’(ibid.,30).Ontheotherhand,archaeologistshaveaccessonlytothe‘cutleryandchinawareofasociety’(ibid.,132),nottoitsideals,moralsandreligion.Since‘thereisnocoincidencebetweenthematerialandnon-materialaspectsofculture’(ibid.,134–5),prehistorianscannotspeakofsocialorganisationorreligion.ItisthisbeliefinthelackofintegrationbetweenthedifferentaspectsofsocietyandculturewhichpreventedadevelopmentofthehumanisticaimsthatDanielhadsetup.Therewasnotheoryaccordingtowhichthestructureandculturalform Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology98ofallactionswithineachcontextcouldbeconsidered.SimilarproblemswereacceptedbymanyBritisharchaeologists.Piggott(1959,6–11)agreedwithHawkes(1954)thatitwasdifficultforarchaeologiststofindoutaboutpastlanguage,beliefs,socialsystemsandreligion.HeusedmegalithicburialinwesternEuropeasanexampleofthelimitationsofarchaeologicaldata(Piggott1959,93–5).Anarchaeologistcanreconstructtheritualsuchassuccessiveburials,makingfiresatentrancestothetombs,theofferingsofcompleteorbrokenpotsplacedoutsidethetomb,theexposureofthecorpsebeforeinterment,themovingasideofoldbones.Buthavingreconstructedtheritual,noteditsdistribution,andsuggestedthatthedispersalcouldindicateacommonreligion,‘itisatthispointthatwehavetostop’(ibid.,95).Whileitiscertainlytruethatthedetailedbeliefsconnectedwiththeritualareunlikelytoberecoverablearchaeologically,itisnotthecasethatnofurtherinferencecanbemadeabouttheplaceofthedescribedmegalithicritualinNeolithicsociety.ThechaptersbyShanksandTilley,ShennanandHodderinthelastpartofthisvolume(Hodder1982c)usegeneralisationsfromethnographicandanthropologicalstudiestolinkNeolithicmegalithicritualintootheraspectsofarchaeologicalevidence.Piggottwaspreventedfromfollowinghishistoricalandhumanisticaimsbyalackoftheorylinkingideatoaction.ThedifficultiesencounteredbyHawkes,PiggottandDanielintheirpursuitofanhistoricalandhumanisticdisciplineconcernedwithcultureandideasresultedfromalackoftheoryconcerningthelinksbetweendifferentaspectsoflife—thetechnological,economic,socialandideologicalrungsofHawkes’(1954)ladder.GrahameClarkandGordonChildehadsimilaraims,butalsoemployedtheoriesconcerningtherelationshipsbetweenthedifferentsubsystems.Theirworkcouldlesseasily,Ithink,bedescribedas‘normative’inBinford’ssense.By1939Clarkwasalreadyemployinganorganicanalogyforsocietywhichhascontinuedintohismorerecentwritings.In1975materialitemsweredescribedaspartsoforganicwholesadjustingwithinanenvironment.Everyaspectofarchaeologicaldata‘formspartofaworkingsystemofwhicheachcomponentstandsinsomerelationship,usuallyreciprocal,toeveryother’(Clark1975,4).Manandhissocietycouldbeseenastheproductsofnaturalselectioninrelationtothenaturalenvironment.Butthisecologicalandfunctionalstancehas,throughoutClark’swritings,beencoupled,sometimesuncomfortably,withanawarenessoftheimportanceofculturalvaluewithinhistoricalcontexts.Hewasatpainstoemphasisethattheeconomicorganisationofprehistoriccommunitieswasnotconditionedby,butwasadjustedtoavailableresources,andcouldnotbeunderstoodoutsidethesocialand‘psychic’context(1975).‘Mostbiologicalfunctions—suchaseating,sheltering,pairingandbreeding,fightinganddying—areperformedinidiomsacquiredbybelongingtohistoricallyandlocallydefinedculturalgroups…whosepatternsofbehaviourareconditionedbyparticularsetsofvalues’(ibid.,5).Clark’sgreaterwillingnesstodiscusssocialand‘psychic’aspectsofarchaeologicaldataisconsonantwith,butalsocontradicts,hisuseofafunctionaltheory.UnlikeDaniel,forexample,hesawthematerialandnon-materialworldsasfunctionallyrelated.Ontheotherhand,itwasdifficulttoseehowageneralisingandfunctionalistapproachcouldbeusedtointerpretspecifichistoricalcontextsandculturalvalues.Clark,likeDanielandPiggott,acceptedthatartifactswerenotonlytoolsofman, Theoreticalarchaeology99extensionsofhislimbs,‘theywerealsoprojectionsofhismindandembodimentsofhishistory’(ibid.,9).GordonChildewaspronetomakesimilarstatements.Also,andagainlikeClark,hebeganwithafunctionalistviewoftherelationshipbetweenideasandeconomies.Butduringhislifehequestionedwhetherananthropologicalfunctionalistapproachbasedongenerallawsofadaptationcouldbeusedtoexplainparticularhistoricalsequences.Inthe1920s,Childehadalreadyespousedtheviewthatculturewasanadaptationtoanenvironment.By1935and1936hecouldstateclearlythatculturecouldbestudiedasafunctioningorganismwithmaterialcultureenablingcommunitiestosurvive.Materialinnovationsincreasedpopulationsizeandsoaidedselectionofsuccessfulcommunities.Magic,ideasandreligioncouldbeassessedintermsoftheiradaptivevalue(1936).ButChildealsocriticisednaturalandorganicmodels,andheacknowledgedtheimportanceofculturalstylesandvalues.Inhisearliestworkparticularpatternsofbehaviourwereseensimplyasinnatecharacteristicsofspecificpeoples.ThusinGermanytherehadbeena‘virile’StoneAge,Europeancultureshad‘vigourandgenius’,and‘stagnant’megalithiccultureswerenotEuropean(Trigger1980,51).ButinManMakesHimself(1936)Childebegantogivemorecarefulconsiderationtothestructureofideasanditsrelationshiptosocialaction.Henoted(ibid.,238)thattheachievementsofsocietiesarenotautomaticresponsestoenvironments,andthatadjustmentsaremadebyspecificsocietiesasaresultoftheirowndistinctivehistories.Thesocialtraditionsandrules,shapedbythecommunity’shistory,determinethegeneralbehaviourofthesociety’smembers.Butthesetraditionscanthemselvesbechangedasmenmeetnewcircumstances.‘Traditionmakestheman,bycircumscribinghisbehaviourwithincertainbounds;butitisequallytruethatmanmakeshistraditions’sothatmanmakeshimself.YetattimesinManMakesHimselfideasactonlyasaconstraintonsocialchange.Afunctional/non-functionaldichotomyissetupandideasdonottakeafullpartinthepracticeofeconomicandsocialactions.InlaterwritingsChildefurtherresolvedsomeofthecontraditionsbetweenanecologicalfunctionaliststanceandaconcernwiththeformandcontentofculturaltraditions.InSocialWorldsofKnowledge(1949)heemphasisedthatdifferentconceptionsoftheworldframedarchaeologicalevidenceindifferentterms.Hebeganbysayingthatthemeaningthatisgiventotheoutsideworld,andone’sperceptionofit,issociallyandculturallydetermined.Theenvironmentofmanisnotthesameastheenvironmentofanimalssinceitisperceivedthroughasystemofconventionalsymbols(ibid.,7).Manactsinaworldofideas(ibid.,7)collectivelybuiltupoverthousandsofyearsandwhichhelpstodirecttheindividual’sexperience(ibid.,8).Iftheenvironmentofmancanonlybeunderstoodbyreferencetohismind,sotoomustpast‘laws’oflogicandmathematicsbestudiedaspartofculturallyvariableworldsofknowledge.Geometricalpatterninspaceandconceptsofspacevaryindifferentsocieties,and‘anysocietymaybealloweditsownlogic’(ibid.,18).Evenbasicdistinctionsbetweenmindandmatter,societyandnature,subjectandobjectwereseenbyChildeashavingvariedthroughtime.InNeolithicEuropethesedistinctionswerenotmade.Forexample,theritualburialofanimalsandtheuseofminiatureaxesandamuletswereseenassuggestingmentalattitudeswhichdidnotseparatesocietyandnature,practiceandritual(ibid.,20).Theconceptualseparationof Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology100manfromnaturewasenvisaged(ibid.,20)asbeingfirstapparentinthewritingsofEgyptian,Sumerian,andBabylonianclerks.Butnaturewasstillpersonal;itwasanI-thounotanI-itrelationship.Socialrelationswereprojectedontonature.Itwasonlywiththearrivalofthemachineagethatcausalitycouldbecomefullydepersonalisedandmechanistic;ourowndistinctionsandviewsarepartofthislateststage.Thus,‘environmentstowhichsocietiesareadjustedareworldsofideas,collectiverepresentationsthatdiffernotonlyinextentandcontent,butalsoinstructure’(ibid.,22).WhileitcouldbeclaimedthatChildeneverdevelopedthesevariouscomponentsofageneraltheorysothattheycouldbeusedsuccessfullyinarchaeology,andwhileheneverdevelopedstructuralanalyses,nevergavetheindividualsufficientplaceinsocialtheoryandnevergaveanadequateaccountoftherecursiverelationshipbetweennormandpractice,hedid,morethananyotherarchaeologist,recognisethecontextualnatureofsocialactionandmaterialculturepatterning.Hetriedtodevelopanon-functionalistconceptionofmanandhisculturebyemphasisingtherelativenatureoffunctionalvalueandbyconcerninghimselfwithhistoricalcontexts.‘WhetherChildesawbeyondtheNewArchaeologyormeremiragesinthePromisedLandremainstobedetermined’(Trigger1980,182).WhiletherearecleardifferencesbetweentheworkofChildeandtheviewpointsputforwardinthisvolume(Hodder1982c),thepapersdodevelopmanyofthethemesheespoused.WhatevertheotherdifferencesbetweentraditionalBritishprehistorians,allclaimedarchaeologyasanhistoricaldiscipline.‘Archaeologyisinfactabranchofhistoricalstudy’(Piggott1959,1).‘Prehistoryis…fundamentallyhistoricalinthesensethatitdealswithtimeasamaindimension’(Clark1939,26).Inboththesequotationsarchaeologyisreferredtoashistoricalsimplybecauseitisconcernedwiththepast.Daniel,however,gaveadditionalreasonswhyprehistoryshouldbeviewedaspartofhistory(1962,131).Prehistorysuffersfromalltheproblemsfoundinhistoricalmethod—thedifficultyofevaluatingevidence,theinabilityofwritingwithoutsomeformofbias,andthechangingviewsofthepastastheideasandpreconceptionsofprehistoriansalter.Buttheterm‘historical’canbeusedtorefertomorethanthestudyofthepastorthesubjectiveassessmentofdocuments.Prehistoricarchaeologyandhistoryareidiographicstudieswhichprovidematerialforgeneralisationsaboutman(Radcliffe-Brown1952).Historicalexplanationdescribesaninstitutioninasocietyastheendresultofasequenceofeventsformingacausalchain.Ofcourse,generalisationsareusedinthistypeofexplanation,buttheparticularandnovelstructureoftheculturalcontextisemphasised(Trigger1980).Withinsuchaviewpointthereisnoabsolutedependenceoncross-culturalgeneralisationsandlaws,andChildedidnotseearchaeologicalinferenceasadeductiveprocess.Childewaswaryoftheuseofcross-culturallawsandherarelyreferredtoethnographicgeneralisations.Daniel(1962,134)alsodoubtedthepossibilityofidentifyingimmutablelawsconcerningman,hiscultureandsocietyandhedeniedthedeterministicuseofethnographicdata.IndeedtheonlytraditionalBritishprehistorianwhohasfrequentlyusedethnographicdata,GrahameClark,istheonescholarwhohasacceptedmostreadilythefunctionaliststanceandhasreferredtocross-culturallawsofadaptationandselection.Ifarchaeologywastobeacceptedasbeingconcernedwithhistoricalexplanation,the Theoreticalarchaeology101viewpointofmosttraditionalarchaeologiststhatcross-culturalethnographiccorrelationsshouldbeusedwithcautionwascorrect.Butethnographicanalogiescouldbeusediftherelevantcontextforthecomparisoncouldbespecified.Childediduseethnographicanalogieswhenhethoughthatthetotalcontextwascomparable(Trigger1980,66)andinhislaterwritingsheemphasisedtheimportanceofcloselinksbetweenarchaeologyandethnography.Butthegeneralpaucityofdetailedstudiesofparticularethnographiccontextsseverelyhamperedthedevelopmentofhistoricalexplanationbytraditionalprehistoricarchaeologists.Therewerefewanalogiesandlittlegeneraltheoryconcerningtheuseofmaterialsymbolsinsocialactionandwithindifferentideologies.Itwillbepossibletoreusethetraditionaldefinitionofarchaeologyandprehistoryashistoryifcontextualethnoarchaeologycontinuestoexpandandifageneraltheoryofpracticeisfurtherdeveloped.Theuseofanalogiesassociatedwithanemphasisonageneralunderstandingofthenatureofthelinksbetweenstructure,symbolismandactionallowstheidiographicaspectofhistoricalexplanationtoberetained,inlinewiththeviewpointsoftraditionalarchaeologists,withoutacceptingtheexistenceofimmutablebehavioural,ecologicalorfunctionallaws.ThereissomeevidencethatthecontextualandculturalarchaeologyproposedhereandsometraditionalBritishprehistorianshaveacommondirection,asleastincomparisonwiththedeterministicfunctionallawsandpositivismofmuchoftheNewArchaeology.ButtraditionalprehistorianssuchasChildefounddifficultyinpursuingtheiraims,partlybecausethecarefulcollectionoflargeamountsofprimaryarchaeologicaldataandtheresolutionofchronologicalissueshadonlyjustbegun.Buttheirworkwasalsohamperedbythelackofanadequatetheoryofsocialpracticewhereintheroleofmaterialcultureintherelationbetweenstructure,beliefandactioncouldbedescribed.Inpullingarchaeology‘backintoline’,itisnecessarygreatlytoexpand,alteranddeveloptheearlierapproaches.CONCLUSIONThetheorydiscussedinthischapterisreactionaryinthatitacceptsthatcultureisnotman’sextrasomaticmeansofadaptationbutthatitismeaningfullyconstituted.Acontextualorculturalarchaeologyisalsoreactionaryinthatitseesarchaeologyasanhistoricaldiscipline.Man’sactionsandhisintelligentadaptationmustbeunderstoodashistoricallyandcontextuallyspecific,andtheuniquenessofculturalformsmustbeexplained.Itisonlybyacceptingthehistoricalandculturalnatureoftheirdatathatarchaeologistscancontributepositivelytoanthropology,thegeneralisingstudyofman.Thepapersinthisvolume(Hodder1982c)alsoreactagainsttherigidlogico-deductivemethodthathasbecomecharacteristicofmuchNewArchaeology.Explanationisherenotequatedsolelywiththediscoveryofpredictablelaw-likerelationshipsbutwiththeinterpretationofgenerativeprinciplesandtheircoordinationwithinrelevantculturalcontexts.InthischapterIhaveattemptedtodemonstratethatarchaeologycouldprofitablyexplorethenotionthatthesevereandabsoluterejectionbysomeNewArchaeologistsofmanytraditionalemphaseshamperedthedevelopmentofamaturediscipline.In Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology102particular,thedichotomiessetupbyBinfordandvariousofhisassociatesbetweencultureandfunction,normandadaptation,historyandprocess,altogetherimpededanadequateunderstandingoftheveryaimoftheirenquiry—socialandeconomicadaptationandchange.IhavetriedtoshowthattheNewArchaeologycanbeextendedbyareconsiderationoftheissuesoutlinedbytraditionalandhistoricalarchaeologists,andthatculture,ideologyandstructuremustbeexaminedascentralconcerns.REFERENCESAllen,W.L.andRichardsonJ.B.(1971)Thereconstructionofkinshipfromarchaeologicaldata:theconcepts,themethod,andthefeasibility’,AmericanAntiquity36:41–53.Ardener,E.(1978)‘Someoutstandingproblemsintheanalysisofevents’,inE.Schwimmer(ed.)TheYearbookofSymbolicAnthropology1,London:Hurst.Barth,F.(1975)RitualandKnowledgeamongtheBaktamanofNewGuinea,Oslo:Universitetsforlaget.Binford,L.R.(1965)‘Archaeologicalsystematicsandthestudyofculturalprocess’,AmericanAntiquity31:203–10.——(1972)AnArchaeologicalPerspective,NewYork:SeminarPress.——(1977)‘Generalintroduction’,inL.R.Binford(ed.)ForTheoryBuildinginArchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.——(1978a)NunamiutEthnoarchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.——(1978b)‘Dimensionalanalysisofbehaviourandsitestructure:learningfromanEskimohuntingstand’,AmericanAntiquity43:330–61.Bourdieu,P.(1977)OutlineofaTheoryofPractice,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Braithwaite,M.(1982)‘Decorationasritualsymbol:atheoreticalproposalandanethnographicstudyinsouthernSudan’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Carneiro,R.(1968)‘Culturaladaptation’,inD.Sells(ed.)InternationalEncyclopaediaoftheSocialSciences3:551–4.Childe,V.G.(1935)‘Changingaimsandmethodsinprehistory’,ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety1:1–15.——(1936)ManMakesHimself,London:Collins.——(1949)SocialWorldsofKnowledge,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Clark,J.G.D.(1939)ArchaeologyandSociety,London:Methuen.——(1975)TheEarlierStoneAgeSettlementofScandinavia,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Clarke,D.L.(1968)AnalyticalArchaeology,London:Methuen.——(1972)‘AprovisionalmodelofanIronAgesocietyanditssettlementsystem’,inD.L.Clarke(ed.)ModelsinArchaeology,London:Methuen.——(1973)‘Archaeology:thelossofinnocence’,Antiquity47:6–18.Conkey,M.(1977)‘Context,structureandefficacyinPalaeolithicartanddesign’,PaperpresentedattheBurgWartensteinSymposium,74. Theoreticalarchaeology103Daniel,G.E.(1962)TheIdeaofPrehistory,Harmondsworth:Penguin.Deetz,J.(1967)InvitationtoArchaeology,NewYork:NaturalHistoryPress.——(1968)‘Theinferenceofresidenceanddescentrulesfromarchaeologicaldata’,inS.R.BinfordandL.R.Binford(eds)NewPerspectivesinArchaeology,Chicago:Aldine.——(1977)InSmallThingsForgotten,NewYork:AnchorBooks.Doran,J.(1970)‘Systemstheory,computersimulationsandarchaeology’,WorldArchaeology1:289–98.Ember,M.(1973)‘Anarchaeologicalindicatorofmatrilocalversuspatrilocalresidence’,AmericanAntiquity38:177–82.Ferguson,L.(ed.)(1977)HistoricalArchaeologyandtheImportanceofMaterialThings,SocietyforHistoricalArchaeology,SpecialSeriesPublication2.Flannery,K.V.(1972)Theculturalevolutionofcivilisations’,AnnualReviewofEcologyandSystematics3:399–426.——(1973)‘ArchaeologywithacapitalS’,inC.Redman(ed.)ResearchandTheoryinCurrentArchaeology,NewYork:Wiley.Flannery,K.V.andMarcus,J.(1976)‘FormativeOaxacaandtheZapotecCosmos’,AmericanScientist64:374–83.Fletcher,R.(1977a)‘Settlementstudies(microandsemi-micro)’,inD.L.Clarke(ed.)SpatialArchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.——(1977b)‘Alternativesanddifferences’,inM.Spriggs(ed.)ArchaeologyandAnthropology,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsSupplementarySeries19.Frankfort,H.(1951)TheBirthofCivilisationintheNearEast,London:ErnestBenn.Friedman,J.andRowlands,M.(eds)(1977)TheEvolutionofSocialSystems,London:Duckworth.Fritz,J.M.(1978)‘Paleopsychologytoday:ideationalsystemsandhumanadaptationinprehistory’,inC.Redmanetal.(eds)SocialArchaeologyBeyondDatingandSubsistence,NewYork:AcademicPress.Fritz,J.M.andPlog,F.T.(1970)‘Thenatureofarchaeologicalexplanation’,AmericanAntiquity35:405–12.Giddens,A.(1979)CentralProblemsinSocialTheory,London:MacmillanPress.Gifford,D.P.(1978)‘Ethnoarchaeologicalobservationsofnaturalprocessesaffectingculturalmaterials’,inR.A.Gould(ed.)ExplorationsinEthnoarchaeology,Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress.Glassic,H.(1975)FolkHousinginMiddleVirginia:aStructuralAnalysisofHistoricalArtifacts,Knoxville:UniversityofTennesseePress.Godelier,M.(1977)PerspectivesinMarxistAnthropology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Gould,R.(1980)LivingArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Harstrup,K.(1978)Thepost-structuralistpositionofsocialanthropology’,inE.Schwimmer(ed.)The‘YearbookofSymbolicAnthropology1,London:Hurst.Hawkes,C.(1954)‘Archaeologicaltheoryandmethod:somesuggestionsfromtheOldWorld’,AmericanAnthropologist56:155–68.Hill,J.N.(1970)BrokenKPueblo:PrehistoricSocialOrganisationintheAmericanSouthwest,AnthropologicalPapersoftheUniversityofArizona18. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology104——(1971)‘Reportonaseminarontheexplanationofprehistoricorganisatio¬nalchange’,CurrentAnthropology12:406–8.——(ed.)(1977)TheExplanationofPrehistoricChange,Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress.Hill,J.N.andGunn,J.(eds)(1977)TheIndividualinPrehistory,NewYork:AcademicPress.Hillier,B.,Leaman,A.,Stansall,P.andBedford,M.(1976)‘Spacesyntax’,EnvironmentandPlanningB3:147–85.Hodder,I.R.(1979)‘Socialandeconomicstressandmaterialculturepatterning’,AmericanAntiquity44:446–54.——(1981)Towardsamaturearchaeology’,inI.Hodder,G.IsaacandN.Hammond(eds)PatternofthePast,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1982a)SymbolsinAction,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1982b)‘Theidentificationandinterpretationofrankinginprehistory:acontextualperspective’inC.RenfrewandS.Shennan(eds)Ranking,ResourceandExchange,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(ed.)(1982c)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1982d)‘SequencesofstructuralchangeintheDutchNeolithic’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Hodder,I.R.andLane,P.(1982)‘Exchangeandreduction’inJ.EricsonandT.Earle(eds)NewApproachestoExchangeStudiesinPrehistory,NewYork:AcademicPress.Hymes,D.(1970)‘CommentsonAnalyticalArchaeology’,NorwegianArchaeologicalReview3:16–21.Isbell,W.H.(1976)‘Cosmologicalorderexpressedinprehistoricceremonialcentres’,PapergiveninAndeanSymbolismSymposiumPart1:Space,timeandmythology,InternationalCongressofAmericanists,Paris.Leach,E.(1973a)‘Concludingaddress’,inC.Renfrew(ed.)TheExplanationofCultureChange,London:Duckworth.——(1973b)‘Structuralisminsocialanthropology’,inD.Robey(ed.)Structuralism:anIntroduction,Oxford:ClarendonPress.——(1977)‘Aviewfromthebridge’,inM.Spriggs(ed.)ArchaeologyandAnthropology,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsSupplementarySeries19.——(1978)‘Doesspacesyntaxreally“constitutethesocial”‘,inD.Green,C.HaselgroveandM.Spriggs(eds)SocialOrganisationandSettlement,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsBritishSeries47.Leone,M.P.(1977)‘ThenewMormontempleinWashingtonDC,inL.Ferguson(ed.)HistoricalArchaeologyandtheImportanceofMaterialThings,SocietyforHistoricalArchaeology,SpecialSeriesPublication2.——(1978)TimeinAmericanarchaeology’,inC.Redmanetal.(eds)SocialArchaeologyBeyondSubsistenceandDating,NewYork:AcademicPress.Leroi-Gourhan,A.(1965)Prehistoiredel’ArtOccidental,Paris:Mazenod.Lévi-Strauss,C.(1968)StructuralAnthropology,London:AllenLane.Longacre,W.(1970)‘Archaeologyasanthropology’,AnthropologicalPapersoftheUniversityofArizona17,Tucson. Theoreticalarchaeology105Marshak,A.(1977)‘Themeanderasasystem:theanalysisandrecognitionoficonographicunitsinupperPalaeolithiccompositions’,inP.J.Ucko(ed.)ForminIndigenousArt,London:Duckworth.Martins,H.(1974)Timeandtheoryinsociology’,inJ.Rex(ed.)ApproachestoSociology,London.Miller,D.(1982)‘Artefactsasproductsofhumancategorisationprocesses’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Muller,J.(1977)‘Individualvariationinartstyles’,inJ.HillandJ.Gunn(eds)TheIndividualinPrehistory,NewYork:AcademicPress.Pettit,P.(1975)TheConceptofStructuralism:aCriticalAnalysis,Dublin:GillandMacmillan.Phillips,P.(1971)‘AttributeanalysisandsocialstructureofChassey—Cortaillod—Lagozzapopulations’,Man6:341–52.Piaget,J.(1971)Structuralism,London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.——(1972)ThePrinciplesofGeneticEpistemology,London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.Piggott,S.(1959)ApproachtoArchaeology,Harvard:McGrawHill.Plog,F.T.(1975)‘Systemstheoryinarchaeologicalresearch’,AnnualReviewofAnthropology4:207—24.Radcliffe-Brown,A.R.(1952)StructureandFunctioninPrimitiveSociety,London:CohenandWest.Renfrew,C.(1969)TradeandcultureprocessinEuropeanprehistory’,CurrentAnthropology10:151—69.——(1972)TheEmergenceofCivilisation,London:Methuen.——(1973)SocialArchaeology,Southampton:SouthamptonUniversityPress.Sahlins,M.(1976)CultureandPracticalReason,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Salmon,M.H.(1978)‘Whatcansystemstheorydoforarchaeology?’,AmericanAntiquity43:174–83.Schiffer,M.B.(1976)BehaviouralArchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.Shanks,M.andTilley,C.(1982)‘Ideology,symbolicpowerandritualcommunication:areinterpretationofNeolithicmortuarypractices’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Stanislawski,M.B.(1973)‘ReviewofArchaeologyasanthropology:acasestudybyW.A.Longacre’,AmericanAntiquity38:117–22.Thomas,D.H.(1974)PredictingthePast,NewYork:Holt,Rinehart&Winston.Tilley,C.(1982)‘Socialformation,socialstructuresandsocialchange’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Trigger,B.(1980)GordonChilde:RevolutionsinArchaeology,London:ThamesandHudson.VandeVelde,P.(1980)ElslooandHienheim:BandkeramikSocialStructure,AnalectaPraehistoricaLeidensia12.Washburn,D.K.(1978)‘AsymmetryclassificationofPuebloceramicdesigns’,inP.Grebinger(ed.)DiscoveringPastBehaviour,NewYork:AcademicPress.Watson,P.J.,Leblanc,S.A.andRedman,C.L.(1971)ExplanationinArchaeology:anExplicitlyScientificApproach,London:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Wobst,H.M.(1977)‘Stylisticbehaviourandinformationexchange’,Universityof Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology106MichiganMuseumofAnthropology,AnthropologicalPaper61:317–42.Wylie,M.A.(1982)‘Epistemologicalissuesraisedbyastructuralistarchaeology’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Yellen,J.(1977)ArchaeologicalApproachestothePresent,NewYork:AcademicPress. 7ARCHAEOLOGYIN1984…theliepassedintohistoryandbecametruth.‘Whocontrolsthepast’,ranthePartyslogan,‘controlsthefuture:whocontrolsthepresentcontrolsthepast.’Andyetthepast,thoughofitsnaturealterable,neverhadbeenaltered.Whateverwastruenowwastruefromeverlastingtoeverlasting.(GeorgeOrwell,NineteenEighty-Four,Penguin,p.31)Recentlytherehasbeenanincreasedinterestinthearchaeologicalrecoveryofpastideas,reconstrucingthemindsofhumanslongdead(Leone1982;Renfrew1982b).Thenotionthatarchaeologistsstudyartifactsmadebymanwhichwere‘theproductofthehumanmindandhumancraftsmanship’(Daniel1962,30)and‘projectionsofhismindandembodimentsofhishistory’(Clark1975,9;seealsoChilde1949)isofcoursenotnewandisemphasisedinCollingwood’s(1956)contributiontotheidealistviewofhistory.YetintheladderofinferenceoutlinedbyHawkes(1954)theideationalrealmwasseenasbeingthemostdifficulttograspandformany‘NewArchaeologists’,atleastinitially,attemptsatgettingintoprehistoricpeople’sheadsweredecriedaspalaeopsychology(Binford1965,203–10)andforBinford(1982,162)archaeologicalreconstructionofmentalphenomenaisstilldeemedinappropriate.AsLeone(1982)hascogentlyargued,therenewedattemptsatreconstructingmindtakevariedpathsfromthesymbolicfunctionalismof,forexample,Wobst(1977),Fritz(1978),Hall(1977),FlanneryandMarcus(1976)andFriedel(1981),tothestructuralismofLeroi-Gourhan(1967),Deetz(1977)andGlassie(1975),thecognitiveaccountsofKehoeandKehoe(1973)orMuller(1977),thevariousmaterialiststudiesofideology(Rowlands1980;Tilley1981;Shennan1982)orofarchaeologicalinterpretationsasideology(Leone1978;Meltzer1981).Often,however,thesestudiesappeartoside-stepimportantepistemologicalissuesraisedbythe‘archaeologyofmind’.Inparticular,howcanascientificarchaeologydevotedtothetestingoftheoriesagainstdatacopewithverifyingstatementsaboutideasinprehistoricpeople’sheads?Whilethereconstructionofpastideasbringssuchaquestiontotheforeitcanbeclaimedthatthedilemmahasalwaysbeenpresent,ifnotfullyrecognised,in‘scientific’archaeology.Allstatementsaboutthepastinvolveaddingtoarchaeologicaldataintheprocessofinterpretation.Itisalwaysaquestionofsayingmorethanisactuallythere,fromthestageofinterpretingcoloursandtexturesonatrenchwallinanarchaeologicalexcavationtoreconstructingsocialsystems.Leapsoffaitharenecessarilymadesincemuchofwhatarchaeologistsreconstructisunobservable.Thisisparticularlyclearinmuchrecent‘processual’archaeology.AsBinford(1982,162)hascommented,the Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology108frequentreferencesbysocialarchaeologiststoprestigesystems,status,display,rankorconspicuousconsumption,forexampleinburialstudies,involvenotionsofvaluesintheheadsofprehistoricindividuals.Equally,withinecologicalarchaeology,assumptionsofminimisingeffort,leastrisk,andmaximisingresourcescannotinthemselvesbeverifiedinarchaeologicaldata.Theimplicationsofsuchassumptionscan,ofcourse,be‘tested’inarchaeologicaldata,inthesamewaythatmostideasinthemindhaveeffectsonthematerialworld.Theeffectscanbetestedbuttodosoistautologicalandself-fulfilling,andthevaluesandideasthemselvesremainbeyondobservation.There-emergenceofaninterestinpastideasthusbringstotheforeanever-presentproblemwhichthearchaeologicalemphasisonobjectivityandtheseparationoftheoryanddata,evidentfromChilde(1925)toRenfrew(1982a),rarelyfaced(see,however,Childe1949).Itisaltogetherremarkablethat,withoutanyabilityadequatelytotesttheirreconstructionsofthepast,archaeologistshavecometoreachagreementandconsensusonmanyissues.Itmaybehelpfultorefertoanexampleofthisprocess.Amajorarenaofrecentarchaelogicalresearchhasbeentheexchangeofprehistoricartifacts.Basictextsofthereconstructionofthesocialmechanismsinvolvedinexchangehavebeenwritten(EarleandEricson1977;EricsonandEarle1982)andgeneraltheoriesofexchangehavebeenbuilt(Sahlins1972;Pryor1977).MuchoftheinterestinarchaeologyhascentredonprehistoricEuropewherethescientificarmouryhasbeenthrownatthesourcingof,forexample,obsidian,pottery,stoneaxes,shells(Renfrew,DixonandCann1968;Peacock1969;1977;ShackletonandRenfrew1970;Cummins1979).Statisticaltechniqueshavebeenappliedtotheinterpretationoffall-offcurves,andthedebatehasspreadwidelywithnumerousarticleswritten(forexample,Hodder1974;Renfrew1977;Sidrys1977;Clark1978;McBryde1978;Ammerman1979;McVicar1982).MuchoftheworkinEuropehastakenanearlyarticlebyRenfrew(1969)asastartingpoint,andtheunderlyingassumptionhasbeenthroughoutthatartifactswerepassedfrompersontopersonacrosswideareas.ThisideawasinitiallyencouragedbyGrahamedark’s(1965)acquaintancewithAustralianethnographicmaterial,andtheexchangeofprehistoricartifactshascontinuallybeensupportedbyethnographicmodels.AlltheworkonthemovementofprehistoricartifactsinEuropeassumesthatexchangeoccurred.Alargeliteraturehasbeenbuiltonanunverifiableassumption.Itissimplyimpossibletotestwhetherprehistoricartifactsmovedfromsourcetodestinationbyexchangefrompersontopersonorwhether,ontheotherhand,individualswentdirectlytothesource.RecentlyIthoughtsuchatestwouldbepossibleinrelationtoBritishneolithicstoneaxesanditwassuggested(HodderandLane1982)thatifaxeswereexchangedfrompersontoperson,beingusedandresharpenedthroughtime,theyshouldgetsmallerwithincreasingdistancefromthesource.This‘test’wassuccessfulsinceaxesdidprovetogetsmallerwithincreasingdistancefromtheirsource,butintheenditisapparentthattheassumptionofexchangeitselfhasnotbeentested.Ifaxeswereobtaineddirectlyfromthesourceitispossiblethatindividualsfartherfromthesourcewouldmakethejourneylessfrequentlythanindividualsnearerthesource,theywoulduseandresharpentheiraxesforlongerbeforereplacingthem,sothat,onceagain,thesizesofaxeswoulddecreasewithincreasingdistancefromthesource.Certainlyother,moreingenious‘tests’willbesuggested,butultimatelythehypothesisofprehistoricexchangeisabouttheunobservable.Itinvolves‘addingto’thatwhichisobserved.Theamountof Archaeologyin1984109analytical,computerandresearchtimethathasbeenspentonquestionsofprehistoricexchangeisenormous.Ithasbeenpossibletospendsomanyresourcesbecauseofaconsensusinthearchaeologicalcommunitywhichaccepts,somewhatmysteriously,nottoquestionaparticularassumption.AsfarasIamawareno-oneintheliteraturehassuggestedthatprehistoricexchangedidnotoccur.Itisnotmyconcernheretoexaminetheprocessofreachingconsensus,whysomeassumptionsareacceptedandothersrejectedbyarchaeologists,nortoaccountforthesociologyandself-maintenanceofadiscipline.ButIdowishtoemphasisefurtherthatarchaeologistsneedtofacesquarelythenotionthatarchaeologicalhypothesesarenottestedonarchaeologicaldataandthattheoryanddatadonotconfronteachotherwithinanobjectivescienceofarchaeology.Renfrew(1982a,143)hasrestated‘theoldrelationshipbetwentheoryanddata’as:Figure14Renfrew’ssuggestedrelationshipbetweentheoryanddataExamplessuchasthefollowingappeartosupportsuchapictureofthewayarchaeologistswork.Imaginethatanarchaeologisthasanhypothesisthataparticularunexcavatedsitehadahunter-gatherereconomy.Thishypothesismayhavebeensuggestedbecauseofthetypeofsoilaroundthesiteandbecauseofvarioustheoriesconcerningresourceutilisation.Thesiteisthenexcavatedinordertotestthetheorythroughexaminationofthefaunalremains.Imaginethattheexcavatorrecoversfewwildanimalbonesbutthatthebonesofdomesticatedcattle,sheep,goatandpigarewellrepresented.Numerouscarbonisedcerealgrainsarerecoveredaswellasquernsandotherartifactsofafarmingeconomy.Surelyhereatheoryhasbeenproposed,testedagainstthedata,provedfalse,leadingtochangeinthetheory?Theconfrontationandobjectivetestingoftheoryagainstdataishereapparent.Orisit?Closerexaminationshowsthatthehunter-gathererhypothesishasnotbeentestedagainstarchaeologicaldata,butagainstanedificeofauxiliarytheoriesandassumptionswhicharchaeologistshaveagreednottoquestion.Thereisonlyspaceheretorefertoafewoftheseassumptions.First,therearetheoriesconcerningstratigraphicalrelationshipsandthenatureofarchaeologicalsitesandlayers.Thediscussionofeconomiesassumesthattheinterpretationofsoilandcolourchanges,associationsofartifacts,arecorrect.Second,itisassumedthatan‘assemblage’ina‘layer’represents‘aneconomy’whereas,forexample,itispossiblethatthe‘closedassemblage’isapalimpsest,representingtheactivitiesofdifferentgroupsorindividualswithavarietyofdifferenteconomies.Third,thereareproblemsinthedefinitionofwildordomesticanimals.Whatismeantby‘domesticated?Differentcriteriacanbeusedtospecifydomesticationandthechoiceofmethodistheory-dependent.Fourth,domesticatedresourcesonthesitecouldhavebeen Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology110obtainedbyexchangewhiledependenceonwildresourcesmaybeunderrepresentedbecausewildanimalswereprocessedoffsitesoratsubsidiarysites.ToexamineallsuchassumptionswouldinvolvewritingatextofarchaeologicaltheoryandmethodbutIhopethatenoughhasbeensaidtodemonstratethatarchaeologicaltheoriesare‘tested’,notonarchaeologicaldata,butonotherarchaeologicaltheories.Asintheexchangeexample,assumptionisbuiltuponassumptionandaconsensusisreached,butultimatelystatementsaboutthepastareabouttheunobservableandtheyareunverifiable.WithinprocessualorsystemsarchaeologytheproblemoftestingtheoriesabouttheunobservablewasusefullydiscussedinrelationtotheincompleteandverylargeBlackBox(Clarke1968,59–62).Leach(1973)statedhowdifficultitwasforarchaeologiststolookintotheboxwithanythingmorethanguesswork,butsystemsanalysissuggestedthatcorrelationscouldbeobservedbetweeninputsandoutputsandthepredictabilityofsuchrelationshipsinthepastandpresentcouldbeusedtotestideasaboutthecontentsofthebox(Clarke1979,51).MuchoftheNewArchaeologywascharacterisedbya‘certainty’inthereconstructionofthepastaslongasscientificmethodswerepursued.TheoptimismofBinford’s(1962)viewthatarchaeologicalassemblagespresentapictureofthetotalextinctculturalsystemisdistinctive.Morerecently,itmightbesuggested,doubtsareincreasing:Flannery’s(1973)‘youngfogeys’abound,mistrustfulofcomplexsocialinterpretationsofthepast.InviewofthediscussionaboveitmightbeappropriatetoreplacetheBlackBoxbyamuchlesscertainbox,theappearanceofwhichdependsonthepointofviewoftheobserver(Figure15).Theproblemtobefacedbyarchaeologistsisthattheobjectsorsystemstheyobservedependonthetheoriestheyaresupposedlytesting.Theboundariesandnatureofthesystemshavetobespecifiedby.theanalyst.Theoryanddataarenotopposedandtheyareneverconfronted.Rather,dataareobservedwithininterpretationandtheory.Itmightbecounteredthatsurelyarchaeologistscancount‘things’,showingsimilaritiesanddifferencesacrossspaceandtimeinarchaeologicalassemblages.Butthe‘things’onecountsarealwaysclassesofthingsconstructedbytheobserver.Beforewecancountweneedtodefineclassesortypes.AsDavidClarkenoted(1968,15),thereareperhapslimitlessnumbersofdifferentattributestomeasureonobjects,andtheclassesortypesofobjectthatareproduceddependonwhatattributesonethinksrelevant.Forexample,wemayhaveatheorythatmatrilocalresidenceleadstolocalisedstylesofpotterywithinasite(Longacre1970).To‘test’thistheoryinprehistoryitisthoughtnecessarytousethedecorationorshapesofpots.Butdependingonhowwedescribeand‘observe’thesherds,differenttypesanddegreesofspatialclusteringwithinsiteswillemerge.Allsherdsaresimilarinsomerespectsbutdifferentinothers.Wecannotmeasureeverything,sowhatarewetoemphasiseintheanalysis?Therecanbenoindependenttheorywhichallowsustodecidewhattomeasureorcountsincethechoiceofsuchatheoryisitselftheory-dependent.Inanycase,‘independent’or‘middle-range’theoriesarethemselvesbased,inethnoarchaeologicalstudiesofpresent-daysocieties,onmovingbeyondthedatatoculturalinferences.Onceagain,archaeologistscanonlyworkbyconsensus,buildingupassumptionuponassumption. Archaeologyin1984111Figure15TheincompleteBlackBoxofsystemstheorycomparedwiththesubjectivelyperceivedboxofinterpretationtheoriesSimilarproblemsofverificationarefacedinmostdisciplines,andtheissuesraisedhavebeenwidelydiscussed(forexample,Kuhn1962;BergerandLuckmann1967;Feyerabend1975;Gregory1978),buttheexampleofarchaeologyisofinterestbecauseitpresentstheproblemsinaparticularlyacuteform.Theleapsoffaiththathavetobemadeininterpretingarchaeologicaldataaregreatbecausesolittleisknownandyetsomuchissaid.Itmightbehopedthatdifficultiesencounteredinotherdisciplinescanbesquarelyfacedandresolutionssoughtinarchaeology.Tosummarise,thedilemmaapparentforarchaeologistsisthatthereisawidespreaddesireforscienceandobjectivetests,afearofspeculationandthesubjective,andyetwewanttosaysomethingaboutthepast.Inparticular,inrecentyearsithasbecomeclearthatifwewanttosayanythinginterestingaboutthepast,wemustincludestatementsaboutprehistoricideas.Yettosayanythingaboutthepast,andaboutpastideas,involvesmovingbeyondthedatatointerpretthem,andtherecanbenotestingoftheseinterpretationsbecausethedatathemselvesareformulatedwithinandarepartofthesameargumentasthetheories.Speculationandthesubjectivearethereforepartofthe‘scientific’process.However,thedilemmaonlyoccursifarchaeologyisseenasa(pure)science.The‘problem’isofthearchaeologists’ownmaking.Ifarchaeologyisseenproperlyasaculturalandsocialproduct,the‘problem’dissolves.Thedataofthepastareobservedandhavemeaningwithinapresentsocialandculturalcontext.Archaeologyisadisciplinewithspecifiedmethods,rigorouslydefined,andtheoriesofitsown.Itisascienceinthegeneralsenseofusingexplicitandrepeatableprocedures.Itcontributestodebatesaboutthenatureofhumankind.Butitisnotascienceifbythatismeantadisciplineinwhichobjectivetruthcanbeprovidedorapproached.Rather,archaeologydoesandmustcontinuetoplayanactivesocialroleinthevariousculturesinwhichitisproduced.Inthewestscientificarchaeologyhas,ifanything,hadthedangerofremovingarchaeologyfromanyabilitytomakearelevantcontributiontothemodernworld,bothbecauseoftheneutral,apoliticalaurawhichithasclaimedasascience,andbecauseofthescientificterminologyandspecialisationwithwhichithassurroundeditself.Yetchanginginterpretationsofthepastcanbeseentobelinkedtothechangingexpectationsand Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology112attitudesofarchaeologistsandcontemporarysociety(Leone1978;Trigger1980;Meltzer1981).Thenotionthatthepastisanactiveproductofthepresent,however,raisesproblemsanddilemmasofitsown.Inparticular,ifarchaeologistscannotbeseenasprovidingneutralinformationforthepublic,whatsocialresponsibilitiesareinvolved?Thequestionsthatcometotheforeinclude:whattypeofpastdopeoplewant,shouldarchaeologistsprovideapastthatsupports(legitimates)ordisturbspresentoutlooks,whichsectionsofsocietydoarchaeologistswritefor,andwhataretheimplicationsofwesternarchaeologistsworkingindevelopingcountries?Suchquestionsseemparticularlyimportanttodaywhenarchaeology,asaperipheralnon-schoolsubject,isunderheavypressureaseitherasoftscienceoranexpensivehumanity.InBritain,atleast,thecallforaccountabilityrequiresacademicarchaeologiststoconsidermorecarefullytheirrelationshipwiththepublic.Yethowarearchaeologyandarchaeologistsviewedbythepublicandwhatistheroleofthedistantpastinmodernwesternsociety?Suchquestionshavebeenaskedindevelopingcountries(forexample,Miller1980).InBritainmanyarchaeologistsprobablyfeelthattheyhaveagoodimpressionofpublicattitudesfromadulteducationclasses,fromthepopularityofHorizonandtheMaryRose(althoughseeParkerPearson1983),fromtalkingtothepublicatthesideofexcavationtrenches,orfromperusingthepagesofPopularArchaeology.Yetasproducersweareprobablynotideallyplacedtoassesstheproduct.Itisprobablythecasethatmostprofessionalarchaeologistscomefromafairlylimitedrangeofsocialbackgrounds.Thepastthatintereststhem(us)maynotbeofsuchinteresttoothers.Forvariedreasons,then,itwouldbeofvaluetoexaminehowdifferentviewsofthepastandofarchaeologistsrelatetosocialandculturalbackgrounds.AtpresentanumberofsurveysarebeingcarriedoutinEngland1inordertoobtainafullerpictureoftheplaceofarchaeologyandthedistantpastincontemporaryEnglishsociety.Asmallpilotstudyhasalreadybeenundertakenbyanindependentresearchgroup2inCambridgeandIwillbrieflyrefertothetypeofresultthatisemerging.Ingeneral,thesurveysuggeststhatprofessionalswithuniversityorotherhighereducationtendtobemoreinterestedinarchaeology,tothinkthatpeopleneedadistantpastandthatspendingmoneyonarchaeologyisworthwhile.Individualsinunskilledemploymentandwhohaveleftschoolatanearlyagearemorelikelytofeelthatpeopledonotneedadistantpast,andthatarchaeologyis‘generallyuseless’anda‘completewasteofmoney’.Otherdifferencesbetweensocialgroupsindefinitionsofarchaeologyandintheaspectsofthepastthatarefoundinterestingwerealsonoted.Whateverthereasons,educational,culturalorsocial,forsuchdifferences,itisclearthatwecannotassumethatthestorieswearewritingaresociallyneutral.Thereisaneedtoexaminecarefullytheeffectsofthepastwereconstruct.AnexampleoftheassumptionsthatarchaeologistsmakewithoutregardtosocialdifferencescanbetakenfromthepublicityproducedbySTOP,thecampaignagainsttheplunderingofBritain’spast.ThisnationalmovementagainsttreasurehuntingissupportedbymostofthemajorarchaeologicalbodiessuchastheCBA,theMuseumsAssociation,Rescue,theAssociationofCountyArchaeologicalOfficersandtheStandingConferenceofUnitManagers.Undertheheading‘thepurposeofarchaeology’the Archaeologyin1984113publicitypamphletclaims:‘weallneedthestabilitywhichcomesfromathoroughknowledgeofourownheritage’,andfurther,‘theresultsofarchaeologists’work…increaseourunderstandingofthepastand…deepenoursenseofbelonginginthepresent’.Whilethismaybetheviewofcertaingroupsinsociety,anditmaybetheconsensusofarchaeologiststhemselves,itisnotanaturaltruththatcanbetakenforgranted.Atleastthetypeofarchaeologythatarchaeologistswritemaynotbeeasilyjustifiedtomanysectionsofsociety.Anotionofsocialresponsibility,broughttotheforebydisillusionwiththevisionofarchaeologyasanobjectivescience,impliesthatarchaeologistsshouldachievesomegeneralunderstandingofthesocialandculturalcontextofthepasttheywrite.ItmightevenbeclaimedthatwidelycirculatedstatementssuchasthatprovidedbySTOPhavethedangerofaddingtosocialdivisionswithinoursociety.Whilemetaldetectorsandtreasurehuntersareattimesdescribedas‘rapistsofthenationalheritage’,analternativeviewpointisexpressedinthepagesofthemagazineTreasureHunting.‘Professionalarchaeologistsareuniversitytrainedacademics.Withafewnotableexceptions,theyare,bypreference,totallyout-of-touchwiththegeneralpublic.Duringthepast20yearstheyhavemadeittheirbusinesstocomplicatethestoryofBritain’sancienthistory…withtheintentionofsecuringthefuturesoftheirownacademiccareers….Themedia’sfilesarefullofbumphwhichperpetuatesthemyththateverynewly-qualifiedprofessionalarchaeologistgetsabrightlypolishedhalowithhisuniversitydegree,alongwithalicenceto“salvagethenation’sheritage”,whereasthecrimeof“people’sarchaeologists”isthat“theyhavenoacademicqualificationsand…thereforenorighttoaninterestinBritishhistory”’(TreasureHunting1982,9).Perhapssomeofusacademicsmaybefeelingourhaloesabittarnishedandmaybewondering,withoutthecomfortof‘objectivescience’tohidebehind,howarchaeologycouldplayamoreactivepartinsociety.ThequotesfromSTOPandTreasureHuntingseeminfusedwithdifferencesinattitudesthathaveasocialandculturalbasisandwhichcanbelinkedtomistrustandcontemptglimpsedthroughoutabroadsocialarena.Thesurveyofattitudestoarchaeologyandthepastreferredtoaboveisafirststageintheprocessofunderstandingsuchdifferencesandtheirsocialcontextssothat,whateverpoliticalstanceaparticulararchaeologisttakes,(s)hecanatleasthaveaclearer,ifnotmoreresponsible,ideaofthesocialimpactofthepast(s)hereconstructs.CONCLUSIONIhavearguedelsewhere(Hodder1982)thatinterpretationsofthepastshouldtakegreateraccountofmeaning,theindividual,cultureandhistory.Theseclaimsfora‘post-processual’or‘contextual’archaeologyhavebeenarguedfor‘academic’reasonstodowiththeconstructionofexplanations,theinadequacyoftheconceptsofsystemandadaptation,theimportanceofcultureinhumannature,thecentralroleofintentionalityandsoon.Thestanceisalsotakenbecauseasanhistoricaland,onlyinabroadsense,scientificdiscipline,archaeologyisbestabletocontributeitsdataonlongsequencesofculturalchangewithinlocalareastogeneralunderstandingoftherelationshipsbetweenhistoricalandculturalcontextsandsocialchange.Yetultimatelytheclaimsfor Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology114developmentsinarchaeologyarepoliticalinorigininthreerespects.First,atitsworstthescientific‘NewArchaeology’raisedanimageofmanthepassiveandefficientanimalcontrolledbylawswhichcannotbeusurped.Atimelesspastwasproducedinwhichallsocietiescouldbedescribedintermsoftheir‘technologistical’controlovernature.Thehumanpastlegitimatedandmadeuniversaltheprinciplesofthetechnocraticwest.Incontrast,thepastcanbeusedtoemphasisethehistoricalcontextualityofrationalityandtoengenderrespectfortheindividual,activelyandmeaningfullynegotiatingandcreatingsocialposition.Second,theemphasesonscienceandcross-culturalgeneralisationhavebeenassociatedwithanever-increasingsplitbetweentheoryandpractice,betweeninterpretationandexcavation.Fieldarchaeologyisdevaluedanddecriedastechnique,whiletheoreticalarchaeologyisviewedfromtheoutsideassuspiciousandremote.Popularinterestwhichderivesfrom‘digginguppotsandbones’isdivorcedfromivorytowerponderingsaboutthemeaningofthepast.Thereareindividualswhosuccessfullycrossthedivide,butalienationiswidespread.Yetifdataareseenasdependentontheory,thenexcavationmustbevaluedasaninterpretiveexperienceratherthanatechnique.Wearealltheoreticians.Equally,cross-culturalbehaviouralandevolutionarytheoriesinvolveseeingthedatafromthepast,suchasthegreatcivilisationsofEgyptandtheIndus,andthehunter-gatherersofScandinavia,asmereexamplesofgeneralsocialprocessessuchassegregation,centralisationandhypercoherence.Theemphasisonculturalcontextadvocatedhererelocatestheobjectsfromthepastinthehistoricallyspecificratherthaninthetheoreticallyabstract.TheuniqueculturalachievementofEgyptiancivilisationisseenashavinganinterestinitsownright.Inthiswaythereisapotentialforthepopularinterestinthepastthroughtheexperienceoftheconcretetoberetainedintheformingofabstracttheories.Wearealltheoreticiansbutwealsodealindata.Thisisnottoclaimthatthedataareindependentoftheory,buttostatethatourtheoriesmustbebettermouldedtothehistoricallyspecificdata.Third,thenotionof‘archaeologyasscience’legitimatedtheprofessionaltheoreticianintheprovisionofneutralknowledge.Evenifsuchknowledgemightbeusedinplanningthefuture,examplessuchasHiroshimaencouragedaseparationofscientifictheoryanditssocialuse.Thesplitbetweentheoryanddatadescribedaboveislinkedtothatbetweenknowledgeandsocialprocess.Theacademicprehistorianhandsoutprofessionalqualificationsinthemanipulationofabstractknowledgeandhis/herpositiondependsonmaintainingtheauraofthespecialist.Infact,however,suchcontrolofknowledgecanamounttoaformofhiddensocialcontrol,inwhichoneviewofthepastisseenascorrect,inobjectiveterms.TheinterestsofonesocialclassareseenasuniversalandtheimplicationsofOrwell’sstatement,quotedatthebeginningofthisarticle,loombeforeus.Wehaveseenthatthereisnoexternal,objectivebasisforsayingthatanyonetheory,wellarguedandcoherentinternallyand‘fitting’tothedata,isanybetterthananothertheory,equallywellarguedbutbasedondifferentassumptions.Theresultofthisrelativismisnotanarchy,ifbythatismeantthatanendlessseriesofarbitrarypastswillbeproduced.Rather,differentpastswillbeconstructedwithindifferentbutlimitedsetsofsocialinterests.Therearesignsthatgroupsotherthanwhite,Anglo-Saxon,protestant,male,middle-classintellectualswanttowritetheirownpasts.OthersocialgroupsinEngland,womeninEnglandandAmerica,ethnicminoritiesandarchaeologistsinless- Archaeologyin1984115developedcountriesarebeginningtomakeclaimstotheirownarchaeology.Theyshouldbeencouragedtodeveloptheirownobservational,methodologicalandhistoricaltheoriesforreconstructingthepastsothattheirsocialandculturalexperiencesinarchaeologycanbeactivelyinvolvedinsocialdebate.Ifthesedifferentbutcoherentviewpointscanbediscussedopenly,thenthepastwillplayaroleinunearthingandobjectifyingalternativeviewpointsandsocialdispositions,contributingtosocialchange.Thepastiseverybody’spastandbyreleasingitthedangersofOrwell’stotalitarianismarelessenedandthecentralroleofthepastisassured.Butwhatthisstrategyimpliesforprofessionalarchaeologyasaninstitutionisnotclear.Fromonepointofview,theconcernsofalternativesocialgroupswillincreasinglyforcethewesternprofessionalarchaeologisttobeinvolvedwithandsupportedbyarestrictedsetofsocialinterests.Fromthisangle,communicationofthepastbyarchaeologists,leadingtowiderpopularappeal,willresultinappropriationofthepastbyothersocialinterestssothatwesternprofessionalarchaeologistsserveadiminishingpublic.Ontheotherhand,itremainspossiblethatflexibletrainingandunderstandingcanbeengenderedinanarchaeologicalcommunitymotivated,notbyfearsofanarchyandattacksonthecontrolofneutralknowledge,butbythevisionofthepastasanarenafortheplayingoutofdifferentsocialvaluesandinterests.NOTES1ThesesurveysinseveralBritishcitiesarebeingco-ordinatedbyPeterStone(Southampton),MikeParkerPearsonandtheauthor(Cambridge).2ThepilotstudywascarriedoutbytheCambridgeResearchCo-operativeforMikeParkerPearsonandtheauthor.Informantsweredrawnatrandomfromtheelectoralregister.REFERENCESAmmerman,A.(1979)‘AstudyofobsidianexchangenetworksinCalabria’,WorldArchaeology11,95–110.Berger,P.andLuckmann,T.(1967)TheSocialConstructionofReality,Harmondsworth.Binford,L.R.(1962)‘Archaeologyasanthropology’,AmericanAntiquity28,217–25.——(1965)‘Archaeologicalsystematicsandthestudyofcultureprocess’,AmericanAntiquity31,203–10.——(1982)‘Meaning,inferenceandthematerialrecord’,inC.RenfrewandS.Shennan(eds)Ranking,ResourceandExchange,Cambridge.Childe,V.G.(1925)TheDawnofEuropeanCivilisation,London.——(1949)SocialWorldsofKnowledge,Oxford.Clark,J.G.D.(1965)‘Trafficinstoneaxeandadzeblades’,EconomicHistoryReview18,1–28.——(1975)TheEarlierStoneAgeSettlementofScandinavia,Cambridge.Clark,J.R.(1978)‘Measuringchangesintheeaseoftradewitharchaeologicaldata:ananalysisofcoinsfoundatDuraEuropusinSyria’,ProfessionalGeographer30,256– Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology11663.Clarke,D.L.(1968)AnalyticalArchaeology,London.——(1979)AnalyticalArchaeologist.CollectedPapersofDavidClarke,London.Collingwood,R.(1956)TheIdeaofHistory,Oxford.Cummins,W.A.(1979)‘Neolithicstoneaxes:distributionandtradeinEnglandandWales’,inT.H.McK.CloughandW.A.Cummins(eds)StoneAxeStudies,CBAResearchReport23.Daniel,G.E.(1962)TheIdeaofPrehistory,Harmondsworth.Deetz,J.(1977)InSmallThingsforgotten,GardenCity.Earle,T.K.andEricson,J.E.(1977)ExchangeSystemsinPrehistory,NewYork.Ericson,J.E.andEarle,T.K.(1982)ContextsforPrehistoricExchange,NewYork.Feyerabend,P.(1975)AgainstMethod,London.Flannery,K.V.(1973)‘ArchaeologywithacapitalS’,inC.L.Redmanetal.(eds)ResearchandTheoryinCurrentArchaeology,NewYork.Flannery,K.V.andMarcus,J.(1976)‘FormativeOaxakaandtheZapotekcosmos’,AmericanScientist64,374–83.Friedel,D.A.(1981)‘Civilisationasastateofmind’,inG.JonesandR.Kautz(eds)TransformationstoStatehood,Cambridge.Fritz,J.M.(1978)‘Palaeopsychologytoday:ideationalsystemsandhumanadaptationinprehistory’,inC.Redmanetal.(eds)SocialArchaeology,NewYork.Glassie,H.(1975)FolkHousingofMiddleVirginia,Knoxville.Gregory,D.(1978)Ideology,ScienceandHumanGeography,London.Hall,R.L.(1977)‘AnanthropocentricperspectiveforeasternUnitedStatesprehistory’,AmericanAntiquity42,499–518.Hawkes,C.(1954)‘Archaeologicaltheoryandmethod:somesuggestionsfromtheOldWorld’,AmericanAnthropologist56,155–68.Hodder,I.(1974)‘Regressionanalysisofsometradeandmarketingpatterns’,WorldArchaeology6,172–89.——(1982)Theoreticalarchaeology:areactionaryview’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge.Hodder,I.andLane,P.(1982)‘AcontextualexaminationofneolithicaxedistributioninBritain’,inJ.E.EricsonandT.K.Earle(eds)ContextsforPrehistoricExchange,NewYork.Kehoe,A.B.andKehoe,T.F.(1973)‘Cognitivemodelsforarchaeologicalinterpretation’,AmericanAntiquity38,150–4.Kuhn,T.(1962)TheStructureofScientificRevolutions,Chicago.Leach,E.(1973)‘Concludingaddress’,inC.Renfrew(ed.)ExplanationofCultureChange,London.Leone,M.P.(1978)TimeinAmericanarchaeology’,inC.Redmanetal.(eds)SocialArchaeology,NewYork.——(1982)‘Someopinionsaboutrecoveringmind’,AmericanAntiquity47,742–60.Leroi-Gourhan,A.(1967)TheArtofPrehistoricManinWesternEurope,London.Longacre,W.(1970)‘Archaeologyasanthropology’,AnthropologicalPapersoftheUniversityofArizona17,Tucson.McBryde,I.(1978)‘Wil-im-eeMoor-ring.Orwheredoaxescomefrom?’,Mankind11, Archaeologyin1984117354–32.McVicar,J.(1982)ThespatialanalysisofaxesizeandtheScottishaxedistribution’,ArchaeologicalReviewfromCambridge1,30–45.Meltzer,D.J.(1981)‘Ideologyandmaterialculture’,inR.A.GouldandM.B.Schiffer(eds)ModernMaterialCulture,theArchaeologyofUs,NewYork.Miller,D.(1980)‘Archaeologyanddevelopment’,CurrentAnthropology21,709–26.Muller,J.(1977)‘Individualvariationinartstyles’,inJ.HillandJ.Gunn(eds)TheIndividualinPrehistory,NewYork.ParkerPearson,M.(1983)‘“Roses”areread,mylove,whenviolenceisnews…’,RoyalAnthropologicalInstituteNewsletter55,5.Peacock,D.P.S.(1969)‘NeolithicpotteryproductioninCornwall’,Antiquity43,145–9.——(1977)PotteryandEarlyCommerce,London.Pryor,F.L.(1977)TheOriginsoftheEconomy,NewYork.Renfrew,A.C.(1969)TradeandcultureprocessinEuropeanprehistory’,CurrentAnthropology10,151–69.——(1977)‘Alternativemodelsforexchangeandspatialdistribution’,inT.K.EarleandJ.E.Ericson(eds)ExchangeSystemsinPrehistory,NewYork.——(1982a)‘Discussion:contrastingparadigms’,inA.C.RenfrewandS.Shennan(eds)Ranking,ResourceandExchange,Cambridge.——(1982b)TowardsanArchaeologyofMind,Cambridge.Renfrew,A.C.,Dixon,J.E.andCann,J.R.(1968)‘FurtheranalysesofNearEasternobsidians’,ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety34,319–31.Rowlands,M.J.(1980)‘Kinship,allianceandexchangeintheEuropeanBronzeAge’,inJ.BarrettandR.Bradley(eds)SettlementandSocietyintheBritishLaterBronzeAge,BritishArchaeologicalReportsBritishSeries83.Sahlins,M.D.(1972)StoneAgeEconomics,Chicago.Shackleton,N.andRenfrew,C.(1970)‘Neolithictraderoutesre-alignedbyoxygenisotopeanalysis’,Nature228,1062–5.Shennan,S.(1982)Ideology,changeandtheEuropeanEarlyBronzeAge’,inI.Hodder(ed.)SymbolicandStructuralArchaeology,Cambridge.Sidrys,R.(1977)‘Mass-distancemeasuresfortheMayaobsidiantrade’,inT.K.EarleandJ.E.Ericson(eds)ExchangeSystemsinPrehistory,NewYork.Tilley,C.(1981)‘Conceptualframeworksfortheexplanationofsocioculturalchange’,inI.Hodder,G.IsaacandN.Hammond(eds)PatternsofthePast,Cambridge.Trigger,B.G.(1980)‘ArchaeologyandtheimageoftheAmericanIndian’,AmericanAntiquity40,662–76.Wobst,M.(1977)‘Stylisticbehaviourandinformationexchange’,UniversityofMichiganMuseumofAnthropology,AnthropologicalPaper61,317–42. 8POLITICSANDIDEOLOGYINTHEWORLDARCHAEOLOGICALCONGRESS1986Inrathercrudetermsonecandistinguishtwoviewsaboutideologyinrecentarchaeologicalliterature.Ontheonehand,ideologyrepresentstheinterestsofthedominantgroupinsociety.Thedominantperspectivebecomesabsorbedand‘takenforgranted’.Webecomemystifiedandduped.Ontheotherhand,ideologycanbeseenasenablingaswellasmisrepresenting.ThissecondpositionistheonethatIhaveadopted—itsuggeststhatsocietyismadeupofdifferentinterestgroups,withvaryingideologies,andthatsocialchangecomesaboutthroughthepracticeofsocialdebate.Thisisamoreoptimisticandactiveviewoftheindividualinsociety.Indeed,Ihavefeltthattheroleofarchaeologyandthepastinsocietyshouldbetoencouragedebateaboutthepresentthroughdebateaboutthepast.Ihavefeltthatarchaeologyandthepastcouldplayanactiveroleincontributingtochangeinthepresent.Thedominantideologycanbecriticisedandchanged.Ibelieved,throughsocialaction,includingsocialdebate.WhichofthesetwoviewsseemsmorerelevanttotheWorldCongressdebate—ideologyasdupingorideologyassociallyactive?InansweringthisquestionitisfirstnecessarytoexaminethemainideologicalthemesrunningthroughtheWorldCongressdebate.SincethebanningofSouthAfricafromtheCongress,Ihavereceivedmanyresignationlettersfromintendingparticipantsandhavereadmuchofthearticlesandlettersinthepressandinjournals.Thesearethedataformyethnographicanalysis.Thedominantthemeinalltheletters,pronouncementsanddiscussionshasbeenacademicfreedom.Thereisreferenceto‘theethosoffreecommunicationandmovementamongscholars’,‘thefreeflowofinformation’,the‘freepursuitofknowledgeunaffectedbyanynational,religiousorpoliticalinterests[which]isanabsoluteconditionforthepreservationofafreesociety’,‘keepingtheCongressopentoall’,‘freespeech’,‘scholars’rightstoparticipatein...exchange,regardlessofideasandindividuals...ofscholarlyinformation’.ProfessorTobiasforexamplehassuggestedthatthegreatestcasualtyofthebanonSouthAfrica‘istheprincipleoffreedominscientificcommunication,irrespectiveofrace,nationalorigin,politicalstance,genderoranyvariableotherthanthestatusoftheindividualasabonafidescholar’.Finally,toquotefromthe9December1985statementfromtheSAAExecutiveCommitteetoitsmembers,‘theSAAhasupheld,andwillcontinuetouphold,theprinciplesoffreedomofresearchandthefreedomofscholarsfromallnationstomeetandexchangeideas’.So,formostpeople,theWorldCongresshasraisedthedominantissueofindividualacademicfreedom.Thisideaisfrequentlylinkedtothenon-politicalnatureofarchaeologicalscience.Morequotes:the‘dangerousprecedentforthefurtherpoliticisationofinternationalscientificmeetings’,‘politicisationoftheCongress’,‘the Politicsandideologyintheworldarchaeologicalcongress1986119dangerstothearchaeologicalprofessionofinvolvingitsmembersinpoliticaldebate’,making‘thecongressapoliticalpawn’.Formany,then,science,includingarchaeologicalscience,shouldbe‘abovepolities’,and‘opentoall’.Thereisalsoreferencetothe‘universalityofscience’.Thenotionthatsciencecanbeneutralandnon-politicalhasdeeprootswithinthewesternworld,andthecritiqueofwesternscienceasideologyiswelldevelopedwithincriticaltheory.Thevisionofscientistsasabovepolitics,neutralanalysts,maskstheideologicalcomponentoftheirendeavourandassuresthemapermanentplacewithincapitalistsociety.Science,neutralisedandobjective,canbeboughtandsoldasacommodityinthemarket-place.Withincapitalism,andparticularlyinhigh-technologycapitalism,scienceisthebasisofindustrialsuccess.Itisthusanimportantcomponentofweath,prestigeandsocialstatus.Yet,withinwesterndemocracies,itisalsofree,opentoall—theneutralbasisforsocialcompetition.Whetheroneagreeswithsuchanalysesornot,itisclearthatthenotionthatscienceshouldbe‘opentoall’isabeliefaboutthewaytheworldshouldbe.Thatbeliefbecomesideologicalwhenitislinkedtocertainsocialinterests.Thesesocialinterestsarenotdifficulttofindwithintheideologyof‘academicfreedom’asitisusedinarchaeology.Iamtalkingtoaroomnowinwhichtherearefew,ifany,blackAmericanorAmericanIndianarchaeologists.InEngland,therearestillpitifullyfewprofessionalwomenarchaeologists,atleastathigherlevels,andfewwomenarchaeologicalwriters.InEngland,archaeologyhasalwaysbeenlinkedtotheupper-middleclass,tothebettereducatedandwealthiermembersofsociety.TheinterestsofblackAmericans,AmericanIndians,womenandtheworkingclassarenotwellrepresentedinarchaeologicaldiscourse.Thearchaeologicalsciencethatisconductedrepresentsdominantsocialinterests.Itisthereforeideological.Iwishfurthertosuggestthatthe‘academicfreedom’argumentusedintheWorldCongressdebateispartofthisdominantideology.Indeed,inmyview,thispointisespeciallyclearinrelationtotheWorldCongress,sincefewwouldclaimthatacademicfreedomexistsforblackSouthAfricans.Theviewsofthissubordinategrouparenotwellrepresentedinscientificdebate.Forexample,blackSouthAfricanleadersandtheANChaveexpressedopinionsinfavourofanacademicboycottonSouthAfrica,andthePanAfricanCongress(nowtheAfricanAssociationforPrehistoryandRelatedStudies)hasapolicyof‘censorshipofcolleaguesandinstitutionsmaintaininglinkswithSouthAfricaninstitutions’.Yetsuchviewsaredisregardedbythedominantwesternperspectivewhichisagainstanycurtailingof‘academicfreedom’.Similarly,largepartsoftheThirdWorldandtheEasternBlockcountrieswouldappeartobeinfavourofabanonSouthAfricanparticipationattheWorldCongress.IndeedmanywouldnothaveattendedifSouthAfricahadbeenpresent.TheUISPPisinnameinternational,butinpracticeitisdominatedbyEurope.IthasapermanentcouncilwhichnormallymeetsonlyattheCongresswhichhasonlyoncebeenheldoutsideEurope.Throughtherecentdebateitdidnottakeanadequatevoteoftheopinionofworldmembers.Asaresult,thedominantEuropeanviewheldswayinfavourof‘academicfreedom’andinfavourofSouthAfricanparticipation.Asaresult,UISPPdissociateditselffromtheSouthamptonWorldCongressandplanstosetupanalternativeCongresswithSouthAfricapresent,inMainzin1987.Ifthereisstilldoubtaboutwhetherthenotionofacademicfreedomisitselfideological Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology120andpolitical,wecanfocusontheimplicationofstickingtothesupposedlyneutralidealthattheSouthamptonCongressshouldbeopentoall.Followingthisideal,thebanonSouthAfricanparticipationwouldbelifted.Thereisclearevidencethat,asaresult,largenumbersofarchaeologists,particularlyfromtheThirdWorld,EasternBlock,andScandinaviancountrieswouldeitherhaveabsentedthemselvesinprotest,orwouldhavebeenpreventedfromcomingbytheirgovernments.Thusthemainpeoplepresentataconferencetheoretically‘opentoall’wouldhavebeentheexistingdominantgroups—EuropeansandAmerican,westernandwhitearchaeologists,includingsomeSouthAfricans.Thesupposedlyneutralidealofacademicfreedomwouldleadinpracticetoapoliticalboycottingoftheconferenceandtoapoliticalreinforcementbythewestofitsowndominantposition.The‘academicfreedom’wouldbetheacademicfreedomofadominantfew.Howdoestheideologyofacademicfreedomregenerateitselfasthedominantideology?AnsweringthisquestionisperhapsthemosthelpfulwayinwhichwecanusetheWorldCongressdata.Iwillmakesixpoints.Thefirstisthatweallseemtobeabletoseefreedomasanidealtostrivefor,whileacceptingthatthepresentimperfectionsorcurtailmentofacademicfreedomwillonedaybeironedout.ThuswemayacceptthatfemaleorThirdWorldarchaeologistsarenotabletoexpresstheirideaseasilybutthattheacademicfreedomidealassurestheirrighttodoso.Wehavealreadyseenthatinpracticetheopeninterchangeofarchaeologicalknowledgeisnotenhancedbystickingtotheidealofacademicfreedom,sincelargepartsoftheworldwouldnotattendaconferenceatwhichtheSouthAfricanswerepresent.Yetwemanagetooverlookcurtailmentsinholdingtoourfutureideal.Thisabilitytooverlookinconsistencesinourargumentleadstoasecondpointabouttheprocessbywhichideologiesremaindominant.Weclearlyareabletooverlookcontradictionsthatdonotrelatetoourowninterests.Forexample,inprotestingagainsttheboycottofSouthAfricans,manypeoplehaveresortedtoaboycottoftheSouthamptonCongress.TheidealofacademicfreedomisexpressedinrelationtoSouthAfrica,butinordertoachievethatend,theacademicfreedomofindividualstoattendtheConferenceisrestricted.Forexample,inBritainmanybodieshavewithdrawnfundsfromtheconference.IntheUnitedStates,theSAAandtheAmericanCouncilofLearnedSocietiesdecidednottosupportproposalsfortravelfundssothatAmericanswhowanttoattendtheSouthamptonCongressnowfinditextremelydifficulttodoso.Pressuresofalltypesonyoungacademicshavebeenparticularlysevere,andanumberofyoungarchaeologistshavesaidtomethattheyresignedbecausetheywereworriedaboutfutureblackballing.Theiracademicfreedomhasinpracticebeencurtailed.Thisabilitytooverlookinternalcontradictionswithinanargumentisselective.Forexample,inNorthAmericaandincreasinglyinBritainmanypublicandprivatebodieshavelongfollowedapolicyofAffirmativeAction.Itakethispolicytoinvolvetemporarycurtailmentofopenaccesstojobsandopportunitiesby,forexample,whitemales,inordertoallowfortherightsof,forexample,blacksandwomen.AffirmativeActionispreciselythepolicybeingfollowedbytheSouthamptonCongress.InordertoallowtheThirdWorldasayinworldarchaeology,andinordertoestablishtherightsofblackSouthAfricans,atemporarycurtailmentoftheopportunitiesopentowhiteSouthAfricansissuggested.Yetthatisnothowmanyofthewesternarchaeologistsseethe Politicsandideologyintheworldarchaeologicalcongress1986121issue.ManymayacceptAffirmativeActioninrelationtowomenandminoritygroupsinthewest,eventhoughitcontradictstheidealofanopensociety.Butinrelationtotherestoftheworld,wedonotacceptAffirmativeActionandweholdtoourabstractideal.Athird,andagainrelatedstrategybywhichthedominantideologyiscontinued,isthestrategyofsilence.Itisinterestingtolookatwhatsalientissuesarenottalkedabout.Forexample,theSouthamptonCongressExecutiveCommitteehasrepeatedlynotedthattoliftthebanonSouthAfricawouldleadtowithdrawalbyparticipantsfromThirdWorldandtheEasternBlockcountries.ThispointwasmadeinasummaryofeventsbytheUISPPPresident,circulatedon22October1985,andagaininalettertoproposedparticipantson26November1985.Thereactionoftherestoftheworldhasbeenemphasisedinmorerecentcirculars.Yetthispointisnotevenmentionedin,forexample,theSAAstatementof9December1985.IndeedIhavefoundthatmanypeopleinEnglandandtheUSareunawareoftheproposedresignationsfromtherestoftheworld.Asilencesurroundsissuesthatcontradictorembarrassthedominantviewof‘academicfreedom’andno-ban-on-SouthAfrica.Ontheotherhand,asafourthstrategy,thedominantviewpointfocusesontheweaknessesinalternativeviewpoints,bringingthemintothelimelightinordertodiscreditthem.Forexample,muchoftherecentdebatehasavoidedthemainissuesandfocusedontheinitialreluctanceoftheBritishExecutiveCommitteetotakeaclearmoralstanceinrelationtoSouthAfrica.OtherissuessuchasthelegalityoftheBritishdecision,ortheanti-apartheidcontributionsmadebytheSouthAfricanarchaeologists,orthenotionthatitwasmadewithoutadequateconsultation,havealsobeenbroughtin.Afifthstrategyisthecontrolofcommunication.TheBritishExecutive’sviewpointwasnotwellpresentedinitiallyinthepressandinacademicjournals.ItcouldbearguedthattherefusalbytheSAAtoallowtheBritishExecutiveCommitteemembers,someofwhomareactuallySAAmembers,tospeakasdiscussionleadersinthedebatetomorrowwasanotherexampleofthecontrolofideologythroughcontrolofcommunicationchannels.Thesixthandfinalwayinwhich,inthiscase,thedominantideologyof‘academicfreedom’isreproducedisalsothemostsubtleanddifficulttodealwith.Thedominantideologybecomesthetermsonwhichalldiscussion,includingcriticaldiscussion,takesplace.Sinceitistheframeworkofdiscussion,itisneveropentocriticismitself.IntheWorldCongressdebateallthevariedshadesofopinionusethesamelanguageandthesameidealofacademicfreedom—thatconceptitselfisrarelycriticised.ThosewhoargueagainstthebanonSouthAfricaareconcernedaboutthefreedomofspeechandaccesstoacademiaofblackSouthAfricans.Those,likeme,whoemphasisetheneedforthebantobreakdownWest-East,North-Southbarriers,areconcernedwiththefreedomofspeechofnon-westernsocieties.Weallappeartousethesameunderlyingassumptionthatacademicfreedomisaparamountvirtue.Thatideologyisthereforecontinued,beyondcriticismandbeyonddebate.InthispaperIhavearguedthat,inthesamewaythatallcriticaltheoryanalysesarethemselvesideologicalandpolitical,soallstandpointsinarchaeology,includingtheideathatarchaeologicalscienceisnotpolitical,arethemselvesideologicalandpolitical.Ihavealsoshownsixmechanismsbywhichadominantideologyismaintained.Itshouldalsobestressedthatintryingtobecomedominant,subordinateideologiestrytousevery Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology122similartactics.Returningtomyoriginalquestionsaboutthenatureofideology,itispossibletobeoptimisticandembracemyview—thatideologycanbesociallyactive,revealingratherthanmasking,enablingratherthanrepressing.Afterall,Ihavebeenabletomakemycasetodayfromwithinthesubordinateposition,andcertainlymyownawarenessofworldissueshasbeenincreasedbythedebate.ItispossibletoarguethatlevelsofconsciousnessaboutSouthAfrica,theThirdWorldandthepoliticalnatureofarchaeologyhavebeenraised.AndtheWorldCongresswilltakeplaceinSouthamptonwithoutSouthAfricaandwithmanysuccessfulandexcitingsessions.Also,thereareplanstodiscusssettingupapermanentworldarchaeologicalorganisationdedicatedtoabroaderworldparticipation.WorldconferencesinotherdisciplinesarebeginningtotakethesamestandastheWorldArchaeologicalCongress.Allthisispositiveinthatitshowshowthedominantviewcanbeerodedandhowtheexistingsystemcanbechangedthroughcriticalactionanddebate.Criticaldebatecanthushaveanactiverole.Ontheotherhand,itispossibletotakeanextremelypessimisticpositioninwhichdominantideologiesareseenasdupingandunchanging,beyonddebate.Itispossibletoarguethatdebateaboutthepastmerelyreflectsandreinforcescurrentideologies.VeryfewpeopleseemtohavechangedtheirmindsduringthedebateabouttheWorldCongress—mostpeopleseemtostartfromoneposition,manipulating,‘reading’whattheyseeintermsoftheirowninterests.Wecanseethisclearlybylookingattheworld-widepatternofresignationsfromtheWorldCongressovertheSouthAfricanban.Ihavecurrentfiguresonresignationsbyletter,whichmayhavelittlerelationshipwiththeactualnumbersintendingtowithdraw.However,therelativeproportionresigningfromeachcountrydoesgiveanindicationofwherethemajorfeelingsagainstthebanarecentred.WellatthetopofthelistofresignationscometheUSandIsrael.Ofthe625UScitizenswhohadfilledinapplicationformstoattendtheconference,22percent(140)haveresignedbecauseoftheSouthAfricanban.Idonotincludeinthefiguresthosewhohavewithdrawnforotherreasons.Ofthe30Israelisintendingtocome23,thatis77percent,haveresignedovertheban(smallsample).AswemoveintowesternEuropethenumbersbegintodropoff.Ofthe437Britishparticipants10percent(47)haveresignedandintherestofwesternEurope7percent(66)ofthetotal878haveresigned.Thepictureintherestoftheworldisdifferent.Of160intendingparticipantsfromeasternEurope(includingRussia)2people(1percent)haveresignedandonly3peoplehaveresignedfromthewholeoftheThirdWorld,includingSouthAmerica,IndiaandAfrica.Thesefiguressuggestthesamepicturethatcanbeobtainedfromothermeans.WhiletheAmericanandBritishFoundationssuchastheAmericanCouncilforLearnedSocieties,WennerGren,TheBritishSocietyofAntiquariesandsoonhavewithdrawntheirfinancialorothersponsorship,soAfrican,Indianandotheragencieshaveaddedtheirs.ItisofcoursemainlyEasternBlockandThirdWorldgroups,suchastheOAU,andeventheCommonwealthandEECthathavearguedforcultural,aswellaseconomic,sanctionsagainstSouthAfrica.ThearchaeologicalreactionaroundtheworldtothebanninghasthusmirroredmoreorlessexactlythepositionsofvariousgovernmentstowardsSouthAfrica.WherethereismorepublicandgovernmentcriticismofSouthAfrica,andlesseconomicinvolvementinthatcountry,thereismorewillingnessto Politicsandideologyintheworldarchaeologicalcongress1986123acceptanarchaeologicalban.ButwherethereiscloserinvolvementinSouthAfricathereismorerejectionofthearchaeologicalban.ItisinthewestthatthecryofacademicfreedomasauniversalpriorityisraisedinsupportofmaintaininglinkswithSouthAfrica.ThisideologyisadheredtoevenifitinvolvesrestrictionontheparticipationofThirdWorldcountriesattheconference.Thearchaeologicaltraditionsandinterestsofnon-westerncountriesareignoredorplayeddown.SothefiguresIgaveyouofcurrentresignationsfromtheCongressontheSouthAfricanissueindifferentpartsoftheworld,seemsimilartothedivisionsbetweenthewestandtheeast,northandsouth,thatweseereproduceddailyinworldpolitics,includingreactionstoLibyaorinvasionsoftheFalklands,includingworldeconomicsystemsandworldpoliticalalliances.SowhatIfinddepressingintherecentarchaeologicaldiscussionisnotsimplythatfewpeopleseemtochangetheirviews.Rather,itsuggeststhatdebatehaslittleabilitytochangethedominantideologies.HowyouactandhowIrespondseemstereotyped.Iwanttobelievethatwecanbreakoutofourentrenchedideologies.Buteveninourcriticismsofeachother,andinourdebates,wemakecertaincommonassumptionswhichseemthemselvesbeyondcriticism.Asaresultwesternscienceandnotionsoffreespeechdoindeedappearuniversal.MygreatestsadnessanddisillusionoccurswhenitisrealisedthatintellectualsthemselvesinAmericaandEnglandwhomightbeexpectedtobeabletoprovideacriticalposition,onlyreproducethedominantideologiesoftheirowngovernmentsandcountries.Unwittinglytheyestablishideologyastruth,thearbitraryasuniversal.Wedoindeedseemdupedbyourownideologies,caughtpassivelywithinsystemsofideasthatwecannotchange,becausewedonotevenseethem. PartIIIDEBATEANDRE-EVALUATION 9THEPROCESSUALREACTIONUnsurprisingly,thereactionofprocessualarchaeologytothepapersreprintedaboveandtoReadingthePast(Hodder1986)andthetwobooksbyShanksandTilley(1987a;1987b)concentratedontheirmostunderminingfeature—theattackontheobjectivityandneutralityofarchaeologyasascience.Watson(1986)wasconcernedaboutthescepticisminvolvedandclaimedthatIdidnotbelievetherealpastwasaccessible(seealsoBintliff1990,18).Ifthiswasso,andifthevoicesof‘theother’,themarginal,the‘fringe’,thesubordinateweretobeallowed,whatwouldhappentotheintegrityofarchaeologyasadiscipline?Howwouldwebeabletoretainsciencefundingifweadmittedapoliticalinvolvement?Surelypost-processualreallymeantpost-archaeology.Iwillreturntothisissueandshowthatprocessualarchaeologywasfullofcontradictionsandcouldnolongerclaimacoherentpositiononobjectivity,independenceandhypothesistesting.Buttheoftenviolentdebateaboutsubjectivityobscuresthefactthatinmostotherrealmsofthepost-processualcritique,movementwasalreadytakingplace.Eitherindependentlyorasareactiontothepost-processualattack,processualarchaeologybegantoaccommodateandabsorbmanyofthemoresalientpoints.Alreadyinthe1970s,processualarchaeologysawinternalreactionsagainsttheextremesoftheearlyNewArchaeology.Thelaw-and-orderemphasiswassoftenedbyasystemicapproachwhichrecognisedthelocalcomplexityofbehaviour(Flannery1973).Adisillusionwithneo-evolutionismsetinasresearchlikethatconductedbyEarle(1977)onHawaiianchiefdomsbegantoquestionsomeoftheexpectedcorrelates.Asocial,ratherthananecologicalormaterialistarchaeologywasdefined(Renfrew1973).TheimportanceofhistoricalfactorswaslongstressedbyTrigger(1978),andthishasbeenmorewidelyacceptedrecently(e.g.Deetz1988).FlanneryandMarcus(1976;1983)incorporatedculture-historicaldimensionsintotheirwork.Inductivereasoningwasearlyrecognisedtobeasvalidasdeductive.EventhosesuchasSchiffer(1976)whoretainedadeductive,law-and-orderview,showedthatsurvivingmaterialculturewasnotadirectreflectionofpastbehaviour—ithadtobeunderstoodinitsarchaeologicalcontext.Asanotherexampleofmovementbeyondtheearlyprocessualposition,in1982Renfrewarguedforan‘archaeologyofmind’whichhehassincedevelopedintoa‘cognitiveprocessual’archaeology(Renfrew1989).Accordingtothisview,‘mind’is‘theformulatedconceptsandthesharedwaysofthoughtwhich,withinanyspecificculturalmatrix,arethecommoninheritanceofallitscitizensasparticipants’(Renfrew1982,26).Incommonwithotherprocessualapproaches,thisisahighlynormativeandnon-processualperspective,butitdoesemphasisethattheconceptswhichaffectartifactpatterningaretosomedegreehistoricallyparticularandcontextual.Similarly,FlanneryandMarcus(1976;1983)haveinferredan‘ethic’whichunderlayritual,societyandeconomythroughlongperiodsinMesoamerica.Theseprocessualaccountsofsymbolism Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology128andmeaning,then,donotjustconcernthefunctionsofsymbols.Theymovefromastrictadaptiveviewandarguethatculturalmeaningscanbetheframeworkfor,ratherthanthetoolsof,adaptation.Andtosomedegreetheyaccepttheparticular,contextualandarbitrarynatureofthesemeanings.AnotherclearexampleofconvergenceispresentedbyEarleandPreucel(1987)intheirattempttobuildabehaviouralarchaeology.Forthem,theimportantaspectsofthepost-processualcritiquewerealreadybeingdealtwithinprocessualarchaeology.Theaspectsofpost-processualarchaeologywhichtheyacceptaretheimportanceofsymbolism,theimportanceofhistory(althoughmainlyinaneo-Darwiniansense),theincorporationoftheindividualwithinalessnormativeandlessmechanisticsocialtheory,andsomeformofMarxism.Whiletheyaccepttheneedtoconsidertherelevanceofarchaeologytoamodernworld,theydonotseemtowanttomoveveryfarintheirquestioningoftheepistemologicalbasisofthe‘scientificmethod’.Renfrew(1989),inadditiontoincorporatingcognitiveissues,hasacceptedthecritiqueoffunctionalist/adaptationistarguments,theneedtoconsiderconflictandcontradictioninculturalchange,andtheneedtoconsiderandevaluaterigorouslystructuralistformsofanalysis.Hehasalsoarguedfortheneedtoconsiderthesocialproductionofarchaeologicalknowledge.Thislatteraimistosomedegreecompromisedbyhiscontinuedcommitmenttovalue-free,objectivescience(seebelow,p.151).Anumberofpeople(e.g.Mithen1989)havenotedapparentsimilaritiesbetweenmodernevolutionarybiologyandpost-processualarchaeology.Indiscussingsuchanapproach,Mithenacceptsthefollowingaspectsofpost-processualarchaeology:theimportanceoftheactiveindividual,ofcognition,ofcreativethought,andofhistory.Heacceptsthenotionofknowledgeablehumanactorsmonitoringtheintendedandunintendedconsequencesoftheiractionswithinuniquehistoricalcontexts.Differencesofcourseremain,andMithenpreferscost-benefitanalysestointerpretationsofsymbolism,andhedoesnotproblematisethepast/present,object/subjectrelationships.BothBintliff(1990)andRenfrewandBahn(1991)havethusarguedforanewsynthesisinwhichthedifficultiesinprocessualarchaeologyexposedbythepost-processualcritiqueareacceptedsothatthecritiquecanbeturnedtowardstheimprovementofthediscipline.ItisperhapsthecasethatmanyAnglo-Americanarchaeologiststodaywouldacceptthefirstfiveofthesixpost-processualcritiquesdiscussedinChapter5.Thus,theywouldacceptthatculturalmeaningsareenabling,thatmaterialcultureismeaningfullyconstitutedaswellasbeingmateriallygrounded,thatstructuresareincorporatedwithinsystems,thatagentsandmaterialcultureareactiveratherthanpassive,andthathistoryisimportant.Theymaywellhavedriftedtothesepointsofviewdespite,ratherthanbecauseof,thepost-processualcritique.Arealconvergencehassomehowoccurred.Itisperhapsaminorissuewhethertheresultingsynthesisisclosertoprocessualarchaeology(asRenfrewwouldclaim)orpost-processualarchaeology(asIwouldclaim).Thegivingoflabelsislargelypoliticalinthiscontext.Despitethemovementstowardsanewsynthesis,animportantareaofdifferencewhichremainsisthatwhichconcernsmethodandverification.Atfirstsight,eventhesixthpointofthepost-processualcritiquewouldappeartobeacceptedbysomeprocessualarchaeologists.Flannery(1973;1982)haslongbeencriticalofthelaw-and-order Theprocessualreaction129approach.RenfrewandBahn(1991,432)rejecttheformulationof‘lawsofcultureprocess’asinphysicsandtheyarguethat‘anextreme“positivist”viewofthephilosophyofsciencecannolongerbesustained:“facts”cannolongerbeviewedashavinganobjectiveexistenceindependentoftheory’(ibid.).Indeed,takenatfacevalue,suchstatements(seealsoBinfordandSabloff1982)mightleadonetobelievethattherearenodifferencesremainingbetweenthetwo‘camps’.Infact,however,wecannotyetclaimahappycompromise,becauseprocessualarchaeologistsremainsomewhatconfusedovermethodandepistemology.Manyprocessualarchaeologistshadgraduallycometoacceptthattheirknowledgewassociallyconstructed(Trigger1984).Thisrealisationcamefromanumberofsources.Particularlyinfluentialwastherecognitionthatthesupposedly‘pristine’cultureswhicharchaeologistshadbeenusingasobjectivecorrelatesforpastsocietieshadprobablyallbeenaffectedtosomedegreebycontactwithtechnologicallymoreadvancedsocietiespriortoethnographicstudy.Forexample,theBushmenofsouthernAfricahadbeeninfluencedbyBantuandHottentotfarmersandherders(Schrire1980).Neutrality,objectivityanduniversalismwerethusunderminedbyhistory.Peopleswhohadbeendescribedas‘other’(Fabian1983)oras‘withouthistory’(Wolf1982)weregaininganewvoice.Butsomeprocessualarchaeologistswerenotreadytofacetheimplicationsofthesocialconstructionofknowledge.Theywishedtoretainthecomfortofapositivistlabel.Iwishtoshowthatbyretainingapositivistapproachtomethodwhileatthesametimeacceptingthetheory-dependenceofdataandtheotherpartsofthepost-processualposition,processualarchaeologistshavelandedthemselvesinahopelesscontradiction.TheonlywaythatacoherentpositioncanbemaintainedistoabandonanarrowviewofscienceandembracethetypeofapproachthatwillbedescribedinChapter12.Forthemoment,Iwishonlytoexplorethecontradictionwithintheprocessualposition.AHOPELESSPROCESSUALDILEMMAInotedatthebeginningofChapter5thatpositivistarchaeologistscommittedtothetestingoftheoriesagainstobjectivedataarefacedwiththeproblemofhowtotesttheoriesaboutunobservablepartsofpastculturalsystems.Thisisadifficultywhichaffectsalltypesoftheorisinginarchaeology(Wylie1989a).However,itisexacerbatedbyconsiderationofsymbolismandmindsincesymbolicmeaningsarehistoricallyarbitrary.Bydefinition,therefore,universalinstrumentsofmeasurementwillnotontheirownallowustotesttheoriesaboutpastsymbolicmeanings.ThedilemmaisclearlyexpressedbyWatsoninher1986reviewofarchaeologicalinterpretation.Binford(1981;BinfordandSabloff1982)acceptsthatthepastisperceivedwithinasocialandculturalmatrix.Heacceptsthatthearchaeologicalrecordisdependentonourobservationsofit.Hethereforereachestheincrediblypessimisticandnegativeconclusionthat‘wecannotuseeitherthearchaeologicalrecordortheinferredpasttotestourpremisesorassumptions’(1981,29).Thetestingoftheorieswasthusanillusion’(BinfordandSabloff1982,138).Instead,weneedtotestourtheoriesinthepresent,using‘actualistic’studiestobuildmiddle-rangetheorieswhichareinsomesenseindependentofourparadigms.Thusmiddle-rangetheoriescanbeusedtotest Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology130‘objectively’betweenparadigms(ibid.).Apartfromseverelylimitingtheroleofthearchaeologist,thisviewisunderminedbytwoofitsfeatures(Wylie1989b).First,asWatson(1986)alsoargues,ouractualisticethnoarchaeologyisalsoparadigm-related.Ethnographersaswellasarchaeologistsfacetheproblemthatthewaytheyconstruct‘theother’isembeddedinsocialandculturalrelations.Middle-rangetheorycannotbeindependentofourparadigms.Second,Watson(1986)showsthecontradictorynatureofBinford’sposition.Binfordhasnotedthatsinceobservationisnotindependentofourexplanations,theoriesandparadigms,thereisadangerof‘affirmingtheconsequent’,orofassumingthatwhichoneshouldbetryingtoprove.Hissolutionistodevelopverywell-confirmedlawsandregularitiesaboutbehaviouralcorrelatesinpresent-daysocieties.Watsonrecognisesthatevenifwecouldfindsuchregularities,westillhaveto‘affirmtheconsequent’whenwechoosewhichcorrelatesarerelevanttoaparticularcase.Binfordclaimsthatmiddle-rangetheoryconcernsthosethingswhichthepresentshareswiththepast.Thesecommonthingsprovidethebasisforacomparisonbetweentimes(pastandpresent).But,Watsonasks(1986,448),howcanwedecidewithanycertaintywhichthingsthepresentshareswiththepast?‘Wemustalwaysaffirmtheconsequentifwearetodoanymeaningfulinterpretationatall’(ibid.).ThislaststatementbyWatsonisextremelyimportant.ItstateswithclaritythehermeneuticpositionwhichwillbeexploredinChapter12.Watsonismakingtheobvioushermeneuticpointthatnointerpretationispossibleuntilinterpretationhasbegun.Wecannotevenbegintomakesenseofthearchaeologicalmaterialuntilwemakesomeassumptionsaboutit.Wecannotknowwhatuniversalsandcorrelatesandregularitiesarerelevanttothedatauntilwehavemadesomeassumptionsaboutwhatthedatamean.Asanextremeexample,wecannotapplytheoriesofexchangetostoneobjectswethinkofasthunderbolts!Wedonotthinktheoriesofindigenousdevelopmentandsocialcomplexityarerelevanttothedataifwethinkobservedculturalchangesaretheproductofmovementsofpeople.AmoreappropriateexampletodayisthatSchiffer(1987)paysscantattentiontosocialtheorybecausehedoesnotthinkthatthenotionthatmaterialcultureismeaningfullyconstitutedisrelevanttodiscardbehaviour.Processualarchaeologistshavethusgotthemselvesintoaterriblemess.Theyhavecometoacceptthatthedataaretheory-laden.Inessence,therefore,theyacceptthehermeneuticcircle.Buttheyclingtotheideathattheycangetoutofthecircleaccordingtowhichsubjectivityisacceptedaspartofscienceandverification.Sotheyengageinsomefastfoot-workandwool-pulling.Butthehoped-forsolutionofindependentmiddle-rangetheoryisunderminedbytheirownassertionthatthedataaretheory-laden.Middle-rangetheoriestoomustbewithinthesubjectivehermeneuticcircle.Andbystatingthatmiddle-rangetheoryhastosharesomethingwiththepastinordertomakeitrelevanttothepast,processualarchaeologistsalsoprovethatalltheirworkisenmeshedinaprioriassumptions.Wehavetostartinterpretingthearchaeologicalrecordbeforewecanexplainit.Ourinterestsguidewhatwelookat,howwelookatit,whattheoriesandregularitieswecallupon,andsoon.IwillargueinChapter12thattheserealisationsdonotleadtorelativism(Wylie1989b)andadenialofscience.Iwillarguethatanalternativebasedonhermeneuticsanddialecticsprovidesabetteraccountofarchaeologicalmethodology.Forthemoment,I Theprocessualreaction131simplywishtodocumenttheextraordinaryconfusionsandcontradictionsthatarenowexpressedinprocessualarchaeologicalwriting,resultingfromanattempttoretainbothpositivismandhermeneuticsatthesametime.Itsimplyisnotpossibletoretainapositivistcommitmenttoobjectiveandindependentsciencewhileatthesametimeacceptingthatthedataandourtheoriesarealwaysalreadyinterpretations.Wylie(1989a)hasputthepointwell.Hempelianpositivismemphasisesthetestingofobservables.Butevenby1977,Binford,forexample,hadcometoseethatobservationsaretheory-dependent.Hisinterestthusshiftedtobuildingmoresecuretheoryinthepresent.Buttheuseofsecuretheoriesaboutnecessarycausalrelationshipsandprocesses,developedinthecontemporaryworld,isprofoundlynon-positivistic.AccordingtoWylie,thepositivistemphasisisontesting,notonsecuretheory.Processualarchaeologythusclaimspositivismintheory,butinpracticeunderminesit.Aprocessualarchaeologywhichclingstoobjectivetestingcannotdealwiththeparadigm-dependenceofobservationinthemodernworldandofobservationofarchaeologicaldata.Manyprocessualarchaeologistsdonotseemtohaverealisedthishopelessconfusion.Theyliveon,blindtothecontradictionstheyarewriting.Forexample,inhiscollectionofpapersentitledDebatingArchaeology,Binford(1989)arguesrepeatedlythatitispossibletorevealtheexternalworld‘intermsofitself(ibid.,69)or‘initsownright’(ibid.,67and71).Heaimstoshowthatitispossibleto‘makeothersawareoftheirownuncriticalacceptanceofanunevaluatedsetofassumptiveviewsabouttheworld’(ibid.,486).Hearguesthatwemustcombattheself-appointedauthoritieswhoproclaimwhatwearelikeandwhothenusesuchallegedknowledgetocreatepastsconsistentwiththeirbeliefs(ibid.,68).Binfordwritesthatparadigm-dependenceneverbotheredhimandthatitdoesnotseemtobeageneralornecessaryproblemforscientists(ibid.,37).Wecanstepoutsidecultureandhistoryandknowtheexternalworldintermsofitself.‘Thearchaeologist...isoutsidehistoryintheparticipantsense’(ibid.,52).Butinthesamebooktherearestatementswhichcontradicttheaboveviews.‘Dowereallyexpectscientiststobe“outside”theirculture?That,ofcourse,isimpossible’(ibid.,46).Atseveralpointsinthe1989volume,Binfordacceptsthatarchaeologistsarecaughtwithintheirownculturalmilieuandthattheycannotseereality‘objectively’.Ourtaskisnottheobjectiveapproximationoftruthbuttheinvestigationofourculturallyboundignorance.‘Allarchaeologicaldataaregeneratedbyusinourterms’(ibid.,57).Healsoseemstorecognise(ibid.,162)thatthereareproblemsinherentinmakingobservationsonalivingsystemandthathispresenceasanethnographeraffectedwhathewasobserving.Infact,hisownaccountofhisethnoarchaeologicalworkexpressesarichlytexturedandpersonalinvolvement.Thusatleastsomeofhisethnoarchaeologicalwork‘isnotintendedasademonstrationofsecureknowledge’(ibid.,255).Andasforknowinginadvancewhatmattersarerelevanttothepast,hemakeshispositiondearbystatinganumberofapriorigeneralisations.Forexample,‘intentionalactswerenotthecausalforcestandingbehindhistory’(ibid.,20).‘Culturalsystemsarenotclosedideologicalstructures.Theyarethermodynamicsystems’(ibid.,53).Binfordprovidesanexcellentexampleofanarchaeologistcaughtwithincultureandhistory.Inthiswayheisthesameasallofus,evenifhedoesnotrealiseit.Similartensionscanbefoundintheworkofother,lessextremeprocessual Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology132archaeologistswhohaveacceptedmanyofthepost-processualarguments.AsafinalillustrationIwilltakesomeoftherecentwritingbyRenfrew.Here,thecontradictionsareagainclearlystated.Today,nooneclaimsthatdatacaninanabsolutesensebe“objective”:theyarenotformulatedotherthanbyhumanactivityandarenotindependentofthatprocess’(Renfrew1989,38).Indeed,heacceptsthatpractisingscientistsuseboththecriteriaofcoherenceandcorrespondenceinevaluatingtheories.Inotherwords,heputsahermeneuticposition.Heacceptsthatthedataaretheory-laden(ibid.,36).Buthethenveersawayfromcoherenceandputsallhisfaithinobjectivedata.‘Thematerialrecordofthepast,theactualremains,mayindeedbeclaimedas“value-free”andlackinginobserverinducedbias’,sothatthedata‘alonecanvalidateorfalsifyourown(subjectivelyproduced)hypotheses’(ibid.,39).Thedirectcontradictionsbetweenthesesetsofstatementscannotbeavoidedbyanypractisingarchaeologist.Ratherthanignoringthemandpretendingthatthecontradictionsdonotexist,weneedtoseethecontradictionasadialecticbetweensubjectandobjectwhichformsthebuildingblockofourscience.ThishermeneuticviewwillbeputinChapter12.Renfrew’sworkisofparticularinterestsincehedevelopshisideasinthecontextofanattempttobuildacognitiveprocessualarchaeology(1982;1989).Asalreadynoted,whenpositivismisextendedtosymbolismandmind,thecontradictionsbecomemoreseverebecauseofthepartlyarbitrarynatureofthesign.Ontheonehand,Renfrew(1982)arguesthateachculturehasitsownhistoricaltrajectory.Thedevelopmentofideas,hesays,willbedifferentineachcontext.Eachhistorywillhaveitsowncognitivephylogeny.Itissimplynotpossibletosquaretheseviewswiththenotionofvalue-freedatawhichalonecanvalidateorfalisifyoursubjectivelyproducedhypotheses.Theviewsarecontradictedbytheclaim(ibid.)thatwecandevelopgeneraltheorieswhichwillallowustoinfercognitiveprocesseswithoutmakingintuitive(interpretive)leaps.Perhapstherearesomeaspectsofpsychologyandcognitionandperceptionwhichareuniversalandnotculturallyvariable.Butevenifwemanagetobuildsecureknowledgeofthistype,itwillstillbenecessary,asWatsonarguedinrelationtoBinford’sclaims,todecidetowhataspectsofthearchaeologicalrecordsuchgeneralknowledgemightberelevant.Onceagain,interpretationwillonlybepossibleonceinterpretationhasbegun.InhisinterpretationofaBronzeAgeAegeansanctuaryorshrine,Renfrew(1985)providesuswithaclearexampleofhowhispositivist,hypotheses-testingapproachcanbeappliedtoissuesofsymbolism.RenfrewwantstobreakawayfromtheviciouscircleaccordingtowhichshrinesareidentifiedintheAegeanbecausetheylooklikeothershrinesintheAegean.Thisisofcoursenecessary,butRenfrewthinksthattheansweristobuildageneraltheoryaboutreligion,basedonanthropologicalwriting,andthentomakevariouspredictionsaboutwhatasanctuaryshouldlooklikeinthearchaeologicalrecord.Hedevelopsacheck-listofbehaviouralcorrelatesforreligiousritual.Thelistincludessuchthingsas‘attention-focusingdevices’,‘gesturesofadoration’andcultimages,symbolismandiconographyofomnipotentpowersanddeities(ibid.,19).Butinordertoidentifytheitemsonthecheck-list,wehavetointerpretthemeaningsoftheobjectsinvolved.Wehavetoenter‘their’mindsandsaythataplatformwas‘attention-focusing’,orthatafigurinewasperceivedasadeityorthattheupraisedarmsofahumanfigurinerepresenta‘gestureofadoration’.Nouniversalcriteriaareofferedtodothis.Indeed,Renfrew’sownargumentsindicatethatuniversalcriteriaforidentifying‘their’ Theprocessualreaction133meaningscouldnotbeprovided,sinceeachhistoryhasitsowncognitivephylogeny.Renfrew’sattemptatdevelopingauniversalist,objectivehypothesis-testingprocedurehasbeencontradictedbyhisownneedtosaywhatthepastmeans.Intheend,hehastoacceptthatheneedsevidenceandinterpretationsfromothershrinesintheAegeaninordertosupporthisinterpretationofaparticularbuildingasashrine.Intheend,then,hehastoacceptahermeneuticposition.Wewillseelater,inanappliedexample,thatitispossibletoavoidtheviciousnessofthehermeneuticcirclebyothermeans(Chapter15).Inconclusion,theunacknowledgedcontradictionsevidentinrecentprocessualarchaeologywritinghavealwaysbeenthere.Theyareanecessarypartofanypositivistapproach,atleastwhenappliedinthehumanitiesandsocialsciences.Toacceptsubjectivitywhileclaimingobjectivityjustwon’twash.Thelimitationsofaviewwhichgraspsuniversalmeasuringdevices,independenceandvalue-freedataareparticularlyacutewhenappliedtosymbolicmatters.Fewwouldarguethatsymbolicmeaningsarenotpartlyhistoricallyandsubjectivelyconstructed.Thearbitraryandthesubjectivesimplycannotbemadetocoherewiththeuniversalandtheobjective.TheresultingcontradictionswhichIhaveshownareblatantinaconsiderablebodyofprocessualarchaeologicalwriting,havebecomegraduallymoreevidentaspeoplehavetriedtodotwooppositethingsatoneandthesametime.Intheend,processualarchaeologywouldprobablyhaveundermineditselfwithoutanypromptingfrompost-processualarchaeology.Buttheprocessualdilemmahasbecomemorehopelessofteninresponsetothepost-processualcritique.Asmoreandmoreevidenceoftheextenttowhichourscienceissociallyembeddedhasemerged,thedifficultiesofasimpleobjectivistorfalsificationpositionhavebecomemorestark.Weneedadifferentepistemology.REFERENCESBinford,L.(1977)ForTheoryBuildinginArchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.——(1981)Bones:AncientMenandModernMyths,NewYork:AcademicPress.——(1989)DebatingArchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.Binford,L.andSabloff,J.(1982)‘Paradigms,systematicsandarchaeology’,JournalofAnthropologicalResearch38,137–53.Bintliff,J.(1990)‘Foreword’,inJ.Bintliff(ed.)ExtractingMeaningfromthePast,Oxford:OxbowBooks.Deetz,J.(1988)‘Historyandarchaeologicaltheory:WalterTaylorrevisited’,AmericanAntiquity53,13–22.Earle,T.(1977)‘Areappraisalofredistribution:complexHawaiianchiefdoms’,inT.EarleandJ.Ericson(eds)ExchangeSystemsinPrehistory,NewYork:AcademicPress.Earle,T.andPreucel,R.(1987)‘Processualarchaeologyandtheradicalcritique’,CurrentAnthropology28,501–38.Fabian,J.(1983)TimeandtheOther,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Flannery,K.(1973)‘ArchaeologywithacapitalS’,inC.Redman(ed.)ResearchandTheoryinCurrentArchaeology,NewYork:Wiley.——(1982)ThegoldenMarshalltown:aparableforthearchaeologyofthe1980s’, Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology134AmericanAnthropologist84,265–78.Flannery,K.V.andMarcus,J.(1976)‘FormativeOaxacaandtheZapoteccosmos’,AmericanScientist64,374–83.——(1983)TheCloudPeople,NewYork:AcademicPress.Hodder,I.(1986)ReadingthePast,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Mithen,S.(1989)‘Evolutionarytheoryandpost-processualarchaeology’,Antiquity63,483–94.Renfrew,A.C.(1973)SocialArchaeology,Southampton:SouthamptonUniversityPress.——(1982)TowardsanArchaeologyofMind,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1985)TheArchaeologyofCult,London:ThamesandHudson.——(1989)‘Commentson“Archaeologyintothe1990s”’,NorwegianArchaeologicalReview22,33–41.Renfrew,A.C.andBahn,P.(1991)Archaeology,London:ThamesandHudson.Schiffer,M.(1976)BehaviouralArchaeology,NewYork:AcademicPress.—(1987)FormationProcessesoftheArchaeologicalRecord,Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress.Schrire,C.(1980)‘AninquiryintotheevolutionarystatusandapparentidentityofSanhuntergatherers’,HumanEcology8,9–32.Shanks,M.andTilley,C.(1987a)Re-constructingArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1987b)SocialTheoryandArchaeology,Cambridge:PolityPress.Trigger,B.G.(1978)TimeandTraditions,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.——(1984)‘Archaeologyatthecrossroads:what’snew?’,AnnualReviewofAnthropology13,275–300.Watson,P.J.(1986)‘Archaeologicalinterpretation,1985’,inD.Meltzer,D.Fowler,andJ.Sabloff(eds)AmericanArchaeologyPastandFuture,WashingtonDC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.Wolf,E.(1982)EuropeandthePeoplewithoutHistory,Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Wylie,A.(1989a)‘Theinterpretivedilemma’,inV.PinskyandA.Wylie(eds)CriticalTraditionsinContemporaryArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1989b)‘Archaeologicalcablesandtacking:theimplicationsofpracticeforBernstein’s“Optionsbeyondobjectivismandrelativism”’,PhilosophyoftheSocialSciences19,1–18. 10TOWARDSRADICALDOUBT:ADIALOGUEWhatIfoundparticularlyinterestinginthewayprocessualarchaeologistsreactedtomywritingwasthattheydidnotrespondtowhatIsaid,buttowhattheywantedmetosay.Inotherwords,theyhadalreadybeguntheirinterpretationofmyworkbeforetheyreadit.Theywerefollowingclassicallyhermeneuticprocedures,butitwasnonethelessannoying.Archaeologistshadabsorbedstereotypicaloppositionsbetweenobjectiveandsubjective,materialismandidealism,thegeneralandtheparticular,scienceandrelativism.EventhoughIwrotethatIwantedtobreakdownthesedivides,processualarchaeologistsclaimedthatIwasbeingidealist,thatIrejectedgeneralisations,thatItookarelativistposition.AsisclearfromChapter3,Itriednottotakesuchaone-sidedview.Yetmyworkwasreadintermsoftheoldexpectations.Iwassetupasa‘strawman’sothatIcouldbeknockeddown.Waitaminute.Areyounotbeingjustalittlehypocritical?YousaidyourselfinthelastchapterthatprocessualarchaeologistssuchasFlanneryandRenfrewwerealreadymovinginpost-processualdirectionsandtakingmorenuancedpositions.Theyhadalreadyacceptedtheimportanceofhistory,theindividual,activematerialculture,symbolismandmeaningandsoon.Yousimplysetupastrawprocessualarchaeologisttoserveyourownpurposes.Andyouaredoingthesamehere.Iagreetheremaybesometruthtothat.Ihavebeen,atleastsubconsciously,career-mongering.Butsomeprocessualarchaeologistsdidinitiallyreactinastereotypicalway.AtleastIdidtrytosetupmystrawpersonscorrectly.Someoftheprocessualcriticisms,suchasthosebyYengoyan(1985)andChapman(1990)simplyhadnotunderstoodtheissues,whileothersmisrepresentedmywork.Whydoyoumind?Surelyanyreadingisasgoodasanyother?InyourreplytoBell’s(1987)reviewofReadingthePast,youwrote:Idonotwanttoarguethatmyinterpretationof“myown”bookisrightandthatBelliswrong.Thebookisdivorcedfromme.Itsmeaningdoesnotdependontheauthorbutonthereadingofitthatisgiven.Idonotwishforanyauthorityinrelationtothetext’(Hodder1987,91).AndinyoureditedvolumeTheMeaningsofThings(Hodder1989)youtriedtounderminetheauthorityofwesternarchaeologicalwritingbyplacingitonanequalbasistothewritingofindigenouswriters.Surelyyoushouldacceptthe‘deathoftheauthor’anddelightinthedifferentreadingsofyourtexts?Whatrightdoyouhavetosaythatcertaininterpretationsofyourworkarewrong?Ican’tsurrenderallresponsibilityforwhatIwrite.Take,forexample,thereactionofyoungerSpanisharchaeologiststopost-processualarchaeology(Rodriguez,ChapaandZapatero1988;MarcenandRisch1990;RuizandNocete1990).InSpain,thecritiqueofNewArchaeologyservestocreatelinkswithtraditionalarchaeology.IntheSpanishcontext,post-processualarchaeologysupportsthereactionaryemphasisonnorm, Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology136historicalparticularism,intuition,therejectionofscientificresearchdesignsandtechniques,andtherejectionoftheory.Ihadtorespond(Hodder1990)inordertocorrecttheirunderstandingofmyworkandshowthatIacceptedtheneedforscientificrigourinfieldmethods,generalisationandtheory-building.OtherwisemyworkwouldhaveareactionaryratherthananenlighteningeffectinSpain.Poordeludedfool.No-onehastakenmuchnoticeofyourresponseinSpain.Peoplewillreadyourtextsastheywantto.‘Youcan’tberesponsibleforhowyourworkisunderstood.Youcan’tcontrolmeaning,withoutembracingStalinism.It’struethatIdofeelinarealdilemma.Sometimes,asinmyresponsetoBellorinTheMeaningsofThings,Ihavenosenseofbeing‘anauthor’becauseIhaveacceptedtheneedtolistentoothersandtorelativisemyownarbitraryposition.Iliveinapost-modernworld.Ifeelfragmented,consumerised,sound-bitten.Iacceptmultiplevoices,versioningandmixing.Mykidsintroducemeto‘virtualreality’machines.Butontheotherhand,asaparentIfeelcertaindutiesandIbelieveincertainmoraltruths.AsamemberofsocietyIfeelstronglyabouttheunderprivilegedandIamidealistic,romanticallyhopefulaboutalleviatingtheconditionofthedisadvantaged.AsanarchaeologistIbelievethatthepastshouldbesavedorthatSpanisharchaeologyshouldbreakoutofanatheoreticalempiricism.HowcanIbelieveallthesethingsandyetbefullofpost-moderndoubt?Yes,youreallyareconfused.Youthinkyoubelieveinpost-processualarchaeologybecauseithelpstoconstructabetterworldinwhichpeopleintheirdifferentandparticularhistoricalconditionsaretakenseriously.Youthinkyoubelieveinaradicalhumanism,thatyoucan‘changetheworld’forthebetter.Butinfactyoubelieveinnothingexceptyourowninterests.Youhavesimplyflittedopportunisticallyfromtheorytotheory.Youhavepretendedthisisnotso,bothtoyourselfandtoothers.Thisbookisperhapstheworstexampleofyourduplicity.Sofaryouhavebeenconstructinganeatdevelopmentalhistoryofyourideas.Buttherehasbeennocoherentgrowth.Whatyousaidintheprefacewasnonsense.Yousaidtherethatyouwouldshowthedevelopmentalcoherenceofyour‘œuvre’(howpretentious!).Thatitwasguidedbybigquestions.Butasyoudidyourworktherewaslittlesenseofcoherence.ButIreallydobelieveinthedangersofscientismandinthedangersofclaimstoobjectivityandneutrality.Lookatterriblecasessuchaschildrenbeingwrenchedfromtheirparentsbecause‘sciencehadshown’,wronglyasitturnedout,thatthechildrenhadbeensexuallyabused.OrlookathowtheproblemsanddominationoftheThirdWorldhavesooftenbeenexacerbatedbytheimpositionof‘universal’butinappropriatepolicies.Weneedtobesensitivetopeople,culture,history,context.AndIreallydobelievethatprocessualarchaeology,inhoweversmallaway,contributedtothedisregardofsuchissues.Iknowthatpeopleweremovinginapost-processualdirectionanyway,butwithoutrecognisingit.Thepoliticalimpactwasthusbeingignored.Thesocialstatementwasbeingneutralisedandappropriated.I’mafraidthatjustwon’twash.Wherewereallthesehighpoliticalidealswhenyouweredoingyourspatialanalysiswork?youseemedconvenientlytohaveforgottenthemthen,asyoudidallthatobjectivescienceandasyousimulatedpeopleincomputermodels(HodderandOrton1976;Hodder1978).Infact,youremphasisonsocialresponsibilityandthenewpost-processualtheorieslargelycameaboutbecauseofdisciplinarypolitics.Youwantedtomakeamark.Itwasalsolargelyaccidental, Towardsradicaldoubt:adialogue137dependentonthestudentswhohappenedtocometoCambridge.Youdidn’tpointoutinthattotallyfalseChapter2thatthe‘discovery’oftheviewthatmaterialcultureismeaningfullyconstitutedwascontingent.ItresultedfromwhatyouhappenedtocomeacrossamongsttheNuba,whatyouhappenedtohavereadsuchasMaryDouglas,andsoon.Youmadethatchaptersoundasifsomeuniversaltruthhadbeenuncovered.Allthissocialidealismyouarenowclaimingcameaboutcontingentlyanditsuitedyourinterests.Infactitwasallopportunistic.ButIreallydidfeelmoreofa‘wholeperson’onceIgaveupspatialanalysis.Ihadfeltsplitbetweenmy‘objective’spatialanalyticalworkandmybeliefsasamemberofsociety.Itwasonlyasapost-processualarchaeologistthatIfeltmyresearchandmyconvictionswereworkinginthesamedirections.Iamsomeonewhoreallybelievesinthesenewdirections.What’sallthis‘Iam…’and‘wholeperson’stuff?The‘you’thatisnowspeakinghasbeenconstructedcontingentlyandopportunistically.Ithasgrownoutofthedialoguewithyourcritics.Youhavewrittenalotanditisconfusedandcontradictory.Thereisnocoherentœuvreandno‘you’whichisnotsituatedinthemomentofdebate.ItistruethatIhavewrittencontradictorythings,butIwassearchingforsomething,tryingoutdifferentdirectionstofindoutwhatTwanted.Therewasanunderlyingpurpose.Whatisthepointofdoingresearchunlessyouchangeyourmind,learningthroughexperience?ThroughdialogueandthrougharchaeologyIcametoseewhatTwantedtodo.Myconclusionsmaybehistoricallycontingent,butsurelytheyarereal?Thenotionofa‘real’cause,condition,principleorwhateverassumessomeuniversalwayofevaluatingtheworld.Youknowthatisnotpossible.Yourwholeemphasisoncontextandhistoryunderminesthenotionthatthereisonerealitytosociallife.Isupposeyouareright.Youknow,Ialwaysfindtheseconversationsexhausting.Ireallyprefertowriteinmyivorygarret.Ifindtherealworldofdebate(especiallyspokendebate)andpracticedifficulttocontrol.Ipreferwriting.Icancontroltheoryandwordswithintheboundariesofatext.Ifeelcomfortableandsafewithintheacademiccannon.IsupposeIshouldsticktomywritingandnotworryabouthowpeoplereact.Yes.Andyouknowanotherthing?Itistomyadvantagetoargueformultiplereadingsofmytexts,thedeathoftheauthorandallthat.Mywritingispolysemous,contingent.Ikeepchangingmymindandcontradictingmyself,movingtonewpositions.IdonotwanttobecategorisedbecauseIrealisethatIcanthenbecontrolled,labelled,dismissed,closedoff.Iwanttoremainonthemarginsofeverything,alwayscriticisingbutneverabletobetieddownandsubjectedtoadisablingandfinalcriticismmyself.Youcan’thitamovingtarget.Itisinmyinteresttobeambiguous,contradictory,withnofaith,nooeuvre,no‘I’.Iobtainpowerandauthoritythroughironyandcritique.Ifloat,disaggregated,betweenpositions.No-onecantouchme.Itdoesn’tmatterifIdon’tbelieveanything.I’maboveallthat,onahigherplane.Doubtmakesmefeelgood.Yes,you’vegotit. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology138REFERENCESBell,J.(1987)‘Rationalityversusrelativism:areviewof“Readingthepast”‘,ArchaeologicalReviewfromCambridge6(1),75–86.Chapman,R.(1990)EmergingComplexity,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Hodder,I.(ed.)(1978)SimulationStudiesinArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1987)‘ReadingBellreading“ReadingthePast”‘,ArchaeologicalReviewfromCambridge6(1),87–91.——(ed.)(1989)TheMeaningsofThings,London:UnwinHyman.——(1990)‘EldebateEspanolsobrelaarqueologiacontextual’,TrabajosdePrehistoria47,379–82.Hodder,I.andOrton,C.(1976)SpatialAnalysisinArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Marcen,P.G.andRisch,R.(1990)‘Archaeologyandhistoricalmaterialism:outsiders’reflectionsontheoreticaldiscussionsinBritisharchaeology’,inF.BakerandJ.Thomas(eds)WritingthePastinthePresent,Lampeter:StDavid’sUniversityCollege.Rodriguez,A.R.,Chapa,T.andZapatero,G.R.(1988)‘Contextualarchaeology:acriticalreview’,TrabajosdePrehistoria45,11–17.Ruiz,A.andNocete,F.(1990)Thedialecticofthepastandthepresentintheconstructionofascientificarchaeology’,inF.BakerandJ.Thomas(eds)WritingthePastinthePresent,Lampeter:StDavid’sUniversityCollege.Yengoyan,A.A.(1985)‘Diggingforsymbols:thearchaeologyofeverydaymateriallife’,ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety,51,329–34. 11THEPOST-PROCESSUALREACTIONAsseeninChapter9,theprocessualreactiontopost-processualarchaeology,whileacceptingmostofitsaspects,wasworriedaboutverification.Theknowledgeclaimsofarchaeologistsseemedtobeunderminedbythepost-processualemphasisoncontextuality.Ifinterpretationscouldnotbebasedonuniversaltheoriesandinstrumentsofmeasurement,andiftheycouldnotbetestedonobjectiveneutraldata,howcouldwedistinguishbetween‘real’and‘fringe’archaeology?Ihaveshownthatinfacttheseproblemswerebeingraisedwithinprocessualarchaeology.BinfordandSabloff’s(1982,138)statementthat‘thetestingoftheorieswasthusanillusion’wasasradicalasanythingIorShanksandTilleyhavewritten.However,theseunsettlingtendencieswereidentifiedwithpost-processualviews.Theywereseenastoodangeroustoadmitintothecoreoftheprocessualdiscipline.Myreactiontotheprocessualcritiqueconcerningverificationwastoarguethatwecanrejectanabsoluteobjectivismwhilestillrecognisingthatourtheoriescanbefittedtothedatatoseewhichtheoriesfitbest.Thus,asshowninChapter2,I‘tested’mytheorythattombsmeanthousesagainsteightaspectsoftheevidence,andasfurtherdatawerecollectedtheysupportedmyinterpretation.Thereisnofinality,andmyinterpretationisonlyamomentinamovingdialectic,butitisneverthelessgroundedinthepatternedmaterialremains.ThisisamoreoptimisticviewthanthatofferedbyBinfordandSabloff.Thereactiontomyworkwithinpost-processualarchaeologyhasbeentheopposite.HereIhavebeencriticisedfornotbeingradicalenough.Ihavebeencriticisedforstillclingingtothepastasreal,forwantingtofindoutwhatreallyhappened.Myworkhasbeenshowntobecontradictorybecauseitacceptsthepastassubjective,butteststheoriesagainstdata.Thenotionthatonecantesttheoriesagainstdataissaidtobeanillusion,anakedattempttoretainauthorityandscientificprivilege.ThereisinfactaremarkableconvergencebetweenBinford’sviewsandthepost-processualcritique,asnotedbyWatson(1986).Bothappeartorejectanabilitytoapproachtherealpast,andplacetheiremphasesonthepresent.Thereare,ofcourse,manydifferencesbetweenthetwosetsofviews.Forexample,post-processualarchaeologistswouldclaimtobesociallyactiveinthepresent.Butitisperhapsironic,givenBinford’sview,thatpost-processualarchaeologistsclaimIhavenotbeensufficientlyradical.Theproblemdevelopsinthefollowingway.IclaimedinChapters2and3thatmaterialcultureismeaningfullyconstituted.Iunderstoodthistomeanthatthereareideasandconceptsembeddedinsociallifewhichinfluencethewaymaterialcultureismade,usedanddiscarded.Asaresult,itwasrealisedthatarchaeologistsworkwithadoublehermeneutic.Theydonotsimplydealwithaphysical,‘fossil’record,organisedbyuniversal,non-culturalprocesses.Rather,theydealwiththemeaningsconstructedbyotherpeople,withanotherrealmofmeaning.Theyhavetodealnotonlywith‘our’ Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology140meanings(‘our’hermeneutic),butalsowith‘their’meanings(‘their’hermeneutic).Inthisway,asPatrik(1985)hasshown,thearchaeologicaldatacanbecomparedlesswithafossilrecordandmorewithatext.Atextiswrittentomeansomething.Ithastobeunderstoodwithinaframeworkofmeaning.Ithastobetranslatedfrom‘their’into‘our’meanings.Initially(asinChapter3)Iassumedthateveryoneinacultural‘whole’wouldgivethesamemeaningstoanobjectconceivedastext.Butthisviewwasdiscardedwhenitwasrealisedthatdifferentpeopleinsocieties,withdifferentsociallives,wouldviewtheworldandmaterialculturedifferently(Hodder1986).Thisnotionthatdifferentpeopleinthepastandpresentwouldgivedifferentmeaningstothesameobjectplacesanemphasisonthereadingoftexts.Themeaningofatext,orofmaterialculture,lieslessinitsproductionandintention,andmoreinitsinterpretationfromdifferentpointsofview.Theobjecthasnomeaninguntilithasbeen‘read’.Yates(1990a;1990b),forexample,notesthatthemainaimofthetextanalogyistomoveawayfromnotionsofanabsolutepassiveidentityofthepast,thepastasarecord.Insteadthematerialremainsareseenasbeingactivelyreadbythearchaeologist.Themeaningofthematerialcultureisconstructedbyplacingitwithinanetworkofdifferences,anetworkofsignifiers.Eachsignifierfunctionsbecauseofitsdifferencesfromothersignifiers.Materialcultureisreadashavingdifferentmeaningsasitisplacedinrelationtodifferentchainsofsignifiersinthepresent.Theradicalpost-structuralistposition,therefore,isthatwecannotgettoanyoriginalmeaninginthepast.Wecertainlycannotgetatwhatmaterialculturemeantinthepastto‘them’.Thisisbecause,eveninthepast,materialobjectsdidnothaveanysingularmeaning,anymeaning‘inthemselves’.Bothinthepastandthepresent,themeaningsofobjectsdependedonhowtheobjectswereread.Theobjectswereandareplacedinrelationtoanever-shiftingflowofdifference.Yates(1990a)placestheemphasisonchainsofdifferencesinthepresent,onhorizontalityinthepresentratherthanondepth(thereturnbacktothe‘arche’).Thereisonlyandalwaysdifference’(ibid.,169).ThisisequivalenttoDerrida’sfamousstatementthat‘thereisnothingoutsidethetext’(seeYates1990b).Olsen(1990)arguesinasimilarveinthatthedesiretogetattheoriginalmeaning,atwhatthe‘author’ofmaterialculturemeant,isdeluded(seealsoMoranandHides1990).Thesepost-structuralistviewsarecertainlyatoddswithmyownposition.Eveninstartingwiththeideaof‘text’,Istartwithan‘origin’,withastartingpointwhichIacceptunquestioningly.AndcertainlyIarguethatthereisrealpatterninginthematerialremainsandthatNeolithictombsmeanthouses,to‘them’.ButhowcanImakesuchclaimswhileadoptingthetextanalogyformaterialculture?SurelyImustseethatatextcanbereadinendlessnewways.Anobject’smeaningwasandisdiffusedalongcountlesschainsofsignification.Myresponsetothenotionofthefreefloworplayofsignificationiscontext.Inordertostopmeaningrunningawaydownchainsofsignifiers,peopleinthepastandpresentusecontext.Subjectivereadingsoftheworldaretranslatedintoobjectivematerialactions,writtenintothematerialremains.Insituatedmaterialcontexts,stableanddefinablerelationshipsaresetupwhichallowthereadertorecogniseandunderstandmeaning.AsYates(1990a)notesinausefulreview,thenotionofcontextoperatesto Thepost-processualreaction141closedownthechainsofsignifiersandtoforestalltheunsettlingeffectsofthelooseplayofdifference.Inparticular,asBarrett(1987)hasargued,archaeologistsdealwithamaterialcontextwhichrestrainsandchannelspossiblemeanings.Ourreadingsofmaterialtextsareconstrainedbymaterialpossibilitiesandbythematerialassociations,similaritiesanddifferencesintheevidence.ButasYates(1990a;1990b)pointsout,Irunintodifficultieshere.Iarguethattermsandmaterialsmustbeunderstoodcontextually.Andyetmy‘context’isbeyondthesystemofdifferences.Itisnotitselfcontextuallydefined.Whatdefinesthecontext?Theterm,inmywriting,becomestranshistorical.HowdoIdefinewhattoputintothecontextandwhattoexclude?Isnotthecontextitselfaninterpretation?Sincemeaningdependsoncontext,Ihavetostartbydefiningpastcontexts.ButinimposingacontextIhavetohavedecidedbeforeIstartwhatthepastwaslike.IexcludefrommyanalysesawholeseriesofstartingpointswhichIbringfromoutside.Myresponsetothisconundrumhasbeenagaintosaythatwedonotsimplyimposeourideasonthematerialevidence.Therealmaterialsimilaritiesanddifferencesformabasisfordefiningsites,regions,culturesandothertypesofcontext.Whilewedoreadthematerialtextsinchangingways,theinterpretationsareinfluencedbyrealmaterialpatterning.Thecontextsweimposeinteractwithrealcontextsleftasmaterialtraces.Thusthepast,inmyview,hasarelativeautonomyfromthepresent.Butsurely,arguesBapty(1990),you(Hodder)areglossingoveranothercontradictionhere.Thenotionofcontextcontainstwocomponents:thereisthecontextofthepresentandthecontextofthepast.Materialcultureismeaningfullyconstitutedandpatternedinpastcontexts.Butthosecontextsarealsotheresultsofsituatedproductionofthepastinthepresent.Youhavearguedthatourinterpretationsneedtobereflexiveandcriticallyaware.Soyouargueforinterpretationswhichreflectandacknowledgethepast-presentrelationshipbutarenotcompletelysubsumedbytheinterestsofthepresent.Isthisnotacontradiction?Yourcontextualarchaeologyproducesthepastthroughtheironicmodeofasustaineddoubleentendre,observingthepastbutadmittingthatitisnotcompletelyobservable.IwillargueinChapter12thatthedualityofthepastasconstructedyetrealisnotduplicit.Iwillarguethatpastandpresent,objectandsubject,textandcontextconstituteeachotherandbringeachotherintoexistence.Weneedtochartawaybetweenobjectivismandsubjectivism(Rowlands1984).OneofthereasonsthatIhavetakenthismoremoderatestance,whichIwilloutlinemorefullyinChapters12and13,ismyresponsetothepost-structuralistposition.Therearetwoparticularlimitationsofpost-structuralistarchaeologywhichIsee.Thefirstisthedangerofbeinglockedintothepresent,withthepasteffectivelynegated.Thesecondisthatarchaeologylosesanypoliticalagencybybeingcommittedtoaparticularviewofpluralityandmultivocality.PRESENTISMANDVALUE-COMMITMENTPost-structuralists(BaptyandYates1990;BakerandThomas1990;Tilley1990b)denythepossibilityofgettingbacktooriginalmeaningsinthepast.Instead,theyfocusonchainsofdifferenceinthepresent.Theywishtounderminearchaeological‘truths’by Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology142showingthattheyarenothingmorethanarbitrarypointsinthefreeflowofsignifiers.Ourorigins,causes,materialbases,allourtaken-for-granteds(fromcultureandsocietytotextandcontext)canbedeconstructedbyshowinghowtheyderivetheirmeaningnotfromanyessence,butfromothertermsinchainsofsignifiers.TermssuchasNeolithic,technology,period,state,pastderivetheirmeaningfromacontingentandsituateddisciplinarytradition.FromFoucaultandDerrida(seeTilley1990b),theclaimismadethatwecannotenquireabouttruth,onlyabouthowtheeffectsoftruthcomeabout.Icertainlyagreethatoneofthemainpositiveaspectsofpost-processualarchaeologyhasbeentofocusattentiononthesocialconstructionofthepastinthepresent.Thecontributionofcriticaltheory(e.g.Leone,PotterandShackel1987)andgenderarchaeology(GeroandConkey1991),aswellastheimpactofnon-westernpeopleshasbeenconsiderableinthisregard.Theparticularcontributionofpost-structuralistarchaeologyhasbeentopointtolanguageandwritingasvehiclesforunacknowledgedvestedinterests.Therehasbeenashiftfromreadingthepasttowritingthepast.Howarchaeologistswritetheirtextshasrightlybecomeafocusofanalysis(seeChapter18).Writinghasbeenstudiedasbeingpartofadiscourseofpower-knowledge-truth,asbeingunderpinnedbyapoliticsoftruth(Tilley1990a).AcriticalcomponentisessentialinarchaeologyasIargueinChapter13.Butitisdangeroustoclaimthatthepastisonlyconstructedinthepresent.ShanksandTilley(1987a;1987b)haveputthecaseforavaluecommittedarchaeologywell.Butforthem,thematerialremainsfromthepastaremerelynetworksofresistancestoourtheories.Onthewhole,theyseeavalue-committedpresentimposedonarelativelymalleablepast.Asaresult,thearchaeologicalremainsplayaminimalrole.Theattentionswitchestowriting,theproductionofarchaeologicaltextsandtheirpoliticalimpact.Archaeologybecomesapowerplayoftheoreticalpositioninginthepresent.Idonotdenytheexistenceofsuchpowerplays,butIdofindthattheybecomeabstractedfromarchaeologicaldataandthuscometobemanipulatedwithinaneliteacademicdiscourse.Argumentmustbethroughratherthanoverthedataifitistobeinformedbysomethingmorethanvestedinterest.Ifwedonottryandreadarelativelyautonomousmaterialpastandtrytounderstanditinitsownterms,thenwecanbedoingnomorethanreproducingourselvesinamirrorofself-interest.Infact,however,themirrorofthemateriallypatternedpastreflectsbackadistortedpictureofourselveswhichcanhelpustoseeourselvesinadifferentlight.Wemaygotothedatawithpoliticallymotivatedquestionsandassumptions,butwereturnfromthepastdataoftenwithunexpectedresultsanddiscoverieswhichforceustorethinkourpositions.Ifarchaeologistsaretocontributetoratherthanreproducecontemporarydebates,theyneedtorelatetheirvalue-commitmenttoapartlyautonomouspast.Ifweputalloureggsinthebasketofvalue-commitment,wedonotreallyhavetobotherwitharchaeologicaldataanymore.Thedatabecomemere‘quotes’whichweusetowriteourtextsinthepresentforpoliticalpurposes.Inthiswaythedisciplineisentirelyundermined.Thereisnolongeranyplatformorspecialismfromwhichthearchaeologistcanspeak.Theauthorityofarchaeologists,thattheyknowthedataandwhatit‘really’means,isundercutbythecommitmenttopoliticallymotivatedreconstruction.Anargumentiscorrectbecauseitcontainstherightvalues.TheonlywaythatthedisciplinecanretainpowerandauthorityisthusthroughaStalin-likepolicingofwhatisorisnot Thepost-processualreaction143‘acceptable’archaeology(Thomas1990).Politicalmisuseofthepastneedstobeopentoevaluationinrelationtothedata.Forexample,claimsthatsouthernAfricawas‘empty’whenwhitesarrivedcanbecounteredbyevidenceshowingthat‘itwasnotlikethat’.Theobjectivityofthedatacanbeemancipating.Landclaimsofminoritygroupsinthepresentcanbesupportedbyshowingthattheirancestors‘really’werethere.Ofcourse,anuncriticalandatheoreticalbeliefinobjectivityisjustaspronetopoliticalmisuseasisabeliefinsubjectivityandthepastasmyth.Weneedtobecriticallyawareandvalue-committedinthepresentatthesametimeasrecognisingtherealityofthepatterningofarchaeologicaldata.PLURALISMANDMULTIVOCALITYThesecondlimitationIseewiththepost-structuralistpositionconcernsitsattitudetopluralismandmultivocality.ShanksandTilley(1987a,192)arguethatmywork‘comesclosetoadisablingrelativism’,inthespiritofliberalpluralism.TheyarguethatIputmyfaithondebateinanopensociety,oncivilisedandliberaldiscussion.Theyaskwhetheracontextualarchaeologywilleverchangeanything.Theypointoutthatthesystemonlyallowscertainpeopletodoandwritearchaeology.Theyaredubiousthatcriticalreflectionanddebatecanachievechange.Instead,theyprefertheMarxisttraditionandtheFrankfurtschoolemphasisonthesituatedconditionsofcommunication.Theyargueforamultiplicityofvoicesconcernednotjustwithinterpretingthepastinnewways,butalsowithchanginginterpretationsofthepastinrelationtosocialreconstructioninthepresent.Asalreadynoted,Iaccepttheimportanceofacriticaltraditionandoftheunderstandingandtransformationoftherelationshipsbetweenpower,knowledgeandtruth.Ialsoacceptthatarchaeologyshouldbevalue-committedandsociallyandpoliticallyaware,thatitshouldtrytousethepasttoformabetterpresent.ButIdonotacceptthatitshouldbeonlyvalue-committed.Idonotacceptthattheonlygroundsfordiscriminatingbetweendifferentarchaeologiesshouldbepoliticalorsocial.Rather,Iwouldarguethatacritical,value-committedarchaeology,onitsown,becomesanewformofeliteinterestwhichisnotreflexive.Ithastobeopposedbyandintegratedwithacommitmenttounderstandingtheobjectiverealityofothercontexts.Thisinvolvesembracinghermeneuticproceduresandtherealityofdatapatterning.Thewholeaimofthecontextualapproachisindeedtoencouragepluralismandmultivocality.Butitisnotadequatesimplyto‘letathousandflowersbloom’since,asShanksandTilleynote,notallflowershavethechancetobloom.Wedoneedtofocusonpresentcontextsofpowerwhichenablepeopletowriteandspeakabouttheirpasts.Butwealsoneedtointegratesuchinterestswithacommitmenttopastcontexts.ThetroublewiththeShanksandTilleypositionisthatitappearstorejectthepossibilityoflearningaboutthepresentthroughexperiencingthepast.Pluralityandmultivocalityrepresentonlythewarwagedbycompetinginterestsinthepresent.Thereislittlenotionthatdifferentperspectivesandinterestsinthepresentcanbeenabledbyortransformedbyarchaeologicalevidence.Theexampleoffeministarchaeologyisinstructiveinthisregard.Theframeworkofa Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology144politicallymotivatedpluralismunderminesanyattemptmadebygenderarchaeologiststoarguethatthepastcanbeshowntodemonstratethesubordinationofwomen.Suchdemonstrationswouldsimplybedismissedasspecialpleadingbyvestedinterests,andthereforeasunsound.Feministarchaeologistsdoinfactarguetheircasesinrelationtothedata(examplesinGeroandConkey1991).Theydonotarguefor‘anythinggoesaslongasitispoliticallycorrect’.Theytrytopersuadethatwomenreallywerefulfillingcertainrolesinthepast.Inotherwords,thepoliticaldirectionofthis‘other’voiceisenhancedbyanappealtoevidence.CONCLUSIONThusIrejecttheopen-endedandpurelypoliticalpluralityarguedforbypost-structuralistssuchasBaptyandYatesandbywriterssuchasShanksandTilley.Whilethecontextualapproacharguesformultivocality,thedifferentvoiceswhicharereleasedwillhavenoauthority,exceptperhapsthroughtheexerciseofnakedpower,unlessrelatedtodata.Ofcourse,acommitmenttothetestingoftheoriesagainstdatamightweakenargumentsmadeinrelationtocontemporaryvestedinterests.Afterall,thedatamightnotsupporttheargumentsthataremade.Butthisispreciselythepoint.Itisbyopeningcontemporaryconcernstothepossibilityofrejectioninthepastthatthepastbecomesactive.Itisnotdifficulttoimposethepresentonthepast.Itiseasytoconstructthepastasanideologicalmirrorofourselves.Inthiswaythepastitselfbecomespassive.Moredifficultistogivethepastanactiverole.Buttheexperienceofthepastcanshednewlightonthepresent,ifithasanauthorityderivedfromthepartialautonomyofthepast.Itisonlybybeingobjectivelydifferentthatthepastcanconfrontthepresentandcontributetoit.Thisisnottoarguethatthepastandpresentcanbeabsolutelyseparated,orthatthearchaeologicalpastcanbeobjectivelydescribedaspure,freefromcontemporaryinterests.Butitistoarguethatpastandpresentareconstructedinrelationtoeachother.Theycontributetoeachotherinobjectiveways,bywhichImeanthatthepresentwouldbedifferentifderivedfromadifferentpastwhilethepastwouldbedifferentifconstructedinadifferentpresent.Pastandpresentcontextsmovedialecticallyinrelationtoeachother.SointheendIreturntothepositionexpressedintheprefacetothisbook,andrejectthatvoiceofangstwithwhichIwasarguingandcametoagreewithinChapter10.Thecritiqueofmyworkwithinpost-processualarchaeologyledmetoseethatIdidnotwanttogoallthewaydowntheroadofvalue-commitmentandpoliticalmotivation(contrastChapter7).NeitherdidIwanttoacceptadeconstructionistapproachandtheopenplayofmeaning(contrastHodder1989).Inbothcasesitseemedtomethattheabilityofarchaeologytocontributetosocialdebatewasweakened.Iwanttobevalue-committedandpoliticallyconcernedinmyarchaeology,butIrealisethattobeanactivememberofsocietyIhavetoremainanarchaeologist.Imightbelistenedtoandhavepowerwhichenablesmetospeakasanarchaeologist,notasapoliticianorcriticaltheoristorfeminist.MuchasIwanttoincludepolitical,criticalorfeministdimensionsinmywork,itismycontrolofthearchaeologicaldatawhichgivesmearighttospeakandbeheard.Itismy Thepost-processualreaction145positionwithinaprofessionaldisciplinewithwell-definedproceduresandstructuresofpowerwhichcontributestomeanauthority.Butcontrolandauthorityareunderminedifbasedsolelyonprivilege,traditionandarbitraryjudgements.Rather,controlandauthoritymusttosomedegreebebasedonarchaeologicaldataasobjectivelypatternedand‘other’.Thus,whilethearchaeologicaldatahavetobereaddifferentlyindifferentcontextsandassuchtheyareliketexts,itisnotthecasethatanyreadingisasgoodasanyother.Ihavecometoviewarchaeologyandarchaeologicaldatainacertainwayasaresultofawholeseriesofcontingentfactors.Butmyviewpointisembeddedintherealityoftwocontexts—pastandpresent.Toarguethat‘anythinggoes’placesmeoutsidesocietyandoutsidearchaeology.Icannotshirkmyresponsibilitiesasanauthorandasanarchaeologist.Thepastisimportanttopeople.Itshapespeople’slives.‘I’canonlyplayaroleinsocietybyrelatingrealpasttorealpresent,bybeingsituatedinboththegradualconstructionofmyselfandthegradualreconstructionofthepast.Whatisneededthen,isanapproachinarchaeologywhichcombinesacommitmenttounderstandingtheoriginalmeaningsofthepastwithacommitmenttothereflexiveuseofthepastinthepresent.Thisapparentdoubleentendremustbemadereal.REFERENCESBaker,F.andThomas,J.(eds)(1990)WritingthePastinthePresent,Lampeter:StDavid’sUniversityCollege.Bapty,I.(1990)‘Nietzsche,DerridaandFoucault:re-excavatingthemeaningofarchaeology’,inI.BaptyandT.Yates(eds)ArchaeologyafterStructuralism,London:Routledge.Bapty,I.andYates,T.(eds)(1990)ArchaeologyafterStructuralism,London:Routledge.Barrett,J.(1987)‘Contextualarchaeology’,Antiquity61,468–73.Binford,L.andSabloff,J.(1982)‘Paradigms,systematicsandarchaeology’,JournalofAnthropologicalResearch38,137–53.Gero,J.andConkey,M.(1991)EngenderingArchaeology,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Hodder,I.(1986)ReadingthePast,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(ed.)(1989)TheMeaningsofThings,London:UnwinHyman.Leone,M.,Potter,P.andShackel,P.(1987)Towardacriticalarchaeology’,CurrentAnthropology28,251–82.Moran,P.andHides,D.S.(1990)‘Writing,authorityandthedeterminationofthesubject’,InI.BaptyandT.Yates(eds)ArchaeologyafterStructuralism,London:Routledge.Olsen,B.(1990)‘RolandBarthes:fromsigntotext’,inC.Tilley(ed.)ReadingMaterialCulture,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Patrik,L.(1985)‘Isthereanarchaeologicalrecord?’,inM.Schiffer(ed.)AdvancesinArchaeologicalMethodandTheory8,NewYork:AcademicPress.Rowlands,M.(1984)‘Objectivityandsubjectivityinarchaeology’,inM.Spriggs(ed.)MarxistPerspectivesinArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Shanks,M.andTilley,C.(1987a)SocialTheoryandArchaeology,Cambridge:Polity Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology146Press.——(1987b)ReconstructingArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Thomas,J.(1990)‘Same,other,analogue:writingthepast’,inF.BakerandJ.Thomas(eds)WritingthePastinthePresent,Lampeter:StDavid’sUniversityCollege.Tilley,C.(1990a)‘Onmodernityandarchaeologicaldiscourse’,inI.BaptyandT.Yates(eds)ArchaeologyafterStructuralism,London:Routledge.——(ed.)(1990b)ReadingMaterialCulture,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Watson,P.J.(1986)‘Archaeologicalinterpretation,1985’,inD.Meltzer,D.FowlerandJ.Sabloff(eds)AmericanArchaeologyPastandfuture,WashingtonDC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.Yates,T.(1990a)‘Archaeologythroughthelooking-glass’,inI.BaptyandT.Yates(eds)ArchaeologyafterStructuralism,London:Routledge.——(1990b)‘JacquesDerrida:“Thereisnothingoutsideofthetext”‘,inC.Tilley(ed.)ReadingMaterialCulture,Oxford:BasilBlackwell. 12TOWARDSACOHERENTARCHAEOLOGYTheecologicalandevolutionaryapproaches,borrowedfromthebiologicalsciences,werenotdesignedtoexplainmotivationalandsymbolicsystems.(Dunnell1982,521)Archaeologyisastorywetellourselvesaboutourselvesthroughmeditationuponthearchaeologicalrecord.(Brumfiel1987,513,withapologiestoGeertz)Theabovequotessummarisetheproblem.Ontheonehandanobjective,naturalsciencepositionmustbelimitedtothenon-arbitraryanduniversalandmustthereforedisregardsomuchofwhatmakesushuman.Ontheotherhandacommitmenttoculture,creativity,meaningandactionapparentlylosesclaimstoscientificrigoursothatallwecandoistell‘stories’andbecomefictionwriters.IntheprecedingchaptersIhavedescribedhowIfeltcaughtbetweentwopoles.Ontheonehand,theprocessualreactiontopost-processualarchaeologydemandedmoredistancedobjectivity.Ontheotherhand,thereactionwithinpost-processualarchaeologytomyparticularversionofitdemandedmorepoliticalcommitmentandopennesstoothervoices.Intheend,Icanseetheneedbothforsomeclaimforobjectivityandforamoresociallyembeddedarchaeology.Itseemstomenowthatformanyarchaeologiststheprocessual/post-processualoppositionhashaditsday.Somepractitionersonbothsidesofthedebatehavemovedtoaccommodatetheotherpointofview,aswasshowninChapters9and11.Thereisaneedtorejectempiricism(theviewthatthedataareself-evidentsothattheanalystpassivelyexperiencesdata)andpositivism(theviewthattheoriescanbetestedagainstobjectivedatausingindependentinstrumentsofmeasurement).Fewarchaeologistswouldnowarguethatsuchobjectivistpositionscouldbesustained.Equally,fewwouldargueforrelativism.BythelatterImeantheviewthatideasandvaluesdonothaveuniversalvalidity,butarevalidonlyinrelationtoparticularsocialandhistoricalconditions.Therecan,accordingtorelativists,benohigherappealthantoagivenconceptualscheme,languagegame,setofsocialpractices,orhistoricalepoch(Wylie1989,4,quotingBernstein).Observationandtheorycannotbeseparated.Thereisaneedtomovebeyondthesestarkcontrastsbetweenobjectivismandrelativism(ibid.).Thereissometruthtotherelativistpositionwhichhasthevalueofenhancingpraxisanddiversity.Butatotalcommitmenttorelativismcannotbesustained Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology148byadisciplinewhichseekstoretainapositionofauthorityfromwhichtospeakandwieldpower.Disciplinarypowerandauthoritymaycometoberepressiveandmustbeopentocritique,buttheyarealsoenabling.Thearchaeologistisenabledtoactintheworldfromapositionofdisciplinaryauthority.InChapter1Iarguedthatadisciplinedefinesitselfthroughtheory(atalllevelsfromobservationandmethodtohigh-levelabstractions—seeClarke1973).Socialpraxisdependsontheconstructionofacoherenttheoreticalframework.Thechallengeistoaccommodateacoherenttheoreticalpositionwithdiversityandsituatedmultivocality.Archaeologistsneedtofindsomecoherentwayofdealingwiththedoublehermeneutic.Ontheonehandthereistheframeworkofmeaningwithinwhichpastparticipantsinculturalsystemsacted.Ontheotherhandthereistheframeworkofmeaningwithinwhichpresent-dayarchaeologistsreconstructthepast.Howcanweplausiblyovercometheoppositionandcontradictionbetweenpastandpresent,wherebythepastis(objectively)separatefrombutyetisconstructedinthe(subjective)present?Myownpathtoatleastaprovisionalresolutionofthesedilemmascamefromthreedirections,allrelatedtopractice.First,IrealisedthatIhadoveremphasisedthearbitrarynatureofmaterialculturesymbolism(Hodder1989andChapter14).Ineachhistoricalcontext,newsecondary,symbolicmeaningscanbegiventoobjects.Inanultimatesense,thesemeaningsarearbitrary,dependentonhistoricalcontexts.Butthearbitrarymeaningsareinfluencedbymaterialconsiderationswhichmayhaveuniversalsignificance.Particularhistoricalmeaningsareoftenbuiltupfromuniversalcharacteristicsofmaterialsandpractices(Chapter14).Economicpracticesundoubtedlyconstrainandchannelsocialandconceptualforms.Theuseofastoneaxetocutdownatreeconstrainstheshapeoftheaxeandtherangeofmeaningsitcantakeon.Thematerialityofmaterialcultureallowssomeemphasistobeplacedonuniversalsandtheseuniversalsprovidecluesoraninitialkeyastohowtoenterintoanothercontext.Alinkcanbemadebetweenpastandpresentcontextsbymaterialuniversals.Asimilarpointhasbeenmade(Chapters2and3)inrelationtotheemphasisonsymbols‘inaction’.Concepts,howeverabstract,areusedinsocialpracticesinordertohaveeffectsintheworld.Icametorealise,influencedbyRicoeur,thattheemphasisonactionmeantthatweneededtoshiftfromlanguagetotextasametaphorformaterialculture.Oneaspectofthisshiftisthatmaterialculture,likeatext,canhavemultiplemeaningsdependingonthecontextofthe‘reading’.Butanotheraspectoftextsasopposedtolanguageisthattheyarematerial,concrete,practical.Unliketheabstractmeaningsofwords,textsarewrittentodosomethingintheworld.Writtenwithpenandink,foraspecificpurpose,theylinkabstractlinguisticmeaningsandcodestomaterialandsocialaction.Similarly,materialculture,asitsnameindicates,incorporatesculturalbeliefsandconceptsinmaterialactions.Materialcultureembracesbothideaandpracticewhichinfluenceandconstraineachother(seeChapter14).Conceptsthuscontributetothepatterningofmaterialcultureanditsresidues.Howeversubjectivelyconstructed,thesematerialpatternsobjectivelyconstrainwhatwecansayaboutthem.AsintheexampleofNeolithictombswhichmeanthouses,internalmeaningscanbeaccessedbyaccommodatingtheorytospecificmaterialpatterning.Undoubtedlyaninterpretivemomentremainsinthesearchforargumentswhichlinktogetherdifferentaspectsofthematerialdata.Theneedforsubjective,interpretiveinsightisessentialfor Towardsacoherentarchaeology149scientificprogressinunderstandingothercultures.Butthepracticalmaterialityofhumanactionallowsthosetheorieswhich‘fitbest’tobedetermined.Objectivelinksbetweenpastandpresentcontextsorhermeneuticscanbemade.Theselinksmayonlybe‘guardedly’objective(seeChapter13)becausetheyareconstructedwithinasubjectiveframeworkofmeaning,buttheyarealso‘objective’inthattheyconcernrealmaterialpatterningexistingindependentofourconstructions.Second,itinitiallycameasashocktomethatpost-processualarchaeologywashavinglittleimpactondataacquisition.Ifitreallyisthecasethatdata,methodandtheoryarealllinkedwithinahermeticallysealedframeworkofmeaning,thenachangetopost-processualtheoryshouldleadtoachangetopost-processualdatacollection.Ifdataareobservedwithintheorythennewtheoriesshouldproducenewdata.Archaeologistswritingindifferentsocialandpoliticalcontextsshouldproducedifferentobservationsaswellasdifferenttheories.However,theeffectsofpost-processualarchaeology,feministarchaeology,evenindigenousarchaeologies,seemedtobemainlyattheoreticalandepistemologicallevelsandintheareaofwritingarchaeologicaltexts(e.g.Chapter18).Itwasmainlyatthetheoreticallevelthatprocessualarchaeologywasshowntobewanting,andthemainimpactwastheshiftfromfunctionalisttheoriestothoseconcernedwithideology,power,textandsoon.Thepracticesofarchaeologyremainedlargelyunchangedexceptingeneralaspectssuchasthetreatmentofdatacontextually,thatisthecomparisonbetweendifferentdatasets(suchasbones,seeds,pottery)withinasiteorregionratherthantheisolationofdataforcross-culturalcomparison.Peoplehavebeguntobesuccessfulinusingfaunaldata(e.g.RichardsandThomas1984)andarchaeobotanicaldata(e.g.Hastorf1991)tomakesoundinferencesaboutsymbolismandsocialpractice.Butonthewhole,answerstoquestionssuchashowtosamplearegionorsite,howtoexcavateapit,ditchorpost-hole,howtoconstructaHarrismatrix,howtosourcepotteryandobsidian,howtoreconstructsubsistenceactivities,wereunaffected.Thuscertainaspectsofprocessualandpost-processualarchaeologyarecomplementaryratherthanopposed.Theprocessualcontributiontoscientificmethod,samplingdesign,environmentalreconstructionandthelikeappearstobeabletocoexistwiththehigherlevelofinterpretationengenderedbypost-processualarchaeology.InitiallyIwasworriedthatmethodandtheoryshouldappearindependentinthisway.Butitisundoubtedlythecasethatapost-processualarchaeologistcanreusedatacollectedforquiteanother(processual)purposeinordertocometopost-processualconclusions.Thesuccessfulreuseofveryoldarchives,asinBarrett,BradleyandGreen’s(1991)reinterpretationofthenineteenth-centuryworkofPitt-Rivers,indicatesthepartialautonomybetweenhigher-leveltheoryanddataacquisition.Althoughdataarecollectedwithinatheoreticalframework,aslongasthatframeworkisunderstood,thedatacanbereusedwithinotherframeworks.Thisabilitytoreuseoldarchiveswithinnewtheoriesconfrontsbothpositivistandrelativistpositionswhichboth,indifferentways,arguethatdataarecollectedwithinandaredependentontheoreticalquestions.Icametoseethattherelativeautonomyoftheoryandobservationwasimportantintheattempttobreakoutofarelativistposition.InthecausewayedenclosureexcavationsdescribedinChapter15,newinterpretationswerereachedusingestablishedexcavationprocedures.Weweregraduallyabletoaccommodateourtheoriestothedatawhichweresufficientlyrobusttosupport Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology150sometheoriesinpreferencetoothers.Ourtheoriesandourdatawerecertainlylockedintoahermeneuticspiral—theywereonlyrelativelyautonomous.Buttosomedegree,socialtheoriesareseparatefromtheoriesaboutrecognitionofditches,layers,artifactdensitiesandsoon.Theredoesseemtobeagapbetweendifferentlevelsoftheorywhichallowsforsomedialecticalmovement,forsomelackoffit,foracreativetension.Theproblemwiththerelativistpositionisthatitoftenretainsanassumptionofwholenessandcoherence.Itisassumedthatthereisoneconceptualschemethroughwhichthewholeworldisviewed.Butinfact,theremaybecontradictoryperspectiveswithinanyculturalordisciplinarywhole.Theremaybeconsiderabledecouplingbetweendifferentaspectsoftheory.Idonotarguehereforanecessarilyabsoluteindependenceofgeneralandobservationaltheories.Allaspectsandlevelsoftheorymaybelinkedincomplexways.Nevertheless,somegapormovementbetweenobservationandtheoryseemsplausible.Takeninconjunctionwiththefirstpointmadeabove,thatsomenon-arbitraryrelationsofthematerialworldcanbeidentified,wecannowarguethatobservationaltheoriesmaybegroundedinuniversal,objectiverelationsandthatobserveddatacanconfronttheories.AsshowninChapter15,thehermeneuticcircledoesnot,therefore,havetobevicious.Becauseoftherelativeautonomyoftheoryandobservation,andbecauseofthematerialityofthearchaeologicalrecord,interpretationdoesnotsimplyformdataintoitsownimage.Rather,theoryanddataareformedinrelationtoeachother.Insteadofaviciouscircle,wehaveahermeneuticspiral(Chapters13and15).Thethirdareaofpracticewhichshowedmethattherelationshipbetweenpastandpresentwasnotentirelycircular,wasthewritingsofanumberofhistorians.TheworkofDuby(1980),LeGoff(1988)andLadurie(1980),inparticular,demonstratedthat‘thick’internal,contextualinterpretationcouldatthesametimerefertogeneralitieswhichhadawiderrelevance.Thus,LeGoff’s(1960)studyofmedievalconceptsoftimeisrelevanttounderstandingtheconstructionoftimefoundincapitalism.Duby’s(1980)interpretationoftheroleoftheconceptof‘threeorders’inmedievalFranceleadstoageneralunderstandingofthedialecticalrelationshipbetweenstructures,contingenciesandevents.Ratherthangettingboggeddowninepistemologicalissues,thesescholarsweregettingonwithusinghistoricaldatatocontributetogeneraldebate.Andtheyweredoingthiswithoutclaimingabsoluteobjectivity.Theysimplyacceptedthatpastandpresentmovedinrelationtoeachother.Theyused‘thick’descriptiontomaketheiraccountsplausibleandwereunashamedoftheauthoritythattheirscholarshipgavethem.MyownattempttofollowthislineresultedinTheDomesticationofEurope(Hodder1990),asummaryofpartofwhichisprovidedinChapter16.Theaimsherewerefirsttoundertakeparticular,detailed,‘thick’descriptionwhichshowedthepossibilityofmakingplausibleinterpretationsofprehistoricsymbolism.Second,theaimwastocontributetogeneralunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenlong-termstructureandlocalmeanings.Third,Iwantedtoexplorethegeneralrelationshipbetweenobjectandsubject,simultaneouslyshowingmyowninterpretationstobetransparent,dependentoncontemporaryconceptsandwords(hencetheuseofcontrivedtermslike‘domus’),whileyetmysubjectivitywasconstructedinteractivelythroughexperiencingtheobjectivedata.Thus,Iwantedtowriteaplausibleaccountwhichretainedsufficientauthoritytocontributetowiderdebatesbutwhichremainedcriticallyreflexive.Intermsofageneraldebate,TheDomesticationofEuropearguedthattheadoptionofagriculturecouldonly Towardsacoherentarchaeology151beadequatelyunderstoodbysettingtheeconomicandsocialchangeswithinthelong-termdevelopmentofconceptualschemes.Iarguedthataparticularconceptofthewild(theagrios)wassetupbyopposingittoaparticularunderstandingofthehome(thedomus).Theprocessofsymbolicdomesticationoftheagriosthenbecameusedasametaphorfordomesticatingpeopleandsociety.Especiallybylocatingtheprocessinthehome,peoplewereplacedinthehouse,placedinthestructuresofsocietywhichthehouserepresented.Peoplewere‘settleddown’.Butpeoplewereatthesametimedomesticatedpracticallyastheybecamecaughtinthelonger-termdependenciesofthedelayedreturnsforlabour.Thedualpracticalandsymbolicprocessesofdomesticationfedoffeachother,interactively.Theprocessofcreating‘docile’bodiesinsettledvillagesdoesnothavetobeseenasanintentionalplothatchedbydominantgroups.Rather,Isawtheprocessasoneinwhichpeopleinterpretedeventsandconsequencesintermsofhistoricallyderivedcodesandwithinthenecessarylinksbetweenthedomesticscaleofproduction,storage,technologyandenvironment.Thewholeprocessisinspecificterms‘accidental’ratherthan‘driven’.Itisdispersedineveryaspectofsociety.Thedomuslinksidea,economyandsocialrelationsofdominancethroughthecontrolofproduction,reproductionandexchange.Itwasseenbymeasadiscourseofmaterialpower,socialvalueandprestige—apower-knowledge-truthnetworkinFoucault’s(1980)terms.Iarguedthatthisnetworkwastransformedandreinterpretedthroughtimeinrelationtochangingcircumstances,butthatitalsochannelledoverthelongtermthewaypeoplereactedtothosecircumstances.Inmyview,archaeologycancontributeauthoritativelytosuchdebatesaboutthetransformationofsocietiesoverthelongtermbutitcanatthesametimebecriticallyreflexiveandbeopentoalternativeperspectives.InTheDomesticationofEuropeItriedtoshowthisintwoways.First,Idrewattentiontoourdependenceonlanguageinthinkingaboutthepast.Iusedtermssuchasdomusandagrioswhicharespecificandconstructed.IwouldhaveperhapscometodifferentconclusionsifIhadusedoikosandplayedonitslinkstoeconomyandecology.InsteadIplayedonthelinksbetweendomesticanddomesticate,dominate,dome,tameanddame.Theselinksinourlanguageareonewayinwhichwethinkthroughlanguagesothat,tosomedegree,languagechannelsourthought.Second,IshowedhowmyideasabouttheNeolithicinEuropehaddevelopedcontingentlyasaresultofaseriesofapparentlyhaphazardmeetings,eventsandopportunities.TheworkIhadhappenedtoread,thedataIhappenedtocomeacross,allthisinfluencedtheparticularinterpretationIcameupwith.Thisprovisionalandcontingentnatureofmywriting,ofallourwritings,doesnotunderminetheauthorityofwhatwewriteaslongasweacceptthatpartofthecontingentprocessistheinteractionwithandexperienceofthedata.Forme,themostimportantrealisationinwritingaboutthedomesti-cationofEuropewasthat‘CatalHuyukandI,webringeachotherintoexistence.Itisonourjointinteraction,eachdependentontheother,thatwetakeourseparateforms’(Hodder1990,20).Ofcourse,itiseasytoarguethatCatalHuyukisconstructedbyarchaeologists,andthisisboththepositivistandtherelativistposition—thatwearesomehowlockedintothepresentandcanonlyinterpretsitessuchasCatalHuyukintermsofourowntheoriesderivedfrompresentinterests.Suchviewsleadtothepessimismaboutthearchaeologists’abilitiestofindoutwhatreallyhappenedinthepast,asWatson(1986) Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology152hasshown(seediscussiononp.148).ItisaltogetheradifferentviewtoarguethatCatalHuyukconstructsarchaeologists.Thismayseemafancifulclaim,butIthinkithassometruthtoit.Wecometoknowourselvesthroughinteractionwiththeworld.Whatwethinkandfeelisinfluencedbyourexperience,whatwehappentohaveread,seen,heard,feltandsoon.Fewwoulddenysuchanobviousstatement.Theexcavationofanysiteintroducesustonewexperiences.Howevermuchourinterpretationsofthesitemayvary,thereremainsforeachofusamaterialexperiencethataddstoourstoreofinteractionswiththeworld.Weremovetheearthwhichhidesandprotects,andthereisacertainamountofunpredictabilityaboutwhatwewillfindthere.WediscoverobjectssuchastheCatalHuyukfigurine(Figure23)andourexperienceoftheworldhasbeenchanged.Certainly,ourinterpretationofthefigurinedependsonacontemporaryunderstanding,butthatunderstandinghasbeeninfluencedbyitsextensiontonewdata,tonewexperience.Thuswearriveatamoreoptimisticviewabouttherelationsbetweenpastandpresentandabouttheabilityofarchaeologiststocontributeauthoritativelytocontemporarydebate.AsmuchasIhaveimposedaninterpretationontheNeolithicofEuropeandtheNearEast,myownunderstandingoftheworld,ofitspotentialsandconstraints,ofaseriesofspecificissuesfromtheoriginsofagriculturetofeminism(Chapter17)hasbeentransformedasaresultofmyinteractionwiththedata.Iconstructthepastbutthepastconstructsmeinadialecticalrelationship.Thisdialecticistosomedegreeclosed,aviciouscircle,butitisalsocontinuallyinmovementassubjectandobjectinteract,constitutingeachotherinahermeneuticspiral.CONCLUSION:THERELATIONSBETWEENPASTANDPRESENTIhavearguedabovethatthreeareasofpracticeareessentialtothedevelopmentofacoherentarchaeologicaltheory.First,thesecondary,symbolicmeaningsarenotpurelyarbitraryandabstract.Theyarealsorelatedtopracticalandmaterialconsiderationsandtothe‘objective’patterningofthematerialworld.Second,thereisarelativeautonomybetweentheoryandobservationsothatthepracticeofarchaeologicalinvestigationcanconfrontarchaeologicaltheories.Third,notonlydothedataconfrontthearchaeologist,buttheyalsocontribute,interactively,tothearchaeologist’sunderstandingoftheworld.Thepracticeofarchaeologythushasthepotentialtocontributetotheconstitutionofsociety.Oneofthemainproblemswhichitseemstomehasimpededtheresolutionoftheobjectivist/relativistoppositioninarchaeologyisthesimplisticoppositionbetweenpastandpresent(anditsvariouscorrelatessuchasstaticsanddynamics,deadandliving).Itistakenforgrantedthatpastandpresentexistandcanbedistinguished.Onthisbasis,asubjectivepresentissetupagainstthepast.Wetesttheoriesaboutthepastinthepresent.Thepastisinterpretedintermsofthepresent.Wehavereifiedacoherent,hermeticallysealedpresentwhichfacesadeadpastwhichhastobebroughtalivethroughinterpretationandyetwhichisobjectivelyindependent.Onthewhole,archaeologistsprobablyhaveafairlyclearideaaboutwhattheymeanbythepast—itisthedistantpast.Butthepresentisusuallynotwelldefined.Doesthe Towardsacoherentarchaeology153presentrefertotoday,thismonth,thisyear,thisdecade,thiscentury?Doesitrefertowesterncapitalistsocietiesonly?Doesitrefertoanormativegroupofwesternviews?Whenandwheredidthepresentbegin?Theaskingofsuchquestionsbringsintoviewthenotionthatpastandpresentarenotabsoluteterms.Thepresentcanonlybedefinedinrelationtothepast(forexample,wemightsaythatthepresentreferstothepasttwogenerations),andthepastcanonlybedefinedreciprocallyinrelationtothepresent(forexample,thepastiseverythingbeforeourgrandparents).Indeed,thepresentandthepastarenot‘things’withobjective,independentexistence.Rather,theyarecategoriesimposed,accordingtointerest,onthecontinualflowoftime.Whatwemeanbythepresent,isusuallysomedefinitionoftherecentpast.Welookbackwardsandforwards,breakingupthecontinualflowoftimeintonarrativeswhichincludetermslikepast,presentandfuture.Itfollows,then,thatwedonotsimply‘exist’asarchaeologistsinapresentwhichcanbeopposedtoadeadandgonepast.Thepastconstructsusinthepresentinthatwearemembersofsocietieswhichhavebeenstructuredinthepast,economically,sociallyandideologically.Wethinkthroughlanguagewhichishandeddowntousacrossthegenerations.Thesevariouspaststructuresconstructusasindividualsandasarchaeologists.Someofthesestructuresmayretainsomeechoesfromadistantpastbutmostarerecentandtheyallcontributetoourconsciousness.Andyetthereissomevariabilityanduncertaintyastowhichaspectsofthepastwewillexperience.Differentpeopleexperienceandconstructdifferentpasts.Wemakesenseoftheworldbymakinglinksbeweendifferentaspectsofourknowledge.Weconstructstoriesfromtherecentanddistantpastinordertoguideaction.Inthisprocessofbricolagewecontinuallymixandmatchfromthepast,adjustingabstractionstoexperience,formingourimagesofourselvesinourinteractionwiththeworld—andtheonlyworldwecanknowisthedistantandtherecentpastsofvariousforms.Theoppositionthenisnotbetweenthepastandthepresent;itisnotbetweenadeadpastandourstatic‘existence’inthepresent.Wearecontinuallyreflectingonourexperience,whichisalways‘pastexperience’evenifonlyafewmomentsago.Weconstructimagesofourselvesandofsomeabstracted‘present’fromtheseinteractionsandexperiences.Wedonotsomuch‘exist’inastaticpresentas‘become’inacontinualprocess,inthecontinualflowoftime.Notionsofpastandpresentarepartofourattempttounderstandtheworldbuttheycanthemselvesbetransformedindifferenthistoricalsituations.Theonlyoppositionisnotbetweenstatic,realpastandpresent,butbetweenourexperience,informedbytheobjectiveworld,andourunderstandingofthatexperienceattheconceptuallevel.Itmayinitiallyappearcontradictorytoarguethat(a)weconstructthepastinthepresent,butthat(b)thepasthasacertainautonomyinrelationtothepresentandcanaffectthepresent.Butthecontradictionisovercomeifweceasetoreifypastandpresent,andinsteadseethemasprocesses.Intheprocessofbecoming,ofconstitutingourselvesassocial,weconstructnarrativeswhichusedataofboththedistantpastandtherecentpast(whichmaybetermedthepresent).Thisrelationshipbetweendifferenttypesofdatamaybemetaphorical.Wecanonlycomeintoexistencethroughthedialoguebetweenabstractunderstandingandpracticalexperience.Thedistant,aswellastherecentpast(thepresent)data,contributetothatexperience.Theythuscontributetoour Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology154understandingoftheselfandtheworld.Althoughweinterprettheworldintermsofourunderstandingofit,weneverthelesshavetoadjustourunderstandinginthelightofexperience.Nomovementwouldoccuriftheworldwasalwaysexactlyasweexpected.ButtheguardedobjectivityofthedataandtherelativeautonomyofobservationandtheoryforwhichIarguedabove,ensurethatasweexperiencetheworldofthedistantpastwecomeupagainstnewexperiences.Acreativetensionthusexistsbetweentwohermeneutics.Inapastsituation,aparticularframeofmeaningandmaterialsprovidedacontextinwhich‘texts’couldbe‘written’.Inthe‘writing’thecontextwasitselfchanged.Despitethiscontinualmovementbetweentextandcontext,andbetweenexperienceandunderstanding,anhistoricalflowofmeaningconstitutedahermeneutic.Ina‘present’situation,thereisanotherframeofmeaningwithinwhichthearchaeologistworks.Thistimetextsareliterallywrittenwithinacontextwhichincludesdimensionsofpower,authority,therhetoricofwritingandsoon,andwhichincludestheresidueswhichhavesurvivedfromthefirsthermeneutic.Theproblemhasbeenthatarchaeologistshavesimplyopposedthesetwohermeneutics.Thisoppositionhasrunintodifficultiesbecausethepasthashadtoplayadualrole:itisbothobjectivelyseparateinthepast,andyetitisincorporatedintoourinterpretationsinthepresent.Butthepastisnoteithersubjectiveorobjective.Rather,itisbothatthesametime:itobjectivelycontributestooursubjectivitiesanditissubjectivelyconstructed.InRicoeur’s(1984)terms,thepastisotherandthesame.Itisdifferentfromus,andthisothernessprovidesabasisforreflectiononandcritiqueofthepresent.Butitisalsothesameasussincewehavetomakesenseofitinourterms.Ratherthansaying,therefore,thatprehistorybothisandisnotthepast,itmaybemorehelpfultosummarisethecomplexdialecticalviewthatIhaveputforwardinthissectionbyarguingthatprehistoricinterpretationisneitherinthepastnorthepresent.Ratheritmediatesbetweenthetwo.Understandingorinterpretationinvolvestryingtoaccommodateorlinkaninterpretationderivedfromtherecentpast(the‘present’)withpatternedresiduesproducedmeaningfullyinthedistantpast(the‘past’).Theaimistoaligntheseinterpretationsandexperiences.Tointerpretisthereforetomakeananalogybetweenpastandpresent(distantandrecentsourcesofexperienceandunderstanding).Withintheprocessofinterpretationitselfthereisbothobservationandtheoreticalreconstruction,whicharealsoinarelationofcreativetension.Observationislinkedbothtodataandtotheory.Inotherwords,ourobservationsoftheindependentlypatternedmaterialremains(thedata)aretheory-laden,buttheyneverthelessaccommodatetothephysicaldata.Aswithinterpretation,observationisagainperhapsbestdescribedasneitherdatanortheory:itmediatesbetweenthetwo.Interpretationcontributestobothpastandpresent.Itconstructspastandpresentandmediatesbetweenthem,butonlyinrelationtotheirobjectiveexistence.Thedouble-endedarrowsinFigure16aremeanttorepresentthiscreativetensionbetweenobjectiveandsubjective.Thisdialecticalviewseekstoavoidthepitfallsofobjectivismorrelativism.Itallowsaguardedobjectivityandindependenceofthearchaeologicaldata.Itallowsforarelativeautonomybetweenlevelsandtypesoftheory.Itallowstheoriestobetestedagainstdata.Itrecognisessubjectivity.Itallowsthatsubjectivitytobecritiquedbyreferencetothepast.Itallowsmultivocality.Itallowsatthesametimeauthoritytobe Towardsacoherentarchaeology155claimedbyarchaeologists.Itrecognisestheessentialdependenceandcreativetensionbetweentheoryandpractice.Figure16InterpretationasahermeneuticmediatingbetweenpastandpresenthermeneuticsIhavecome,therefore,towhatIseeasacoherentpositionwhichallowsforobjectivityandsubjectivity,forauthoritativescienceandsocialdiversity.InreachingthispositionIhavegonetowardsrelativism,radicaldiversityandpoliticalcommitment,andtowardspost-structuralism,butIhavethenwithdrawnfromsomeoftheexcessesofsuchviewpoints.Perhapsmyownbackandforthunderminesmyattemptstobeauthoritative.HowcanIargueforacoherentfinalpositionwhenthe‘end-point’hasbeenreachedhistorically?Surelythesupposed‘end’coherencewillitselfbetransformedintime?IhopeIhaveshownhowsuchquestionscanbeanswered,howanauthoritativedisciplinecanbeopentodiversity,changeandcritique.Anyviewpointthatwetakeasmembersofsocietyisconstructeddialecticallythroughexperience.Asarchaeologistswearguethatourspecialistexperienceisobjectivelygrounded,anditisonthisbasisthatweclaimanauthoritytoactintheworldfromaparticularstandpoint.Butwecanusethisspecialistexperienceofthedistantpasttomakeanalogieswiththerecentpastandtocontributetowardsthefutureindifferentways.Asmembersofsociety,aswellasspecialistswithdifferentexperiencesofthearchaeologicaldata,archaeologistswillholddifferentviewsandwillconstructthedistantandrecentpastsdifferently.Thisdiversitycanbechallengingandthearchaeologicalpastthusbecomesactive.Thediversityisnotunderminingaslongastheanalogiesthataremadebetweendistantandrecentpastsinordertoconstructabetterfuturearegroundedinobjectivematerialexperience.Archaeologiststellstoriesaboutthepast,andsoaboutthepresentandfuture,buttheirstoriesdifferfromfictionbytheirbasisinthematerialexperienceof‘other’worlds.Diversitycanthuscoexistwithandgainstrengthfromascientificconcernwithevidence.Ourunderstandingofourselvesisderivedfromexperiencesintheworldwhichcanincludeexperiencesofthedistantpast.Wetellstoriesaboutourselvesbymeditatingonthearchaeologicalrecord,butthosestoriesareinfluencedbytheexperienceofthatrecord.Archaeologicalrecordandcontemporarysocietyconstituteeachother.REFERENCESBarrett,J.,Bradley,R.andGreen,M.(1991)Landscape,MonumentsandSociety,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Brumfiel,E.M.(1987)‘CommentsonEarleandPreucel’,CurrentAnthropology28,513– Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology15614.Clarke,D.(1973)‘Archaeology:thelossofinnocence’,Antiquity47,6–18.Duby,G.(1980)TheThreeOrders,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Dunnell,R.(1982)‘Americanistarchaeologicalliterature:1981’,AmericanJournalofArchaeology86,509–29.Foucault,M.(1980)Power/Knowledge.SelectedInterviewsandOtherWritings,ed.C.Gordon,NewYork:PantheonBooks.Hastorf,C.(1990)‘Gender,spaceandfoodinprehistory’,inJ.GeroandM.Conkey(eds)EngenderingArchaeology,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Hodder,I.(1989)‘Thisisnotanarticleaboutmaterialcultureastext’,JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology8,250–69.——(1990)TheDomesticationofEurope,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Ladurie,E.R.(1980)Montaillou,London:Penguin.LeGoff,J.(1960)‘AuMoyenAge:tempsdel’egliseettempsdumarchand’,Annales15,417–33.——(1988)TheMedievalImagination,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Richards,C.andThomas,J.(1984)‘RitualactivityandstructureddepositioninLaterNeolithicWessex’,inR.BradleyandJ.Gardiner(eds)NeolithicStudies,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsBritishSeries133.Ricoeur,P.(1984)TheRealityoftheHistoricalPast,Marquette:MarquetteUniversityPress.Watson,P.J.(1986)‘Archaeologicalinterpretation,1985’,inD.Meltzer,D.FowlerandJ.Sabloff(eds)AmericanArchaeologyPastandPresent,WashingtonDC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.Wylie,A.(1989)‘Archaeologicalcablesandtacking’,PhilosophyoftheSocialSciences19,1–18. PartIVPRACTISINGARCHAEOLOGY 13INTERPRETIVEARCHAEOLOGYANDITSROLE1Whatisinterpretationandwhydoesitseemanappropriatetermtouseinthearchaeologyofthe1990s?InthispaperIhopetoanswerboththesequestions.WhileIhaveelsewherediscussedinterpretationintermsofacontextualapproach(Hodder1986),IhavenotsituatedthelatterinrelationtowidertraditionsexcepttheratheroutdatedviewsofCollingwood(1946).Iintendinthispapertoprovideawiderdefinitionofcontextualarchaeologywithinaninterpretiveframework.Thisarticlewilldiscusshermeneuticsasanimportantcomponentinaninterpretiveorcontextualarchaeology.Formanywriters,hermeneuticsismorethananepistemologyforthehumansciencesinthatitaccountsforbeing.IrecentlycameacrossagoodexampleoftheeverydayworkingofhermeneuticprincipleswhilelisteningtotheradiointheUnitedStates.Iheardthephrase,orthoughtIdid,‘itwasnecessarytoindoorsuffering’.Inspectingthese‘data’IfirstthoughtthephrasewasanexampleofthelibertythatNorthAmericansoftentakewiththeEnglishlanguage.Afterall,NorthAmericansoftenmakenounsandadjectivesintoverbs(asin‘todeplane’),soitseemedentirelypossiblethat‘toindoorsuffering’meant‘totakesufferingindoors’.Ididnotseewhyitshouldbenecessarytosufferindoors,butthenIknowthatNorthAmericans,especiallyiftheyliveinCaliforniafromwheretheprogrammecame,arewillingtotryanything.SoinitiallyIunderstoodthetermasitsoundedtomeandassumedthatthesamewordhadthesamemeaning.IthencorroboratedandadjustedthismeaningbyplacingitinthepeculiarandparticularrulesofNorthAmericanculture.Thiswasthefirststageofmyhermeneuticinterpretation.Gradually,however,thisprocessofinternalevaluationmadelessandlesssenseasIcontinuedtolistentotheradioprogramme.Myinterpretationofthesound‘indoor’nolongermadewhatwasbeingsaidcoherent.Theprogrammewasaboutsufferingingeneral,notjustaboutsufferingindoors.Sentencessuchas‘toindoorthesufferingItookapainkiller’madelittlesense.IcouldonlymakesenseoftheseexampleswhenIhitupontheideaofanothercomponentofmyunderstandingoftheNorthAmericancontext:NorthAmericansoftenpronouncewords’wrongly’.ComingbackfromthiscontextualknowledgetomyowngeneralknowledgeaboutEnglishwordsandtheirmeaningsIsearchedandfound‘endure’.Noweverythingmadecoherentsenseandthewholehadbeenre-established.Thehermeneuticcirclehadbeenclosed.Ofcourse,allthishappenedinafewseconds.Butthespeedandtrivialnatureoftheprocesscannotbutemphasisethewidedependenceofhumancommunicationandunderstandingontheproceduresofhermeneuticinterpretation.Weevaluatemanyargumentsnotsomuchbytestinguniversal,generalknowledgeagainstdatausinguniversal,independentinstrumentsofmeasurement,butbyinterpretinggeneral Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology160understandingorforeknowledgeinrelationtoourunderstandingofparticularcontexts.Weplacethethingtobeunderstood(inthiscasethesound‘indoor’)moreandmorefullyintoitscontext,movingbackandforthbetween‘their’and‘our’contextuntilcoherenceisachieved.Theemphasisisonpart-wholerelations.Wetrytofitthepiecesintoaninterpretivewholeatthesametimeasconstructingthewholeoutofthepieces.Wemeasureoursuccessinthisenmeshingoftheoryanddata(ourcontextandtheircontext)intermsofhowmuchofthedataisaccountedforbyourhypothesisincomparisontootherhypotheses.Thisworkingbackandforthbetweentheoryanddata,thisrevellingincontextandtexture,tendstobemoreconcernedtounderstandthedataintheirowntermsandtouseinternal,aswellasexternal,criteriaforjudgement.Ithasforsometimebeenargued(Hodder1986;Trigger1989)thatprocessualarchaeologyplacedlittleemphasisoninterpretinggeneralknowledgeinrelationtointernalunderstanding.Butitisalsoappropriatetoaskwhetherpost-processualarchaeologyhassufficientlyengagedininterpretationofthegeneralinrelationtotheparticular.Iwouldclaimthat,sofar,muchpost-processualarchaeologyhasavoidedaninterpretiveposition,exceptsuperficially.Onthewhole,post-processualarchaeologyhasconcernedpower,negotiation,text,intertext,structure,ideology,agency,andsoon.Manyoftheseconcernsmaymoveusinaninterpretivedirectionbuttheyremaingeneralandtheoreticalintereststhatdominateourpresentthoughts.Theyrepresenttheinterestsofapredominantlywestern,white,malediscourse.Therehavebeenveryfewpost-processualstudiesthathavesaid‘Iwillputthetheoryinsecondplace,treatitsimplyasbaggage,andsetofftotellastoryabout,forexample,thedevelopmentofBronzeAgesocietyinBavaria’.Onthewholepost-processualarchaeologists,includingtheauthorofthisarticle,havebeenmoreconcernedwithshowingthevalidityofouruniversaltheoreticalapparatus.Thedatahavebeenonlyexamplesmanipulatedtodemonstrate,ofteninadequately,sometheoreticalpoint.Therehasbeeninsufficientinterpretation.Thetendencytodevelopauniversaltheoreticaldiscourseandimposeitonthepastiscommontobothprocessualandpost-processualarchaeology.Inbothcasesthereisinsufficientsensitivitytotheindependentdifferenceofpastcontextsandtocontextualmeanings.Thisinsensitivityderivesfromtwodifferentdirections.Processualarchaeologyputmanyofitseggsinthebasketofmethods.Auniversalmethodwassupposedtoallowustoreadoffdynamicsfromstaticsandsotherewaslittleattempttoconstructinterpretiveprocedureswhichweresensitivetointernalmeanings.Conversely,toalargeextent,post-processualarchaeologyhasbeenweakonmethod(Watson1986).Indeed,itmightbeclaimedthatsomuchemphasishasbeenplacedontheoreticaldiscussionandtheoreticalcriteriathatthemethodofpost-processualarchaeologyistheory.Therigoursoftheoreticalcriteriahavereplacedthoseofmethodbuthaveequallydetractedfromtheinterpretationofspecific,internalhistoricalmeanings.Thescarcityofinterestininternalmeaningsinbothprocessualandpost-processualarchaeologyalsorelatestoaninadequateconcernwiththecontextofarchaeologists.Thelackofreflexivityinprocessualarchaeologyiswidelyacceptedbuttheclaiminrelationtopost-processualarchaeologyisperhapssurprising.Mysuggestionderivesfromtheobservationmadeabovethatinpractice,post-processualarchaeologicalwritingshavelargelyconcernedtheoryratherthanmethod.Itwasmainlyatthetheoreticallevelthatprocessualarchaeologywasshownwanting.Thepracticalresultofapurelytheoretical Interpretivearchaeologyanditsrole161debatetendstobeposturing.Theoreticaldebateinvolvesdefiningterms,definingboundaries,andsettingupoppositions.Theoreticalmeaningisalwaysreferential(toothertheories)andtendstobeconfrontationalbynature.Argumentisoverthetopof,ratherthanthroughthedatathatbecomerelevantonlyasexamples.Theargumentisentirelyaboutthepresent,notaboutthepast.Itmanipulatesthedataforpresentistconcerns,andwhilepost-processualarchaeologyhassuccessfullyopeneduptheareaofcritique,ithasinsufficientlyscrutiniseditsownpreconceptions.Iwouldarguethatasaresult,asradicalaspost-processualarchaeologywouldclaimtobe,itmerelyre-establishesolderstructuresofarchaeologicalresearch.Ittendstowardsdoingthesamethinginadifferentway.Perhapsagoodexampleofcontinuityinstructuresofpowerwithinacademicdiscoursedespiteclaimsforradicalchangeinthecontentofideas,isthefactthatGrahameClark,DavidClarke,IanHodder,ChristopherTilleyandMichaelShanks,coveringarangeofdifferenttheoreticalpositionsthroughtime,wereorareallassociatedwithPeterhouse—onesmall,reactionary,exclusivecollegeinCambridge.Muchofwhatpost-processualarchaeologyhasarguedforhasnotbeenevaluatedcriticallyandtheeffectsofitsactionshavenotbeenreflexivelyprobed.Forexample,thenewtheoriesandthenewwaysofwritingthemoftenservetomakearchaeologicaltextsmoreobscureanddifficultforanyonebutthehighlytrainedtheoristtodecipher.Howcanalternativegroupshaveaccesstoapastthatislockedupbothintellectuallyandinstitutionally?Subordinategroupswhowishtobeinvolvedinarchaeologicalinterpretationneedtobeprovidedwiththemeansandmechanismsforinteractingwiththearchaeologicalpastindifferentways.Thisisnotamatterofpopularisingthepast,butoftransformingtherelationsofproductionofarchaeologicalknowledgeintomoredemocraticstructures.Onedangerofthisview,ashasbeenarguedbyRenfrew(1989)forexample,isthatifweacceptthatthepastispartlyconstructedinthepresent(inthedialecticbetweenpastandpresent,objectandsubject),andthatwemustlistentoandincorporateothervoicesandhistoricalmeaningsconstructedby,forexample,womenandethnicminorities,wherecanwedrawthelinesaroundlegitimatearchaeologicalresearch?Shouldwealsowelcomethevoicesofcreationists,looters,metaldetectorusersandother‘fringe’archaeologistswithinatowerofbabbling?Onwhatgroundsisitpossibletoclaimalegitimacyandprimacyforthedifferentbutuniversalprojectsof,forexample,processualorpost-processualarchaeology?Onealternativetohermeneuticapproacheswithinthehumanitiesandsocialsciencesemanatesfromwriters,precursorsandchampionsofpost-modernandpost-structuralistthoughtwhoraisesimilarquestionsabouttheboundariesoflegitimateresearchbyseekingmultivocality,fragmentationanddispersal.Thesewriters,includingNietzsche,Foucault(Tilley1990b),Kristeva,Barthes(Olsen1990),andDerrida(Yates1990)suspendmeaningwithinchainsofsignifiers,andemphasisetheopennessofinterpretationswithinourdependenceonlanguage.Post-structuralistworkishavinganincreasinginfluenceinarchaeology(Tilley1990a;BaptyandYates1990;seealsoHodder1989b)andisimportantbecauseitopensupacentralissue.Whatistheboundarybetweenanopenmultivocalitywhereanyinterpretationisasgoodasanotherandlegitimatedialoguebetween‘scientific’andAmericanIndian,black,feminist,etc. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology162interests?Inmyview,thenon-hermeneutic,non-interpretivestrandsinpost-processualarchaeologyandinallpost-modernsocialscience,servefurthertore-establishpositionsofdominancewhicharethreatenedbythesameopennesstoalternative,non-scientificperspectivesasisfearedbyprocessualarchaeologists(e.g.Renfrew1989).Theinfluenceofpost-structuralism(Hodder1989b;BaptyandYates1990;Tilley1990a)istowardsmultivocalityandthedispersalofmeaning.Truthandknowledgeareclaimedascontingentandmultiple,andrelativismistosomeextententertained.Atfirstsight,thisdevelopmenttowardanon-hermeneutic,post-structuralistpositionseemsbenign.Itopensupthepasttoothervoicesanddeconstructstheuniversalityoftruthclaims.Butthefeministcritiqueofpost-modernism(e.g.Mascia-Leesetal.1989)isparticularlyrevealinghere.Dominanttheoristsandspecialistshave,sincetheexcitedcertaintiesofthe1960s,increasinglylostthemonopolytodefinearchaeologicaltruthsasalternativepositionshavebeenarguedbywomen,ethnicminorities,andbyallthedifferentperspectivesinarchaeologicaltheory,nevermindallthefringearchaeologies.AsidentifiedbyMascia-Leesetal.(1989;seealsoEagleton1983),thepost-structuralistresponsetothislossofauthorityissubtle.Thenotionthattruthandknowledgearecontingentandmultipleunderminestheclaimsofsubordinategroups.Itdisempowersthembyalienatingthemfromtherealitytheyexperience.Ironyandrelativismappearasintellectualpossibilitiesfordominatinggroupsatthepointwherethehegemonyanduniversalityoftheirviewsisbeingchallenged(Mascia-Leesetal.1989).Ineffect,anew,moresubtleuniversalclaimtotruthisproducedoutofthecritiqueoftruth.Thepost-structuralistemphasisonmultivocality,metaphor,andfragmentationmaybeconstructedtocapturethecomplexandcontradictorynatureofsociallife.Butinfactwhatisprovidedisaresolutionofconflictintoapleasingwholeinwhichtheauthorisscarcelypresent.Heorsheisalsofragmented,distanced,uncommitted,disengaged,powerfulbutalwaysabsentandthereforenotanswerabletocriticism.Thepost-moderntheoreticaldiscourse,then,subtlydisempowerscritiqueandestablishesanewdistancedauthority.Itsradicalpoliticalclaimsareunderminedbytheinsecurityandmultivocalityofknowledgeclaims.Post-structuralistarchaeologybecomesamovementwithoutacause.Asaresultofitslinkswithpost-structuralismandpost-modernism(Hodder1989b),post-processualarchaeologyhasnotalwaysbeenconcernedwithopeningdialoguewith‘othergroups’.Therehasbeenlittleincorporationofalternativeclaimsonthepastinamulti-ethnicBritainorUnitedStates.Therehasbeenlittledialoguewithfeministarchaeologyin,forexample,thewritingofShanksandTilley(1987a,1987b),despitethefactthatitcanbeclaimedplausiblythatthegrowthofpost-processualarchaeologydependedonthegrowthoffeminismandfeministarchaeology.Butthis‘othervoice’hasoftenbeenappropriatedanddominatedwithinpost-processualarchaeology(M.Conkey,pers.comm.1990).Ratherthanembracingpost-structuralism,post-processualarchaeologyshouldgraspaninterpretivepositioninordertoavoidtheaboveproblemsandtobreakfromestablishedrelationsofdominanceintheproductionofthearchaeologicalpast.InthisinitialdiscussionIhavebeguntoidentifythreeessentialaspectsofaninterpretiveapproachinarchaeology.(1)Aguardedobjectivityofthepastneedstoberetainedsothatsubordinategroupscanusethearchaeologicalpasttoempowertheirknowledgeclaimsinthepresent Interpretivearchaeologyanditsrole163andtodifferentiatetheirclaimsfromfringe,ungroundedarchaeologies.By‘guarded’objectivityImeanthatthe‘data’areformedwithinadialecticalrelation.IntheexampleIgaveoftheradioprogramme,Iheard,orthoughtIdid,thephrase‘toindoorsuffering’.ThesoundIpickedupfromtheradioonlybecamesounddatathroughmyinterpretationofvoicefromcracklingbackgroundandthroughmy(incorrect)recognitionofcertainwords.Myinterpretationwasbasedonobjectivesoundwavesbutitalsopenetratedintotheirdefinitionasdata.Thedataaredialecticallyproduced.(2)Aninternal,hermeneuticcomponentneedstoberetainedininterpretation.Weneedtobesensitivetotheother.Theattempttounderstandthepastintermsoftheexperiencesofsocialactorsallowsthepasttobereleasedfromabstractspecialisttheoryintotherealmsofeverydayhumanunderstandingandsimultaneouslyprovidesabasisforthecritiqueofuniversalpropositionsinthepresent.Itallowsforarelevanthumanstorytobetold.Thereisaneedtomoveawayfromtheoryandgetonwithinterpretingdata,bywhichImeanmoveawayfromanassumptionoftheprimacyoftheorytowardsrelatingtheorytodataaspartofalearningprocess.(3)Areflexiveconsiderationoftheproductionofarchaeologicalknowledgewillleadtoacriticalengagementwiththevoicingofotherinterests,byidentifyingthecausesforwhichthepastisconstructed,andbylocatingthemechanismswhichmakeitexclusive.Thesearch,then,withinpost-processualarchaeologyisforanadequateintegrationofthesethreeaimswithclearlydefinedmethodologicalprocedures.Thereisaneedtogivescienceacontextinarchaeologyasmethodology,notasafinalgoalorastheonlyrelevantbodyoftheory.Ihavealreadyarguedthatthisscientificcomponentofarchaeologicalworkisnecessarytoavoidungroundedunderminingofknowledgeclaimsbyinterestedgroupsandinordertoavoidasubsumingofthepastwithinahomogenisedtheoreticalpresent.Buthowarewetointegratesuchscientificconcernsforaguardedlyobjectivepastwithinanon-positivistarchaeology?Howarewetoacceptthecommitmenttoprocesswhichisbroaderthanecologicalandadaptiverelationsandwhichincorporateshumanaction?Inmyview,answerstothesequestionscanbegainedfromdevelopmentsinthedebatesurroundinghermeneuticstudies.HERMENEUTICPROCEDURESBeyondthetrivialexamplegivenatthebeginningofthispaper,whatdoesahermeneutic,contextualapproachinvolveandhowmighttheinferentialmethodsbeemployedinarchaeology?Doestheapproachallowustogetatinternalmeaningswhilemaintainingaguardedcommitmenttoobjectivityandindependenceandwhileremainingreflexive?ItmaybehelpfultooutlinethemainideasandproblemsofahermeneuticarchaeologybydiscussingbrieflythehistoryanddevelopmentofhermeneuticideassincethefoundingworkofFriedrichSchleiermacherandWilhelmDilthey(OrmistonandSchrift1990).Theirstartingpointwastheprinciplethatunderstandingandknowledgedependonthedialecticalrelationbetweenpartandwhole—thehermeneuticcircle.DiltheyextendedSchleiermacher’sconcernwiththeintentionsoftheauthorinproducingtextstoincludeawiderhermeneuticcirclesuchashistoricalbackground,socialcustoms,culturalandpoliticalinstitutionsandsoon.MartinHeidegger(1958)dealtwithsomeofthe Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology164problemswiththisapproach.Inparticular,heemphasisedthatourunderstandingofthepast‘other’isdependentonprejudiceandtradition.Inotherwords,thepasthermeneuticwearetryingtointerpretisdependenton,andmaybeenclosedby,thehermeneuticcircleswithinwhichweworkasarchaeologistsandmembersofsociety.ShanksandTilley(1987a)identifyfourhermeneuticcircleswithinwhichthecontemporaryarchaeologistworkswhentryingtounderstandpastmaterialculture‘texts’.AlthoughHeideggerclaimedthattheenclosinghermeneuticcirclesarenotvicious,inthattheydonotinvolvehermeticallysealed‘circulararguments’,itisdifficulttoseehow,withinhisversionofhermeneuticprocedures,itispossibletodomorethaninterpretthepastinourownterms.Thesamecriticismshavebeenmadeofcontextualarchaeology(Binford1987).AlthoughIhaveargued(Hodder1991a)thatHans-GeorgGadamer(1975)triedtodealeffectivelywiththeseproblemsofcircularityofargument,itcanneverthelessbeclaimedthatheretainedasubjectivistposition.Indeed,thisisthecriticismofEmilioBetti(1955,translated1984),whoarguedforahermeneuticmethodologythatwouldsafeguardtheobjectivestandardsofinterpretation.Betti’sapproachisofinteresttothecurrentdebateinarchaeologyinviewofthecallthatismadefrequently,particularlybyNorthAmericanarchaeologists,forpost-processualarchaeologiststodefinetheirmethods(e.g.Watson1986;EarleandPreucel1987).Betti’smethodologicalguideinvolvedthefollowingprinciples:(a)theautonomyoftheobject—theideathatapastcontextshouldbejudgedinitsownterms;(b)thenotionofcoherence(seealsoCollingwood1946)ortheprincipleoftotality—theideaofpart-wholerelationsandthenotionthatthe‘best’hypothesisistheonethatmakessenseofmostofthedata;(c)nevertheless,thepast‘other’hastobeappropriatedandtranslatedinthepresentsothat(d)theaimoftheanalystshouldbetocontrolprejudicewhilebringinghisorhersubjectivityintoharmonywiththedata.ThelatterpartsofthisproposalremainambiguoussothatGadamerwasabletorespondbyquestioningthevalidityofthesubjective/objectiveoppositionandshowingthatunderstandingisnotamatterofasubjectconfrontinganalienobject(OrmistonandSchrift1990).Ratheritisadialecticalprocessofquestionandanswer.Thusthepastobjectandthepresentsubjectconstituteeachotherinthehermeneuticprocessofinterpretation.Thus,inmyanalysisofNeolithicCatalHuyukIinterpretedCatalHuyukinmyownterms,butintheexperienceoftryingtounderstandthe‘other’ofCatalHuyuk‘myownterms’changed(Hodder1990).Forexample,myassumptionsabouttherolesofwomenwerecontradictedbytheevidencefortherolesofmen.InmyexperienceofinterpretingtheNeolithicdataIfoundIwasusingdifferentassumptionsformenandwomenevenwhen,atdifferentpointsintime,theevidenceforeachgenderwassimilar.AsaresultIchangedmyviewsonthenatureoffemalepowers(Hodder1991bandChapter17).Ihadintheendbothchangedmyownpositionandchangedthepastsothatanewhermeneuticcirclewasproducedthatmademorecompletesenseofbothpastandpresent.Intheactofinterpretation,CatalHuyukandIbroughteachotherintoexistence.Mysubjectivityispartlyconstructedbytheinterpretiveexperienceofthe‘other’.Neverthelessitcanbeargued,followingJurgenHabermas(1990),thatGadamerdidnotsufficentlycritiquethetraditionwithinwhichpreconceptionsandprejudicesaboutthedataareformed.Thetraditionneedstobesubjecttothecritiqueofideologyandneedstobeexaminedasdistortedcommunicationwithincertainhistoricalconditions.It Interpretivearchaeologyanditsrole165isRicoeur(1971;1990;Moore1990;Thompson1981)whohasdealtmosteffectivelywiththelinkingofhermeneuticsandMarxistcriticaltheory.Inarchaeology,therelevanceofvariousformsofcriticaltheoryhasincreasinglybeenbroughtintopost-processualdiscussion(e.g.Leone1982;Leoneetal1987;ShanksandTilley1987a).RicoeurpointsoutthattheMarxistcritiqueofideologyisitselffoundedonahermeneutic(seealsoHodder1986,168)inthesensethatanycriticalreflectionmakesclaimsforaprivilegedunderstandingandmakesclaimsforuniversalitywhichappeardogmatic.Inotherwords,theMarxistcritiqueislockedintoitsownhermeneuticcircle.Indeed,Ricoeurseeshermeneuticsandthecritiqueofideologyasnecessarilycomplementary.AccordingtoRicoeur,notonlyarecriticalapproachesdependentonhermeneuticcircles,buthermeneuticsretainswithinitselfthebasisofcritiqueandawayoutofthecircularityofinterpretation.Inthis,inmyview,heemphasisesthepartiallyobjectivenatureofothercontextsassuggestedbyBetti.Ricoeurarguesthatratherthanonlyemphasisingprejudiceintheprocessofgoingtothepastwithquestions,wecanplaceemphasisonthereturnfromthepastwithanswers.Heshowsthatany‘text’(writtenormaterialculture)isdistancedfromits‘author’.Itistheproductofmeaningfullyorganisedactivity,anditisitselfpatternedbythoseactivities.Thispatternedorganisation,distantfromitsoriginalmeanings,hasanindependencethatcanthereforeconfrontourinterpretations.Inattemptingtounderstandthepast‘other’itispossibletosuggesthypotheses(aboutpastculturalrulesandmeanings)thatmakemoreorlesscoherentsenseoftheobjectivelypatternedremainsbymovingbackandforthbetweenwholeandpart.Theanswerswereturnwithcanbeunexpected.Asaresultnohorizon(viewpointorperspective)isuniversalbecausethetensionbetweenselfandotherisnotsurmountable.Onlybyplacingmyselfinrelationtotheindependent(objectivelyorganisedanddifferent)othercanIconfrontmyselfandmysocietywithitstaken-for-granteds.Thereisaneedforthe‘creativerenewalofculturalheritage’(Ricoeur1990,332)asthebasisforthecritiqueofcontemporaryideologies.Themomentofcritiqueinthehermeneuticprocessistheinteractionwithdatatoproduce‘possibleworlds’(Bruner1986)orstorieswhichopenuppossibilitiesbeyondtheconventional.Alwaysthedistanceofthe‘text’definesandcritiquesmysubjectivitiesandopensmyclosed‘falseconsciousness’.Materialcultureasexcavatedbyarchaeologistsisdifferentfromourassumptionsbecauseorganisedaccordingtoatleastpartlyotherculturalrules(fromsocialorganisationtorefusedeposition).Butpastmaterialculturealsoconfrontsourinterpretationsandassumptionsinsofarasitisnotonlymeaningfullybutalsopragmaticallyorganised(Hodder1989a).Inotherwords,wearenotjustinterpretinginterpretations,butdealingwithobjectswhichhadpracticaleffectsinanon-culturalworld—anecologicalworldorganisedbyexchangesofmatterandenergy.Theseuniversal,necessaryrelationsconfrontthetendencyofourinterpretationsto‘runfree’ashasbeenshown,forexample,inBinford’s(1983)reappraisalofhypothesesofearlyhominidbehaviourthroughaconsiderationoftheuniversalnatureofscavenginganimalsandtheir‘signatures’.Soweneedtoretainfrompositivistandprocessualarchaeologyaguarded‘objectivity’ofthematerial‘other’thatprovidesthebasisofcritiquethroughtherealityofdifference.Thesupposedviciousnessorclosureofthehermeneuticcircleresidesintheviewthatin‘fittingtheorytodata’inthesearchforcoherenceweenclosethedataentirelywithinour Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology166prejudices.Buttheorganisedmaterialremainshaveanindependencethatcanconfrontourtaken-for-granteds.Thenotionthatthedataarepartlyobjectiveisanoldoneinarchaeology,anditwasthebasisforprocessualandpositivistarchaeology.Butthetroublewithpositivistandprocessualarchaeologistswasthattheydidnotincorporatehermeneuticandcriticalinsights.Fromahermeneuticpointofview,thefailureoftheprocessualarchaeologyofthe1970sandearly1980swasthatittoooftentookacavalier,externallybasedapproachwherethedataweresimplyexamplesforthetestingofuniversalschemes,withtoolittleattentionpaidtocontextandtounderstandingthedataintheirownterms(Hodder1986;Trigger1989,348–57).Thepossibilitythatradicallydifferentprocessesmightbeencounteredwasthusdifficulttoentertain.Fromthepointofviewofcritique,thefailureofprocessualarchaeologywasitsblindnesstoitsownideologies(e.g.Trigger1980;ConkeyandSpector1984;Patterson1986).Bothprocessualandhermeneuticapproachesacceptthateveryassertioncanonlybeunderstoodinrelationtoaquestion.Butinhermeneuticarchaeology,prejudiceandtraditionarenotopposedtoreasonwithoutsupposition.Rathertheyarecomponentsofunderstandinglinkedtothehistoricalnatureofbeinghuman.Weneedaperspectivetounderstandtheworld.Archaeologyposesmeaningfulquestions,doesmeaningfulresearch,andgetsmeaningfulresultsonlyintermsofaperspectiveorasetofquestions.Processualandhermeneuticapproachesofcoursedifferintheirapproachtothevalidationofhypotheses,emphasisingexternalandinternalcriteriaofjudgementrespectively,butbothhavesufferedfromthesameblindnesstotheconditionswhichmaketheirdifferentperspectivespossible.Bothfailtoexplorethewayinwhichtheaskingofquestionsandtheexpectationofcertainanswersaresituatedinhistoricalprocesses.ThereisthusaneedtoretaintheMarxistemphasisoncriticalreflection.Wecanonlyunderstandthepastinitsowntermsifweunderstandourowncontextinthedialecticbetweenpastandpresent.Thepastcanonlyinformthepresentthroughthedualendeavoursofunderstandingpresentandpastasdifferentbutdependent.Objectivitymayhelpustodefinethepastasdifferent,andhermeneuticsmayhelpustounderstandwhatitmeantthroughthepart-whole,question-and-answermethod,butitiscriticalreflectionwhichshowsmostfullywhatitmeanstous.SofarIhaveidentifiedthreedirectionswithinarchaeologythatarealsofoundthroughoutthesocialsciences.ThesecorrespondtothespheresofinterestidentifiedbyHabermas(1971;seePreucel1991).ThefirstistechnicalorinstrumentalinterestandcorrespondswithwhatmostNorthAmericanarchaeologistsidentifyasthe‘science’ofprocessual,ecological,evolutionary,behavioural,andpositivistarchaeology.Thesecondconcernsthehistoricalorhermeneuticsciencesdealingwithcommunication,understanding,meaningandaction(cf.Patrik1985).Thethirdconcernsemancipation,criticalsocialscienceandself-reflection(e.g.Leoneetal.1987).Thesethreedirectionseachhaverolestoplayinarchaeology,butmodifiedinrelationtotheothers.Thusprocessualarchaeologyneedstobesubsumedwithinarelationtocritiqueandhermeneutics,andpost-processualarchaeologyneedstoreacttothechargeofmethodologicalnaïvité.Anintegratedbutdiversifiedapproachneedstoincorporatethreeperspectives.(1)Thepastisobjectivelyorganisedincontextswhichdifferfromourown.Itisintheexperienceofthisobjectiveandindependentdifferencethatwecandistinguishbetweencompetinghypothesestoseewhichfitsbest.(2)However,ifthe Interpretivearchaeologyanditsrole167presentisnotsimplytobeimposedonthepast,weneednottoimposeexternalcriteriabuttoaccommodateourexternalknowledgetointernalrelations.Weneedtounderstandthepastpartlyinitsowntermsbyusingthecriterionofcoherenceinpart-wholerelations.Thisinternalunderstandingincludessymbolism,meaning,theconceptual,history,actionasopposedtobehaviour,peopleaswellassystems.Thisisnotacognitivearchaeology(Renfrew1989)becausethelatterdoesnotdealwiththecentralquestionofmeaning,anditdoesnotinvolvegettingintopeople’sminds.Rather,thehermeneuticapproachinvolvesgettingatthepublicandsocialstructuresofmeaningthroughwhichpeoplemakesenseoftheworld.Itisrecognisedthatthesesecondary,conceptualrealmsofmeaningarehistoricalandarbitrary,butitisarguedthattheycanneverthelessbeinterpreted,usingthepart-wholehermeneuticapproach,becausethesecondary,abstractmeaningswereusedinsocialactionandthusproducedrepeatedpatternedeffectsinmaterialcultureandtheorganisationofspatialandtemporalrelations.Returningtopoint(1),theseobjectivepatterningsallowustodistinguishbetweenhypothesesaboutwhichsecondaryconceptualmeaningswereoperativeinproducingthearchaeologicalremains.(3)Thethirdcomponentofinterpretivearchaeologyistheself-reflexiveaspectofnewethnographicandsomeemergingarchaeologicalwriting(CliffordandMarcus1986;Hodder1989c;Tilley1989;andChapter18).Thisperspectiveinvolvesbeingawarethatwritinghasanaudiencetowhichitneedstobecriticallyresponsible,andarhetoricthatactstopersuade.Itinvolvesintroducingthe‘I’intoarchaeologicalaccounts,dialoguebetweenco-workersorbetweenresearchersandindigenous‘owners’ofthepast,anditinvolvestellingthestoryofthecontingentcontextofworkinwhichhypotheseswereformulated.Wemightglossthesethreepointsbysayingthatinterpretivearchaeologyisaboutconstructingnarratives,ortellingstories.Ofcourse,allarchaeologyhasalwaystoldstoriesaboutevolution,diffusion,maximisation,adaptation,survival,andsoon.Butinthesestoriestherhetoricofthestorylinewasnotacknowledgedorcriticisedascontributingtotheconstructionofthemessageorhiddenagenda.Thestorieswereoftennottoldatthehumanscale,andwerenotinclusiveoftheviewpointsoftheactors.Theaccountswerevalidatedthroughexternalscienceratherthaninternalmeaning,andtheylackedthenarrator,whowasmysteriouslyabsent.Inalltheseways,thestorieswerenotinterpretations.INTERPRETIVEARCHAEOLOGYANDTHECULTURALHERITAGEInmanyways,thecallsforaninterpretivearchaeologymirrorcontemporaryconcernsforheritageandtheenvironment.Itisnoaccidentthatinterpretiveorheritage‘centres’ratherthanmuseumsareincreasinglyappearingonthelandscapeinbothBritainandNorthAmericaasinterpretiveapproachesareincreasinglydiscussedwithinthediscipline.Thesenewcentresareoftenmoreconcernedwithtellingastoryandmaycontainfewartifacts.Theyofteninvolveanarrator,whetheritbearecordedvoiceattheYorvikCentre,York,Englandorcardboardcut-outAsterixandObelixfiguresinthereconstructedIronAgehutsintheBoisdeBoulogne,Paris,France.Increasinglyemphasisisplacedonshowingsequencesofactivities,andinvolvingthepublicin Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology168experiencingthepast.Inordertounderstandtheserelationsandtheneedforanactiveinterpretivearchaeologywithinenvironmentalandheritagemanagement,itmaybehelpfultoreturntothetraditionalgoalsofanthropology.Thelattermaybedescribedasthesalvageofdistinctformsoflifefromtheprocessesofglobalwesternisation,therecognitionofthenon-westernasanelementofthehumanjustascrucialasthewestern,andscepticismconcerningwesternclaimstoknowledgeandunderstanding.Thesetraditionalanthropologicalconcernshavebeenreassertedinpost-modernanthropology(e.g.CliffordandMarcus1986),andtheyimplythatanthropologyhasacounter-culturalpotential.ItcanbearguedthatthecurrentincreasesinstudentenrolmentandjobopeningsinsocioculturalanthropologyintheUnitedStatesrelatetoaswitchfromthe‘me’generationtoonemoreconcernedwithgreenissues(RoyRappaport,pers.comm.1990).Theriseinthecentralityofglobalenvironmentalissueshasadoubleeffectonanthropology.Ontheonehand,manyoftheseglobaleffectsareecologicalandinvolveaworldofuniversalmeasurements,energetics,causes,andeffects.Ontheotherhand,therealisationthatwearedestroyingeachotheronaglobalscaleleadstoagreaterconcernwithothercultures.Inordertoarresttheenvironmentalimpactofoilspillage,pipelines,theuseoffossilfuelsamongthegrowingpopulationsofthedevelopingworld,andrainforestdepletion,weareforcedtounderstandtheneedsandpracticesofotherculturesandtoenterintodialoguewiththem.Thecostofdestructionofsocietiesbytheagentsofdevelopmentcannotbesimplycountednumerically.Itisnotonlyaquestionofnumbersandofsurvival,butalsoofvaluesandmorality.Insuchacontext,thecallisforaqualitativeanthropologythatcaninformonandassistdialoguewithotherculturesthatwemightdestroyorthatmightdestroyus.Archaeologyreadilyfitsinhere,asseveraloftheOneWorldArchaeologyvolumes(UnwinHyman)haveshown(e.g.GathercoleandLowenthal1989;Layton1989a,1989b).Aconcernforthearchaeologyofaregionisaconcernfortheenvironmentofthatregion,andnotjustaphysicalenvironmentbutapeopledenvironment,givenculturalvaluesandmeanings.Peoplesaroundtheworldusearchaeologytohelpmaintaintheirpastsinthefaceoftheuniversalisinganddominatingprocessesofwesternisationandwesternscience.Thephysicalarchaeologicalremainshelppeopletomaintain,reform,orevenformanewidentityorcultureinthefaceofmultinationalencroachment,outsidepowers,orcentralisedgovernments.Relatedargumentsconcerntheuseofthepastbyethnicminorities,women,andothergroupstodefineandreformtheirsocialpositionswithinnationalboundariesinrelationtothedominantculture.Thepastthatisusedbysubordinatevoicesinthiswayisnotjustaresource,andhereisthelinktotheneedforaninterpretivearchaeology.Subordinategroupsdonotnecessarilywanttofittheirarchaeologiesintouniversalschemesinwesternacademicinstitutions.Rather,subordinategroupsmaywishtoexplore,perhapsarchaeologically,themeaningthattheirmonumentshaveforthem.Thepastisnotaresourcethatcansimplybequantified,tabulated,orotherwisemanipulatedatarm’slengthwithinourtheoreticalframeworks.Ratherthanthatterribleterm‘CulturalResourceManagement’,whatisneededisaqualitativearchaeology,sensitivetocontextandmeaning,opennottomultivocalityforitsownsake,buttodialoguethatleadstochange.Manypeoplesdonot Interpretivearchaeologyanditsrole169wantapastdefinedasascientificresourcebyus,butapastthatisastorytobeinterpreted.Inthesewaysthepublicdebatesaboutthecontemporaryroleofarchaeologyandthedisseminationofarchaeologicalknowledgeruninparallelwiththecallforaninterpretivearchaeology.InNorthAmericatheconfrontationbetweendesirestotelldifferentstories,asinthereburialdebate,hasaparticularform.InBritainarchaeologyplaysaroleinadifferentcontextofgreatpublicinterestandnationalistconcernsfor,forexample,an‘EnglishHeritage’.Butevenhere,inthiscocoonthatdeniesthemultiethnicnatureof‘our’past,archaeologymaybeplayingacounter-cultural,interpretiverole.TheheritageboomthatwehavewitnessedinBritainoverrecentyears(Merriman1989)hasincludedamassiveincreaseinnumbersofso-calledmuseums.Infact,asalreadynoted,theseoftencontainfewobjectsandaremoredevotedtointerpretingthelandscapeorthepast,tellingastoryaboutalocalarea,givingitameaningtolocalinhabitantsandvisitors.InEngland,archaeologistsincreasinglyareemployedbyenvironmentalconsultantsandplanningconsultants.Developersneedtotakeaccountoflocaldesiresandsensesofplaceifplanningauthorityistobeachieved.Archaeologyisliterallythepricethatoftenhastobepaidfordevelopment.Insomecasesdevelopersarekeentoprovidemeansnotonlyforarchaeologytobeconducted,butalsofortheresultstobedisplayedpermanently.Thusthepastisbeingusedtogiveasenseoflocalidentityandplaceinthefaceofuniversalisinglarge-scaledevelopmentanddestructionoftheenvironment.Theheritageorinterpretivecentrestellastorythatlinkspeopleintocommunitiesthatareincreasinglybeingthreatenedandfragmented.ClearlythereisadangerthatIpresentaromanticisedview.ArchaeologyinBritainisbeingmanipulatedbybigbusinesstomakemoney,tobuydevelopmentandtoexcuseitsactivities.Manyoftheinterpretationsarecommercialised,fragmented,andunconcernedwithlocaloranysocialissues(ShanksandTilley1987a).Nevertheless,inthenegotiationthatoccursbetweendevelopers,planningauthoritiesandlocalinhabitants,thearchaeologycanplayanactiverole.Thepastcansometimesbeusedbypeopletotellastoryaboutthemselvesinthefaceofexternalpressures.InmyowninvolvementwithexcavatinganddisplayinginformationfromprehistoricsitesnearCambridge,Iwasimpressedbytheattemptsofalocalvillagecommunitytoretainaccesstoitsownpast.Ialsohadtoconfrontthefactthatthecommunitydidnotwantanabstractpastdefinedbyme.Rather,thelocalpeoplewantedmetoengagewiththeminworkingoutasetofstories,toldatthehumanlevel,whichtheycouldenter.InaregionalFenlandcontextofcommunityfragmentation,highresidentialmobilityanddestructionoftraditionalfarmingemployment,thearchaeologicalremainshelpedinpracticetoformalocalcommunity.CONCLUSIONThisexperienceofmineisjustasmallexampleofthewaythearchaeologicalpastisbeingusedbysocialgroups,includingethnicminorities,women,non-westernpeoplestofindavoice.Myclaimisthataninterpretiveapproachinarchaeologyismoreabletoarticulatethisvoicethanareprocessualorpost-structuralistarchaeologies.Thisisbecause,toanswerdirectlythefirstquestionposedatthebeginningofthispaper, Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology170interpretationistranslation.Itinvolvesthearchaeologistactingasinterpreterbetweenpastandpresent,betweendifferentperspectivesonthepast,andbetweenthespecificandthegeneral.Interpretationthereforeinvolveslisteningandunderstanding,accommodationbetweendifferentvoicesratherthansolelytheapplicationofuniversalinstrumentsofmeasurement.Thisresponseleadsdirectlytotheanswertomysecondquestionposedatthebeginning.Theroleofinterpretivearchaeologyistofacilitatetheinvolvementofthepastinamulticulturalpresent.ThisfunctionisintegraltothethreeaspectsofthedefinitionofinterpretivearchaeologywhichIhavegiveninthispaper.1Thepartiallyobjective,groundedandmaterialnatureofthepastallowssubordinategroupstoempowerthemselvesthroughtheevidentialaspectofarchaeology.Forexample,itispossibletoshowunambiguouslythatindigenouscommunitiesinhabitedSouthAfricabeforethearrivalofwhitesettlers.Equally,theobjectivecomponentofarchaeologicaldatameansthattheanalystcanbeconfrontedwiththeothernessofthepast.Sinceargumentisthrough,ratherthanoverthedata,wehavetoshiftourpositionsintheexperienceofthedata.ThedataandIbringeachotherintoexistencedialectically.Thepastthenallowsthepossibilityforasenseofotherwhichisincreasinglybeingerodedinanexpanding,homogenisedwesternethic.2Interpretiveapproachesatleasttrytounderstandtheotherinitsowntermsinthattheylookforinternalratherthanexternalcriteriaofplausibilityinordertosupporttheirarguments.Theythusencourageothergroupstodeveloptheirownsensesofpast.Inaddition,interpretiveapproachesincorporatetheconceptual,thewaypeoplemadesenseoftheworld.Theythereforebringthepasttothehumanscaleratherthanlockingitupindistant,abstractscienceortheory.Tointerpretisthereforetoactbecausetheinterpretationreleasesthepastintopublicdebate.Itforcesustotranslatethepastintoastorywecanunderstand.Interpretationforcesustosaysomething,andthereforetoengagewithothersthatwouldtelldifferentstories.Itforcesustounlocktheabstractivory-towertheoryandshowwhatitmeansinpractice,inrelationtothedata.3Interpretiveapproachesencourageself-reflexivityanddialogue.Thepastisalways‘owned’bysomeoneinsomesense.Butownershipisalwaysaninterpretation.Archaeologistsneedtoretaintheauthoritytobeabletosaythataparticularinterpretationdoesnotfitthedata(point(1)above),buttheyalsoneedtobeopentodialogueandconflictswithvestedinterestsotherthantheirownandtounderstandthesocialimplicationsoftheknowledgetheyconstruct.Andtheyneedtorealisethatsubordinategroupscanbeprovidedwiththemechanisms(thematerialandeducationalpossibilities)forengagingwiththepastintheirownways.Acriticalpositionrecognisesthatthetellingofstoriesgroundedinthedatadependsontherelationsofproductionofarchaeologicalknowledge.Asindigenous,differentinterpretationsofownershipincreasinglydevelop,thereisarealconcern,bothintheUnitedStatesandinotherpartsoftheworld,aboutwhetherarchaeologyasithasbeendefinedscientificallywillbeabletocontinuetoexist(Kintigh1990;Lovis1990).Archaeologymustchangeifitistoexistinthecontemporarymulticulturalworld.TheissueisnotjustoneofgettingAmericanIndianstochangeorofteachingthem‘our’archaeology.Rather,itisoneofinvolvingthemaswechange Interpretivearchaeologyanditsrole171ourselvesandourconceptsofscience.Thereisaneedtobreakthemouldinarchaeology,discussingnotfromwithinaclosedscience,butopeningupthatsciencetodialogue,narra-tive,rhetoricalanalysisandmeaning.Thesearethetopicsnowbeingdebatedinsocioculturalanthropology.Butthereisalsoaneedtobuildinterpretationsofthearchaeologicalpastinformedbytheseissues.Wecannotcontinuetoclingtoanarrowscience.Interpretivearchaeologycanbeanactive,doingarchaeology.Weneedtoseepost-processualarchaeologistslaunchingintocoherentandsustainedinterpretationsofthepast,involvingthemselvesinwhatevercontemporaryissuesthoseinterpretationsraise.InmycasetherelevantinterpretationsmayinvolvethenatureofNeolithicburialnearCambridge,orthenatureandoriginsoftheconceptofprehistoricEuropeaftertheeventsof1989andastheunificationof1992approaches.IntheUnitedStatestherelevantdebatesmayconcerninterpretationsofslavequartersonaSouthCarolinaplantationortheinterpretationofAmericanIndianremains.Thereisadirectlinkbetweenthesecallsforinterpretationsinarchaeologyandreburialissues,landclaims,publicarchaeology,thepresentationofthepastandsoon.Post-processualarchaeologyshouldnotinvolvegoingintoanivorytowerofabstracttheory,andslammingthedoor.Thewaypost-processual,infactallarchaeology,willendureisbynotremainingindoors.NOTE1CopyrightSocietyforAmericanArchaeology(1991).REFERENCESBapty,I.andYates,T.(1990)ArchaeologyafterStructuralism,London:Routledge.Binford,L.(1983)InPursuitofthePast,London:ThamesandHudson.——(1987)‘Data,relativismandarchaeologicalscience’,Man22,391–404.Betti,E.(1984)Theepistemologicalproblemofunderstandingasanaspectofthegeneralproblemofknowing’,inG.ShapiroandA.Sica(eds)Hermeneutics:QuestionsandProspects,Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress.Bruner,J.(1986)ActualMinds,PossibleWorlds,Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.Clifford,J.andMarcus,G.(1986)WritingCulture,Berkeley(CA):UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Collingwood,R.(1946)TheIdeaofHistory,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Conkey,M.andSpector,J.(1984)‘Archaeologyandthestudyofgender’,inM.Schiffer(ed.)AdvancesinArchaeologicalTheoryandMethod7,NewYork:AcademicPress.Eagleton,T.(1983)LiteraryTheory,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Earle,T.andPreucel,R.(1987)‘Processualarchaeologyandtheradicalcritique’,CurrentAnthropology28,501–38.Gadamer,H.-G.(1975)TruthandMethod,NewYork:Seabury.Gathercole,P.andLowenthal,D.(1989)ThePoliticsofthePast,London:Unwin Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology172Hyman.Habermas,J.(1971)KnowledgeandHumanInterests,Boston:BeaconPress.——(1990)‘Thehermeneuticclaimtouniversality’,inG.L.OrmistonandA.D.Schrift(eds)TheHermeneuticTradition,AIbany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Heidegger,M.(1958)TheQuestionofBeing,NewHaven:UniversityPress.Hodder,I.(1986)ReadingthePast,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1989a)Thisisnotanarticleaboutmaterialcultureastext’,JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology8,250–69.——(1989b)TheMeaningsofThings,London:UnwinHyman.——(1989c)‘Writingarchaeology:sitereportsincontext’,Antiquity63,268–74.——(1990)TheDomesticationofEurope,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.——(1991a)‘Thepostprocessualdebate’,inR.Preucel(ed.)ProcessualandPostprocessualArchaeologies,Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversity.——(1991b)‘Genderrepresentationandsocialreality’,inProceedingsofthe1989ChacmoolConference,Calgary:UniversityofCalgaryPress.Kintigh,K.W.(1990)‘Aperspectiveonreburialandrepatriation’,BulletinoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeology8(2),6–7.Layton,R.(1989a)ConflictintheArchaeologyofLivingTraditions,London:UnwinHyman.——(1989b)WhoNeedsthePast?IndigenousValuesandArchaeology,London:UnwinHyman.Leone,M.(1982)‘Someopinionsaboutrecoveringmind’,AmericanAntiquity47,742–60.Leone,M.,PotterJr,P.andShackel,P.(1987)Towardacriticalarchaeology’,CurrentAnthropology28,283–302.Lovis,W.A.(1990)‘Howfarwillitgo?:AlookatS.1980andotherrepatriationlegislation’,BulletinoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeology8(2),8–10.Mascia-Lees,F.,Sharpe,P.andCohen,C.B.(1989)Thepostmodernistturninanthropology’,Signs15,7–33.Merriman,N.(1989)‘Museumvisitingasaculturalphenomenon’,inP.Vergo(ed.)TheNewMuseology,London:ReaktionBooks.Moore,H.(1990)‘PaulRicoeur:action,meaningandtext’,inC.Tilley(ed.)ReadingMaterialCulture,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Olsen,B.(1990)‘RolandBarthes:fromsigntotext’,inC.Tilley(ed.)ReadingMaterialCulture,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Ormiston,G.L.andSchrift,A.D.(1990)TheHermeneuticTradition,AIbany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Patrik,L.E.(1985)‘Isthereanarchaeologicalrecord?’,inM.Schiffer(ed.)AdvancesinArchaeologicalTheoryandMethod8,NewYork:AcademicPress.Patterson,T.(1986)Thelastsixtyyears:towardasocialhistoryofAmericanistarchaeologyintheUnitedStates’,AmericanAnthropologist88,7–26.Preucel,R.(1991)ProcessualandPostprocessualArchaeologies,Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversity.Renfrew,C.(1989)‘Commentsonarchaeologyintothe1990s’,NorwegianArchaeologicalReview22,33–41. Interpretivearchaeologyanditsrole173Ricoeur,P.(1971)Themodelofthetext:meaningfulactionconsideredastext’,SocialResearch38,529–62.——(1990)‘Hermeneuticsandthecritiqueofideology’,inG.L.OrmistonandA.D.Schrift(eds)TheHermeneuticTradition,AIbany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Shanks,M.andTilley,C.(1987a)Re-constructingArchaeology,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1987b)SocialTheoryandArchaeology,Cambridge:PolityPress.Thompson,J.(1981)CriticalHermeneutics,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Tilley,C.(1989)‘Discourseandpower:thegenreoftheCambridgeinaugurallecture’,inD.Miller,M.RowlandsandC.Tilley(eds)Domination,PowerandResistance,London:UnwinHyman.——(1990a)ReadingMaterialCulture,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.——(1990b)‘MichelFoucault:towardsanarchaeologyofarchaeology’,inC.Tilley(ed.)ReadingMaterialCulture,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Trigger,B.(1980)‘ArchaeologyandtheimageoftheAmericanIndian’,AmericanAntiquity45,662–76.——(1989)AHistoryofArchaeologicalThought,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Watson,P.J.(1986)‘Archaeologicalinterpretation,1985’,inD.Meltzer,D.FowlerandJ.Sabloff(eds)AmericanArchaeologyPastandfuture,WashingtonDC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.Yates,T.(1990)‘JacquesDerrida:“Thereisnothingoutsidethetext”‘,inC.Tilley(ed.)ReadingMaterialCulture,Oxford:BasilBlackwell. 14MATERIALPRACTICE,SYMBOLISMANDIDEOLOGYGiventhelongtraditionwhichconsidersthesymbolicintermsofsignsinalanguage(Hodder1989),thechallengeofasymbolicarchaeologyistoexploretherelationshipbetweenmaterialcultureandlanguage.Towhatextentisapotoranaxesymbolicinthewaythatthewords‘pot’or‘axe’carrymeaning?Arethematerialculturemeanings,likethelinguisticmeanings,arbitrary,organisedby,forexample,paradigmaticandsyntagmaticrelationships?Ifthereisindeedacloserelationshipbetweenlinguisticandmaterialculturesigns,thenwemightexpectacorrespondenceofthefollowingsort.Figure17Therelationshipsbetweensignifiers,signifiedsandreferentsinlanguageandmaterialcultureItisonthebasisofsuchacorrespondencethatastructuralistandpost-structuralistarchaeologyhasbeenbuilt(Hodder1986;Tilley1990).However,insomewaysthelanguageandmaterialcultureexamplesaredifferent.Inparticular,thearbitrarinessofthesignifier-signifiedrelationshipinthelinguisticcaseisnotequivalenttotherelationshipbetweenmaterialculturesignifierandsignified.Inthelattercase,thepotinitsmaterialityanduseparticipatesintheconstructionofthesignified(theconceptcooking).Thematerialculturereferencesaremotivatedandnon-arbitrary.Wecanperhapssummarisethisdifferencebysayingthatinlanguageawordisrarelybothsignandreferent.Languageislargelyreferentialinthatwordsrefertoabstractionsorobjects,althoughwedorefertowordsthemselveswhendiscussinggrammarortheinterpretationofspecificterms.Onomatopoeiacertainlyinvolveswordspartakingintheirreferentsbutsuchcasesarerelativelyrare.Itisnormallythecase,ontheotherhand,thatmaterialcultureisbothsignandreferent.Itcanbereferredtoasanobjectatthesametimeashavingsignfunctions.Itisanobjectwithfunctional,materialandtechnologicalconstraintsandcharacteristics.Hardness,porosity,friabilityandsoonexistandcannotbeseenasentirelyindependentofthesignproperties.Theobjective,non-arbitrary Materialpractice,symbolismandideology175characteristicsofthesignifierimpingeuponandcontributetoitsreferencepotential.Aseconddifferencebetweenlanguageandmaterialculturesymbolismconcernsthedifferentemphasesonreference.InFigure17,theword‘pot’looksforwardtosomereferent.Thesignifierexpectsasignified.Theprimaryfunctionoflanguageiscommunication.Manymaterialsymbolssuchasroadsignarrowsorgestureshaveasimilarcommunicationfunction.Butitisalwaysthecasewithmaterialculturethatthematerialsymbolappearstohaveagreaterindependencefromanyreferent.Thematerialsymbolcanbe‘read’andoftenthereadingsareobvious,buttheyneverthelessinvolvemovingbeyondtheprimaryqualitiesoftheobjectorgesture.Thusthematerialpotdoesnotexpectorneedasymbolicinterpretationintermsofcooking.Thesymbolicabstractionof‘cooking’maywellbepartoftheuseofpotsinthepracticeofcooking,buttheabstractedassociationofpotsandcookingdoesnotnecessarilyhaveanyreferentialqualities.Thetransformationofthematerialandabstractassociationintoareferenceisaninterpretationwhichsupplementsthemeaningofthepot.Thereareofcoursemanyotherdifferencesbetweenlinguisticandmaterialculturemeanings.Forexample,thedistinctionsmadebyRicoeur(1971)andothersbetweenspeechandwritingarerelevanttomaterialculture.Unlikespeech,writingandmaterialcultureoftenendurelongaftertheirproduction.Materialculturemeaningsarethereforeofteninterpretedawayfromthe‘author’ormakerwhothereforehaslittlecontroloverhowtheobjectisgivensignificance.Meaningisdistancedfromtheauthor.Anotherdifferencebetweenlanguageandmaterialcultureisthatthelatterisoften‘read’throughbodilymovement,practiceanduse.Inotherwords,weknowthatsomeonehasgotthemeaningofanobject‘right’notbecausethatpersoncangivethecorrectdefinition,butbecauseheorsheusesit‘correctly’.Manymoredifferencescouldbelisted,butforthemomentIwishtoconcentrateonwhatseemtobethetwofundamentaldifferencesdescribedabove:materialculturemeaningsarelessarbitraryandlessreferentialthanlanguage.Tarlow(1990)hassuggestedthat,inviewofthedifferencesbetweenmaterialcultureandlanguage,materialsymbolsshouldnotbeseenasorganisedbyabstractandarbitrarychainsofsignifiersbutbychainsofloadedormotivatedrelationships.Inotherwords,thesecondarymeaningsofobjectsarelinkedbymetaphoricalrelationshipstothepracticalnatureandusesofthoseobjects.Tarlownotesthatlikemetaphor,materialculturesymbolisminvolvestheabstractionofcertainproperties.Themetaphoricabstractionsarebuiltuponcertainaspectsofathinginordertoprovideasecondarymeaningwhichislessareferencethananevocationtobeinterpreted.Forexample,somelinguisticmetaphorsinvolvesynecdochewhichisthesubstitutionofapartforawholeasintheuseoftheword‘hand’todescribeaworker.Amaterialcultureinstancemightbetheuseofalockofhairtorepresentawholeperson.Metonymyisthesubstitutionofanattribute,effectorassociationforathingasintheuseoftheword‘crown’orarealcrownformonarchy.Forourpurposes,thesubtleandratherdifficultdifferencesbetweenthesetermsarelessimportantthanthegeneralpointthatmetaphorinvolvesvariousformsofsymbolicsubstitutionofassociatedfeatures.Thusthesecondarysymbolicmeaningsofmaterialculturearerelatedtovariousassociationsintheworldofexperience.Forexample,incertainculturalcontextsashmaycometomeanfire,hearth,homeandwomanthroughabstractionfromrealmaterialpracticessothatthesymbolicmeanings Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology176arenon-arbitrary.Asimilarpointcanbearrivedatbytakinganothertack.SofarIhavebeenequatinganobjectsuchasapotwithawordsuchas‘pot’.Perhapsabetteranalogyforapotisasentence.Certainlythepotistheresultofalongsequenceofactivitiesorproduction‘statements’andthissequenceiscontinuedintheuseanddiscardofthepot.Thissequenceisorganisedandstructuredinparallelwiththegrammaticalorganisationofasentence.Sentencesprovideamoreappropriateparallelthanwordsbecausesentences,likematerialobjects,aremoreclearlyworkedoutinrelationtospecificreal-worldcontexts.Theyareconcernedwithsayingsomethinginanactivesocialcontext(Ricoeur1971).Thepurposefulandmotivatednatureofsentencescontrastswiththemoreabstractnatureofwordmeanings.Thechainesoperatoiresofmaterialproductionare,likesentences,embeddedinareal-worldcontextandtheirmeaningsareyetmorecloselyrelatedtothatcontext.Ingeneral,then,materialculturesignifiedsandreferentarelessarbitrarythanwordsinspeech.Ofcourse,allmannerofdifferentmeaningsaregivencross-culturallytoright,left,thedifferentpartsofthebody,blood,natureandsoon.Thereisanultimatearbitrarinessorganisedonlybyhistoricalconvention.Andyetthisarbitrarinessisembeddedwithincertainmaterialfactorsinthebiologicalandphysicalworldsthroughtechnologyanduse.Theabstractsymbolicmeaningsofthematerialworldarerelatedtothatworldbyrelationshipsofassociation,analogy,substitution,metaphorandsoon.Ihavealsowantedtogofurtherandarguethatmuchmaterialculturedoesnot‘mean’.Wallpaperisagoodexample.Itmayprovideanappropriatesetting,evokethe‘right’atmosphere,butitdoesnothaveaspecificmeaninginthesamewaythatwordsorsentencesdo.Materialculturemeaningsaredifferentfromlinguisticmeanings.Thewallpaperevokesvariousassociations.Itmightsubstituteforagrandroomofstateinthefrontroomofaterracedhouse,oritmaybeametaphorforpeacefulcountryscenesinanurbanenvironment.Thewallpapermayworkeffectivelyandconveythedesiredmessageseventhoughthatmessagemightonlybetranslatedintoaverbalaccountwithsomedifficulty.Thusnotonlyarematerialcultureandlinguisticmeaningsorganiseddifferently,butalsotheformerseemtoworkwithoutreferringdirectlytoanythingspecific.Thewallpapermightsimply‘feel’rightatthenon-discursivelevel.Similarlyashmayhavethe‘meaning’offire,hearthandhomebutthismeaningresultsfromassociationratherthanfromreference.Thusitisperhapsbettertosaythattheashdoesnotmeanfire,hearthandhomebutisassociatedwithandcanevokethosethings.Thedifferencesbetweenlanguageandmaterialcultureunderliethefailureofarchaeologistsandethnoarchaeologiststogainsensibleanswerstoquestionssuchas‘Whatdoesthispotmean?’or‘Whyareyouengravingthatpotwiththatdesign?’Answerstosuchquestionsareoftenconstructed,forcedandunhappy,unlikethesimplerquestion‘Whatdoesthatwordorthatsentencemean?’Thematerialmeaningscannotbereducedtolinguisticmeanings.Theyareofadifferentnature.Ofcourse,materialcultureoftenhasreferentialfunctionsbutIhavebeenarguingthatthesearemoreorganisedingroundedcontextsthanarethefloatingchainsoflinguisticsignification.Asafurtherexample,peoplewithseverepsychiatricdisorderswhichinvolveaninabilitytorelatetootherpeoplearesometimestreatedbystandingtheminacircleandgettingthemtothrowaballbetweenthem.Thethrownballdoesnotrepresent Materialpractice,symbolismandideology177arelationshipbetweenthrowerandcatcher,itcreatesorisarelationship.Thebasicstartingpointofaballlinkingtwoindividualscanthenbeusedasametaphorforasocialrelationship.Groundedintheexperienceofthrowingandcatchingtheball,themetaphorisbasedonthemateriallikenessesbetweenexchangingaballandthegiveandtakeofsocialrelationships.Atayetmoreabstractlevelonecouldbegintocategorisedifferenttypesofexchange.Thepatientthusmovesfromthepracticeofthrowingaballtovariousmetaphoricassociations(understandingofwhichdoesnotnecessarilyinvolvespeech)andfinallytotheuseofanabstractreferentialdiscussionusingarbitrarysignsofspeech.Thematerialactcomestoreferandrepresent.Thusitcomestohavelanguage-likequalities,andyetitsreferentialfunctionsarebuiltupfromnon-arbitraryassociationsratherthanfromabstractsetsofdifferences.WecansummarisethedifferencesbetweenlanguageandmaterialculturebyreferringtoBloch’s(1991)conclusionsderivedfromaweddingofcognitivescienceandanthropology.Blocharguesthatpracticalknowledgeisfundamentallydifferentfromlinguisticknowledgeinthewaythatitisorganisedinthemind.Practicalknowledgeis‘chunked’intohighlycontextualisedinformationabouthowto‘geton’inspecificdomainsofaction.Muchculturalknowledgeisnon-linearandpurpose-dedicated,formedthroughthepracticeofcloselyrelatedactivities(ibid.,192).Incontrast,linguisticknowledgeislinearandsentential.KNOW-HOWANDKNOWLEDGEMaterialculturebothrepresentsandis,andthisdualityhasimplicationsfortheideologicaluseofmaterialcultureaswewillseebelow.ForthemomentIwanttotrytogainabetterunderstandingofthedifferentnatureofmaterialculturemeanings.InparticularIwanttolookathowthesymbolicmeaningsinteractwiththematerialmeanings.AnumberofFrenchstudentsoftechnologyhavedevelopedacomplexsetofideasaboutthesequencesofactions(chainesoperatoires)whichresultinamaterialobject(e.g.Pelegrin1990;Pigeot1990).Theymakedistinctionsbetweenthreetypesofknowledge.Thefirstisconnaissanceorgeneralknowledgeanditincludescategories,relationships,primaryandsecondarymeaningsaboutobjectsandtheiruses.Theseparationofasymbolicortheoreticalknowledgeaboutobjectsfrompracticalknowledgeisequivalenttoalongtraditioninwesternphilosophy.Aristotledistinguishedthetheoreticalthinkingofphilosopherswhoaskwhyquestionsfromthepracticalthinkingofartisanswhowanttogetthingsdone.Inarchaeology,thisideawasalreadydiscussedinthenineteenthcenturywiththeworkofPitt-Riverswhodistinguishedtheintellectualmindwhichwasabletoreason,fromtheunconsciousautomatonmindwhichallowedonetowalkorrideabicycle.ThesedistinctionshavecertainsimilaritieswiththatbetweenGiddens’(1979)discursiveandpracticalconsciousness.Ihavealreadyimpliedthatitwouldbemoreappropriatetodistinguishwithinthisfirstcategorydiscursiveandnon-discursiveknowledgeaboutgeneralcategories.Thus,forexample,actorsmightrecogniseatanon-discursivelevelthatcertainactivitieshadahighersocialvaluethanothers.Theoppositionsculture/natureorleft/rightmightbeabsorbedandacteduponatanon-verballevel.Thisformofgeneralknowledgecanbe Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology178separatedfromthatverbalisedinanabstractsystemoflinguisticsigns.So,connaissancecanbebothdiscursive(explicitandlinguistic)andnon-discursive(implicitandnon-verbal).Butingeneralthisfirsttypeofknowledgecanbedistinguishedfromsavoir-faireorknow-how.AccordingtoPelegrin,thesecondtypeofknowledgeaboutmaterialobjectsisideationalorcomparativeknow-how.Itin-volvestheabilitytoevaluateastonetoolduringitsmanufactureandrecognisethatitislikeothertoolsinacategory,oritimpliestheabilitytorecognisethatonetypeofpotwouldbegoodforcookingbutanothertypewouldnot.Itinvolves‘feel’,‘eye’,‘aesthetic’.Ontheonehand,thisknowledgederivesfromthematerialworldinthatitinvolvescomparisonsofweight,texture,sharpnessandsoonandincorporatesrecognitionofthepropertiesofmaterials.Ontheotherhand,thistypeofknowledgeisan‘embodiment’ofthegeneralculturalvaluesandclassifications.Theobjectlooksright’or‘feelsright’becauseitfitsintoageneralcategory.Thethirdtypeofknowledgeismotororgenerativeknow-howorsavoir-faire.Includedhere,forexample,arethemotorskillsinvolvedinremovingabladefromaflintcore—thesequencesofhandmovements,theforcesofblowandtheanglesatwhichthehammerandcoreareheld.Inamoremoderncontextthistypeofknowledgeinvolves,forexample,thesenseofbalanceandotherskillswhichareusedinridingabicycleortheadjustmentsofbodypositionneededinordertokeepuprightwhilewindsurfing.Wecanbetoldhowtodoallthesethings,butusuallytheverbalknowledgeisinsufficientforustobeabletodothem.Wenormallyneedpracticalexperienceandtraining.Theabovetripartiteschemewasdevelopedinthecontextoftheproductionofmaterialobjectssuchasstonetools.Butitdoesseemmorewidelyrelevantandtobeapplicabletouseanddiscard.Forexample,theuseanddiscardofapotisorganisedby(1)generalverbalandnon-verbalknowledgeaboutcategoriesandassociationsofpots,(2)ideationalknow-howabout,forexample,thefeelandweightofpotterythatmightbeusedfordifferenttypesofcookingorwhichmightmosteasilybreak,and(3)motorknow-howabouthowbesttocarryheavypotsandhowtohandlethemwithoutbreakage.Production,useanddiscardareallorganisedbythethreelevelsofknowledge.Inallcases,thethreelevelsinterpenetrate.Thusthegeneralculturalknowledgeaffectswhatareconsideredtobeeffectivemotorskills(forexample,whethertocarryapotontheheadorinaslingontheback).Atthesametime,themotorknow-howconstrainsthetypesofgeneralknowledgethatcanbeconstructed.Whatmostcontemporaryresearchersintheareaoftechnologydoseemtoagreeonistheneedforaninteractiveorintegrativeapproachwhichembedsoperationalandtechnologicalproceduresnotonlyinthephysicalworld,butalsointhesocialandsymbolicworld.Thus,onceagain,thepartlynon-arbitraryandnon-referentialcomponentsofallmaterialculturemeaningareexposed.DespiteimportantworkbyBourdieu(1977)inhisattempttobuilda‘theoryofpractice’,itseemsthatwestillhaveverylittleideaofhowknow-howorpracticalknowledgeworksandhowitrelatestothemoregeneralandabstractlevelsofmeaning.Archaeologistsmayfinditusefultoforgelinkswithpsychologistsworkingonmotorskillsandeverydaycognition(e.g.RogoffandLave1984).Ontheonehand,clinicalpsychologistshavedemonstratedacertainindependenceofsymbolicandmotorskills.Inevolutionaryterms,thegeneralisationofabstractterms(asinlanguage)wouldseemtobe Materialpractice,symbolismandideology179dependentonsuchasplit.Bloch(1991,183)haspointedoutthatstudiesofexpertiseshowthat‘inordertobecomeanexpertatafamiliartaskorasetoftasksapersonneedstoorganisehisorherknowledgeinawaywhichisnotlanguage-like’.Ontheotherhand,cross-culturalworkoneverydaypracticalcognitionhasfoundparticularmentalrepresentationsandcognitiveskillsinvolvedinculture-specificpracticessuchasnavigation,weavingandtailoring.Forexample,featuresoftailors’performanceonapurearithmeticpaper-and-penciltaskcouldbelinkedtothequantitativeoperationstheyusedeverydayinsewingtrousersforaliving(RogoffandLave1984,13).SuchlinkagesunderlinetheemphasisIhavebeenplacingonthenon-arbitrarystructuringofalltypesofknowledgeincludingthemostabstract,eveniftheorganisationofknowledgeisdifferentatthedifferentlevels.IDEOLOGYClearlymoreworkisneededinordertobuildatheoryofpractice.However,forthemomentIwishtomovetowardsexploringtheideologicalimplicationsofthepartlynon-arbitraryandpartlynon-referentialnatureofmaterialculture.Theideologicalpotentialformaterialobjectsunfoldsasfollows.Ihavearguedthatinanultimatesensethemeaningsofmaterialsymbolsarearbitrary.Thereisalwaysachoiceabouttheabstractmeaningsandmetaphors.Blood,forexample,hasqualitieswhichconstrainitssymbolicmeaningbutarangeofspecificmeanings(fromdangeranddeathtothesourceoflife)canbegiven.Theultimatearbitrarinessis,however,inseparablefromanon-arbitrarinesswhichderivesfromthelinksofthematerialsymboltoamaterialpractice.Theideologicalimplicationsofthisdualityarethatthemeaningsofobjects,whileimposedbyconvention,appearbasedonnecessity.Thenon-arbitrarycomponentofmaterialculturemeaningsnaturalisestheideologicalmessage.Similarly,Ihavearguedthatalthoughmaterialculturedoeshaveareferentialfunctionorcanbegiventhatfunction,itsmeaningsareoftenassociative,evocativeandnon-referential.Often,materialculturedoesnotappearto‘mean’atall.Thisself-evidentqualitythushidesormasksthereferencesthatarebeingmade.Theideologicalmessagesarehiddenbehindthesupposednon-communicativenatureofmaterialculture.Thedualityofreferenceandnon-referencesuggeststhatmaterialculture,initspragmaticinnocence,shouldplayapowerfulideologicalrole.Ourdifficultyinrecognisingthisroleisthebasisofitssuccess.Asahypotheticalexample,itmighthavebeenarguedinthepastthatincontrasttootherstonetools,huntingtoolsneededtobemorecarefullyflakedandfluted.Thismorecarefulpreparationmayhavebeenseenasnecessary(asitisseentoday—Torrence1986)becausethereisnotimetocompensateforafailedtoolduringthehunt.Themoreelaboratetoolwithgreaterinvestmentofskillmightalsoallowtheprojectiletobethrownbetter,topenetratebetterandtobemoreeasilyrecognisableduringrecovery.Suchargumentspresent‘natural’and‘necessary’justificationsforfocusingtime,energy,skillandaestheticsensesonhuntingtoolsratherthanonscrapers,diggingandgatheringimplements.Thecarefulflakingoftheprojectilepointdoesnotseemarbitraryanditdoesnotreferinadirectwaytoprestige.Nevertheless,thepragmaticknowledgehastheeffect Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology180oflocatingprestigeinthedomainofhuntingandgivingasecondaryroletootheractivities.Idefineideologyastheuseofsymbolsinrelationtointerest.Itisthatcomponentofsymbolsystemsmostcloselyinvolvedinthenegotiationofpowerfromvaryingpointsofinterestwithinsociety.AsisclearfromtheeditedvolumesbyMillerandTilley(1984),Miller,RowlandsandTilley(1989)andMcGuireandPaynter(1991),mostarchaeologistswouldnowaccepttheinadequaciesofthethesisthatsocietiesaredominatedbyoneideologywhichrepresentstheinterestsofthedominantgroupandwhichdupesallmembersofsociety.Thereisratherrecognitionthatsubordinategroupsareabletopenetratedominantideologiesandengageinresistanceandsocialactioninrelationtodifferentinterestsandideologies.Thereisthusnotoneideologybutmany,andtherearemanydifferenttypesofpowerandprestigethatarenegotiatedinrelationtoeachother.Iftheideologicalsymbolsarelinguistic,oriftheyhavethedominantlylinguisticpropertiesofarbitrarinessandreference,thentheideologyisalwaysindangerofexposingitsownprovisionalcharacterinrelationtothepracticesofdailylife.Thedefinitionofpowerisinsecuresinceitislinkedtorelativevaluesconstructedbyanarbitrarylanguage.Powerisbasedonmerewords,labels,classifications,opinionsandarguments.Butideologiesoftenseemfarfromfickle.Theyseemtohavegreatdurationandtobeembeddeddeeplyratherthansuperficially.Wehavetendedtotakethe‘naturalisation’and‘embedding’ofideologiesforgranted.Buthowdoesthenaturalisationoccur?Evenifwetakealinethatarguesthattheideologyarisesdirectlyfromtheinfrastructure,howdoesitarise?Suchquestionsareeasiertoanswerinrelationtomaterialsymbolsifitisrecognisedthatthesymbolicmeaningsarebuiltupon,byassociationandmetaphor,thematerialworld.Thusifsystemsofprestige(asinthecaseofhuntingpoints)areconstructedinrelationtonecessaryfunctionalandtechnologicalrelations,thentheideologieswhichtheyunderpinhaveanon-arbitrary,naturallogic.Theideologyisthuslesstransparentandlessopentocritique.Itbecomesnecessary.RolandBarthes(1977)showshowaphotographorfilmisapotentideologicalmechanismsinceitappearsso‘real’thattheideologicalmessageiseffectivelymasked.Wedonotseethatthecameraliesorthatthephotographisnotjustadirectcopyofrealitybuttellsastoryinitscomposition,lighting,etc.Evenmoreso,then,thelivedworldofexperiencehidesitsownarbitrarinessbehindanapparentlynecessaryfunctionallogic.Ofcourse,Idonotdenythatideologyisanabstractionorconceptualisation.AndIdonotdenythatthereisalwaysatensionbetweentheory(ideology)andpracticewhichgenerateschange.ButIdoarguethatthemotorforideologicalchangefrequentlyoccursatthepracticallevel,notbecauseIespouseamaterialism,butbecauseitismainlyatthelevelofpracticalconsciousnessthatpeopleunderstandideologies.Ideologiesareexperiencedinthelivedworld.Theverbalabstractionsandconceptualisationsthatwemakeareoftenmanipulationsandlegitimationsofapracticalknow-howwhichincorporatesanecessarylogicandhidesaconventionalculturalscheme.Ideologies,atleastthoseusingmaterialsymbols,aredeeplyembeddedinapractical Materialpractice,symbolismandideology181knowledge.Asanotherexample,wemightstartfromtheobviouspointthatforspearstobeeffectivetheymustbelongandstraight.Wemightalsoaddthelessobviousviewthatforthemtobethrownwithadequateforceyoungmenneedtodothethrowing.Bourdieu(1977)showshow,inaparticularculturalcontext,thenotionofstraightnesscanbelinked(bymetaphor)tovaluednotionsof‘talkingstraight’,Toeingstraight’,asopposedtobeingbentover,submissive.Thusmenmightbetoldto‘standupstraight’andinthissimplestatementawholecosmology,awholepoliticalphilosophyconcerningtherelationsbetweenmenandwomenisimposed.Themetaphorthatmenarestraightliketheirspearsisbasedonanecessarytechnologicalknowledge(thatspearshavetobelongandstraight)whichweallrecognisebutdonotarticulate.Revertingtopsychology,otherinstancescanbeprovidedofthewayideologiesareengrainedwithinabodilyunderstandingoftheworld.Forexample,inrelationtofunerarypracticesBloch(1982,227)arguedthatideologies‘takeovercertainpre-culturalbiologicalandpsychologicalphenomena...sothattheyappearhomogeneouswithlegitimateauthority’.Inanotherexample,recentresearchattheAppliedPsychologyUnitatCambridgehassuggestedthatspiderphobiamaywellbeaninheriteddisposition,linkedtotheirfastunpredictablemovements.Letusassumethatitisindeedthecasethatmanyormostofushavesuchaninnatedispositiontofearspiders.Itiscertainlypossibletosurmountsuchafearandcureoneselfofthephobia.Butanyinnatetendencytowardsfearingspiderscanbeusedasametaphorinculturalrules.Forexample,inAnglo-Americansociety,nurseryrhymesplayonthisfearaswhen‘MissMuffet’isfrightenedawaybyaspider,andwitchesareassociatedwithspidersatHalloween.Oursocietyattachesculturalvaluestoawholerangeofcreepycrawlythings,includingspiders.Theseculturalvaluesincorporateabstractoppositionssuchasculture/nature,andtheyalsoinvolvesocialcategoriesandevaluations.Butthesocialandculturalmeaningsareexperiencedintermsofabodilyknowledge.Anarbitrarycategorisationisgivenanecessarybasisandaself-evidentair.Aswerushscreamingfromaroominwhichaspiderhasappearedwedonotstoptothink‘myfearisculturallymanipulated’.Wedonotstoptothinkwhetherour‘instinctive’reactiontospidersunderpinsasocialevaluationofyoungwomenlike‘MissMuffet’!Ideologiesarethusnotcreatedinabstractinordertolegitimateaparticularsetofsocialrealities.Rathertheyaremadepossiblebybeingembeddedwithinthoserealities.Ideologiesaremadepossibleatthelevelofthephysicalandbiologicalworldtowhichtheyarerelatedbyargumentsofnecessity,efficacy,substitution,associationandmetaphor.Weexperienceideologiesasmuchaswethinkthem.SoImayfeelacertaindiscomfortatremovingaspiderfrommylivingroombutthisseemstobeadeep,spontaneousbodilyfear.IdonotrealisethatmyculturehasworkeduponanydispositionImayhavehadtowardsspiderssothatmyattitudestospidershaveanideologicalimplication.Insofarasdominantgroupsinsocietywishtopromotecertainideologiesintheirowninterests,theywillneedtocontroltrainingandenculturationofpracticalactivities.Ifsuccessfulideologiesarelargelyexperiencedatthelevelofpractical,non-discursiveconsciousnessthenitbecomesnecessarytocontrolthedetailsofbodilymovementsandbehaviourastheculturalrulesareinternalisedthroughrepetitionandconstraint.Childrenaretaughttoholdtheknifeintherighthand,tostandupstraight,nottobe‘silly’about Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology182spiders,andsoon.Inthesewaysapoliticalphilosophyisimbued.Childrencanbecomeabattlegroundforcompetinginterests,andcontroloftheirenculturationbecomesofcentralimportance.Itisoftenarguedthatwomenhavepowerinsmall-scalesocietiespartlythroughpracticalcontrolinthedomesticcontexteveniftheyhavefewpublicrights(Moore1986).InthetermsIamusinginthispaper,anindividual’sabilitytomakeverbalinterpretationsandconceptualisationsofpracticalknowledgemaybelimitedwithinaparticularsociety.ButsinceIhavearguedthatideologiesarelargelyunderstoodatthenon-discursivepracticallevel,thencontrolovertheenculturationofpracticalknowledgedoesindeedprovidesomedegreeofpower.Ifthatcontrolisatleastpartlyinthehandsofwomen,thentheydogainadefactopower.CONCLUSIONBourdieu(1977,91)talksof‘themindbornoftheworldofobjects’.Ihavetriedinthispapertoarguefortheimportanceofthisinsight.Therecentattractioninarchaeologicaltheorytowardspost-structuralismhasledarchaeologistsperilouslyclosetodisregardingthemostimportantaspectoftheirdata—theirmateriality.Wedonotsimplydiguptexts,eitherliterallyorfiguratively.Wedonotonlydigupinterpretationsofinterpretations.Materialculturedoesindeedhavealinguistic,abstract,referentialcomponent.Itispartlyorganisedintostructuredsetsofdifferencesbyhistoricalconventions.Butwecannotlimitthestudyofmaterialculturesignstoalinguistictypeofanalysis(cf.Bloch1991).Ratherweneedtounderstandthewayinwhichthebiologicalandphysicalworldisembeddedwithinsocialandculturalmeanings,andweneedtoexplorethetensionsbetweenthearbitraryandnon-arbitrary,andbetweenthereferentialandnon-referentialaspectsofmaterialculture.Asyetwestillunderstandverylittleabouttheorganisationofpracticalknow-how.Asnotedabovesomeprogresshasbeenmadewithlithictechnologiesbutwearestillfarfromunderstandinghowthemakingofastonetoolorceramicpotcanbebothmechanismandmetaphorfordiscipliningthehumanbodyintoaculturalmould.Wearestillfarfromunderstandinghowknowledgeaboutstrikingbladesandflakesfromflintnodulesisorganised,learntandadapted.Andwearefarfromunderstandinghow,forexample,theshiftfromknappingflintflakestobladesmightberelated,inparticularsocialandculturalcontexts,toanewbodilydisciplineandanewpoliticalphilosophy.Bothasarchaeologistsandethnoarchaeologistsweneedtohavetheconfidencetodelveintothepracticalworldoftechnologicaloperationsinordertobuildtheoriesabouttheembodimentofmeaningsandthusabouttherelationshipbetweenmaterialpracticeandconceptualstructure.Butatleastnowtheproblembecomesmanageable.Whilethemeaningofflakesandbladeswasseenasentirelyarbitrary,organisedonlybysetsofsimilaritiesanddifferenceslikelanguage,theinterpretationofmeaningdependedonhavingarichnetworkofsimilaritiesanddifferencessurvivinginthearchaeologicalrecord.Asaresult,mostsuccessfulsymbolicinterpretationhasbeeninlaterperiodsandinhistoricalperiodswherewrittenaccountsarepreserved.Butinearlierperiods,thelackofrich‘texts’(bothmaterialcultureandwritten)madeinterpretationdifficult.Theresimplywasnotenough Materialpractice,symbolismandideology183torelate,forexample,bladesandflakesto.Butnowweseethatthesymbolicmeaningsofbladesandflakeswillbeintegratedintothedifferenttechnologicalprocessesofbladeandflakeproduction.Eveninearlyperiodsarchaeologistsoftenhavegoodevidenceofproductiveprocessesanditisonthisbasisthatinterpretationcanbebuilt.Theonlylimitationhereisourlackoftheoreticalknowledgeaboutthewayinwhichsavoir-faire,know-how,everydaypracticalknowledgeisorganisedandrelatedtohigherlevelsofabstractsymbolicthought.REFERENCESBarthes,R.(1977)Image—Music—Text,London:Fontana.Bloch,M.(1982)‘Death,womenandpower’,inM.BlochandJ.Parry(eds)DeathandtheRegenerationofLife,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1991)‘Language,anthropologyandcognitivescience’,Man26,183–98.Bourdieu,P.(1977)OutlineofaTheoryofPractice,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Giddens,A.(1979)CentralProblemsinSocialTheory,London:Macmillan.Hodder,I.(1986)ReadingthePast,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.——(1989)Thisisnotanarticleaboutmaterialcultureastext’,JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology8,250–69.McGuire,R.andPaynter,R.(1991)TheArchaeologyofInequality,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Miller,D.,Rowlands,M.andTilley,C.(eds)(1989)DominationandResistance,London:UnwinHyman.Miller,D.andTilley,C.(eds)(1984)Ideology,PowerandPrehistory,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Moore,H.(1986)Space,TextandGender,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Pelegrin,J.(1990)‘Prehistoriclithictechnology:someaspectsofresearch’,ArchaeologicalReviewfromCambridge9:1,116–25.Pigeot,N.(1990)Technicalandsocialactors:flintknappingspecialistsatMagdalenianEtiolles’,ArchaeologicalReviewfromCambridge9:1,126–41.Ricoeur,P.(1971)Themodelofthetext:meaningfulactionconsideredastext’,SocialResearch38,529–62.Rogoff,B.andLave,J.(eds)(1984)EverydayCognition:itsDevelopmentinSocialContext,Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.Tarlow,S.(1990)‘MetaphorsandNeolithic-BronzeAgeburialmounds’,UnpublishedM.Phil,dissertation,UniversityofCambridge.Tilley,C.(ed.)(1990)ReadingMaterialCulture,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Torrence,R.(1986)ProductionandExchangeofStoneTools,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. 15THEHADDENHAMCAUSEWAYEDENCLOSURE—AHERMENEUTICCIRCLE1Throughrecentdecadesacademicarchaeologistshavebeenexhortedtoconducttheirresearchandexcavationsaccordingtohypothesis-testingprocedures.Ithasbeenarguedthatweshouldconstructourgeneraltheories,deducetestablepropositionsandproveordisprovethemagainstthesampleddata.Infact,theapplicationofthis‘scientificmethod’oftenranintodifficulties.Thedatahaveatendencytoleadtounexpectedquestions,problemsandissues.Thusarchaeologistsclaimingtofollowhypothesistestingproceduresfoundthemselveshavingtocreateafiction.Inpractice,theirworkandtheoreticalconclusionspartlydevelopedfromthedatawhichtheyhaddiscovered.Inotherwords,theyalreadyknewthedatawhentheydecideduponaninterpretation.Butinpresentingtheirworktheyrewrotethescript,placingthetheoryfirstandclaimingtohavetesteditagainstdatawhichtheydiscovered,asinanexperimentunderlaboratoryconditions.Archaeologicalinterpretationalwaysseemstoinvolveacircularity.Westartoutwithasite,oraregionoratheoryoraproblem—orsomemixtureofthese.Alreadyourdataandtheoryarerelatedinthatwehavebackgroundknowledgeaboutthesiteorregionandabouttheinterpretationsthathavebeenmadeofsimilardata.Wemayhavesomepettheoriesthatwewanttotryout.Undoubtedly,thedatathatwecollectare‘prefigured’.Weexpectcertainthingsandourinterpretationsarelyinginwaitforthem,alreadyformed.Wepounceandmayfeelsatisfied,confirmed.Orwemayfindthatthedatadonotreallyconformtoourexpectations.Inthiscaseweadjustourtheories,butalwaysinrelationtomoregeneraltheorieswhichwehaveespousedortakeforgranted.WhatIhavejustdescribedisasimplifiedversionofthehermeneuticcircle(seeChapters12and13).Inmyview,hermeneuticsprovidesafarbetterdescriptionofwhatarchaeologistsactuallydothananypositivisthypothesis-testingprocedure.Whatwetryanddoasarchaeologistsistoworkbackandforthbetweentheoryanddata,showingthatsometheoriesaccountformoreofthedatathanothers,andadjustingourtheoriesaccordingtothedata.Ratherthanemphasisinggeneralisationsandexternalcomparisonswetryandsituateourgeneraltheoryinrelationtoasmuchofthedataaspossible.Inotherwordswetryandcontextualiseourtheoriesanddata.Thenotionofahermeneuticiscloselylinkedtothatofcontext.Wetrytogivemeaningtoaparticularpieceofdatabyembeddingitmoreandmorefullyinitssurroundingdata.Whenatheorymakesallthedata‘fit’,thenwesaythatthedata‘makesense’.Themainproblemwiththehermeneuticcircleisthatitispotentiallyviciousinthatargumentsovertlyorcovertlyassumewhattheyaretryingtoprove.Wedonotapproachthedatawithblankminds.Ourcontextframesourdefinitionofthearchaeologicalcontext.Itcouldbearguedthatweworkinaclosedcirclewhichencompassespastand Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle185present.We‘read’thedatabytranslatingthemintoourownterms.Ontheotherhand,itcanbearguedthatthehermeneuticcircleismoreproperlydescribedasaspiralinthatweneverreturntoexactlythesamespotaswemovebetweentheoryanddata.Accordingtothisviewtheexperienceofdataforcesustoadjustourinterpretations.Thereissomedegreeofpartialindependencebetweenpastandpresentcontexts.Welearnasweread.CertainlyinapproachingtheHaddenhamcausewayedenclosure(excavatedbetween1981and1987)Iandmyco-workerscamewithavastbaggageoftheoreticalknowledge.Weknewfirstofallthatitwasa‘causewayedenclosure’.Thetypicalarrangementofditchesandpartiallyobservableinnerpalisadeontheairphotographsallowedustoclassifythemonumentandbeginitsinterpretation.Astheparadoxofhermeneuticsclaims(Scruton1982),‘nointerpretationispossibleuntilinterpretationhasbegun’.What,then,werethemainpiecesofbaggagethatwebroughtwithusonceweknewweweredealingwithacausewayedenclosure?Byfarthelargestpiece,andalsothemostdangerous,waslabelledritual.Theliteratureoncausewayedenclosuresencouragesustoassumethatwhilesomeoralloftheenclosureshadsomeoccupation,stockmanagementordefensivefunctions,theywerealsofociforburialandotherritualsinvolvingfeastingand‘special’activities.DepositsoflargelycompletepotsoranimaljointswhichinIronAgeditcheswouldbeinterpretedas‘dumping’suddenlytakeonaquitedifferentsignificanceintheditchesofNeolithiccausewayedenclosures.Heretheybecome‘placed’and‘structured’depositswithritualsignificance.Wealsocamewithanotherlargepieceofbaggagelabelledsocialevolution.Ithasbecomegenerallyacceptedthat,followingtheworkofRenfrew(1973),weareintheNeolithicofBritaindealingwithalowlevelofpoliticaldevelopmentcharacterisedbylineageswhichmayhavebeenemergingintochiefdoms.Whilethecausewayedenclosureheraldsthishigherlevelofdevelopment,longbarrowsrepresentlineages.Withinthisgeneralnotionofasegmented,relativelydecentralisedsocietymuchoftheNeolithicdatahasbeeninterpretedasrepresentingsmall-grouporganisation.Forexample,boththemoundsoflongbarrowsandtheditchesofbarrowsandenclosureshavebeenclaimed(e.g.Bradley1984)tobebuiltinsections,perhapsby‘workgangs’.So,oneofourexpectationsatHaddenhamwasthatwewouldfindvariabilityamongsttheditchesandevidencethatindividualditcheshadbeenduginsmallersegments.Thewayweinitiallyapproachedtheditches,forexamplebydiggingsoastoleavealongitudinalsectionin1982,wasdesignedtopickuppittingalongtheditchlengths.Thismayhavebeenagoodexampleofhypothesis-testingbuttheprocedurewasgraduallyabandonedaswerealisedthatitwasobscuringourunderstandingofthefullrangeofactivitiesintheditches.Morespecifically,ontheairphotographwesaw,orthoughtwedid,evidenceofthevaried,decentralisednatureofthesocietywhichproducedthecausewayedenclosure.Insomepartsofthecircuitaninnerpalisadewasclearlyvisible.Inothersectionstherewaseithernopalisadeorapalisadesetwellbackfromtheditches.Formostoftheenclosureasingleditchcouldbeseen.ButinthenorthwestzonetwoparallelditchesoccurredasinthemultiplecircuitsfoundatotherenclosuresinEngland(e.g.WindmillHill).The1981excavationswerethuslocatedoverthedoubleditchessoastocheckoneaspectofthisinternaldifference. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology186Ihaveexplainedthemainbaggagethatwebroughtwithusasweapproachedthefirstseasonofexcavationattheenclosure.Ofcourse,therewasmuchelse,bothgeneralandspecific,butIhavedefinedthemainthemes.Sothatwedidnotsimplytakethethemesofritual,socialevolutionandsoonforgranted,weneededtoremainsensitivetotheparticularcontextualdata.Thisinvolveddiggingtheenclosureditchbyditchandgraduallybuildingupanargumentwhichaccommodatedbothdataandtheory.Oneditchonitsownwouldtelluslittleunlesswewerehappywithfittingitimmediatelyintoourgeneralschemes.Butwecanincreaseourunderstandingoftheindividualditchthroughitssimilaritiesandcontrastswithotherditchesinthe‘whole’whichmakesuptheenclosure.Inotherwords,wecangraduallyplaceeachditchintothecontextformedbyalltheditches.Theresultant‘whole’isnotagivenbutisaninterpretationbuiltupfromtheparts.Inrelationtoeachditchweconstructaninterpretationwhichwethenuseforotherditches.Theseditchesforceustochangetheinterpretationandsowehavetoreinterpretthefirstditch,andsooninanendlesscircleorspiral.Movingbackandforthweworkwithinthehermeneuticcircle.Itsohappensthatwedidindeedexcavatethecausewayedenclosureinacircle.Inthoseyearsinwhichweexcavatedattheenclosure(1981,1982,1984,1987)wegraduallymovedroundthecircuitinaclockwisemanner(Figure18).Rightattheendofthe1987seasonwereturnedtothe1981excavationandreconsideredourearlierinterpretations.Wehadthuscomefullcircle,bothspatiallyandinourcircle.Orperhapswehadcometothesamepointonthegroundbuttoadifferentplaceonthehermeneuticspiral.Hadweavoidedtheviciousnessofthehermeneuticcircle?Ananswertothisquestionmustawaittheaccountofourcircularjourney.THEENCLOSUREDITCHESThe1981seasonAsweremovedthepeatlayeroverlyingaburiedprehistoricsoil,weimmediatelysawoneofthetwoconcentricenclosureditcheswhichhadappearedontheairphotographatthispoint.Itsnakedacrossthenorthernpartoftheexcavatedarea.Theditchitself(F01)wasclearlyfilledwithpeatdepositsandithadagravelupcastbankoneithersidebutthesouthernbankwasmoresubstantial.Thismadesensebecausethislargerbankwasontheinnersideoftheenclosure.Thehermeneuticcirclewasbeginningtobepiecedtogether.Otherevidencetoomadesense.Inthedeepestpartoftheditchtherewasaquantityofwaterloggedwood,andabovethisaconcentrationoflargeanimalbones.Skull,mandible,pelvisandscapulawerethemainbodypartsrepresentedandtherewasverylittlepotteryorflintassociated.Surelythiswasclearevidenceofaritual‘placed’deposit.Wehadnobonespecialistonsite,butoneoftheboneswasahorsemandible.ThiswasdisturbingbecausedomesticatedhorseisthoughttohavebeenintroducedintoBritainonlyattheendoftheNeolithic.CouldthisbealateNeolithicenclosure?SeveraleminentNeolithicspecialistsvisitedthesiteduringthisperiodandpronouncedtheirverdict.Yes,theycouldseethattheditchhadshallowerportionswhichrepresentedthecauseways.Thedeeperpitwithwoodandbonerepresentedthebuttendofaditch.Thedatafitwell Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle187withothercausewayedenclosureswhereconcentrationsoffindshavebeenclaimedatthebuttendsofditches.Yes,thesmallundiagnosticsherdwasprobablylateNeolithic,fittinginwithalltheflintartifactsfoundintheditchfills.Howwonderfultohavesuchgoodpreservationinacausewayedenclosure.Figure18Theditchsections(AtoP)excavatedindifferentyearsattheHaddenhamcausewayedenclosureButwherewastheotherditch?Wesimplycouldnotseeit.Thiswasespeciallysurprisingbecauseweexaminedtheprehistoricsoilbelowthepeatintherestoftheuncoveredareaverycarefully.Perhapswehadincorrectlyrectifiedtheairphotographsorincorrectlysurveyedthepositionoftheditchesinthefield.Wecheckedanddouble-checked.Nothingseemedwrong.Infrustrationwedecidedtogetthemachinebacktodigadeepslottrenchatthewesternedgeofthesite,tothesouthoftheditchF01.Again,nothing.Whycouldwenotseetheother,innerditch?Aclueemergedtowardstheendoftheexcavation.Atthenorthernedgeofthesite,afterwehadtakenoffseveralspitsofprehistoricsoil,ahearth(F05)suddenlyemerged.Thismustoriginallyhavebeencutfromthetopoftheprehistoricsoilandyetitwasnolongervisibleonthesurface.Otherevidencebegantopointtoaheavilyleachedanddiscolouredprehistoricsoil.AciditytestsshowedthatpHlevelsincreasedfrom4to6withincreasingdepththroughtheprehistoricsoil,largelyduetoleachingduringpeatformationandwatercoverage. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology188Somethingclearlywasnotright.Thehermeneuticcirclewhichwehadconstructedlookedsubstantiallycracked.WhywastheF01ditchclearlyvisibleonthesurfaceoftheprehistoricsoil,filledwithpeatysoil,whileotherprehistoricfeatureshadbeenheavilyleachedduringtheircoveragebythepeat?ThefeaturesandtheF01ditchmustbeofsubstantiallydifferentdates.Inanycase,asweexcavateditbecameclearthatthe‘causeways’intheF01ditchsimplydidnotexist,eventhoughwedesperatelywantedtoseethem.Theditchseemedtobecontinuous.Sowherewastheotherandperhapsmaincausewayedenclosureditch?Ikeptsendingthemostexperiencedmembersoftheteamovertowadeinthewateratthebottomoftheslotwehaddugbymachineonthewesternedgeofthesitetocleanthesections.Buttheykeptreturningsayingtherewasnoditchthere.Onthepenultimatedayofthescheduledexcavation,insheerfrustration,Iwentovermyselftothemachinesection.Therewasaslightthickeningofthepeatlayers.Andthereaslumpingoftheprehistoricsoil.ThenfinallyIsawwhatwas,incomparisontoditchF01,anenormousditch.ItwasdifficulttoseebecausefilledwithgravelandlensesofclaysandsiltsasinthesurroundingPleistocenegravels.Anditwassomuchbiggerthanourtrainofthought,whichhadunderstoodtheshallowF01ditchtobethecausewayedenclosure,hadledustoexpect.Butthismuchmoresubstantialditchwasmuchmorewhatwasexpectedonthebasisofothercausewayedenclosures.Suddenlyeverythingmadesenseandanewhermeneuticcirclecouldbeformed.Thelargeditchwasthemaincausewayedditch(latercalledditchsegmentA),onthesamealignmentasalarge‘pit’latercalledditchsegmentB.Thesecausewayedditchsegmentscouldnoteasilybeseeninthesurfaceoftheprehistoricsoilbecauseoftheleachingprocess.DitchF01musthavebeencutthroughtheprehistoricsoilatamuchlaterdate.Indeed,wewerelatertoobtainaC14datefromthisditchindicatingthatitwaslateIronAge.Thehorsewasthusexplained.Shamefacedwereinterpretedthedepositofwoodandlargebonesasbutcheringresiduewithoutritualcomponent.Thecausewayedenclosureatthispointdidnotafterallhaveadoubleditch.Wequicklyrecordedwhatwecouldofthe‘real’‘inner’ditches(AandB,seeFigure18)althoughwewereneverable,intheshorttimeremainingtous,tounderstandthemproperly.Wecould,however,concludethatthe1981causewayedditchesconsistedoftwo(AandB)andpossiblythree(ifAwasitselfcausewayed)segmentsofasinglelineofditches.TheprimaryfillsofsandandgravelshadbeenrecutalongbothedgesofditchA.Alaterrecutwasassociated,atthebuttendofditchA,withevidenceforlateractivitiesincludingburning,possiblepost-holes,furtherrecutsanddepositsofcarbonisedcereals.TherewasnoevidenceforsuchactivitiesinthecleanupperfillsofditchBandnoevidenceofactivitiesinthelargecausewaytotheeastofditchB.Therewasnoevidenceofabanktothesouthoftheditch,norofapalisade.The1981excavationsprovideagoodexampleofhowthehermeneuticcircleisconstructed.Westartedwithcertainassumptionswhichaffectedourinitialunderstandingofthedatabutwegraduallymodifiedtheoryanddatauntiltheyharmonised.ThuswehadexpectedNeolithicritualandfounditinbutcheringresiduesinanIronAgeditch.Wehadwantedvariabilityandhadfounddoubleditchesinthispartoftheenclosure.Buttheneedforinternalcoherenceinourargumentsgraduallyforcedustocorrectourinterpretations.Wenoticedbitsandpieceswhichdidnotfit.Theseincludedlater Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle189prehistorichorsebonesinwhatshouldhavebeenmiddleNeolithicditchesandthelackofconvincingcausewaysintheF01ditch.ItdidnotmakesensethattheF01ditchwaseasilyvisiblewhileotherfeaturesturnedupunderneaththeprehistoricsoilsurface.Finallyanalternativewasfoundwhichmadesenseofthedata.Therewasonlyonecausewayedenclosureditchcontaininglaterrecutsandcoveredbyaleachedsoil.TheF01ditchwasIronAgeindate.Thehermeneuticcirclehadprovednottobevicious.Wehadbeenablecriticallytocomparecontexts(pastandpresent)andmoveinaspiral.Figure19The1981and1987areasofexcavationattheHaddenhamcausewayedenclosure Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology190Ourrevisedhypothesisstillallowedforvariabilitysincewehadnotfoundapalisadetrenchaswasvisibleontheairphotographsinotherpartsoftheenclosure.AndwehadfoundanenormouscausewaytotheeastofditchB.Variabilitywasstillapossibilitybutsegmenteddiggingoftheditcheswouldhavetobeexploredbycompleteexcavationofditchsegmentsnowthatweknewwhattheylookedlikeandhowdifficulttheyweretosee.Ourrevisedhypothesisalsoleftroomforritual.Althoughwehadnotfound‘placed’deposits,thefillsoftheNeolithicditcheshadproducedveryfewartifacts.Thismaypartlyhavebeenamatteroflessgoodpreservationintheupperlayersbutasfarastheflintisconcerneditimpliesthattherewerefewflintsinthesurroundingsoilwhentheditchesfilledup.Lowdensitiescouldsimplyindicatealowintensityofoccupationbuttheydidnotruleoutritualactivities.Asaresultoftheinitialmistakesdescribedabove,weleftthe1981excavationswithouthavingunderstoodthecausewayedditchverywell.WedidnotunderstandthestrangedoublerecutleavingacentralmoundwithinditchA,andthenumerouslaterrecuttings.Wewouldclearlyneedtoexcavateotherpartsofthecampinordertoputtheseinitialfindingsincontext,toidentifythosepartsoftheinitialevidencewhichweresalient,andtoevaluatethestillgeneralexpectationsaboutvariabilityandritual.The1982seasonInanattempttoanswerthesequestionsandtoclosethecircleofourinterpretationswemovedclockwisein1982totheeasternsideoftheenclosure.Actually,atnopointduringthefourseasonsofexcavationdidwerealisethatweweredigginginacircularmanner.Thechoiceofexcavationwasalwaysbasedonlocalandcontingentfactors.Forexample,in1982wehadmanagedtomakegoodrelationswiththedifferentlandownerinthispartoftheenclosureandhisfieldswereunderacerealcropthatwouldallowusfiveweeksofexcavationinSeptemberandOctober.Wealsothoughtthattheremaybeamajorentrancewayatthispointintheditchcircuit.Anargumentwasbeginningtodevelopamongstourselves.Wastheenclosurebuiltinavariable,segmentedwayorwasitplannedasanoveralldesignimplyinggreatercentralisationofdecision-making?Towhatextentwastheenclosureahermeneuticcircleinthepast?Whatwastherelationbetweenpartandwhole?Thepresenceofamajorentrancewaywouldprovidesomeinsightintothesequestions.In1982threelengthsofditchwerediscovered,labelledCtoEfromnorthtosouth.Theyallowedustobegintofilloutthehermeneuticcirclewithrepeatedsoliddata.DitchesC,DandEallseemedsimilartoeachotheringeneraloutlineandsequence,withprimaryandsecondaryphasesoffillandactivity,andwithburningassociatedwiththesecondaryactivities.PerhapsthesephasesrecalledtheprimaryandsecondaryrecuttinginditchA.Theevidencewasasyettooscantytoallowgeneralisationbutthepossibilitywasemergingthatalltheditcheshadgonethroughsimilarphasesofuse.Ontheotherhand,thedifferencesfromAweremarked.The1982ditchesdidnotappeartocontainrecuts.Thevariabilitywasindeedquitemarked.ThepalisadeaccompaniedditchesDandEbutnotC.DitchCwasonadifferentalignment.Evidenceofboneconcentrationsandburningwasfoundatdifferentplacesalongtheditches(forexample,intheterminalofCbutinthecentreofD)andwasabsentfromE.Therewas Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle191noevidenceofamajorentrancewaybetweenditchesCandD,althoughitremainedpossiblethatC,withoutitspalisade,wasnotpartofthecircuitatall,butactedtochannelmovementintotheinterioroftheenclosure.Theothersideofanentrancewaymayhavebeenfoundbyexcavatingfarthertothenorth.ThishypothesisseemsunlikelygiventhesimilarityofthisditchtothosetothesouthandgiventhelackofspecialactivitiesassociatedwiththenorthernbuttendofditchD.Theairphotographsrathersuggestthatthecircuitchangeditscourseabruptlyatthispointasitdidinthenorthwestcorner(Figure18).Thelackofentrancewayunderminesthenotionofaunifiedplanandconcentratesourattentiononceagainonthevariationandsegmentationofactivitiesaroundtheenclosure.IndeeditwaspossiblethatthetwodeeperbuttendsofditchDsomehowindicatedsegmentedactivitiesbutwehadnoevidenceofthisasyet.Thedensitiesofartifactsandactivitiesintheditcheswerelowandtherewaslittletosuggestritualdeposits.Alltheevidencecouldbecontainedwithinahypothesisofmundanedumpingandburning.Overall,theevidenceseemedrelativelysimple.Wasthisbecauserelativelylittlehadhappenedinthispartofthesiteorwasitbecausewehadmissedtheevidence?Afterall,1981hadshownusthedifficultiesresultingfrominexperienceofthesite.Wehadmadeprogressin1982,buthadwereallydiscoveredallwemighthave?Tomakemattersworse,theweatherhadbeenextremelydryduringtheSeptemberexcavationandonthewell-drainedgravelsthestratigraphyhadbeendifficulttosee.Conversely,inthefinalweek,whenwewerediggingthelowerlevelsoftheditches,theweatherwasremarkablywetandsotoowerethesedeposits.Inadditiontotheseclimaticproblems,perhapswehadstilltolearnhowtoseerecuts.The‘data’arepartofthehermeneuticcircle.Wesawwhatwehadtheexperiencetosee.Wewouldneedtoexcavateothersectionsofditchinordertoevaluatetheexistenceofrecuts.The1984seasonSowesetoffaroundthehermeneuticcircle.Thenexttimethatwecouldexcavateonthecausewayedenclosureditcheswasinthelatesummerof1984.Thespecificlocationoftheexcavationswasagainpartlycontingent,dependingontheharvestingandplantingregimeofthefarmerofthispartoftheland.Butwealsochoseaspotwhere,ontheairphotograph,thepalisadeseemedtobesetmuchfartherbackfromtheditchesthanin1982.Wasthisanexampleofvariabilityaroundtheenclosure,andinwhatotherwaysweretheditchesheredifferentfromthoseinotherpartsoftheenclosure?Weexcavatedfiveditches(FtoJ)oftheenclosurecircuitin1984.Inthefirstditch(F)weseemedtoseeatleastonedeeperbuttend.ThisevidencerecalledthetwodeeperendsofditchD.Werewebeginningtoseearepeatedpattern?Andwhatdiditmean?Theimmediateproblemwasthattheevidencecouldbeinterpretedinopposingways.Theunevenshapeofthebaseoftheditch(F)couldsimplybetheresultofthewayinwhichtheditchwasdugasoneeventandbyonegroup.Theunevennesswouldthensimplybetheresultofinformalityinthediggingprocess.Alternativelytheditchcouldinitiallyhavebeendugastwoevents,eitherbytwo‘gangs’atthesamemomentintimeorbyonegroupproducingrecutsatdifferentmoments.Itbegantobenecessarytoconstructeventandsequencehypotheses.Theissueextendedtothefillsoftheditches.Itwasrarelypossibletodistinguishrecuts Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology192fromsequentiallayerswithanycertainty.DitchFcouldbeseenaccordingtothesequenceviewashavingundergonefourrecuttingeventsaftertheinitialditchhadbeendug.Moreparsimonious,theeventviewsawonlyonerecuttingwhenditchesFandGwerejoinedatalatestage.Despitethispossiblygreatercomplexityofsomeditches,somepatternsseemedtohold,suchasamajordivisionintotwophasesofactivityintheprimaryandsecondaryfillsandadistinctioninartifactpatterningbetweenthecentralandendportionsoftheditches.BothditchesGandHwererelativelysimple,accordingtobotheventandsequenceviewpoints.DitchGhadoneortworecutswhileevensequencethinkersonlyclaimedthreerecutsforditchH.Bothditcheshadalowdensityoffinds.DitchI(Figure20)wasremarkableinitscomplexityanditwasthefirstditchforwhichitwaspossibletoargueforaritualinterpretation.Itisnotatallobviouswhysomethingsseemritualtoarchaeologists.Theinitialimpressionisthatthetermisusedfortheoddandthenotunderstood.Thisemphasisonoddnessisoftenthestartingpointtooforethno-graphicinterestinritual(Sperber1974).CertainlyditchIwasoddinvariousways.Atitsbaseitcontainedacentralridgeormoundwhichwasanoddthingtoleaveinthecentreofaditch.Theridgewasatadifferentangletothesmallerhumpswhichwerefoundinthebaseofotherditches.Butoddnessisclearlynotanadequatebasisfordefiningritual.Universaldefinitionsofritualneedtobetemperedbycontextualdefinitions.Thelatterinvolvecontrastingdifferenttypesofdeposit.DitchIseemedspecialinthatitcontainednotonlyverycomplexrecuttingincomparisontotheotherditches,butalsohumanbonesandapolishedaxe.Thisassemblage,associatedwiththeaxialmoundintheditchandthusintentionally‘placed’,suggestedformalisedbehaviourrelatedtoburial.Itwasdifficulttoarguethatthedepositswerepurelytheresultofrefusediscardfromdomesticorfeastingactivities.Alsorelevanttotheritualinterpretationoftheditcharetheparallelswhichcanbedrawnbetweentheoverallsequencesofactivitiesintheditchandinanadjacentlongbarrow(HodderandShand1988).FirstthetwolinearhalfsofditchIweredugsothatthecentralaxisremained,asthelongbarrowwasbuiltrespectingacentralaxis.DitchIwasthenfilledbutrecutleavingamoundinthecentreoftheditch.Depositswerethenplacedatthesouthernorsoutheasternendofthemound,fillingditchIatthispoint.AsaresultaditchwithaU-shapedplanhadbeenproducedwithinditchI,foralltheworldliketheU-planditcharoundthelongbarrow.Humanboneswereassociatedwithboththeditchandthelongbarrow.AbrokenaxewasplacedontopofthemoundinditchI.TheU-planditchinIfilledupbutwasrecuttwotimesatthenorthernendinordertoredefinetheaxialmound.Burntmaterialwasdepositedintheserecutsasitwasinthefillwhichcoveredoverthemound.Thefinalfilloftheditchcontainedredepositedsoil.Thesepenultimateactsofburntmaterialwhichineffect‘closeoff’theuseoftheditchanditscentralmoundrecalltheuseofburningtowardstheendoftheactivityatthelongbarrow.ThereareofcoursedifferencesbetweenditchIandthelongbarrow,particularlyinthewayinwhichartifactsweredepositedandintheirorientation.Itmaynotbetoofancifultosuggest,however,thatthehumanbonedepositatthesoutheasternendoftheditchmoundparallelsthehumanbonedepositatthenortheasternendofthelongbarrow Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle193Figure20DitchI,Haddenhamcausewayedenclosure,(a)Plan,(b)cross-section Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology194mound.InbothcasestheopeningintheU-planditchisassociatedwiththehumanbonedeposits.Inbothcasesthemoundishigherwithasteeper‘front’attheeasternend.Movingacrosswhatappearedtobeanarrowbutwasearlierawidecauseway,wecametoalongsectionofditch(J).DitchJcontinuedtheevidenceofalongsequenceofactivitiesfoundinditchI.Notonlywerethesetwoditchesdistinctiveintheamountofactivitywhichoccurredinthem,butalsothesequencesofactivityhadanoverallsimilarity.Soonafterthegapbetweenthemhadbeennarrowed,thefocusofactivitiesineachoftheditchesshiftedtothebuttendsoneithersideofthecauseway.Clearlyinthelatterpartoftheperiodoftheuseoftheditchestheentrancewayhadcometotakeonaspecialsignificance.Thisentrance-relatedactivitywasnotevidentearlieron.Summaryof1984seasonWebegantothinkthatwehadmissedalotofevidenceinearlieryearsontheenclosureditches.Ourgreaterfamiliaritywiththedifficultandleachedsoilsallowedusin1984tofindmoreevidenceofrecutting.Andourrelaxationofthepolicyofmaintaininglongitudinalsectionsallowedustounderstandtheditchesmoreaswholes.Asaresultwehadtodevelopeventandsequenceviewpointswhichwerearguedoutonadailybasisonthesite.Wastheirregularityinthecuttingoftheditchestheresultofdifferent‘workgangs’orsequencesofdifferentevents?Shouldthelayersoffillbeinterpretedasrecuts?Theresolutionoftheseproblemswasnotalwaysclear,butatleastwewerenowraisingthequestions.Thenotionofvariabilitywasnowcertainlyacentralissue.Ontheonehand,thevariationintheactivitiesintheditcheswasmarked.DitchesIandJweremuchmorecomplexthanthoseadjacenttothesouth(F,G,H).Also,therewasvariationthroughtimeinthatditchesFandGwerejoinedintooneatalatestage,andtheearlylargegapbetweenIandJwaslaternarrowed.Ontheotherhand,thegapbetweenditchesIandJcouldbeinterpretedasamajorentrancewayintotheenclosure.Inthiscase,thecomplexdepositsinditchesIandJrelatedtoactivitiesassociatedwithenteringtheenclosureasawhole.Theevidencefromthepalisade(p.234)showedthattheI-Jgaphadbeenanentrancewhichwaslaterblockedbyclosingthepalisadeatthispoint.Theexistenceofoneorafewentranceswouldimplyanoverallplantothesiteandthereforedrawattentiontothewholeratherthantosegmentationandvariability.Indeedsomeaspectsofthelayoutoftheenclosurecouldbearguedtosupportthenotionofanoverallplanwithmajorentranceways(Evans1988).Despitethevariabilitythroughtimeastherelationshipsbetweenditcheschanged,therewasalsoevidenceforcontinuityofuseinthewayinwhichsomeditcheswereused.DitchesIandJwithcomplexseriesofearlyactivitiesalsohadcomplexsecondaryfills.TheaxialmoundinditchIwasretainedbybeingremodelledorrecutlateron.The1987seasonIntheyearsbetween1984and1987wearguedovertheissueofwhethertherewasanoverallplantotheenclosure.Ontheonehanditseemedpossibletopointtoallthevariabilitywehadfoundandtotheappar-entlyrandomvariationinlengthofditchasone Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle195movedaroundthecircuit.Thepalisadewaseitherabsent(1981season)closetotheditches(1982season)ordistantfromthem(1984season).Ontheotherhand,wehadalsobeguntodiscoverregularitiesinthewaytheditchesweredugandusedovertime,particularlyintermsofdistinctionsbetweenprimaryandsecondaryfills.Perhapsweshouldexcavateapartofthecircuitwhereanentranceseemedmostlikelyontheairphotographs.Thesearchformajorentranceswascombinedwithadecisiontoexcavateaslargeasectionoftheperimeteraswaspossiblewithintheseason’sconstraints.Sixditchsegments(KtoP)wereexcavatedoveraconsiderablearea(Figure18).Theaimwastoobtainafurtherideaofthevariabilitybetweenditcheswithinalocalisedpartoftheperimeter.Ifanotherextensivelengthofditcheswasuncovered,whattypeofvariabilitymightbefound?Wewereunwittinglymovingaroundtheenclosureinaclockwisedirection,butinourthinkingweweretryingtoclosethehermeneuticcircleandmakeoverallsenseofthedataintermsofunity,variability,sequenceandritual.Bytheendofthe1987seasonwefeltthatthecirclewasbeginningtocloseinthesensethatwewerefindingthesamethingsoverandoveragain.Wehadcrackedthecode,foundthestructure.Inparticular,thesequencesofeventsintheditchesweresimilar—eventheevidencethatwehadcollectedearlyoncouldbe‘reread’tofitintothesamepattern.Normallywehadfoundmultiplephasesofearlypittingatopposedendsoftheditch,associatedwithcarefulcleaningoutofearlierfills.Thebottomoftheditchwasthenallowedtofillupquicklywithsands,gravels,claysandmarl.Duringthisperioditemssuchasskull,antler,potandpolishedaxeweredepositedintheditch,oftenonthecentralaxis.Theendofthisphaseofinitialfillingoftheditchwasusuallyassociatedwithevidenceofcharcoalandburning.Recutsalsooccurredinthesecondary,slowerfillsandtherewasoftenevidenceofmarkingthebuttendsoftheditcheswithlatepitsandpost-holes.Anotherpatternwhichwasclarifiedinthe1987seasonwasthatalthoughconcentrationsoffindsandrecuttingwerefoundtomovetowardsthebuttendsinthesecondaryfills(e.g.ditchesL,N,O)ashadbeenfoundin1984,suchactivitieswerealsoconcentratedinthebuttendsinprimaryfills(e.g.K,L,M,N,O).Perhapsagreaterregularitywouldoccurinrelationtoentrances.Afterall,wehadexcavatedinthisspotinordertofindamajorentrance.Hadwefoundone?Theanswertothisquestionmustpartlyawaitthediscussionofthepalisade,buttheonlyobvious‘pairing’ofditchesashadbeenfoundin1984withIandJoccurredbetweenNandOwhichhadthesmallestofcausewaysbetweenthem.Clearlythiswasnotamajorentrance.WehadexpectedtheentrancebetweenMandN.Certainlytherewasalargecausewayhere(althoughnolargerthanthatbetweenOandP),andcertainlythesouthernendofN,nearerthe‘entrance’,containedmuchevidenceofrecuttingandfindsdeposition.Butthenorthern‘entrance’endofMdidnotcontainhighdensitiesofartifactsandtherewasmoreevidenceofrecuttingatitssouthernend.Humanbonewasfoundinthenorthernbuttendbutitwasdifficulttoargueonthisbasisforamajorentrancewayatthispoint.Ifthevariationbetweenditchescouldnotberelatedtomajorentranceways,whatotherfactorsmightbeconsidered?Thevariationwasafterallverymarked.SomeditchessuchasKandPwererelativelysimplewhileotherssuchasL,M,N,Owereextremely Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology196complexinthattheyhadmanyrecutsanddepositsofartifacts.Infact,atleastinthecaseofPthereseemedtobeacorrelationbetweenlittleevidenceofrecuttingandfewartifacts.ThisrecalledthesimilarevidencefromGandH.Inaddition,allthese‘simple’ditcheswererelativelysmall.Anideabegantoemerge.Perhapsthemorecomplexditcheswerelargerorwerenearerlargerditchesthanthesimpleditches.Thiswasamatterthatwouldhavetobefollowedthoughoutthewholeenclosure(seebelow,p.230).Perhapsthemostimportantresultofthe1987seasonwasthevindicationofthesequenceview—beyondeventhewildestdreamsofthesequencethinkersthemselves.Whatwewerediggingwasnotsomuchathingasaprocess.Acertainbipolaritywasevident,withrepeatedevidenceofadivisionoftheditchesintotwoends.Butwithinthisbalanceseeminglyanythingcouldhappen.Ditcheswerecontinuallybeingrecutandrealigned,joineduptoadjacentditchesor‘paired’withthem,dividedintoshorterditchesandthencombinedagain.Itwasdifficulttoseeanymethodinthiscomplexityapartfromthedualityofendsandthesequentialstructureoutlinedabove.Onceagainthiswasamatterthatwouldhavetobeexaminedthroughouttheenclosure.Wehadcompletedthecircle.Wehadbuiltupageneralunderstandingofhowtheditcheswereorganised.Butarchaeologyisnotsimplyamatterofamassingobjectivedatainalinearsequence.Rather,wetendtogoback,or‘round’,tothedatawefirstcollectedandreinterprettheminthelightofourmostrecentinterpretations.Andsoallour‘data’haveaprovisionalcharacter.Wearecontinuallycirclingbackonthemtogivethemnewmeaning,tryingtofindaninterpretationthatmakessenseofthewholeintermsofthepartsandthepartsintermsofthewhole.Soitisnecessarytogoonroundtheenclosureagaintoreconsiderourearlytentativedata.Couldwenowmakesenseofourearlymistakes?Thecircleisnotaviciousone.Althoughwewerebackwherewehadstarted,withthe1981ditchesAandB,wehadmovedon.Thecirclewasreallyaspiral.Wemaynothaveprogressedbutwehadcertainlychangedourposition.Wehadprovedourselvesnottobehermeticallysealedwithinourownassumptions.The1981season—againTowardstheendofthe1987seasonwebegantothinkthatwemusthavemissedsomeimportantevidenceconcerningthe1981palisade.Wehadinitiallytendedtoassumeconsiderablevariabilityaroundtheenclosure,andsohadacceptedthatthepalisadedidnotexistinthenorthernpartoftheenclosure,asitdidnotseemtoexistinsideditchC.However,wehadnowfoundthepalisadeeverywhereelseexceptditchCandwealsonowknewthatthepalisadewassometimessetwellbackfromtheditches.In1981wehadnotexcavatedtothebaseoftheprehistoricsoilintheareafarthestfromditchesAandB.Perhapswehadmissedthepalisadethere.Inaddition,wehadnotfoundaditchtotheeastofditchB.Wasthecausewaytherereallysobigorwasitpossiblethattheditchesdidnotcontinuearoundthewholeenclosure?Inordertosettlethesequestionsweusedamachinein1987touncoverthe1981trenches.TheinformationobtainedisshowninFigure19.WehadbeencorrectinouridentificationofthesmallditchBandtherewasasubstantialcausewaytoitseastwithoutfeatures.Butwehadjustmissedthebeginningofafurtherditchtotheeast.Inaddition, Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle197ourtrencheshadnotextendedfarenoughtothesouthtopickupthepalisade.Itwasalsopossibletoreconsiderotheraspectsofthe1981data.Forexample,wecouldnowtrytomakesenseofthefillsofditchA.Theupstandingcentralblockof‘paleorange-greysand’intheditchprobablyrepresentedadepositofwhatwelatercametocallmarl—anaturaldepositasinditchJ.Lesslikely,itcouldhaverepresentedacentralridgeormoundasinditchI.Thelensof‘palegrey’abovethemarlmaywellhavebeenevidenceofburningjustbeneathoratthebaseofasecondaryrecut.Otherevidencetoobegantomakesense.ThelatefeaturesfoundinthebuttendofditchAweresimilartothosefoundelsewhere(e.g.ditchO).InfactapitcontaininggraininDitchAsuggestedthattheselateractivitiesmayhavebeenmore‘occupational’thantheearlieractivities.Thispossibilitywouldmeanthatwewouldhavetogoaroundthewholecircleagainlookingforsupportordenialofthisshiftfromritualtooccupationbyreconsideringtheevidence.EvenditchBbegantofitintoapattern.Wehadfoundverylittleintheditch.Itwasasmallditchandwedidnotseeanyevidenceofrecutting.Eventhoughwecouldhavemissedsuchevidence,ditchBwasapossibleexampleofthecorrelationbetweenditchsize,complexityandfindsdensity.The1982season—againClearlywecouldgoonroundthecircleadinfinitum,graduallyreinterpretingourreinterpretations.Afterabitwewouldreachacertainstabilityuntileitherourdataorourideaschanged.Idointendtochangethedatabymovingtoanotheraspectofthewholecirclethatmakesuptheenclosure—thepalisade.However,beforesummarisingtheevidencewehavegainedfromtheditchesitisnecessarybrieflytoreconsiderthe1982season.Themainproblemwewereleftwithherewaswhetherwehadin1982missedsubstantialevidenceofrecuttingbecauseofourinexperience.Thedataarenotindependentofourexpectations.Ifwehadnotexcavatedin1984and1987wewouldhavesaidthe1982datadidnotindicaterecutting.Wecouldnotseerecutsinthetrenchsections.But,havingbeenroundthehermeneuticcircle,werealisedthatwehadalmostcertainlynotseendatathatwouldhaveallowedadifferentinterpretation.Theonlyditchwhichhadbeenexcavatedalongitsentirelengthin1982wasditchD.Reconsiderationoftheplanofthishasshowedrealignments.Theditchhadanarrowerandshallowercentralsectionandtwodeeperends.Theseaspectsoftheevidencerecalledditchesexcavatedinlateryearsnotonlyintermsofbipolarity,butalsointermsofchangesthroughtimeinthelayoutoftheditch(cf.particularlyditchesMandN).ItwasdifficulttoreconstructthesequenceofactivitiesinDinanydetail,butalmostcertainlysomerecuttinghadoccurred.SummaryoftheditchesInwritingasummaryoftheresultsoftheexcavationsoftheditches,theaimisnottoreachapointatwhichwecansay‘that’sit’.Thereisnofinality,foranumberofreasons.First,wewouldhavereacheddifferentconclusionsifwehadexcavatedmoreofthe Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology198enclosureditches.Second,wewillneedtoconsiderotherdatasuchasthepalisadeandthefinds.Inasense,then,wewillbeabletokeepgoingroundthecircleofourinterpretations,graduallytransformingthemasweadjusttonewdata.Third,evenwithoutnewdata,interpretationswillchangeinthefutureasourideasandtheorieschange—aswelearntoseewithneweyeswewillcomebacktothedataandlookatthemfromanewangle.Themostobviouspointsabouttheditcheshavealreadybeenmadeinthesummaryofthe1987evidence.Therewasclearevidenceofstructureintheditches,bothintermsofthesequenceofactivitiesandintermsofaspatialbipolarity.Otherstructure,suchasanoverallemphasisonthesouthernendsoftheditches,amovethroughtimetowardsactivitiesattheterminals,andashiftthroughtimefromritualtooccupationaluse,wasevidentonlyambiguously.Indeed,thesecondmostobviouspointwastheevidenceofvariability.Ofcourse,thishadbeenoneofourexpectationsbeforewebegandiggingandtheremustalwaysbesomesuspicionwhenweclaimthatwefoundwhatwewerelookingfor.Thevariabilitywasnotsomuchintherelationbetweentheditchesandthepalisadewhichwasfoundeverywhere,exceptatditchC.Ratherthevariabilityconcernedditchlength,causewaylengthandsequencesofrecuttingandotheractivities.Itisnotmyintentto‘explain’this‘variability’,inthetruefashionofprocessualarchaeology,bydrawinguponuniversalcorrelates.Rather,IwillattempttolookforinternalcorrelateswiththehelpofFigure21andtoenmeshthesewithinaninterpretationwhichwillformpartofacircle,latertobelinkedtootheraspectsofthedatainattemptingtoconstructawhole.Itwasimmediatelyclearfromaconsiderationoftheevidencethatsomeditchesweremoreelaboratethanothersinthattheyhadmorerecuts,moreplaceddeposits,morefinds,moreevidenceofburningandhumanbone.Alsoclearwasthatthesemoreelaborateditchestendedtooccurtogether.Thusin1984ditchesGandHformedapairofsimpleditches(perhapslinkedwithF)incontrasttothemoreelaboratepairIandJ.In1987,thesequencestartedandendedwiththesimpleditchesKandP,whereasinbetweenwerefoundincreasinglyandthendecreasinglycomplexditches(L,M,N,O).Theclustersofmoreelaborateditchesmighthavebeenthoughttorelatetothepositionofmajorentrancesintotheenclosure.Thedifficultyhere,ininterpretingtheevidence,isthatourexcavationstrategyhadbeenguidedbytheideaofentrances.Wehadnot,therefore,excavatedinareaswithoutwhatlookedlikemajorentrances,exceptin1981whentheevidencewasinanycasedifficulttointerpret.Asisalwaysthecase,ourexcavationstrategyhadtosomeextentensuredthatwefoundwhatwewerelookingfor.Nevertheless,intermsoftheevidenceavailabletous,theentrancehypothesisseemedatleastincompletesincetherewerepairingsofcomplexditcheswhichwerenotentrancesandotherwidecausewayswithoutelaborateditches.Theevidencewouldnotfittogetherbytakingthislineofattack.Thegroupofelaborateditchesin1987seemedlargerthancouldbeexplainedbyreferencetoanyputativeentrance.Fourditches(L,M,N,O)wereinvolvedhere.Analternative‘whole’whichmightbegintomakesenseofthedatawasthatthemoreelaborateditchesconcentratedaroundlongerditches.Thelengthsofditchesinthe1987seasongraduallyincreasedandthendecreasedfromKtoP.Inthemiddleoftheelaborate Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle199ditcheswasditchN,25mlong.Similarlyin1984,oneoftheelaboratepairofditches(IandJ)wasverylong(Jbeing19m).Indeed,wehadnotexcavatedanylongditchwhichwassimple.In1982wehadexcavatedditchDwhichwas29.2mlongandourreinterpretationofthisditchsuggestedthatittoomusthavebeenrelativelyelaboratewithplaceddepositsandsequentialdiggingorrecutting.ThelinkbetweenditchlengthandcomplexityisshowninFigure21.Figure21LengthsoftheHaddenhamenclosureditchsegmentsinrelationtonatureofdeposits,numbersoffindsandrecutsHereitisclearthatlongditcheswerebothmoreelaboratethemselvesandweresurroundedbymoreelaborateditches.Howmightweinterpretthispattern,whichisitselfaninterpretation?Weneedtostartbyestablishingwhattypeofsocialunitwasrepresentedbytheditches.Itisdifficulttoarguethattheysimplyrepresentworkunitswhichcametogethermerelytodigtheditch.Theprocessinvolvedmorethandiggingaholeintheground.Theholewascarefullycleanedoutandremodelledanddepositsincludinghumanbonesweresometimesplacedinit.Thisuseoftheditchthroughtimeshowedclearevidenceofcontinuity.Complexprimarydepositswereoftenfollowedbycomplexsecondaryfillsandviceversa.Thespecificusesoftheditchesalsoshowedcontinuities.ForexamplethecentralmoundwasreformedinditchI.Thesevariouscontinuitiesthrougharangeofdifferentactivitiesimplythatmorethanawork‘gang’wasinvolved.Rather,theditchesrelatedtounitswhichhadalonger,andthereforeasocialandstructuralexistence.Letusassume,therefore,thatthesizeoftheditch,thewayitwasdugandmaintained,andthedepositionalpracticeswithinit,werepartlyamatterofsocialdisplay.Largerormoresuccessfulgroupswereabletomobilisemorelabour.Perhapsthedigging,careand Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology200useoftheditcheshelpedtodefinesocialstatus.Theditcheswerenot,however,independentofeachother.Adjacentditcheswereoftensimilar,theyoftenseemed‘paired’acrosscausewaysandsometimestheywerephysicallyjoinedorbroughtcloserthroughtime.Letusfurtherassume,therefore,thatthegroupswhichexcavatedandusedadjacentditchesweremoreclosely‘related’insomewaythanthosewhichuseddistantditches.Thosegroupsorworkunitswhichconstructedandusedditchesnearthelargerditchesmayhaveformedalargergroupingthatbenefitedfromthegreatersuccessofthelargerditchunit.Theditchclusterasawholewasabletogainaccesstomorelabourthroughtimetotendtocleaningandrecuttingoftheditches,wasmoreabletogainaccesstoprestigiousgoods(suchaspolishedaxes),andwasmoreabletoconductdepositionalandburialrituals.Peripheralorsmallergroupswerelessabletobecomeinvolvedintheseactivities.Thecompetitivenatureofditch-digginganduseactivitiesisseenclearlythroughtime.Asalreadynoted,theenclosurewaslessathingthanaprocess.Ditcheswerecontinuallybeingsubdividedorjoined.Emphasischangedfromditchcentrestoterminalsorfromoneterminaltoitsopposite.Withintheoverallunityor‘whole’oftheenclosuretherewastensionatvariousscales.Atonescale,wecouldseefromtheairphotographsthatsomeditcheswerelargerthanothers,andthisvariabilitywasconfirmedintheexcavationsoftheditches.Atanotherscale,thecommonstructureoftheditcheswascontinuallybeingtransformed.Ifalinkismadebetweentheditchesandsocialunits,theditchevidenceseemstobetellingusthatsocialallianceswerecontinuallybeingrealignedandrenegotiated.Tosomedegreewehavedonelittlemorethandefine‘elite’and‘non-elite’groups—butinrelationtoditchesratherthantoburialsorhouses.However,wehavemadethreefurtherimportantclaims.First,thesocialstructurehasbeenarguedtobeorganisedbutcompetitiveandcontinuallynegotiatedandchanging.Second,wehavebeguntodefinethebasisforthedefinitionofsocialgroupings.Whileaccesstopolishedaxesandotherexchangegoodsandinvolvementinburialritualsmayhaveformedcomponentsofsocialposition,thecomponentmostdirectlyobservabletousattheenclosurewascontroloverlabour.Themostelaborateditcheswerethoseassociatedmostcloselywithditchesinwhichmostearthhadbeenmovedbothinitiallyandinthelaterrecutting.Third,wehaveimplicitlybeguntomakeassumptionsabouttheideaswhichlaybehindthecompetitivedisplayandthecontroloflabour.Theseideasinvolveddefiningandperhapsdefendingtheenclosureasawhole.Thecontributionofthesegmentedlabouractivitieswastotheformationofalargerentity.Butthatlargerentitywasformedinaspecificway—themovementoflargeamountsofsoilanddiggingintotheground.Depositsseemtohavebeenespeciallyplacedintheditchesastheywerefillingup(asdepositswereplacedonthefacadeofthelongburialmoundasitwasbeingbuiltup).Somehoworother,inwayswhichremaintobeexplored,thediggingofanddepositionwithinthegrounddefinednotonlythelargerenclosuregroup,butalsothewayinwhichthatgroupexpressedcompetitiveendeavours.Sofarwehavetriedtoencapsulatetheevidencefromtheditchesintoaninterpretationbyaccommodatingparttowholeandbyshowingthatalternativeinterpretations(forexample,thatvariationcanbeexplainedsolelybythepositionsofentrances)providealessgoodfit.However,ourpreferredinterpretationwillneedtotakeintoaccountfurther Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle201evidence.Themorewecanaccommodateourtheoryanddatathroughargumentsofcoherenceandcorrespondence,themoreplausibledoesouraccountbecome.Inthefullreportofthesitewewillmove‘round’allthedatametaphorically.Forthemoment,wecancontinuetomoveroundthedataliterallybyfollowingthepalisadearoundtheenclosureinthedifferentyearsofexcavation.THEPALISADEUnlikecausewayedenclosureditcheswhichhavebeenthesubjectofmuchdebateconcerningtheirsupposedlyritualnature,fewercausewayedenclosurepalisadeshavebeenexcavated.Wethereforeapproachedthepalisade,orwhatweassumedfromtheairphotographstobeapalisade,withverydifferentexpectations.Ourinitialassumptionswerethatthisfeaturewouldbesimple,withoutritual.Ourmajordifficultywasexpectedtobeoneofdating.Howcouldwediscoverwhethertheditchesandpalisadewerecontemporary?Fromtheairphotographsitwasclearthatthegapsinthepalisadesometimescorrespondedtothecausewaysbetweentheditches.Theyhadtobeatleastpartlycontemporary,butweretheyentirelyso?Wedidnotexpectthattheanswertothisquestionwouldnecessarilybesimple.Asalreadynoted,weassumedinitiallythattherewouldbegreatvariabilityaroundtheenclosureandweexpectedthepalisadetobepartofthis.Itdidnotundulyworryus,therefore,whenwedidnotdiscoverthepalisadein1981.Asthe1987re-excavationsofthe1981areashowedwehadnottakenourtrenchesfarenoughintotheinterioroftheenclosuretopickupthepalisadewhichatthispointwaswellwithin(c.13.5mwithin)theditches.Thetrenchforthepalisade,asdiscoveredin1982,wasverydeepandregular.Theaveragedepthwas0.75m(belowbaseoftheprehistoricsoil).Almostnofindswerefoundinthe1982palisadetrenchfills,implyinglittleoccupationaluseofthesoilsbeforeandduringconstruction.Thegapsinthepalisadecloselyfollowedthoseintheditches,suggestingatleastpartialcontemporaneity.Noevidencewasfoundinthefillsofthepalisadetrenchofacollapsedinteriorbank.Movingclockwisearoundthe1984palisadecirclewasparalleltomovingroundthe1984ditches.Asonemovedfromsouthtonorththeditcheshadbecomemorecomplex(IandJ)withmorerecutting.Similarly,asonemovednorthwardsalongthepalisadeitbecamedeeper,withclearerevidenceofgravelpackingandwithclearerevidenceofrecutting.Thisevidence,therefore,supportedtheimpressiongainedin1982thatthepalisadeandditcheswerecloselycontemporary.Therewasalsoacertainsequentialsimilarityinthatthepostimpressionsfoundinthe1984palisadeseemedtohavebeenassociatedwithburning,recallingthelatepostsandburninginseveraloftheditches.Ontheotherhand,evidencefrom1984suggestedthatthelinkbetweenthepalisadeandtheditcheswaslessstrongthaninthe1982area.Inthefirstplace,thepalisadewassetwellbackfromtheditches.Inthesecondplace,thegapsorbreaksinthepalisadedidnotappeartocorrespondwiththecausewaysbetweentheditches.Thissecondpointinvolvedseveraluncertainties.Superficially,allthe1984palisade,exceptthesmallsouthernsegment,couldhavebeenseenasonecontinuousstretch.The Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology202evidencefromthepostimpressionscertainlysuggestedthatformuchofitslengththepalisadehadendedupasacontinuousfence.Thusanyoneenteringtheenclosurethroughthe1984causewayswouldatsomepointintimehavebeenmetbyacontinuousfenceallowingnoentryexceptperhapsthroughdoorwaysforwhichnoevidencewasfound.However,partofthe1984palisadewasaddedlaterandmayhavefilledinanearliergapcorrespondingtotheearliercausewaybetweenditchesIandJ.Othersegmentsofthepalisadeappearedtobeconstructional,butitwasalsopossiblethattheytoorepresentedlaterclosingofgapsinthepalisade.Thecombinedevidencefromthe1982and1984palisadeindicatedthatthepalisadeandditcheswereatleastpartiallycontemporary.Butitwasnowbeginningtolookasifthepalisadewasassociatedwithalateuseoftheenclosure.Afterall,therewouldhavebeenlittlepointinallowingmultipleentrancesintotheenclosurethroughtheditchesifasolidpalisadeexistedatthesametime.The1984ditcheshadprovidedevidenceofgradualrestrictionofaccessthroughtime.Forexample,ditchesFandGhadbeenjoinedatalatedateintheiruseandthegapbetweenIandJhadbeennarrowed.Thepalisadeasawhole,oratleastthefillinginofanygapsinit,mayalsohaveplayedapartinthisprocessofclosure.Therewaslittleevidenceinthefillsofthepalisadeforasubstantialbankbehindit.Inanycase,thesoilfromtheditcheswouldhavebeenunlikelytohavebeenplacedbehindapalisadeatsuchadistancefromthem.Atightfunctionallinkbetweenditchesandpalisadewasthereforenotwarrantedinourarguments.Theevidencefromthe1987excavationsagainshowedthatthepalisadehadprobablybeenconstructedinsegments.Butin1987,distinctentrancesweremorefrequentthanin1984.Twoofthethreeentrancescorrespondedonlyinexactlytothecauseways.TheotherpalisadegapoccurredtothenorthoftheexcavatedditchesbutcouldhavecorrespondedtoacausewaynorthofditchP.Theimpreciselinkbetweenpalisadegapsandcausewaysmayhavebeenrelatedtotheconsiderabledistancebetweenthepalisadeandditchcircuitsatthispoint.Thefindsdensitiesfromthe1987palisadetrenchwereverylowincontrastto1984.Therewerealsootherdifferencesbetweenthetwoareas.Inparticular,whilethe1984palisadehadbytheendofitslifeseverelyrestrictedaccessintotheenclosure,the1987palisaderetainedmoreentrances,oneofwhichwaselaboratedbyaninturn.Thevariationbetweentheexcavatedpalisadeswasbeginningtobeclearlymarkedandneedsnowtobeexploredovertheenclosureasawhole.Thepalisade—conclusionWehadfirstfoundthepalisadein1982.Herethepalisadewassetclosetotheditches.Inthesamewayourinterpretationsbeganbybeingcloselylinkedtothoseoftheditches.Forexample,theclosespatiallinkagessuggestedasimilardateforbothcircuitsandasimilarfunction.Inaddition,thesegmentationofthepalisadeseemedtomirrorthatinditchD.Butaswemovedroundtheenclosure,ourinterpretationsofthetwotypesofcircuitbegantodivergeasindeeddidthepalisadeandditchesthemselves.Bythetimewehadreturnedtothe1981excavationandreexcavateditin1987inordertolocatethepalisade, Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle203wehadamassedevidenceforconsiderabledifferencesbetweenpalisadeandditches.Thepalisadeatthispointwasafull13.5mwithintheditches,whereasithadstartedatadistanceof1.5min1982.Inbetween,in1984and1987thedistancevariedfrom7.6mto12.0m.Interpretationsandcircuitshaddivergedintandem.Thehermeneuticcirclewasindeedspiral-like.Thedifferenceininterpretationpartlyconcernedfunctionandsocialrole.Ontheonehand,bothpalisadeandditcheshadevidenceofsegmentedconstruction.Bothpalisadeandditcheshadevidenceofrecutting.Despitethesesimilarities,itwasundoubtedlythecasethatthepalisadehadlessevidenceofrecuttingthanthecomplexditches.Aswemovedroundthepalisadecircuitwerealisedthatthepalisadedidnothavethe‘placed’depositsorcomplexrecuttingswethoughtwewereabletoidentifyintheditches.Thesegmentedpalisademayhaverepresentedsocialcompetitionanddisplaybuttherewaslessevidenceofalongseriesofactivities.Andtherewasnothingwecouldcall‘ritual’.Anotherdifferenceininterpretationconcerneddate.Aswemovedroundtheenclosurethepalisadebecamefartherremovedfromtheditches.Inaddition,thedetailedcorrespondencebetweenpalisadegapsandditchcausewaysbecameincreasinglyinexact.Alreadyin1982wehadnotedthatthealignmentsofditchDandthepalisadeweredifferent.Butin1984and1987itwasnotalwaysclearthatspecificgapsinthepalisadecouldbeequatedwithgapsbetweentheditches.Itwasimpossibletodenyallassociation,however.Thelinkbetweengapsandcausewaysin1982hadbeenprecise,andin1984wenotedincreasingcomplexityofbothditchesandpalisadetowardsthenorthendoftheexcavatedarea.Itwasalsonottobedeniedthatwehadfoundaninturnedentranceinthepalisadeatapproximatelytheplacewherewehadseenanentrancethroughtheditchesontheairphotographs(betweenditchesMandN).Howwerewetoreachacompromisebetweenthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthepalisadeandditches?The1984evidenceofferedthemostelegantsolution.HeretheclosureofthepalisadebyF126relatedtothelatenarrowingofthecausewaybetweenIandJ.Thegeneralnatureofthepalisadeinthe1984areawastocloseofftheenclosureandthiswasatendencyalsonotedinthelatejoiningofditchesFandG.Anoverlappingbutlatedateforthepalisadewasalsosuggestedbytheevidenceofburningofthepalisade,perhapsassociatedwiththelateburntpost-holesandotherfeaturestowardsthetopofmanyoftheditches(e.g.seep.226).Thepalisademaythereforehavebeenarelativelylatefeature,concernedlesswithritualfunctionsandmorewithrestrictingaccesstotheenclosure.Butaswiththeditchesitwouldbewrongtoassumeanoverallunityofpurposeforthepalisade.Ingeneralterms,thedifferentexcavatedportionsofthepalisadewereverysimilar.Thetrenchwasalwayssimilarinformandthefillswerecomparable.However,therewasalsoconsiderablevariationaroundtheenclosure,notonlyinrelationtothedistancebetweenpalisadeandditches.Forexample,thesize,depthandspacingofpostimpressionsvaried.Theoverallevidencesupportsthenotionthatthepalisade,liketheditches,wasinvolvedinvariousscalesofsocialdisplayandcompetitionbyrelatedbutdifferentgroups.Thatthesegroupswerenotjustworkgangsissuggestedbythelinkbetweenditchesandpalisadein1984,wherethenorthernmoreelaborateditcheswereparallel Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology204withthemorecomplexpalisadesections.Itwasnotjusttheconstructionofthepalisadeandditcheswhichwereinvolvedbuttheiruse.Throughtime,then,groupsbuiltportionsofthepalisadeaspartoftheirendeavourtocontributetotheenclosureasawhole.Thepalisadecouldbeusedtorealignrelationshipsbetweengroups—sometimesrestrictingmovementtoandfromtheinterioroftheenclosure,sometimesdrawingattentiontocertaininturnedentrances.THEINTERIORWefoundlittlepotteryintheprehistoricsoilwithintheenclosure,andlittlebone,probablylargelybecauseofthepoorsurvivalinhighlyacidicconditions(p.217).OurmainevidenceforNeolithicandBronzeAgeactivitythusderivedfromflintdistributions.ThetypologicaldatingforthismaterialsuggestedthatitwasmainlyofmiddleandlateNeolithicdate.Samplingoftheprehistoricsoilwithinandoutsidetheenclosurebydigging1mpitsona50mgridhadproducedflintdensitiesvaryingfromonetofiftypiecesperm2butwithanoverallconcentrationinthesouth-centralpartoftheenclosure.Wecollectedflintartifactssystematicallyfromtheprehistoricsoilintheareasexcavatedwithintheperimeteroftheenclosure.Aswewentroundtheevidence,fromcategorytocategory,thehermeneuticspiralofourinterpretationsbegantobefilledout.Repeatedpatterningemergedthatconfirmedbutaddedtoourdevelopingideas.Theevidencefromfeaturesandartifactsintheprehistoricsoilintheinteriorshowedthatthevariationaroundtheditchesandpalisadecorrespondedtovariationinthedensityofworkedflintandfeatureswithintheenclosure.ThusthecomplexditchesIandJwereassociatednotonlywithamorecomplexpalisade,butalsowithahigherdensityofartifactsandfeaturesintheadjacentprehistoricsoil.The1981and1982areasinparticularwerelesscomplexinallrespects.Indeeditseemednecessarytoreturntoanearlierpointinourhermeneuticspiral.Wehadwantedtoreinterprettheevidencefrom1981and1982tosuggestthatwehadmissedcomplexrecuttingintheditches.However,wenowbegantofeelthatwehadperhapsbeenrightinthefirstplace.Thelowdensitiesoffindsinthesoilsurroundingthe1981and1982ditchesimpliedthattheditchesthemselvesmighthavebeensimplerthere,aswehadatfirstthought.Inanycase,asectoralideaseemedtobefeasible.CONCLUSIONIdonothavespaceheretodiscussindetailthevariousfindcategories(animalbone,carbonisedcereals,pottery,workedflint)toseehowtheyfitintoandchangetheinterpretation.Thecontinuationofthespiral‘round’thesedifferentdatasetswillbediscussedinthefullreportonthesite(HodderandEvans,forthcoming).Ihavetriedtogivesomeindicationofahermeneuticexercisewhichrelatespartstoacontextualinterpretedwhole,butyetwhichavoidsanentirelycircular,hermeticallysealedargument.Interpretationdoesnotreturntoitsstartingpointonthehermeneuticcircle. Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle205Ourinterpretationsareprefiguredandtheydobeginandendwithgeneralitieswhichmusttranscendtheparticularcontextbeingconsidered.Buttheassumptionsandtheoriesarealsotransformedinthepracticeofdealingwiththepatternedremains.WhatIhavedoneisunremarkablesinceitiswhatarchaeologistsalwaysdo,buttheproceduredoesnotfitastricthypothesis-testingviewofscience.Theprocedureemphasisesgeneralinterpretationwhichissensitivetocontextratherthantheinsensitiveimpositionofexternalcriteriaandmeasurement.Ihavetried,inmywriting,togivesomesenseofthecontingent,haphazardprocesswhichconstitutespracticalarchaeologicalresearch.Ofcourse,weneedtogotothedatawithquestionsandsamplethedataintermsofthosequestions.Certainly,thedataonlymakesenseintermsofthequestionsweask.Theyhavenouniversal,self-evidentmeaning.Butinpractice,ourinteractionwiththeoftenthicklyandrichlypatternedremainsisinfluencednotonlybytheirunexpectedpatterning,butalsobyahostofspecific‘inthefield’experiencesandarguments.Itcannotbescientifictoignorethisrealworldcontextofourresearch.Itcannotbeadequatetodressallthispracticalexperienceupintermsofsomewell-controlled,idealisedlaboratoryexperiment.Weneedtowriteaboutthefullnessofthehermeneuticexperience.InthecaseoftheHaddenhamenclosure,westartedwithcertainhypothesesaboutritualandthenatureofsocialorganisationintheNeolithic.Thesehypotheseshaveindeedbeenconfirmedinthatpartoftheactivitiesobserveddoseemtoberitualinnature,atleastinthesensethatspecial,odd,formalisedbehaviourassociatedwithburialisfoundinsomeoftheditches.However,afullaccountoftheritualnatureoftheenclosuremustawaitacomparisonwithotherNeolithicsitesintheareainordertoreachacontextualdefinitionofritual.Ithasalsobeenpossibletoreadtheenclosuredataintermsofcompetitiverelationsbetweensmall-scalegroupsorsectors,thusconfirmingarelativelydecentralisedaccountofNeolithicsocietyinBritain.But,inthiscase,ourinterpretationsdoseemtohavemovedoninresponsetoadetailedreadingoftheevidence.Ratherthanseeingtheenclosureasa‘thing’whichrepresentsstablesocialrelations,Ihavedescribeditasaprocessinwhichrelationsbetweengroupsinthedifferentsectorsoftheenclosurewerecontinuallyandactivelybeingrenegotiatedandrealigned.Indeed,thewholenessoftheenclosureseemedindoubt,itshermeneuticcontinuallyunderthreat.Finally,itisendlesslypossibletofollownewspirals,torealisenewspinoffs.Forexample,themediumforsocialdisplayatthecausewayedenclosureisditch-digging,earth-moving,artifactdepositionandburial.Suchemphasesareexactlythoseclaimedforthelongbarrow(HodderandEvansforthcoming).Therearemanyothersimilaritiesbetweenthetwomonuments,suchasthelayoutofditchI(seeabove,p.223)andtheoverallmovetoclosureandburning.Thetwomonumentscanbeinterpretedaspartofarelatedcontextofmeaning.AwiderinterpretivewholecanalsobeconstructedbyconsideringotherevidencefromNeolithicBritain.Forexample,theevidenceofclosureofthecausewayedsitethroughtimerecallsthesuggestionsmadebyThomas(1988)inrelationtothegradualrestrictionofaccessthroughtimeintheSevern-Cotswoldburialmounds. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology206Figure22ThehermeneuticspiralandtheHaddenhamcausewayedenclosureAnotherspiralwouldbetoreturntothedepositofanimalbonesintheIronAgeditch.Thiswasinitiallyinterpretedasaplaced‘ritual’depositbecauseofitsassumedNeolithicdate.IntheIronAge,bonedepositsarenormallygivenmoremundanereadings.But,asJ.D.Hill(1989)haseffectivelyshown,itispossibletospiralbackfromtheNeolithicandembracetheIronAgeina‘Neolithic’hermeneuticinwhichanimalandotherdepositsinditchesareindeedgivenaritualmeaning.Thehermeneuticspiralsinwhichweallworkareendlesslyinterlacinganditisinthismovementthatanytendencytowardsclosureofthecirclecanbecountered.NOTE1ForanotherhermeneuticspiralthathasbeenconstructedaroundtheHaddenhamenclosure,seeEvans1988.Thisalternativeviewisreferredtointhischapterasoneinwhichmajorentrancesexist.Adebatebetweenthesedifferentperspectiveswillbepublishedinafullreportonthesite. Thehaddenhamcausewayedenclosure-ahermeneuticcircle207REFERENCESBradley,R.(1984)TheSocialFoundationsofPrehistoricBritain,London:Longman.Evans,C.(1988)‘ExcavationsatHaddenham,Cambs:a“planned”enclosureanditsregionalaffinities’,inC.Burgess,P.Topping,C.MordantandM.Maddison(eds)EnclosuresandDefencesintheNeolithicofWesternEurope,Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries403.Hill,J.D.(1989)‘Re-thinkingtheIronAge’,ScottishArchaeologicalReview6,16–24.Hodder,I.andEvans,C.(forthcoming)HaddenhamExcavations:theNeolithic.Hodder,I.andShand,P.(1988)TheHaddenhamlongbarrow:aninterimreport’,Antiquity62,349–53.Renfrew,C.(1973)BeforeCivilisation,London:JonathanCape.Scruton,R.(1982)ADictionaryofPoliticalThought,London:Macmillan.Sperber,D.(1974)RethinkingSymbolism,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Thomas,I.(1988)ThesocialsignificanceofCotswold-Severnburialpractices’,Man23,540–59. 16THEDOMESTICATIONOFEUROPETheNeolithicrevolutionortheoriginsofagriculturehastendedtobestudiedinarchaeologyintermsofauniversaleconomicandpracticalreason.Themajorfactorscausingthechangefromahunter-gatherer-fisherwayoflifetosettledvillageswithdomesticatedplantsandanimalshavebeenseentobeclimaticchange,populationincreaseandresourceavailability.Thisdominantviewignoresandmakesinvisiblesomethingveryvisibleifonlyourpractical,economicallyorientedanddisinterestedlogiccouldseeit:amassiveexplosionofevidenceconcernedwiththesymbolicandapparentlyirrational.Theappearanceofallthissymbolisminassociationwiththeoriginsofagriculturehastendedtobeignored(butseeCauvinandCauvin1982)becauseitappearsirrational.Forexample,humanskullswiththefacesmodelledinclayarefoundinhousesintheNearEast,bulls’headsareplacedinoronhousesintheNearEastandinsoutheastEurope,thebeaksofvulturesaresetintoprotuberancesonhousewallsatCatalHuyukinTurkeywherealsoarefoundmodelsofwomensittingonleopards,andcomplexovensandhearthssurroundedbyelaboratelydecoratedpotteryarefoundinhousesinsoutheastEurope,asareboulderswithhumanheadscarvedtolooklikefish.Whatcouldallthisandmuchmore‘irrational’symbolismmean?AndwhyshoulditappearwithsuchaflourishcontemporarywiththeadoptionofagricultureintheNearEastandsoutheastEurope,thetwoareastobeconsideredinthispaper?Intryingtounderstandthissymbolismandmakeitcoherentwithinadifferentnon-westernrationality,Ihopetoapproachthelivedhumanexperienceoftheadoptionofagricultureintheareasconsidered.Iwanttoapproachthesocialmeaningsgiventotheprocessesinvolved.Ihopetoshowthatbyincludingthishithertoignoredevidencewereachadifferentunderstandingoftheoriginsofagriculture.Iwillarguethatmuchofthesymbolismconcernedthehouseandanoppositionthatwascreatedbetweentheideaofthehouseorhome(domus)andthewild(agrios).TheEnglishlanguagemakesalinkbetweendomesticateanddomesticandIwillarguethatthesetwoconceptswerelinkedinthepast:apracticalreasonofeconomicdomesticationandaculturallogicinvolvingthedomusandthedomestic.Iwillshowhowthehousewasusedtocreatethedomesticversusthewild.Certainly,thehouseprobablyalwaysfulfilledthisrole.PalaeolithiccavesorelaboratehousesontheRussiansteppespresumablydefinedhomeagainstoutsideinsomesense.Butwiththeoriginsofagriculturetheoppositionwasusedandemphasisedby,forexample,bringingthewildintothehouseandtransformingit.Thisbringinginandopposingwasdonebotheconomically(bydomesticatingsomeplantsandanimals),andsymbolically(by,forexample,placingrepresentationsofwildanimalsinhousewallsorbysurroundingthecookingandpresentationoffoodinelaboratedecoration).Theeconomictransformation ThedomesticationofEurope209waslinkedtoasymbolictransformation.Inmyview,thedualtransformationoccurredfortwogroupsofreasons,(a)ThroughthelatePleistoceneandearlyHoloceneinEuropeandtheNearEasthunter-gatherergroupsoftenincreasedinsizeandsedentism.IseethisprocessasoneofsocialcompetitionanddominanceinthewaydescribedbyBender(1978).Asshenotes,socialcompetitionledtoaneedtoincreaseproductionandthereforetotheintensificationofproductionwhichofteninvolvedspecialisationoncertainresources(suchasgazelleorfish).AsWoodburn(1980)hasshown,simplehunter-gatherershaveimmediatereturnfortheirlabourinput:thegameisimmediatelysharedwithfewlong-termsocialcommitmentsbeingimplied.Butthemoresedentary,intensivehunter-gathererswhoinvestinnetsandtrapsandforestclearancehaveadelayedreturnfortheirlabour.Theproblembecomesoneofholdingthegrouptogetherintheperiodbetweeninvestmentandreturn,guardingandcontrollingthedistributionofstoredfoodsandsoon.ManyofthesedevelopmentsoccurredinthelatePleistoceneandearlyHolocene.Oneanswertothisproblemofhowtoholdthegrouptogetherissimplythatpeoplegotcaughtinapracticallogic.Theybecametrappedinthedelayedreturnswhichensuredthebenefitsofincreasedproduction.Thesebenefitsincludedsocialdominance,betteraccesstogoods,feastsandprestige.Thosegroupswhichhadtightersocialstructuresandcouldproducemoregainedgreaterprestigeanddominanceinrelationtoothergroups.Ultimately,thisprocessofsubmittingtoconstraintsinordertobenefitfromgreaterproductivesuccessled,perhapsinthewidercontextofclimaticchange,totheadoptionofyetmoreintensiveresources—domesticatedplantsandanimals.Therewerenegativeaspectstothepracticallogicofintensificationandincreasedproduction.Thedelayed-returnsystemnecessitateddependenceonothersandonwidersocialandeconomicstructures.Allindividualssubmittedtogreaterconstraintandalossofpersonalauth-ority.Inotherwords,peoplewerebeingtamedanddomesticated.Theywerebroughtintolargersettlementsandsubmittedtothestructuresofthedelayed-returnsystems.Soonereasonfortheoriginsofagriculturewasthateconomicdomesticationallowedgreatersocialdominationoverlargergroups.Thisdominationwaspartlyachievedthroughthebenefitsofincreasedproduction,andpartlybecausepeoplebecametrappedanddisciplinedwithinlonger-termstructuresanddependencies.Ifwelimitourselvestothistypeofexplanationforthebackgroundtoandtheadoptionofagriculture,thecentralproblembecomesthefollowing.Whyshouldpeopleallowthemselvestobeensnaredwithintheeconomicandsocialstructuresofdelayedhunter-gatherersystems,agricultureandvillagelife?Whyshouldtheyaccepttheargumentthatgreatersocialconstraintwouldleadtogreaterproductivity?Whyshouldtheywanttoachievegreaterproductivesuccess?Howwasthisargued?Howwasitseenandexperiencedfromtheinside?Thesepeopledidnothavesomenotionofuniversalrationalityleadingtocapitalism,scienceandprogress—thatcametwelvemillennialateron!Theycouldnotjustifythechangeinthenameofprogressandenlightenment,conceptsofourownera.Sowhatrationalitiesdidtheyuse?Whydiditmakesensetothem?ToanswerthesequestionsIneedtoturntomysecondgroupofreasons(b)forthe Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology210originsofagriculture.Accordingtothissecondviewtheprocessofdomesticationwasnotonlyamechanism,butalsoametaphor.Domesticationinvolvedcreatingthewildas‘other’,andestablishingthedomestic,thehouseasthestructured,thestable,thelongterm.Aswildplantsandanimalswerebroughtinanddomesticatedacordingtoapracticallogic,sosymbolsofthewildwerecreatedandtamedsymbolically.Thesymbolsofthewildwerecontrolledwithinaculturalmetaphorwithinthehouse.Thedangersofthewildwereexaggeratedandopposedtothehavenofthehouse,homeandhearthwherewomenoftenplayedacentralmetaphoricalrole.Peopleacceptedthenewsocialandeconomicconstraintsofagriculturebecausetheconstraintsweregivenpositivevaluesinoppositiontothewild,thedangerous,theunstructured.Successagainstthedangersofinfertilityanddeathwasensuredbythereproductivefertilityofsocietyinhouseandhearth,bytheideaofdomus.Thehouseprovidedbothstructureandcontinuity.Thiscontinuitywasemphasisedby,forexample,repeatedreplasteringandrepaintingofhouseinteriorwallsandfloors,andbybuildingnewhousesaboveold.Mostimportant,ancestorsandthebonesofrelativesorpastinhabitantsofhouseswereplacedbeneaththefloors,linkingthepresentwiththepastthroughthehouse.Thehouseactivelyconstructedsocietyinitsfabric.Itcreatedthestabilityoflong-termstructures.Sopeoplecametobelievethattheonlywaytoensureproduction,security,andsocialdominanceoverothergroupswasthroughbeingmembersofstablestructures.Peoplesubmittedthemselvestolonger-termsocialrelationshipsandritualstructures,theybecame‘docile’bodies,domesticatedpeople.Thistransitionwasconstructedandmadesenseofintermsofthemetaphorofthehouse.Thehousecametostandfortheideaofbeingtamedinthesamewaythatthedomesticmodeofproductionensnaredpeoplepracticallywithinlonger-termdomesticdependencies.Aspeoplebecametamedwithinthestabledomus(theideaandpracticesofthehouse),widercommunitiesanddependenciescouldbebuilt.Theselarger-scaleorclosercommunitiesmayhavehadgreaterproductivepotentialandthusmayhavebeenabletocompetesuccessfullywithsmallerunits.Buttheyalsoimpliedgreaterwithin-grouprestraintandperhapswithin-groupdomination.Onceagainthematerialexpressionofthedomusprovidedafocusforgroupformation,bothpracticallyandmetaphorically.Thejointconstructionofsettlementboundaryfencesorditches,andthelayingoutofvillagesprovidedthestableframeworkforlonger-termcommunities.Bothwithinthehouseandwithinthevillagepeoplebecametrappedwithinadualculturalandpracticalreason.THENEOLITHICINSOUTHEASTEUROPEANDTHENEAREASTInordertodemonstratemycaseIwanttoshowthatinsoutheastEurope(forsomeotherpartsofEuropeandforgreaterdetailinsoutheastEuropeseeHodder1990)villageformationandeconomicintensificationthroughtheNeolithicwereindeedassociatedwithanelaborationofthesymbolismofthedomusasopposedtoandincorporatingtheagrios.Thegreatersocialconstraintsofvillagelifeandthegreaterproductivityofagricultureoccurredalongsideasymbolicdomestication.IwillbrieflyintroducetheEuropeandiscussionintheNearEastandAnatolia.OverallIwishtoshowtheintegratedwayinwhichdomesticsymbolism,villageformationandeconomicintensification ThedomesticationofEurope211changed.TostrengthenmycaseIwillincludebrieflythelaterNeolithicinsoutheastEuropeandshowhowachangeoccurredtheretoanewmetaphorbasedmoreontheagrios.IntheNatufiancultureintheLevant(10,300–8,500bc),priortochangesinwildformsofplantsandanimals,therewasintensivegrindingofwildplantfoodsandconcentrationoncertainanimals(e.g.gazelle).Thisisanexampleofadelayed-returnhunter-gatherereconomyanditwasassociatedwiththegreaterconstraintsexpressedintheappearanceofmoresettledvillages.Withinthesevillagestherewasstorageandsomedegreeofsocialdifferentiationseeninhousesandburials.Alongsidethisevidenceofgreatereconomicandsocialconstraintandproductivity,housesalreadyshowsomecomplexity.Theyhadwell-preparedfloorsandfixedfeatures.Burialsometimesoccurredbeneaththefloorsofthehouseindicatingperhapsboththatthehouseprovidedthelocusforcontinuitywiththeancestorsandthatthedangersofindividualdeathtothelong-termstructuresofsocietywerecontainedorcontrolledbythedomus.AsdomesticatedplantsandanimalswereincreasinglyadoptedintheLevantinPre-PotteryNeolithicAandB,sovillageformationanddomesticsymbolismbecamemoreevident.Butthecloselinkbetweentheactivitiessurroundingtheadoptionofagricultureanddomesticsymbolismisalsoseenelsewhere.Forexample,innorthernIraqatthesiteofQermez,rightatthebeginningoftheaceramicNeolithicattheendoftheninthmillenniumbe,therewerealreadysomecomplexhouseswithplasteredfloors,ridges,pillars,stonesettingsandskulls(Watkins1990;forothersimilarevidencesee,forexample,Kozlowski1990andSchirmer1990).InCatalHuyukandHacilarinTurkeyintheseventhandsixthmillenniabetheprocessreachedadevelopedclimax(Mellaart1967).CatalHuyukwasasubstantialvillage,withafullyagriculturaleconomy.Some,butnotall,houseswereelaboratedandthusdifferentiated.Notallsitesintheareawerethislargeandelaborate.Howwasthisintensification,dominationandaggregationargued?ThereasonswereperhapspartlysociallyandeconomicallypracticalinwaysthatIhavealreadyargued.Butthesymbolismtooisstrikingandpointstoaverynon-westernwayoflookingatthings.Forexample,theskullsofvultures,foxesandweaselsandthetusksofboarswereenclosedwithinclayprotuberancesonorinthehousewalls.Leopardsandhuntingscenesweredepictedonthewalls.Andtheseweretheinteriorwallsofcertainhouses,nottheexternalwallsorthewallsaroundcourtyards.Soitisasifvarioussymbolsofdangersinthewildwerebroughtintothehouseinordertobeincorporatedwithinadomesticsymbolism.Butthedomesticorganisationofthesymbolismwasrepeatedinthedifferenthousesinthevillageaccordingtosocietal-widerules.Forexample,thesymbolicelaborationtendedtooccurattheoppositeendofthehousetothehearthandoven.Thisrepeatedpatternintheabsenceoflargepublicbuildingssuggeststhatapublicorderwasbasedonadomesticsymbolism.Thegeneralconstraintandvillagestructurewerecreatedoutoftheideaofcontrollingtheproductivityanddangerofthewildwithinthehouse.Thepresenceofwilddangersinthehouseprovidedthepotentialandthestimulusfordomesticproduction.Inthesameway,thedomesticproductivityofthehouseholdunitandthevillagedependedonthedomesticationofplantsandanimals—thatisonthepracticaluseandseparationofthewild.Inthissymboliccontext,thewomanactedasanimportantmetaphor.AtCatalHuyuk Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology212shewassometimesshowninthefigurinematerialsittingonleopardsorotherwisecaringforthem.Thewomanwasinanimposingposition,sittinguprightwithhandsrestingontheheadsoftheleopards(Figure23).Thisdominant,‘lording’overnatureandthewildagainemphasisedthecontrolofthewildbyhumanhand.Theseandmanyotherfemalefigurinesarefoundinandaroundthehousesandthemetaphorofthewomanwasacentralpartoftheideaofdomus.Figure23ClayfigurinefromCatalHuyukAnotherimportantaspectoftheevidenceatCatalHuyukistheburialbeneaththefloorsofhouses,thefindsofhumanskullsonthehousefloors(perhapsafterabandonmentofthehouse)andthedepictionsonthehousewallsofvulturesassociatedwithheadlesshumancorpses.Thisforegroundingofhumandeathinthedomesticcontextparalleledtheemphasisondeathinthewild(asseeninthebeaks,skullsandjawsofcarnivores).Boththewildandthedeathsymbolismoccurredinthesameinnerpartofthe ThedomesticationofEurope213house,awayfromthehearthandoven,andbothusedthevultureimage.Thedeathsymbolismcouldagainbetakentoemphasisetheroleofthehouseincontrollingdangers—thistimethedangersofhumandeath,suchasthelossthroughdeathofproductivepotentialandofpositionsinthesocialstructure.Atthesametimetheburialofancestorsbeneaththehousefloorsemphasisedthehouseasthefocusofcontinuityacrossgenerations,theguardianoflonger-termsocialstructures.IthastoberememberedthatnotallhousesatCatalHuyukhaveevidenceforelaboratesymbolism.Mellaart(1967)suggeststhatthereissomerelationshipbetweentheelaboratesymbolismandtheburials.Thevariationbetweenhousescouldsimplybeduetodifferencesinpositioninlifecycleofthemembersofthedomesticunit.Butitcouldalsobeduetothevaryingsuccessofdomesticunitsingainingprestigeandwealththroughthedualsymbolicandeconomicprocessesofcontrollingthewild.Manyofthehouseswerereplasteredandrepaintedmanytimes.Intheseactsofrenewal,certaindomesticunitsweremoresuccessfulinemphasisingthedangersanduseofthewildthroughwhichsocialandeconomicstructurescouldbebuiltoverthelongterm.SimilarevidenceisfoundinsoutheastEurope,althoughherewecanfollowthechangesthatoccurredthroughtimemorefully.AtthesiteofLepenskiVir,ontheDanube,ahunter-gatherer-fishercommunityalreadylivedinanorderedvillageattheendofthesixthmillenniumbe(Srejovic1972).TheabundantfishresourcesatthispointontheDanubeaswellaswildresourcesintheforestsallowedacertaindegreeofstructureandsedentism.Thehouseswereagainelaborate,withburialsbeneaththehousefloors.Thehearthsinparticularwerewellmadeandsurroundedbysettingsofstonesandinonecasebyahumanjaw.Thehearth,probablyusedinparttopreparefood,wassurroundedbydeath:inthiswaylifeanddeathwerelinkedandcontinuitywiththepastwasstressed.Aroundandbehindthehearthwerevariouscarvedboulders,someofwhichhadhumanoidfaceswithapossiblefish-likeappearance.ThefullNeolithicwayoflifewasonlygraduallyadoptedinsoutheastEuropeduringthesixthtofourthmillenniabe.Insomeareasatleast,earlyNeolithicsubsistencestrategiescontinuedtodependonwildresourcestoaconsiderabledegreeandsiteswereonlypartlysedentary(KaiserandVoytek1982).Butthroughtimesettlementsbecamelarger,moresedentary,moreplannedinlayout,moreoftenbounded,andmoredependentonfullydomesticatedplantsandanimals.Asthisprocessoccurred,sothedomesticsymbolismbecamemoreelaborate.Bythefourthmillenniumbethereismoreevidenceofinternallydividedhousescontainingrichlydecoratedceramicsandmorefigurinesassociatedwiththehouses.TherewasmuchregionalandtemporalvariationintheexpressionofdomesticsymbolisminthisperiodinsoutheastEurope.However,someoverallpatternscanbeidentifiedwhichallowasymboliccomplex,termedthedomus,tobereconstructed(Figure24).Centraltothedomuscomplexwerehouses,hearthsandovens,potteryandwomen.Theseitemswerepartlyassociatedspatially.Forexample,potsandfigurineswereoftenfoundconcentratedinandaroundhousesandaroundovens.Insomecases,femalefigurineswereactuallyfixedtothebasesofovens.Somemalefigurinesdooccurbuttheyareheavilyoutnumberedbyfemalerepresentations.Theitemsofthedomuswerealsoassociatedtemporallyinthat,forexample,domesticandceramicsymbolicelaborationoftenseemtoincreaseanddecreaseintandemasdothenumbersoffemale Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology214figurines.Thereareotherwaystooinwhichthevariousattributesofthedomuswerelinked.Forexample,potsweresometimesmadeintheformofwomen,orwomenwereshownholdingorpresentingpots.Inaddition,houses,women,ovensandpotsalloccurredasminiatures.Setsofsmallceramicmodelsoftheseitems,aswellas‘tables’andchairs,arefound.Andsimilartypesofspiral-meanderdecorationarefoundonpots,femalefigurines,housemodelsandonsurvivingpiecesofwallplaster.Overall,then,spatialandtemporalassociationsaswellasmodelsanddecorationallowthevariouscomponentsofthedomustobelinked.Figure24Thedomus(uppercircle)andagrios(lowercircle)insoutheastEuropeSomebucrania(largemodelledbulls’heads)andaxedepositsdidoccurinthehouses,butoverallthedomussymbolismseemstobeaboutpreparingandpresentingfoodanddrinkinthedomesticcontext,ofteninassociationwithwomen.Idonotarguethatwomenfilledsuchrolesinreality,onlythattheyfilledsuchrolesmetaphorically.Thesymbolismofthedomusemphasisedproductionincontrasttoanothersetofattributeswhichwerelargelyabsentfromthehouseandfromthedecorationandminiaturessofardescribed. ThedomesticationofEurope215Thisothersetoffeatures(Figure24),termedtheagrios,isinitiallydefinedlargelybyitsabsencefromthedomusassociationsandbyitslackofvisibilityinthearchaeologicalrecord.Thelatterispartlytheresultofsamplingbiasinanareainwhichexcavationhasconcentratedonvisiblesettlementsratherthanoncemeteries.Butthelesservisibilityisofitselfinteresting.Forexample,whilesomeburialofchildren(andperhapswomen)occurredearlyoninthesettlements,cemeteriesgraduallyincreasedinimportancethroughtheperiodintothefourthmillenniumbe.InsomeareassuchasHungary(Sherratt1982)cemeteriesincreasedinvisibilityandimportanceasthehouseelaborationdeclined.Thistemporalinversionofdomusandagriosisemphasisedbythedifferenttypesofartifactfoundinthecemeteries,suchasatVarna.Therichburialswereoftenofmen,andtheywerecharacterisedbyaxes,metalitems,symbolsofauthority,itemsderivedfromlong-distanceexchange.Femalefigurinesarerarelyfound.Cemeteriesprovidedafocusforadifferentsetofattributeswhichbecamemoreimportantovertimeasthecentralityofthedomusdecreased.Bythethirdmillenniumbe,manyofthesalientfeaturesofthedomushadsignificantlydeclined.BothatHacilarinTurkeyandintheNeolithicsequenceintheLevantadultburialwasgraduallyremovedfromthehouse.WehaveseenthesameshiftfromLepenskiVirtotheNeolithicsitesinsoutheastEurope.Thisuncouplingofthedomusandtheancestorsexpressedthegrowingemphasisoncommunity-widestructuresratherthanondomesticproductionalone.AtthebeginningoftheNeolithicthehousewasusedinordertocreatelong-termstructuresinrelationtotheancestors.Butthroughtime,asagriculturalintensificationandpublicworkssuchastheboundingofsettledvillagesincreased,solong-termstructuresatthecommunityscalebecameevenmorerelevant.Indeed,althoughbuiltoutoftheactivitiesandconstraintswithinthedomesticunit,thecommunity-widestructureswouldalsohavebecomecontradictedbyanoveremphasisonthatsmallerunitanditsancestraldistinctiveness.Theancestorswerethusremovedfromthehouse.Theyincreasinglybecamecommonancestorsincommoncemeteriesoutsidethedomus.Humandeathandtheancestorsthusbecamemoreclearlyseparatedfromthedomus,eveniflinkedinitiallytoitscommunalprinciples.Theroleofthedomusasreproduceroflifewasretainedintheburialofchildreninthehouse.Inthiswaytheseparationofsphereswasclarified.Asthecommunitiesofdomesticproducersincreasedtheircommoninvolvementinmoreintensiveagricultureandinthedefenceoftheircommoninterestsinthefourthmillenniumbe,thesymbolicroleofwarringandfightingincreasedinvisibility.Itemsrangingfrombattleaxestodefensiveditchcircuitsaroundvillagesbecamemorecommon.TheeconomicchangesmovingintothethirdmillenniumbehavebeenwelloutlinedbySherratt(1981)intermsofaSecondaryProductsRevolution.Moreofthelandscapewasdomesticated,astheuseoftheploughandofsecondaryanimalproductssuchaswoolallowedexploitationofnewenvironments.Theexchangeofproductsbetweendiverseregionsstimulatedtheimportanceoftypesofpowerbasedonthecontrolofexchangeandofprestigegoods.Indeed,newtypesofpowerwereemergingoutsidethedomesticcontext,basedonwarringandexchange.TheearlyNeolithiclogicofincreaseddomesticandcommunityproductionhadledinexorablytoshiftsineconomicsystemlaterintheNeolithicandtoanunderminingofthecentralityofthedomusasnewtypesofpoweremerged.Thelatterwereexpressedin Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology216anewsymbolicidiomwhichhadgrownuphistoricallyinoppositiontothedomusandwhichIhavetermedtheagrios.Thedomesticatingofthewildhadgraduallyproducedtheneedforanopposingsystembasedonwarringandexchange.Thelatterwasincorporatedandgivensignificanceinrelationtoagriosprincipleswhichnowemphasisedindividualprestige,malemetaphors,thewild,huntinganddrinking,andwhichhadtheirmainarchaeologicalcontextinburial(Hodder1990).Thisshiftinandtotheagriosisnotthemainfocusofthispaper,butitdoescontextualisetheimportanceofthedomusintheearlierNeolithicassociatedwiththeinitialintensificationofproductionandadoptionofagriculture.CONCLUSIONItshouldbeemphasisedthatIdonotseethedomus/agriosoppositionasuniversalandequivalenttoculture/natureorprivate/public.Indeed,oneofthemainreasonsforinventingspecialisttermssuchasdomusandagrioswastoavoidsuchuniversalimplications.InmyviewtherearehistoricallinksbetweentheadoptionofagricultureintheNearEastandsoutheastEurope,andthedomuswasdefinedinaparticularandchangingwaywithinthathistoricalcontext.IncentralEurope,ontheotherhand,theadoptionofagriculturewascouchedintermsofaratherdifferentdomusbasedlessonthemetaphorofthewoman,forexample,andmoreonmonumentalconstructionandthecontrolofspatialboundaries(Hodder1990).InnorthernEurope,amoredisaggregatedsettlementsystemmeantthattheideaofthestablelong-termdomuscouldnotberepresentedeffectivelybythehouseandsotheideaofthedomuswastransferredtotombs(ibid.).Thedomuswasgivendifferentlocalmeanings.Certainly,knowledgeofgeneraloppositionalstructureshasinfluencedmyparticularinterpretation,butIhavetriedtointerpretortranslatethegeneraltermsintoaspecificandlocalcontext.Ihavearguedthatasetofspecificabstractions(particularformsofdomusandagrios)canbesupportedbytheirabilitytomakesenseofthedata.Thus,forexample,iflargenumbersoffemalefigurinesorhousemodelsweretobefoundincemeteriesinsoutheastEurope,myinterpretationofaseparationbetweendomusandagriosinthatareawouldbecomeuntenable.MywholetheorywouldcollapseifinsoutheastEuropeandtheNearEastitcouldbeshownthatdomesticsymbolisminvolvingincorporationoroppositiontothewilddidnotincreasewithsedentismandtheadoptionofmoreintensivesubsistencestrategies.Accordingtohermeneuticprinciples,nointerpretationispossibleuntilinterpretationhasbegun.Thegeneralitiesallowinterpretationtobegin,buttheyhaveimmediatelytobereinterpretedinrelationtothespecificevidenceandmadetocorrespondwith(‘testedagainst’)thatevidence.Insummary,myinterpretationrunssomethinglikethis.Intheperiodleadinguptoandduringtheadoptionofagriculture,themainproblemwasoneofdomesticatingpeoplewithinlonger-termsocialandeconomicstructures.Thepracticaldesireforincreasedproductionwasoffsetbythegreaterconstraintsofadelayed-returnsystem,theprotectionofstoredproductsandsoon.Sothosewithinsocietywhowishedforgreaterproductionneededtomaketheconstraintsunderstandable,palatableandevendesirable.Inordertounderstandtheadoptionofagriculturewearethusforcedintotherealmofmeaning. ThedomesticationofEurope217Iarguethatthelonger-termstructuresandstablewayoflifewereconstructedbycreatingasenseofhome.Thefoundingideaofthedomuswastocreatetheideaofhomeandtofixpeopleathome.Themoststartlingexampleofthisconcernsrepresentationsofwomen.Atoneleveltheplacingoffemalefigurinesaroundhearthsandthefixingoffemalefigurinestoovenscelebratedthemetaphorofwomanasproducer,reproducerandgiveroflife.Butatanotherlevelthephysicalfixingofwomantoovenmetaphoricallyfixedwomantothehouseanddomus.Butpeoplewerefixedtothedomusinotherwaystoo.Atleastintheearlystages,theancestorswereburiedbeneaththefloorsofthehouses,constructinglinkswiththepastandfixingpeopletotheirrelativesinthehouseovergenerations.Thestabilityofthehousewasnotonlyexpressedinitselaboratebuildinganditslinkstothepast,butalsobyforegrounding,incorporatingoropposinginvariouswaystheproductivityanddangersofthewild,theagrios.Inthesewaysthedomusbecamethemeansforthinkingaboutdiscipliningpeoplewithinlonger-termsocialstructures.Duringthisperiodthenotionoftheagrioshadtobeinventedasaprerequisiteforthedomesticationofplantsandanimals.CauvinandCauvin(1982)havearguedthatcattleweredomesticatedsymbolicallyatMureybetbeforetheyweredomesticatedeconomically.Infactthecultural-symbolicandeconomicprocesseswereprobablydialecticallyrelated,feedingoffeachother.Thusthepracticallogicofincreasedproductiondependedonsettinguptheideaofhomeasopposedtowild,ormorespecifically,domusasopposedtoagrios.Peopleacceptedandwantedtheconstraintsofeconomicdomesticationbecausethestablestructuresofhouseandhomewerebelievedtoensurecontinuityandsurvivalagainstvariousperceiveddangers.2Throughtime,inthemiddleandlaterNeolithic,widercommunitystructuresbecamemoreimportantattheexpenseofdomesticproductionandnewtypesofpowerbasedonwarringandexchangebecamemorecentral.Asaresulttheemphasisonthedomusultimatelydeclinedandthereislessarchaeologicalevidenceforsymbolicelaborationindomesticcontextsinthelaterfourthandthirdmillenniabe.Ratherwefindcemeterieswithrichmaleburialsandothercharacteristicsofwhatbecametheagrios.REFERENCESBender,B.(1978)‘Gatherer-huntertofarmer:asocialperspective’,WorldArchaeology10,204-22.Cauvin,J.andCauvin,M.-C.(1982)‘OriginesdeI’agricultureauLevant’,inT.CuylerYoung,P.Smith,andP.Mortensen(eds)TheHillyFlanks,Chicago:OrientalInstitute.Hodder,I.(1990)TheDomesticationofEurope,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Kaiser,T.andVoytek,B.(1982)‘SedentismandeconomicchangeintheBalkanNeolithic’,JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology2,323–53.Kozlowski,S.(1990)Nemrik9,Warszawskiego:WydawnictwaUniwersytetu.Mellaart,J.(1967)CatalHuyuk,London:Thames&Hudson.Schirmer,W.(1990)‘Someaspectsofbuildingatthe“aceramic-neolithic”settlementofCayonuTepesi’,WorldArchaeology21,363–87.Sherratt,A.(1981)‘Ploughandpastoralism’,inI.Hodder,G.IsaacandN.Hammond(eds)PatternofthePast,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology218——(1982)‘Mobileresources:settlementandexchangeinearlyagriculturalEurope’,inC.RenfrewandS.Shennan(eds)Ranking,ResourceandExchange,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Srejovic,D.(1972)Europe’sFirstMonumentalSculpture:NewDiscoveriesatLepenskiVir,London:Thames&Hudson.Watkins,T.(1990)Theoriginsofhouseandhome?’,WorldArchaeology21,336-47.Woodburn,J.(1980)‘Huntersandgathererstodayandreconstructionofthepast’,inE.Gellner(ed.)SovietandWesternAnthropology,London:Duckworth. 17GENDERREPRESENTATIONANDSOCIALREALITYIwishtosharewiththereadersomeproblemsIhavemetindealingwithgenderinEuropeanprehistorynotsomuchbecauseIhavecometoclearconclusions,butbecauseIthinkmyexperiencedemonstratesthatinterpretationofgenderinprehistoryleadstoare-evaluationofotherapparentlyunrelatedissuessuchasmeaning,representation,powerandgeneralarchaeologicaltheory.ThedataconcerntheNeolithicofsoutheastEuropeandtheNearEast(forafullaccountseeHodder1990).IntheseareastheearlyandmiddleNeolithicperiodsareassociatedwithahighvisibilityofwomenandfemale-relatedartifacts.Forexample,insoutheastEuropebetweenthefifthandearlythirdmillenniabefemalefigurinesarecommonwhereasmalesarerarelyrepresented.Inthesameareafemalerepresentationsarelinkedtohouses,potteryandhearthsandovens.Theselinksareproducedbyspatialassociations(thefemalefigurinesoccurinhousesbutrarelyincemeteriesandfemalefigurinesareattachedtoovens),bytheuseofsimilardecoration(onpots,figurinesandhouses)andbyassociationina‘set’ofminiatures(women,houses,ovensandpotsareallmodelledinclay).Thearchaeologicalrecordisdominatedbysettlements,houses,potteryandfemalerepresentationswhereasmale-associatedartifactsarelesseasytosee.Moreprecisely,thecomplexoffemale-associatedtraitsisparticularlyassociatedwiththeadoptionandintensificationofagriculture.Asdomesticationintensifiesandsettledvillagesareformed,sotheelaborationofdomesticsymbolism,thenumbersoffemalefigurinesandthesubdivisionanddecorationofhousesalsoincrease.HoweverinthelaterNeolithic,culminatinginthelaterthirdmillenniumbeinsoutheastandcentralEurope,atransformationoccurssothatthefemale-associateditemsbecomelessvisibleandarereplacedbydominantrepresentationsofmen.Femalefigurinesbecomelesscommonandinsomeareassettlementsandhousesbecomelesssubstantialandcomplex.Ontheotherhand,burialsincemeteriesandbarrowsbecomemorecommonandtheyareoftendominatedbyrichburialsofmencontainingbattleordisplayaxes,huntingweaponry,exchangeandprestigeitemsofmetal.Thisshiftisingeneraltermsassociatedwitheconomicchangeswhichinvolveagreateruseofsecondaryanimalproducts,awideruseofthelandscapeandagreaterimportanceofcattleandexchange.Thetransformationisoftenseenasamovefromkinandlineagesystemstomorecomplexsystemsinwhichexchangeplayedagreaterrole.IntryingtogivemeaningtothesepatternsIacceptedthatthedataonlyallowedmetodiscussshiftsinrepresentationalsystems.Thedatadidnotwarrantdetaileddiscussionoftheactualrolesofmenandwomen.Whilewomenwereassociatedsymbolicallywithhouses,hearthsandpottery,itremainedpossiblethatmenplayedadominantroleinhouses,incookingandinmakingandusingpottery.Similarlythesymbolicassociation Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology220betweenmenandhuntingdoesnotmeanthatinpracticewomendidnothunt.NeverthelessIinitiallythoughtthatIcouldreadtherepresentationalsystemssoastogaininsightintothesocialrealitybehindthem.IthoughtIcouldtalkabouttherelativesocialimportanceofmenandwomeninNeolithicsocieties.Inthesetermsthereseemedtobetwodifferentconclusionsonecoulddrawfromthedata.First,IcouldarguethatintheearlierNeolithicwomendidhaverealpowerasexpressedbythedominanceoffemalerepresentations.Suchaviewcouldbesupportedbyanumberofotherlinesofevidence.Forexample,ithasoftenbeennotedthatinmanyhunter-gatherersocietieswomenplayadominantroleingatheringactivities.ItisthereforereasonabletosupposethattheyplayedadominantroleinthedomesticationofplantsandthatinearlyagriculturalsocietiesinEuropewomenheldpowerthroughtheircontributiontointensifiedproduction.CertainlyfeministssuchasBarstow(1978)havearguedthattheelaboratesymbolismatCatalHuyuk,inwhichfemalerepresentationsplaysuchacentralrole,indicatesarealpowerforNeolithicwomen.IcouldalsoadopttheargumentsofWeiner(1978)thatinkin-basedsocietiesgroupmembershipisdefinedthroughprocreationandinsomesuchsocietieskinidentityisdefinedthrough‘womanness’whichisatimeless,transcendentpowerbeyondthemundaneeffortsofmentobuildrenownduringtheirlifetimes(seealsoMeeker,BarlowandLipset1986).EuropeanearlierNeolithicsocietiesareusuallyassumedtobekinbased,especiallyinareaswhereburialisincommunaltombs.Itseemsreasonabletoarguethatkinshipandreproductiondefinedsocialrolesatthistimeandthatwomenthereforeplayedcentralrolesexpressedthroughthefemalesymbolism.InthelaterNeolithicrelationsbasedonwarringandlong-distanceexchangebecamemoreimportant,sothevisibilityoffemalesymbolismdeclined.Second,takingaquitedifferentview,IcouldarguethattheelaboratefemalesymbolismintheearlierNeolithicexpressedtheobjectificationandsubordinationofwomen.Perhapsfemalefigurinesoccurredplentifullyinhousesbecausethatiswherewomenwerebeingencouragedtostay.PerhapswomenwereassociatedwithleopardsinthefigurinesfromCatalHuyukinTurkey(Hodder1987)becausewomenwereseenasdangerous.Perhapswomenratherthanmenwereshownasobjectsbecausethey,unlikemen,hadbecomeobjectsofownershipandmaledesire.ItwouldnotbedifficulttoarguethatthepowerofwomendecreasedintheearlyNeolithicwiththeadoptionandintensificationofagriculture.AuthorssuchasDraper(1975)haveshownthatwomeninhunter-gatherersocietieshaveagreatdealofautonomyandinfluencewhichtheytendtoloseinsettledagriculturalvillages.FromEngelstomorecontemporaryMarxistwriterslikeLeacock(1978)ithasbeenarguedthatthesubordinationofwomenrelatestothegrowthofprivateproperty.Icouldthereforeclaimthatwithagriculture,domesticatedanimals,housesandotherpossessionsinwhichthegrouphadmadelong-terminvestments,theinterestsofthegroupcametobedirectedmorecarefullytowardsthecontrolofthereproductiveandproductiveoutputofthedomesticcontext.Particularlyassocialrankingdevelopedalongwiththeadoptionofagriculture(Bender1978),itcametobeintheinterestsoflocalgroupstoincreaseproductionandreproductioninordertoincreaseoutputandincreaseabilitiestogivefeastsandenterintoexchanges.Sowomenwerepossessed,controlledandrestrictedinthedomesticcontextinordertoreproduceandproduceforcompetingsocialgroups.The Genderrepresentationandsocialreality221elaboratesymbolismwasinvolvedinthedomesticationandownershipofwomen.Thedomesticationofagriculturewasdependentonthedomesticationanddominationofwomen.Thisstateofaffairscouldbeseentolastwhilekinshipanddomesticproductionandreproductionweretheframeworkonwhichsocialandeconomicrelationswerebuilt.ButbythelaterNeolithicthereisevidenceofsocialpowerbeingbasedmoreonthecontrolofotherresourcessuchascattle,copper,warringandlong-distanceexchange.WriterssuchasLeacock(1978)andGailey(1987)wouldarguethatasthesenewsourcesofpowerbecameimportant,thestatusofwomendeclined.Asnon-domesticandnon-kinshipsourcesofpowerbecamemoredominantinthepubliceconomy,sothelinkprovidedbyfemalesbetweenreproductionandproductionwasbrokenorovertakenbyotherinterests.Asaresult,reproductionandproductionbecamedirectedtowardsthepublicsphere(ofexchangeetc.),thepublic/domesticsplitwascreatedoremphasisedandtheroleofwomeninthedomesticcontextdevalued.Hencethesymbolismassociatedwithwomenandhousesdisappearedtobereplacedbyhighlyvisiblemalesymbolismlinkedtoexchange,cattleandwarring.Accordingtothissecondview,theperiodsinceUpperPalaeolithichunter-gathererssawagradualdeclineinthepowerofwomentocontrolresources.TheywerefirstobjectifiedanddomesticatedindomesticcontextsandmaterialsymbolsandwerethenfurthersubordinatedinthelaterNeolithicastheybecamelessvisibleinthearchaeologicalrecord.Thissecondviewofincreasingsubordinationofwomencertainlyworkswellandhasaniceevolutionarytonetoit.ThereareanumberofproblemssuchastheassumptionthattheUpperPalaeolithicwasaGardenofEdeninwhichwomenhadequalstatustomenoratleastahighdegreeofautonomy.Andthereistheproblemthatthemodeldoesnotmentiondifferenttypesofwomen.Elderandyoungerwomenmayhavebeentreatedverydifferentlyinsuchsocieties.Mydifficultieswiththetwoviews(thatwomeneitherwereorwerenotpowerfulintheearlierNeolithic)wereratherdifferentandmorepersonal.First,IrealisedthatIwasbeinghighlypartialandsexistinmyinterpretations.Forexample,IrealisedthatIwastreatingmaleandfemalerepresentationdifferently.ElaboratefemalesymbolismintheearlierNeolithicwastreatedbymeasaproblem.Itcouldeithermeanwomenwerepowerfulor,asinthesecondtheorywhichIpreferred,theywerepowerless.Eitherwaytheevidencepresentedambiguityanddifficulty.WhenIreachedthelaterNeolithic,ontheotherhand,theelaboratemalesymbolismwasnoproblematall.Here,accordingtoeithertheory,themalesymbolismrepresentedmalepower.Iwasclearlyusingadoublestandard.Icouldacceptrealmalepowerbutfoundwaysofrejectingrealfemalepower.ThesecondandmainproblemIhadwithmyowninterpretationswasthatIfoundIhadnowayofshowingwhichtheorywasright.WerewomenmoreorlesssubordinatedintheearlierNeolithic?Ineededtobeabletoshowwho(malesorfemales)reallycontrolledresources,whowasdoingallthelabour,whowasmakingdecisions,whowasbeatingwhomandsoon.Ihadwantedtoavoidorsidesteptheproblemthatarchaeologistscanseerepresentationsofwomenandmenbetterthantheycangetanideaofwhatmenandwomenwereactuallydoing,controllingorowning.ButIkeptbeingbroughtbacktothequestionofwhetherthedepictedmenandwomenreallyhadpower. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology222Atleastinmydata,however,thereseemedtobenowayofansweringsuchaquestion.InfactIwouldhazardaguessthatitisnearlyalwaysdifficulttoknowwhatmenandwomen(oranyothersocialcategory)werereallydoing.Theconventionalproceduresforansweringthequestionincludeactivityandburialassociations.Butevenifspindlewhorlsareonlyfoundwithwomeningravesandarefoundin‘female’partsofthehouse,wecannotassumethatmendidnotdotheweaving.Wemaybeabletoshowfromstudiesofhumanbonesthatwomenatedifferentorbetterfoodinacertaintimeperiod,butultimatelyfoodtoohasitssymboliccomponentsandfoodassociationsdonotprovideadirectinsightintowhocontrolledfooddistribution.IbecamedisillusionedbytheseproblemsandultimatelywroteabouttheEuropeanNeolithic(Hodder1990andChapter16)withoutdiscussinggenderissuesatanylength.Itseemedsodifficulttofilltherepresentationrealitygap.InowthinkthatmydecisionwasprematureandderivedfromsomethingwhichIseemedtohaveinabundance—malebias.Ihadassumed,despitebeingaproponentoftheideaof‘symbolsinaction’,thattheNeolithicsymbolismwasultimatelyunimportant.IhadassumedthatinordertounderstandtheelaboratesymbolismIhadtogetattherealitybehindit.Ihadseenthesignifiers,particularlythefemalesignifiers,aspassivelymanipulatedinrelationtosomesignified.Ihadassumedthatpowerwasreallybasedonthecontrolofresources(reproduction,production,copper,exchange,etc.)andthatthesymbolssimplyrepresentedthatrealpower.IwasfrustratedbecauseIcouldnotgetbeyondthelight,insubstantialsymbolstothedeeper-voicedresourcesandpowerswhichlaybehindthem.Thisisaviewofpowerwhich,formeatleast,feministcritiquehasopenedup.Moore(1988,35)saysthat‘mostfeministscholarswouldnowagree,Ithink,thattheculturalvaluationsgiventowomenandmeninsocietyarisefromsomethingmorethanjusttheirrespectivepositionsintherelationsofproduction’.Culturalrepresentationsofgenderrarelyaccuratelyreflectmale-femalerelations,men’sandwomen’sactivities,ormen’sandwomen’scontributionsinanygivensociety.SoIrealisedthatIhadbeentryingtodotheimpossiblebecauseIhadbeenunderestimatingtheculturalconstructionofgender.Ihadbeentryingtoequaterepresentationswithrealpowerswithoutseeingthatthetwodonotnecessarilyequate.Whilecertainpositionsintherelationsofproductionmaybepositivelyevaluatedandrepresentedintheculturalsystem,othersmaynot.Perhapsmoreimportant,therearemanytypesofpower,someofwhichdonotrelatedirectlytotherelationsofproduction.Somegroupsmayhavetoworkwithintheintersticesofdominantpowerrelations,creatingalternativedimensionsofpowerthroughthenegotiationofmeaning.Representation,whetherovertormuted,canitselfbeaformofpower.OfcourseIhadknownallthisabstractlyforsometime,butinrelationtogenderintheNeolithicdataIseemedtohavebecomepeculiarlyblindtoit.WhatIbegantoseeasIstartedtocriticisemyownmalebias,wasthatIhadbeenwantingsomepositivist,universalrelationshipssothatIcouldreadofftherelativerolesofmenandwomenfromtherelationsofproduction.IwantedtherelationsofproductiontoanswerwhetherearlyNeolithicwomenweresubordinateornot.AsaresultofmycritiqueIcametoseetwoproblemswithmymaleperspectiveonpower.First,thereisnosimplerelationshipbetweenrelationsofproductionandgenderdominationbecauseculturalvaluesand Genderrepresentationandsocialreality223representationalsystemsintervene.Second,representationalsystemsinvolvinggenderareconstructedhistoricallyandspecifically.Thuselaboratefemalesymbolisminthedomesticcontextmightmeanverydifferentthingsindifferentsocieties.AgoodexampleofthisisprovidedbyGailey(1987,7),whoshowshowitusedtobeassumedthatanthropologistscouldmeasurethepowerlessnessofwomenbymeasuringtheirdeferencebehaviourtomen.Infact,however,themeaningofdeferencevariesandinsomeculturesitcanmeannotpowerlessnessbutpower.ClearlyIneededtoreturntotheNeolithicexampleandstartagainbynotassumingthattherewasonetypeofpower.Ineededtoacceptthatthereweredifferenttypesofpowerinsociety,manycross-cuttingandmultivalent,andthatthepowersofmenandwomenwouldhavebeendefinedbothinrelationtoresourcesandinrelationtosymbolicsystemswhichIwouldhavetoreadintheirownterms.ThefeministcritiquegaveanedgetothatcontextualityIhadpretendedtoembrace.IneededtoapproachthequestionofthesubordinationofwomenintheNeolithicbyrealising,first,thatthequestionwascomplexandmultivalentand,second,bytryingtounderstandtherepresentationofmenandwomenascontextuallyconstructedandcontextuallymeaningful.IhavenowbegunthismorecarefulcontextualreadingofthehistoricalcomplexityoftheNeolithicdata.Ibelieveitispossibletoconstructdetailed‘historical’accountsofthetypedevelopedbyLeGoff(1985,100)inhisworkonthemedievalimagination.LeGoffarguesthatinterdictionsonflesh,sexuality,menstrualbloodandwomenbecamestrongerinthetenthtotwelfthcenturiesADbecausetheChurchwastryingtoseparateitselffromandtocontrolthelaity.Theideaofthepurevirginalpriesthood(modelledonChristthebachelor)wascontrastedwiththelaitysoiledinmarriage.Thechurchbecameasocietyofbachelors,whichimprisonedlaysocietyinmarriage’.Thisaccountgivesaninsightintoacomplexsituationinwhichtheperspectivesofwomenwouldneedtobeintegrated,butitunambiguouslysituatesgenderrolesandgenderrepresentationinaspecifichistoricalcontext.Verybriefly,IamattemptingtoshowintheNeolithicinEuropethatgenderrepresentationcanbesetwithinwiderbutspecifichistoricalcircumstances.MyreadingoftheburialtombsoftheNeolithicinnorthandwesternEuropeprovidesanexample(Hodder1990).ThetombsoftheSOMcultureintheParisBasincontainlargenumbersofhumanbonesandthesettlementdatasuggestthattheserepresentkinshipratherthanresidenceunits.ThemegalithictombsofnorthwesternEuropegenerallyprovideindependentevidenceabouttheimportanceofkinshipandcommunallabour(asseenintheconstructionofthemonumentaltombs).Someofthetombscontainevidenceindependentofgenderdataforapervasivesetofideasaboutregenerationandrenewal.InspecificinstancesIcandemonstratethatthisgeneralclassofburialmonumentwassurroundedinsymbolsofagriculturalclearanceandproduction,ofcontinuity,durationandoflifethroughdeath.Byplantingthedeadintheground,societywasrenewedandregenerated.Repetitiveactsoverthelongterminvolvingpresentationoffoodanddrinkatthetombs,repetitiveactsofrebuildingandrenewal,offillingwithearthandofburning,allsuggestthecentralityofideastodowithregeneration,renewalandsocialreproduction.ClearlythistypeofanalysisneedstobeextendedtootherNeolithicgroupssuchasatCatalHuyukorinsoutheastEurope,anditneedstobeextendedtothelatertimeperiod. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology224ButIthinkthatIambeginningtobeabletoarguethatinthetypeofkinship/communalproduction/symbolicrenewalsystemIhavebrieflydescribed,thepervasivefemalesymbolismcanbecontextuallydefined.InsuchasystemthedepictionofwomenattheentrancestoSOMtombscomestohaveacontextualmeaning.Inthesetombsthenecklacesandbreastsofwomenareunambiguouslyshownandtheyoccurtowardsthefrontofthetombwhereasaxedepictionsarefoundmoretotheinteriorofthetomb,includingtheinnerrecesses(Hodder1990).Fromothercontextualevidenceitisreasonabletoassociatetheseaxeswithmen.Thefemalemaynothavebeenassociatedspatiallyandsymbolicallywiththehumanbonesinthetomb,norwiththeesotericknowledgeinvolvedinthesortingofthebonesinitsdarkrecesses.Butitisthefemaleoneseesattheentrancetothetomb.FewpeoplewouldhavebeenabletogetthroughthenarrowpassagesintotheSOMtombsatonetime.Indeeditcanbearguedthatthewholetombwasinsomesenseovertlyfemale.Itseemsunreasonabletoarguethat,giventheindependentevidenceforanoverallsocialemphasisonreproductionandrenewal,andgiventhemultidimensionalnatureofpower,womenwerepowerlessandtotallysubordinateinthesocialcontextoftheSOMtombs.Rather,itseemsmorelikely,giventhehistoricalcontextinwhichthetombrepresentationsofwomenarefound,thattherepresentationshelpedconstitutearealpowerforwomen.Thefemalesymbolismatthetombsoccurredinrelationtokinshipandcommunalrelationsofproductionandinrelationtospecificideologicalmeaningswhichsurroundedtheeconomicrelationsandwhichwerebasedonideasofsocialreproduction,rebirthandrenewal.InsuchacontextIwouldarguethatthefemalesymbolismmusthaveconstitutedacertainpowerforwomen,howevermuchitmighthavebeencontested,contradictedandsubordinated.Afterall,thefemaledepictionsareexcludedfromtheinteriorsoftheSOMtombs.CONCLUSIONMygeneralaimherehasbeentooutlineanapproachtogenderthatishistoricalandhermeneuticwhileremainingreflexivelycritical—inotherwordsanapproachthatIhavedubbedcontextual.Itcouldbearguedthatacriticalhermeneuticapproachisnecessaryifwewanttoshowhowgenderrelationsareexperiencedandgivenmeaning,howtheyareusedtodefinepersonhoodandhowtheyareinvolvedinsubtlewaysinmultidimensionalrelationsofpower.Insofarastheseissuesarepartoffeministarchaeology,positivismisnotanappropriateframeworkandIhaveheardotherssuchasAlisonWyliemakeasimilarpoint.StaceyandThorne(1985)claimthatfeministapproacheshavesucceededleastindisciplines(likesociology,psychology,economics)moredeeplyanchoredinpositivism.Itisinfieldswithastronginterpretiveapproach(history,literature,socioculturalanthropology)thatfeminismhasmostadvanced.Itmaybearchaeology’srecentpositivisthistorycoupledwithitsincreasingresourcebaseinthesciencesthathasimpededthedevelopmentoffeministarchaeologyforsolong.HoweverinadequatelyandbrieflyIhavepresentedmyowncontextualinterpretationoftheEuropeanNeolithic,Iwouldarguethatanoveralltheoreticalshiftisneededinthedisciplinebeforemanyofthemostexcitingaspectsoffeminismcantakeholdinarchaeology.AsMichelleRosaldosaidofthisshiftinanthropology,wemustpursuenot Genderrepresentationandsocialreality225universal,generalcausality,butmeaningfulexplanation.‘Itnowappearstomethatwoman’splaceinhumansociallifeisnotinanydirectsenseaproductofthethingsshedoes,butofthemeaningheractivitiesacquirethroughconcretesocialinteraction’(Rosaldo1980,400).Ihopethesamecanbesaidofman’splace.ButitisthroughwriterssuchasRosaldoandotherfeministandgenderstudiesthatwidertheoreticalmovescanbemadeinarchaeologywhichincorporatecriticalandinterpretiveapproachestowomen,menandallareasofsociallife.REFERENCESBarstow,A.(1978)‘Theusesofarchaeologyforwomen’shistory:JamesMellaart’sworkontheNeolithicgoddessatCatalHuyuk’,FeministStudies4,7–18.Bender,B.(1978)‘Gatherer-huntertofarmer:asocialperspective’,WorldArchaeology10,204–22.Draper,P.(1975)‘!Kungwomen:contrastsinsexualegalitarianisminforagingandsedentarycontexts’,inR.R.Reiter(ed.)TowardanAnthropologyofWomen,NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.Gailey,C.W.(1987)KinshiptoKingship,Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.Hodder,I.(1987)‘Contextualarchaeology:aninterpretationofCatalHuyukandadiscussionoftheoriginsofagriculture’,BulletinoftheInstituteofArchaeology24,43–56.——(1990)TheDomesticationofEurope,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Leacock,E.(1978)‘Women’sstatusinegalitariansociety:implicationsforsocialevolution’,CurrentAnthropology19,247–75.LeGoff,J.(1985)TheMedievalImagination,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Meeker,M.,Barlow,K.andLipset,D.(1986)‘Culture,exchangeandgender:lessonsfromtheMurik’,CulturalAnthropology1,6–73.Moore,H.(1988)FeminismandAnthropology,Cambridge:PolityPress.Rosaldo,M.(1980)‘Theusesandabusesofanthropology:reflectionsonfeminismandcross-culturalunderstanding’,Signs5,400.Stacey,J.andThorne,B.(1985)Themissingfeministrevolutioninsociology’,SocialProblems32,301–16.Weiner,A.B.(1978)‘ThereproductivemodelinTrobriandsociety’,Mankind11,175–86. 18WRITINGARCHAEOLOGY:SITEREPORTSINCONTEXTIwishtobeginbyquotingfroman‘AccountofaRomanpavement,withwheatunderneathit,foundatColchester’inArchaeologia2(Griffith1773):StMaryHill,May31,1771DearSir,Itakethefirstopportunity,aftermyreturnfromColchester,tosendyousomeparticularsrelatingtothewheatlatelyfoundthere,underaRomanpavement,inthekitchengardenofDoctorPiggot,aphysician,inAngelLaneinthattown.BetweentwoandthreeyearsagotheDoctorhavingobservedthatsomeofhisfruittrees,whichstoodinonecontinuedline,didnotthrivesowellastherest,heorderedamantodigatalittledistancefromtheoutermostofthem….Afterdiggingtothedepthofayardandahalf,thereappearedaRomanpavement,consistingofrudeandcoarsetesellaeorbrick,withoutanymaterialdifferenceofcolour,oranyvarietyoffigurearisingfromthedispositionofthem.Havingthusfoundwhatitwasthatcheckedthegrowthofhistrees,hedesistedfromanyfurtherenquiry,tillthebeginningofthismonth,whenheorderedamantodiginthesameplace;who,havinglaidthegroundopentotheextentoffiveyardsandaquarterinlength,andtwoyardsandanhalfinbreadth,cametotheextremityofthepavementontheeastandsouthsides….AnacquaintancehavinginformedmeofsomewheatbeingfoundafewdaysbeforeunderaRomanpavement,Iwentimmediatelytothespot….Iam,dearSir,YourfaithfulhumbleServantGuyonGriffithIcouldhavetakenmysecondillustrationfromanyrecentexcavationreport.The1978CBAResearchReport28ontheExcavationsatAshvilleTradingEstate,Abingdon(1974-1976)containsthefollowingsentences(Parrington1978,6)inasectiononBronzeAgeditchesandcremationpits:F1054(Fig.7)was0.14mdeepandovalinplanbeing0.7mwidenorth-southand1.3mlongeast-west.Inthefillofthefeatureweretwocompletepots(Fig.27,No.9and10,p.28)andfragmentsofcrematedbone(p.92).Halfametretothewestof1054wasanotherareaofcharcoal-fleckedloam,F1033(Fig.7). Writingarchaeology:sitereports227F1033was0.36mdeepandcircularinshapehavingadiameterof0.25m.Thefeaturecontainedfragmentsofcrematedbone(p.92)andwascutintothefillofditch460.Historiesofarchaeologyneedtonoticethedifferentwaysinwhicharchaeologicaltextsarewrittenthroughtime.Thedifferencesbetweenthesetwoexamplesofarchaeologicalwritingdonotsimplyresideintherecentaccountgivingmorereferencesandmeasurements.Bothreportsdoprovidequantitative,objectivedata.Neitherdothedifferencesresultsimplyfromtheexplosionofarchaeologicaldata,eventhoughtherecentaccountisenormouslylongerthanthetwopagesandonediagramof1773.Rather,thewholewayofwritinghaschanged.Theearlieraccountisimprecisebutitisfixedintimeandplace.Ittellsastoryoftheexcavation,withasequenceofeventsthroughtime.Anditinvolvesnamedactorsandtheirintentions.Themorerecentaccountreadstomeasoutsidetimeandplace,abstractandwithoutanauthor,usingafixeddescriptivecode.Inexaminingthistransformation,Ihavetoselecttextsfromthegreatvarietyandquantityofsitereportsfromtheeighteenthcenturytothepresentday.Thewaytextsarewrittendependspartlyonwhotheyarewrittenfor.Anareaspecialist,concernedwithdetail,willonlytakenoteofthestyleofwritingifitgetsinthewayofthedetail.Thewideraudienceofprofessionalarchaeologists,concernedwiththestorythetexttells,willlookatthewayinwhichtheoryisbroughttobearondata.Studentswilloftenwantsimplifiedtexts,governmentdepartmentswillemphasizelinkstopracticalpolicies,andthepopularreadershipwillwantreadabilitywithoutjargon.WhencomparingtextsthroughtimeIneedtocomparelikewithlike.Asitereportmaydifferconsiderablyinstylefromageneralorpopularsynthesiswrittenbythesameauthor.InmyaccountIemphasisereportsinthejouralsoftheestablishedsocieties,withsomeconsiderationofbook-lengthreportspublishedbythemainsocietiesorgovernmentagencies.Idonotseethechangessincethe1770sasthesimpleresultsoftheapplicationof‘science’inthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies.Rightfromthebeginning,theatmosphereofexcavationreportsinArchaeologiawasscientificandrigorous.TheveryfirstsentenceinthefirstvolumeofArchaeologia,publishedbytheSocietyofAntiquariesin1770,reads:Thehistoryandantiquitiesofnationsandsocietieshavebeenobjectsofinquirytocuriouspersonsinallages,eithertoseparatefalsehoodfromtruth,andtraditionfromevidence,toestablishwhathadprobabilityforitsbasis,ortoexplodewhatrestedonlyonthevanityoftheinventorsandpropagators.Thegrowthofantiquarianresearchislinkedtothegeneralriseofthesciences(Archaeologia1(1770),2):Thearrangementandproperuseoffactsishistory;—notamerenarrativetakenupatrandomandembellishedwithpoeticdiction,butaregularandelaborateinquiryintoeveryancientrecordandproof.Despitethisearlyopposition—scienceandhistoryontheonehandandnarrative,the Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology228poeticandthepersonalontheother—thestyleofwriting(trope)ofsitereportsinthe1770sinArchaeologiawasverydifferentfromourown.Itallowedthenarratortobepresentinthetext.Manyoftheseearlyexamplesare‘lettersfrom’or‘partsofaletterfrom’anindividualtotheSocietyofAntiquaries,oftenintroducedbyaFellowoftheSociety.TheyfrequentlyshowdeferencetothenoblesandchurchmenwhomadeupalargeproportionoftheFellows.Arelativelyclosedsocietyreceived,controlledandpublishedknowledgesentinfromtheoutsideworld.Thestyleofwritingimposedbythispowerstructurehastwodistinctivecharacteristics.First,thereportisfixedintimeandplace.Thelettersarealwaysdatedtoaparticularday(suchasMay31,1771),andtheplaceofwritingisalsogiven.Theeventsdescribedalsofixthereportinaparticularcontext.ThefirstparagraphofGriffith’slettertellsusthatthereportwaswrittenfrommemoryandperhapsnotes.Thereportisaletter,writtenataparticulartimeandplace.Ifwrittenthedayafter,presumablyadifferentletterwouldhavebeenwritten.Thereportappearstome,thereader,aslocated,particular,contingent,transient.Second,thereportfrequentlyusesthefirst-personpronounthatisappropatetoaletter.Theauthor,thesubject,the‘I’,isundeniablypresent.InGriffith’sletterthepersonalpronounsconstantlyremindthereaderthatthereportistheopinionofanindividual.Andtheseearlyreportstiethedescriptionsofsitesandexcavationscloselytoindividuals.Inhisletterof1773describingNewGrange,GovernorPownallwrites(1773,258):examiningverynarrowly,withacandleinmyhand,allthepartsofthiscemetery,Idiscoveredontheflatstone…whatItooktobetracesofletters….TheselineswereofabreadthanddepthinwhichIcouldlaythenailofmylittlefinger....AsIhadcontinuedinthiscaveamuchlongertimethanwasprudent,bywhichIcaughtaviolentillness...Igaveoverthetask,referringittobedoneatleisurebythesurveyor,whomDr.Norriswassogoodastoengage.Mr.Bovieaccordinglytracedthissupposedinscription;and,asitappearstome,faithfully,andwithduecare…PownallfurthervouchesfortheaccuracyofMrBovie’swork,followingthepatterninwhichindividualswithintheSocietyofAntiquariesgivetheirstampofpersonalapprovaltothepublishedletters,byintroducingthem.Theappearanceofthesitereportspartlydependsonapersonalauthorityandprivilege,themselvespartlyinheritedwithinestablishedstructures.Theindividualandpersonalareemphasisedinthetexts,partlybecausepoweroutsidethetextisalsoindividual,personalandarbitrary.Alongwithfirst-personpronounsgonamedindividuals.GriffithreferstoDrPiggottthephysicianandtoseveralworkmen(significantlynotidentifiedbyname).Thereaderoftheletter,the‘you’,isalsotakenintothecontextofthediscoveries.GovernorPownall(1773,250)writesofNewGrange:Asmost…theBarrowswhichweknowof…areformedofearth,youwill,uponyourapproachtothis,besurprisedtofinditapyramidofstone.Theseearlyreportsarefulloftheactionsofindividuals.Theyaretomenotonlymore Writingarchaeology:sitereports229interestingtoread,butalsolocatedintermsoftheparticular,thecontingent.Thepersonalisedeighteenth-centuryaccountsincludedebate,controversy,anddialoguebetweendifferentinterpretations.WhenGovernorPownall(ibid.,252)triestomeasuretheheightofNewGrange,ThiswasdonebyMr.SamuelBovie,aland-surveyorinthatpartofthecountry....Ihavesomereasontodoubtofhisprojectionofthealtitude.…Dr.Molineux…says,thatthealtitudeis150feet,whileMr.Boviemakesitbut42.Neitheroftheseaccountscanberight....Imakethealtitudeinthewholeabout70feet…andasmyeye…willjudgeofoutlinesandangleswithanaccuracynearlyapproachingtomeasurement,Ifindmyself…therathermoreconfirmedinmyopinion.HowDr.Molineuxcouldbeledintothemistakethatthealtitudewas150feet,Icannotconceive.Thecontextualisedandcontingentnatureoftheseearlyreportsisalsoseenintheirstructuringbythenarrativeofdiscoveryorbysomeothersequenceofevents.InreportingtheRomanpavementatColchester,Griffithtellsus:DrPiggotthadaproblemwithhisfruittrees;hethenfoundapavement;twoyearslaterhedugagain;anacquaintancetoldGuyonGriffithwhowenttovisit;hesawthewheatunderthepavement,butDrPiggottwasoutsohecouldnotverifyhowmuchwheathadbeenthrownaway.Thisemphasisonsequenceisespeciallyfoundinaccountsoftheopeningofbarrows.AreportinArchaeologia3(Preston1775,273)begins:Thelabourersbeganbydrivingalevel,andforsometimefoundnothingworthnotice.Atlengthoneofthem,diggingonthetopofthebarrowdownwards,turnedup...apieceofanurn,andsoonaftercametowhathethoughtanurn,fixedinalargepotorvessel,andcontainingasmallquantityofwhiteashes….Aboutayardbelowthesetheworkmencametoanorbicularpileofstones,resemblingavault….Onremovingthispile,theycametoafineblackmould…Individualdiscoveriesareplacedinasequencewhichorganisesthewaythesiteandthefindsaredescribed.Thereaderknowsthatthesitewouldhaveyieldedadifferentstory,ifithadbeendugdifferentlyindifferentcircumstances.Asaresult,Ifindacertainexcitementinreadingtheseeighteenth-centuryreports,andatensionasonefollowstheprocessofdiscovery.Thisexcitementisenhancedbytheuseofpersonalpronounsandactor-orientedaccounts.Interpretation,too,islinkedintothedescriptionoftheexcavation.Imaginativeandpoetictermsareoftenused,butthereisakeenidentificationofunwarrantedinterpretationas‘conjecture’.Theunderstandingofthesiteistiedtotheprocessofexcavationitself.Hypothesesarerejectedoradoptedastheexcavationcontinues.Themeaningofthesiteislinkedtothecircumstancesofrecovery.Inthenineteenthcentury,thegeneralscientificaimsofexcavationandarchaeologyremain,butthemannerofwritingseemsgraduallytoshift.Lettersarereplacedbyarticles,althoughlargepartsoftextsaresometimespresentedasextendedquotations. Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology230Thefirst-personpronounisstilloftenused;evenattheendofthecenturyPitt-Rivers(1894,206)canbeginanarticleonSouthLodge,‘Iwaspreventedbyillnessfromexcavatinginthesummerof1892,butinApril1893,Ireturnedtothework’;andtheentirereportusesthefirstperson.Frequentlythereaderisstillinvitedtosituateherselfwithinthetext.Forexample,intheReverendJohnCollingwoodBruce’sreportontheexcavationsorderedbytheDukeofNorthumberlandontheRomanfortatBremenium,‘oncomingwithintheprecinctsofthestation,thespectatorwillbestruckwiththemassofbuildingwhichitcontains….Acloserscrutinywillshow…(1852,137).Evendescriptionsandmeasurementscanbeseenasauthored,personalandcontingent.TheBremeniumwallfoundationdoesnothaveamaximumwidthof16or17feet,but‘MrMcLauchlanstatesthethicknessofthefoundationsasmeasuringinseveralplaces16or17feet’(ibid.,136).Althoughexcavationreportsbecomelongerinthenineteenthcentury,theyareoftenstillorganisedaccordingtothesequenceofeventsofdiscoveryandexcavation.However,bytheendofthecenturyspecialistreportsbecomemorecommon(e.g.Pitt-Rivers1894),inwhichtheaimistoplacetheartifactsintoconstructedarchaeologicaltypologies,includingpotterytypologies.Thereismorespecialistjargon,suchas‘central’and‘secondary’intermentsinbarrows.Atransformationoccurstowardsmoredistant,abstract,decontextualisedaccountsandtowardsarchaeologicalterminologieswithinwhichfindsaretobedescribed.Ofcourse,theoldemphasesonthe‘I’,theactor,dialogue,narrativesequenceandinterpretationtiedtothecontingentcontextofdiscovery,neverwhollydieout.Itisinreadingreportsofthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturiesthatwefindastylewhichisfamiliar.InArchaeologiathereportsarestillpapers‘read’tothesocietyonacertaindaysothatsomeauraofthecontingent,particularandprivilegedremains.Butthereislittleevidenceofpersonalpronouns,ofauthorsoractors.InareportonCaerwentexcavationsthepassivevoiceisusedwidely(Ashby1906).Asandstoneblock‘wasfound’,and‘itmustbenotedthat’.Theimperativeseemstosuggesttherecanonlybeonepossibleinterpretation.Indeed,admittedinterpretationhaslargelydisappearedbehindobjectivedescription.Thus,‘acomparison…willshowthat’(ibid.,118)—asiftheobservationsaswellastheartifactshadbeenfound,andasifthedescriptionisself-evident,distancedfromanyonlookerorauthor.Reportsareincreasinglyorganisedbyfeature(suchashouses,gates,defences)ratherthanbythesequenceofexcavation.Inthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcenturythesametrendscontinue,sothatbythetimeofPiggott’s(1962)volumeontheexcavationsoftheWestKennetlongbarrow,limitedpersonalinformationisplacedinabriefpreface.Althoughplansaresignedanddated,the‘I’,‘you’,‘he’or‘she’arelargelyabsent.Instead,‘themound…wasexaminedbyacutting’,‘itwasseenthat’and‘itwasquicklyrealisedthat’.Ininterpretivesectionstheuseof‘we’(asin‘sofarwehavenotedthat’)ismoreanimperiousroyal‘we’thatemphasisestheuniversalandtheself-evident.Thewriterandtheexcavatorareabsent,hiddenwithincodesandinstitutions.ThusPiggottnotesthat‘theMinistryofWorksmadethemselvesresponsibleforpreparingaplanofallvisiblestones…andforlayingoutasurveygridwhichwouldenable10’squarestobeexcavatedanywherewithinitsarea’.Thisimageofapublicinstitution,theMinistryofWorks,layingoutagridwithinwhichtheexcavationcouldtakeplace,isa Writingarchaeology:sitereports231wonderfulmetaphorforthenewstyleofwriting.Aslegislationandpublicfundingincreasedinarchaeologyandasthestatebecameresponsibleforpreservingthepastforthenation,sostandardisedcodesandprocedureswereintroducedwhichdependedlessonpersonalauthorityandmoreonanabstractdisciplinarycode.Piggottorganiseshis1962reportintothefamiliarsectionsofthemodernorder:introduction,description,thefinds,discussionandappendices.Thesequenceofdiscovery,thecontingenteventsofexcavation,arereducedtoonepageofdryaccount.Themainbodyofthereportdescribesmeasurementsandsoils.Considerablespaceisdevotedtodefiningarchaeologicaltermswhichhavelittlemeaningexceptascategories—Ebbsfleet,Mortlake,TranseptedGallery-GravesoftheSevern-CotswoldSeries.The‘interpretation’largelyconsistsofdescribingparallels.Inthereportsofthe1970sand1980sthisnewgridwithinwhichweallworkhasbecomeincreasinglyformalised(asintheFrereandCunliffereports).Thewritinghasbecomeincreasinglydistant,objective,impersonalanduniversal.Wehavebecomeblindtothefactthatwearewriting.Itappearsasifself-evidentdataaresimplydescribedinneutralterms.Thedescriptionisundated,timelessandbeyondhistory.Whileasitereporttodaystilloftenhasamainauthor,thereareusuallynumerousothercontributorsandspecialists.Thesitereporthasoftenbecometrulycollective.Butthereisrarelyanydebateoruncertaintyinthetext,anddialogueamongthecollectiverarelysurfacesonthepage.Mostexcavationsinvolvedifferencesofopinionaboutdrawingsections,planningfeatures,decidingonsequencesandinterpretation.Ourdecisionsaboutwhathappenedatasitechangeaswedigandanalysethefinds.Thesupposed‘final’interpretationresultsfromaseriesofcontingentfactors,andmostexcavatorsknowthattheir‘final’accountmightwellhavebeendifferentiftheycouldhaveexcavatedmoreorobtainedmoreanalyticalresults.Butinthereport,dialogueandcontingencyarewrittenout.Aftertheexcavationisfinishedanda‘final’interpretationisreached,weworkbackwardsandreorganiseourdatasothattheyarecoherent.Wepublishthisconstructedaccountasifitsimplydescribeswhatwasthere.Allthekindsofinformationthatwerecentraltotheeighteenth-centuryaccount—thepersonal,theactive,thesequential,theinterpretive—arenowmarginalisedtointroductionsortodiscussionsattheend.Theintroduction,describingthehistoryoftheexcavation,usuallyhasnobearingonthemainbodyofthereport,andtheinterpretationattheendisusuallyjustamatterofchronology,typologicalparallelsandfunctionalargumentswithlittlereferencetothelayers,pottery,flint,bones,seedsandsnailsthatweresodrilydescribedinthepreviouspages.Insomereportsnodiscussionorinterpretationattheendevenexists.Thecodeddescriptionsofpotsandlayersarelefthangingasself-evident.ANINTERPRETATIONHowcanIexplainthegradualshiftfromthecontingentandcontextualisedintheeighteenthcenturytothemodern,abstract,distancedanduniversal?Whydocontingentconclusionsappeartodayasunargued,drydescriptionsoftheself-evident?Ihavealreadylinkedthegradualshiftinwritingstyletochangingstructuresofpowerandofthe Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology232productionofknowledge.Intheeighteenthcentury,scientificauthoritywasidentifiedwiththepersonalauthorityofindividualsincludinglordsandbishops.Inthetwentiethcentury,powerinthearchaeologicalcommunityhasbeendispersed.Itresidesininstitutionsandinthepublicspace.Theauthorityofthetextisnolongerpersonal,butliesinadherencetoabstractcodes.Theself,historyanduncertaintymustbedenied.InDisciplineandPunish,Foucault(1977)arguesthat,priortothelateeighteenthcenturyinFrance,powerwascentredonthesovereignandnobility.Itwaspersonalandarbitrary;akingcouldsuddenly,arbitrarilypardonanindividualcondemnedtodeath.Asthispowercametobeseenasexcessive,anotherdisciplinarypowerdeveloped,notagreatapparatuswieldedbythestatebutdispersedwithinthesystemitself.Thesupervisorswerethemselvessupervisedwithinahumane,preciseanddemocraticcode.Thecodebecameincreasinglyimpersonal;atthesametimeitinvolvedsurveillanceanddefinitionofindividuals.Foucaultarguesthatmanyofthehumansciencesdevelopedinthisperiodbecauseofaneedwithinsocietytosurveyandcontrolindividualswithprecision,andbecauseofadesiretoidentifyobjective,non-arbitrarycodestoliveby.ThegrowthofarchaeologyasascienceinthenineteenthcenturyinBritainfitswiththesedevelopments.Thepasthadbeenassociatedwithtradition,establishedauthority,superstitionandthelackofscience.In1651Baconhadwrittenthat‘toogreatareverenceforAntiquityisprejudicialtotheadvancementofscience’.Inthenineteenthcenturythescientificevidencefortheantiquityofthehumanspeciesconfrontedestablishedviews,includingtheviewsoftheestablishedchurch.Todisperseknowledgeaboutthepastwithinanabstract,impersonalandobjectivecodewastodispersethepowerandauthoritybasedontradition.Power,nolongerpersonalandarbitrary,wasdispersedwithinthefabricofscienceanditsinstitutions.Asthestyleofarchaeologicalwritingchanged,legislationwasgraduallyintroducedwhichplacedthearchaeologicalpastmorecompletelyintopublichands.ThefirstBritishacttobepassedwastheAncientMonumentsProtectionActin1882(Cleere1984).‘Before1882,thestateundertooklittleornoresponsibilitywithinaspherenowgenerallyrecognizedastheproperconcernofanycivilisedstate’(Clark1934,414).CommissionersofWorkswouldnowberesponsibleforcertainscheduledmonuments.Butitwasnotuntilthenewactof1913thattheAncientMonumentsBoardwasconstitutedwithgreaterpowers.Theactof1931empoweredtheCommissionersofWorkstocarryoutexcavations.Indeed,ClarkarguedthattheCommissionerswerelegallyempoweredtocontrolallarchaeologicalexcavationinthecountry(ibid.,418).Clarkwasinnodoubtthatthelegislativeprogrammewasmadepossiblebytheestablishmentofarchaeologyasanon-arbitrary,objectivescience(ibid.,414):ThestudyofBritishArchaeologyhasonlywithinthelastfiftyyearsreachedadegreeofaccuracyanddisciplineworthyoftheexpenditureofpublicfunds.’Noticetheclearlinkbetweenthedevelopmentofadisciplineddisciplineofarchaeologyandthetransferintothepublicdomainofpoweroverthepast:‘ItisoftheutmostsignificanceinthisconnectionthatthefirstscientificBritisharchaeologist,GeneralPitt-Rivers,wasappointedasfirstInspectorofAncientMonumentsundertheActof1882’(ibid.,414).Clarknotedthatearlierarchaeologistswereactinginanarbitrary,privilegedmannerwhentheydevastatedmonuments.Theprovisionofadisciplinarycode,dispersedandpublic,waspartofamoregeneralprocessofsocialtransformation.Thepast,takenoutofprivatehands, Writingarchaeology:sitereports233wouldnolongerlegitimateandconstitutetraditionalprivilegeandpersonalauthority(ibid.,414):Thewholeconceptionofthestateexertingitspowerfortheconservationofanationalheritageattheexpenseofanarrowlyconceivedviewofprivatepropertyisofitselfaproductofrecentconstitutionalchanges,reflectedinthesuccessiveextensionsofthefranchisebetween1867and1918.ThevariousAncientMonumentsActs,etc.maybeconsideredasmanifestationsofthesamesocialconsciencethatsuccessfullydemandedsuchmeasuresastheregulationofconditionsofemployment,insuranceforwork-people,provisionforunemployedpersons,compulsoryeducation,suitablehousingforthepoor,andthenationalisationofcertainresourcessuchaspetroleum.CONTEMPORARYWRITING:SOMESUGGESTIONSOtheraspectsofarchaeologicalsitereportsfollowthetrend.Datedandsignedillustrationswithanindividual’sstylehavegivenwaytoanonymous,codedrepresentations.Butitisinthewritingofsitereportsthattherehasbeentheplainesttrendtowardsamoreimpersonal,abstract,timelessandobjectivestyle.Thedatathatweexcavatemustbemadeavailableincodeforotherstouse.Thisimpersonalstyleofwriting,developedtodealwithearlierproblems,mayinitsturnnowbelosingitsvalue.Atbestthereportsaredull,excessivelylong,detailedandexpensiveandreadbynooneexceptthedeliriousspecialist.Itoftenseemstomeasifthecodehasbecomeeverything,pursuedforitsownsake.Thepublicvalueofthelistsanddrydescriptionsisquestionable.Atworst,thescientific,objectiveandrigorousnatureofthereportscanbecalledintodoubt.Howcanreportsbeadequatelyscientificinwhichitisdifficulttoseewhyaparticularconclusionhasbeenreached,bywhatprocessofargument,andwithwhatuncertainties?Wewishtomakethedataavailabletoothers.Buthowcantheyusethedatacriticallyifwetellthemlittleaboutthecontextinwhichthedatawerecollected?Thepublisheddatacanbeevaluatedonlywithknowledgeofthecontingentinterpretivecontextinwhichtheywereidentifiedasdata.Ifarchaeologyistodevelopasarigorousscience,wemustacknowledgethatthedataarenotself-evident.Trendsinthewritingofhistory(e.g.White1973)andethnography(e.g.CliffordandMarcus1986)mayprovidesomecluesforanewarchaeologicalwriting.Thesetrendsplacearenewedemphasisonrhetoric,onwritingfromthepointofviewofthereaderratherthanthewriter.Twoimportantcomponentsofrhetoricarenarrativeanddialogue.Iwishtodiscusstwoaspectsofnarrative:thepresenceofthenarratorandtheemphasisonnarrativesequence—thestoryline.Asregardsthenarrator,manyarchaeologistswillhavebeentoldbyteachersandeditorstoremovethe‘I’fromthetext,todenytheself,theauthor.Theauthorityofthetextistobeplacedoutsidetheselfinthefaceless,objectivediscipline.Givingaplacetothe‘I’,thenarrator,inaccountsofexcavations,wouldhelptosituatethetext,todiscloseitasitreallyis,provisionalandcontingent,constructedbyactorsinthepresent.Anemphasisonnarrativesequenceorstorylinewouldinvolveretainingsomeofthe Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology234sequenceofexcavationanddiscoverywithinthetext,andsomeofthesequenceinwhichtheideasaboutthesitedeveloped.Inthereport—morehonest,readableandexciting—thereaderwouldseetheideasandinterpretationsascontingent.Thesitereportcouldbewrittenasacomplexinterweavingofsequencesofeventsinthepast(whathappenedonthesite)andsequencesofeventsinthepresent(whathappenedontheexcavation).Mostexcavationshavetheirdramas,theirproblemsunsolved.Thetextwouldpermituncertaintyandunresolveddoubtsandwouldnarrateatruerpictureofwhathadpassed.Dialoguewoulddrawontherelationshipsbetweenco-directors,betweensupervisors,betweendiggers,betweenspecialists,soastoprovideaflavourofdebateandargumentaboutthesite.Fewsitescanbedugintotalconsensus.Thedisagreementsshouldspilloverintothetextsothatthereadercaninsertherselfintoaprocessofargumentratherthanhavingtoconsumepre-packaged,supposedlyneutralfare.Otherattemptstodealwiththecurrentproblemsofarchaeologicalwritingmightincludetheprovisionoffundstoallowthosewritingsitereports,orspecialistreports,theopportunitytoincorporatetheirinformationintointerpretation.Itcannot,inmyview,beacceptabletousepublicfundstoproducepagesofdrydetailunlinked(andoftenunlinkable)toanypurpose,ideaortheory.Inpreservingtheheritagewehaveadutytogiveitsomemeaning.Wemightalsoconsiderpublishingmuchlargerportionsofsitereportsinmicroficheform,leavingthetextfornarrative,dialogueandinterpretation.Idonotarguethatweshouldreturntotheeighteenthcenturyinourwriting,althoughrhetoric,narrativeanddialoguewerebetterprovidedin1770thantheyhavebeeninthe1980s.Butwenowfacethemodernproblemsofoverloaded,dull,unreadablereports,aseparationofdataandinterpretation,concernaboutpublicfundingofarchaeology,theseparationoffield-professional,scientificspecialistandacademicinterpreter,changesinourunderstandingofthenatureofscience,andsoon.Wemaybeabletolearnfromearlierexperiencesofwritingarchaeology,butwehavetoworktheolderideasoutinnewways.REFERENCESAshby,T.(1906)‘ExcavationsatCaerwent,Monmouthshire,onthesiteoftheRomano-BritishcityofVentaSilurum,intheyear1905’,Archaeologia60,111–-30.Clark,G.(1934)‘Archaeologyandthestate’,Antiquity8,414–28.Cleere,H.(1984)‘GreatBritain’,inH.Cleere(ed.)ApproachestotheArchaeologicalHeritage,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Clifford,J.andMarcus,G.(1986)WritingCulture,Berkeley(CA):UniversityofCaliforniaPress.CollingwoodBruce,J.(1852)‘AnaccountoftheexcavationsatBremenium’,ProceedingsoftheArchaeologicalInstitute1,135–56.Foucault,M.(1977)DisciplineandPunish,NewYork:Vantage.Griffith,G.(1773)‘AccountofaRomanpavement,withwheatunderneathit,foundatColchester’,Archaeologia2,286–90.Parrington,M.(1978)TheExcavationofanIronAgeSettlement,BronzeAgeRingDitchesandRomanFeaturesatAshvilleTradingEstate,Abingdon(Oxfordshire) Writingarchaeology:sitereports2351974-6,London:CouncilforBritishArchaeologyResearchReport28.Piggott,S.(1962)TheWestKennetLongBarrowExcavations1955-6,London:HMSO.Pitt-Rivers,A.H.L.F.(1894)‘ExcavationoftheSouthLodgeCamp,RushmorePark:anentrenchmentoftheBronzeAge’,WiltshireArchaeologicalandNaturalHistoryMagazine27,206–-22.Pownall,T.(1773)‘AdescriptionofthesepulchralmonumentatNewGrange,nearDrogheda,inthecountyofMeath,inIreland’,Archaeologia2,236–75.Preston,W.(1775)‘AccountofopeningoneofthelargestbarrowsonSandfordMoor,Westmoreland’,Archaeologia3,273.White,H.(1973)Metahistory:theHistoricalImaginationinNineteenthCenturyEurope,Baltimore(MD):JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress. 19ARCHAEOLOGYANDTHEPOST-MODERNThiscontributionfollowsonfromthatofMerriman(1989)whoshowedtheexistenceandsocialcontextofa‘heritageboom’inBritainoverrecentyears(seealsoHewison1987).TherehasbeenadoublingofthenumberofmuseumsinBritainsince1971andtheyarecurrentlyopeningattherateofoneeverytendays.Therehasalsobeenasharprisesincethe1970sinthenumberofhistoricbuildingsopentothepublic.ThefourmostvisitedtouristattractionsinBritainareallmuseums.TheYorvikCentrereceivesaboutonemillionvisitorsayear.Iwanttotryandexplainwhythisboomhasoccurredanddiscusstherolesarchaeologistsshouldplayinrelationtopost-modernsociety.Oneimmediateexplanationfortheheritageboommightbethatitislinkedtotheriseinimportanceofgreenissues.Afterall,inthe1970sand1980sthepastwasrenameda‘resource’(asinCulturalResourceManagement)whichneededprotection.Perhapsalsotheincreasedawarenessoftheglobalscaleofenvironmentalissuesandclimaticchangehasproducedamillennialperspectivetowhichthelongtimespanscoveredbyarchaeologyseemrelevant.Buttheseanswersdonotexplainthewayinwhichpeopleseemfascinatedbythepastinthecurrentheritageboom.WhyisitparticularlycentressuchasYorvik,withitstimecarvisittoamomentfrozeninVikingYork,whichdosowell?Rather,Iwanttorelatetheattractionofsuchexperiencestopost-modernsociety.Thelatterisnoteasytodefine(Jameson1984;Eagleton1985;Harvey1989),butIwouldemphasisepastiche,facade,commodificationanddepthlessness.Thisisacultureof‘soundbites’,a‘SonyWalkman’societyinwhichtheindividualsubjectiscutoff,floatingfree,justanothersignifieritselffragmentedintomultiplelevelsofconsciousnessandintoaconflictingassortmentof‘beings’.Inthisdecontextualised,ironicworldthelanguageofcommerceandthecommodityareembracedandplayedwith.Everythingisa‘trivialpursuit’.Initiallyitseemsoddthatapost-modernismsodefinedshouldbelinkedtoaheritageboom.Post-modernismisallaboutthepresent.Lyotard(1984)arguesforthecollapseof‘metanarratives’,overarchingmetaphysicalphilosophiesorultimateschemes.InthiscontextEagleton(1985)suggeststhatwearepersuadedbypost-modernismtorecognisetheultimateUtopia‘asnothinglessthanthepresentitself.Ifmeaningisalwayselsewhereinthechainsofsignification,andifsocialrealityisalwaysalreadycommodified,thentherecanbenoultimatemeaning.Thereisonlythe‘doing’inthepresent.Modernismbelievedinchange,thepresenttobereplacedbyabetterfuture.Butpost-modernismacceptsthatthisideaofchangeorruptureisjustrepression.Indoingsoiteffacesbothhistoryandfutureandcelebratestheinstant.Lowenthal,inhis1985bookThePastisaForeignCountry,arguesthatoverthelasttwocenturiesthepasthasincreasinglybeenmademeaningless.Ourtieswiththepasthave Archaeologyandthepost-modern237beensevered.Itisnowadifferentplacewithlittlerelevancetothepresent.Sowhyinsuchacontextshouldwebegoingthroughaheritageboom?Infactthepasthasfoundanewandcentralroleinpost-modernism.Inthisnewrelationshipwiththepastwearenotplacedinhistoryandwedonotlearnfromit,butweareabsorbedwiththeveryforeignnessanddisconnectednatureofthepast.Withthecollapseof‘meaning’and‘cause’,theproducersofculturehavenowheretoturnbutthepast(Jameson1984).Thepastcanbeplunderedtoconstructanincoherentpresent.Thepastcanbe‘versionedofftoproduce,asinarchitectureormusic,ameaningless‘mix’ofimages.ThisisaworldinwhichonegoestoaMoroccanrestaurantinLasVegaswherethesoundsystemplaysJulioIglesiasandamanfromBombaydoesabellydancetoGreekmusic.Wehavebecomeimage-addictedandthepasthasbecomeourmainsourceofrelief.Post-modernarchitecturecontinuallymakesreferencestoclassical,Egyptian,artdecoorchildhoodimages.AChippendalemotifisreferredtoonPhilipJohnson’sATandTbuilding.Itistrendytobe‘neo-’.Nostalgiaisusedheavilyinmarketingeveythingfromclothestorecipes.Filmsinvolvingarchaeology(suchasIndianaJones)ortimetravel(asinBacktotheFuture)abound.Thispost-modernpastisoneofimagesandofthevicariousthrilloftimetravelintootherimages.Re-enactmentisthrivingandinNorthAmericatheSocietyforCreativeAnachronismisexpanding.Thisisnotapastinvolvingsequence,historyorevolution.TraditionalmuseumsinwhichartifactswerearrangedinlongtypologicalsequencescoveringcenturiesormillenniahavebeenreplacedbyavisittoaninstantfrozenintimeinVikingYorkwithallthesoundsandsmellsrelived—acommodified,contriveddepthlessness.Thereareanumberofcharacteristicsofarchaeologywhichmakeitsuitableinthepost-moderncontextoffragmented,decontextualisedtime.First,archaeologistsdigupfragments,bitsandpiecesofpotsandsocieties.Theprehistoricpastinparticularisdistantandweknowlittleofthecontextinwhichprehistoricobjectswereproduced.Thesematerialsignalsfromthepastaresignifiersfloatingfreefromanysignified,oddimageswithoutobviousmeaning.Andyettheyrequireinterpretation.Theyattractexplanation.Butthedistancebetweenpastobjectandpresentinterpretationcreatesanobviouslyconstructedimage.Apresentiscreatedwhichisaworldoftransientimages.Ourimageaddictionseeksjustanother‘other’,differenceforitsownsake.Second,theparadoxofthearchaeologicalobjectisthatitisrealandtactilesothatwhenweholdit,itseemstobringthepastcloseandtoallowustoexperienceanotherreality.Butatthesametime,thatotherrealityisdistantandunconnectedtothepresent.Toexperiencethepastinthiswayistoexperiencethethrilloftimetravel,anarchaeological’tourism’.Theclosenessoftheobjectwhichhasitselftravelledthroughtimeleadsustobelievewecandothesame.This‘I’veseenElvis’perspectiveisparticularlyevidentintheprocessofexcavationwherearchaeologistscanphysicallydigthroughtimeandseewhathappenedtherefromthephysicalremains.Third,thematerialityofthepastmeansthatitisripeforcommercialisation.Peoplelikecollectingthingsandthearchaeologicalpastisalreadyacommodity.Theobjectscanbeputondisplay,onmantel-piecesorinexpensiveglasscaseswithfocusedlighting,togivethemtheappearanceofvalue.Thepastispackagedand‘sold’asacommodity,bothfigurativelyandliterally.AtleastonecanbuyreplicasaswhenatYorvikthevisitleadstoashopandtothemintingandbuyingofyourownVikingcoin.Wenolongertalkof Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology238thepastorofhistorybutoftheheritageindustry.Localcouncilsandcommercialbusinessesareinterestedinstartingmuseumsbecausethepast‘sellswell’.Itbringsintouristsandcreateswealthandjobs.ThespeedofthetimecarsatYorkispreciselycalculatedtomaximiseprofit.IntheMuseumoftheIronAgeatAndoverthepastissensationalisedbyreferencetothebarbaric,weirdhabitsoftheCelts,inordertoattractvisitors.Fourth,archaeologistsoftenclaimthatincomparisonwithhistoricalevidencetheirdataallowaccesstopopular,non-eliteculture—totheeverydaylivesofpastmenandwomen.Certainlythematerialityofarchaeologicaldataallowsapopular,accessibleapproachtothepast.Muchpost-modernismseesasynthesisofhighandpopularartandculture(asinthemusicofPhilipGlass),oramixingofclassicalwithkitschorReadersDigestculture.Whereashistoryisabstractandoftenintellectual,archaeologicalobjectsareimmediatelyaccessibleandmoreopentocommodificationandconsumerism.Inthesevariouswaysarchaeologyiswellsuitedtothecommodifiedfragmentationcharacteristicofpost-modernism.Whatisthesocialcontextofthissituation?Tosomedegreethisnewviewofthepastcouldplayaradicalroleinunderminingclaimsaboutthepastpreferredbydominantgroups.Forexample,theauthoritarianviewofan‘English’Heritage,increasinglyproblematicinamulticulturalsociety,canbeopenedtoothervoicesinthemarket-place.Butonthewhole,asMerrimanhasshown,thepastrepresentedinmuseumsandheritageindustrieslargelyservestheinterestsofthebetter-educatedmiddleclasses.Onthewholeafragmentedpastdeconstructshistoricalconnectionsanddisempowersthosegroupswhotrytousethepasttofurthertheirsocialstrategies.Itproducesauniversalcultureinwhichourhistoriesdonotmeananything,exceptasnostalgiawhichisusuallyconservativeinthatithelpsustoacceptthepresent.Moregenerally,althoughpost-modernismmayattimesderivefromacritiqueofestablishedauthority,itquicklybecomespoliticallycomplacentandreinforcestheconsumersocietyoflatecapitalismasJameson,EagletonandHarveyhaveargued.Butthepost-modernworldisfarfromcoherent.Therearecontradictorytendencieswhichinvolveconflictingusesofthepast.ThepointisputwellbyEagleton(1985).Ontheonehand,Iamaconsumer(ofobjects,taste,culture,style,heritage)whoissupposedtobeadecentrednetworkofdesire.IamsupposedtoclosemyeyestothewayinwhichmydecentredconsumerismaffectstheunemployedandtheThirdWorld.Ontheotherhand,Iamafatherwhofacesproblemsofagency,duty,autonomy,authorityandsocialresponsibility.Inthissecond,decidedlynonpost-modernworldweclingtotruthsandideologies.Soalongsidethepost-moderncollapseofmetanarrativethereemergesacounteractingdesireforstory,formeaning.Itisparticularlyclearinarchaeologyandheritagethatsubordinategroupscreateconnectionswiththepastandtrytosituatethemselvesinrelationtotheirheritageinordertoformanalternativeidentity.Theywantthepasttotellastoryaboutthemselveswhichconfrontsthedominantpost-modernethic.Therearevariouswaysinwhichwecanseethisalternativeuseofaconnectedpastbysubordinategroups.First,inMerriman’ssurveyitbecameclearthatindividualswhodidnotfeelabletoparticipateinthedominantpost-modernheritagemightbeinterestedinlocalhistoryorgenealogy.Inthesewayspersonalorlocaltieswiththepasthelpedtosituatepeopleinthepresentandgivethemasenseofplace.Second,aroundtheworldarchaeologyisincreasinglybeingusedbyemergingnationsandethnicminoritiesto Archaeologyandthepost-modern239legitimatetheirclaimstolandortofurthertheircontemporarypoliticalexistence.ClearexamplesincludetheuseofthesiteofZimbabwe,theuseofarchaeologybyAustralianAboriginesorCanadianInuit,andtheclaimsbyAmericanIndiansforthereburialoftheirancestralremains(forotherexamplesseeLayton1989).WhiletheEuropeanexperiencehasshownthatnationalistusesofthepastcanalsoberepressive,linkstothepastcanalsobeliberating.Feministrereadingsofthepasthavealsodrawnattentiontotheimportanceofgenderrelationsinlong-termsocialchangeandchallengedourassumptionsaboutdivisionsoflabour(GeroandConkey1991).Third,thematerialityofthearchaeologicalpastallowssubordinategroupstogroundtheirclaimsinacertainobjectivity.Sincearchaeologistsdealnotonlywithinterpretationsofinterpretationsbutalsowithmaterialdata,itispossibletoclaim‘real’connectionswiththepast,toshowthe‘real’complexityofZimbabweortodemonstrate‘real’Aboriginesitesonthelandscape.Inthiswayitappearsasiffree-floatingsignifiersanduncoupledimagescanbecounteredwithhardevidencebyinterestedparties.Fourth,apastwhichisdistantbutwhichisneverthelessconnectedand‘real’hasagreatpotentialforthecritiqueofestablisheduniversalsandtaken-for-granteds.Inanincreasinglyhomogenisedworldthereisadangerthatweeradicateallcontemporary’others’.Asculturaldiversitythreatenstobereducedtoaworldsameness,thenotionthattheremightbeotherwaysofthinkingislesseasytomaintainandthepost-moderndispersalofmeaningcertainlycontributestoalackofunderstandingofthe‘other’.Itisespeciallythediscoveryofnewpastsbyarchaeologistswhichwillleaveopenthepossibilityforrecognisingdifferenceandforsituatingthepresentasaparticularproductofhistory.Thematerialdifferenceofthepast,aslongasitiscontextuallyboundandconnectedtous,helpswithanthropologytoensureagainstthepresumeduniversalityofwesternthought.Fifth,inaverypracticalwayarchaeologygetsinthewayofmasscommercialdevelopmentwhichseverspeoplefromtheirhistoriesandtheirlandscapes.Developersliterallytripupoverthepastastheyfindthatsomearchaeologicalsitestandsinthewayoftheirbuildingorquarryingprogramme.Partlybecauseoftheriseinawarenessofgreenissues,localplanningdepartmentsinEnglandincreasinglywithholdconsenttodevelopersuntilproperarchaeologicalenquiryhasbeencarriedout.Asaresultmostarchaeologyinthecountryisnowcarriedoutonacommercialbasisratherthanbypublicagencies.InmanywaysthischangeinthewayarchaeologyiscarriedoutinEnglandhasledtoapost-moderncommercialisationandtrivialisationofthepastasisseenalsointheUnitedStates.ButinEnglandatleast,popularinterestinlocalpastshasoftenproducedacounter-argumentthatdevelopmentshouldceaseorthatitshouldfundheritagedisplayswhichinthemidstofmodernshoppingmalls,townsandbuildingestatesmaintainlinksbetweenpeople,theirlandscapeandtheirheritage.Interpretiveorheritagecentresincreasinglyappearwhichmakeupthestatisticsofnewmuseumsbutwhichareoftennottermedmuseums.Theyaremoreconcernedwithtellingastorywhichgiveslocalpeopleasenseofplace.IcertainlyfoundworkingasanarchaeologistintheFensinCambridgeshirethatinafragmentedpost-modernworldsmalllocalcommunitieswerewillingtogotoenormouslengthstoretainaccesstoapastwhichwasmateriallyconnectedtothem.Theconsumerisedinstantthrillofapost-modernheritagedrawspeopleinand Theoryandpracticeinarchaeology240threatenstoalienatethemfromapasttowhichtheymightwishtobeconnected.Itiscertainlyintheinterestsofdevelopersanddominantgroupsinwesternsocietytocommercialisethepastandunderminetheclaimstolegitimacyinthepastmadebysubordinategroups.Butreallythetwosidesfeedoffeachother.Forexample,inthepubliccontroversyaboutthebuildingofanewtown,planningconsentmaybenegotiatedagainsttheconstructionofaheritagecentrewhichforthefirsttimegivespeoplealocalsenseofplace.Andafterall,thevisitortothefrozenmomentinVikingYorkisfirsttakenbackinatimecarthroughtheinterveningcenturiesandthecentreclaimsahistoricalintegrity.Themainreasonfortheheritageboomisthatanewpast,especiallythematerialpast,hasbecomethesiteofstrugglebetweentwoaspectsofpost-modernism.Thematerialheritageisanappropriatelocationfortheconflictbetweencontinuityanddiscontinuity,betweenthecontextualisedandthedecontextualised.Thepast,renamedheritage,isanimportantarenaforworkingouttheopposedclaimsofoursocialresponsibilitiesandourdecentredconsumerexistence.Archaeologyconfrontsamaterialrealitywithdisconnectedmeaningsandwiththedominantviewthat‘anythinggoes’.Heritageiscentraltotheissueofwhetherwearefloatingimagesorhistoricalagents.REFERENCESEagleton,T.(1985)‘Capitalism,modernismandpost-modernism’,NewLeftReview152,60-73.Gero,J.andConkey,M.(1991)EngenderingArchaeology:WomenandPrehistory,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Harvey,D.(1989)TheConditionofPost-modernity,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Hewison,R.(1987)TheHeritageIndustry,London:Methuen.Jameson,F.(1984)Tost-modernism,ortheculturallogicoflatecapitalism’,NewLeftReview146,53-92.Layton,R.(1989)ConflictintheArchaeologyofLivingTraditions,London:UnwinHyman.Lowenthal,D.(1985)ThePastisaforeignCountry,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Lyotard,J.-F.(1984)ThePost-modernCondition,Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Merriman,N.(1989)‘Heritagefromtheothersideoftheglasscase’,AnthropologyToday5(2),14-15. INDEXacademia1,114,119,122,138,169actsoflaw233,235adaptation23,65,75,82,83,84,86,90,94,100,102Aegean133Africa58,59,122,130agency77agrios152,210,216–9AmericanAnthropologicalAssociationxiiiAmericanIndian1,120,162,171,241anthropology169Arabs25arbitrariness11,74,94,152,175,177,180,181,183Archaeologia228,229,231,232archaeologyasadiscipline4,74,77,96,109,112,113,119,128,156;ashistorical115,116,117;aspolitical127,128,129,130,135,136,139,147,157,164,165,167,179;inthepresent176Australia109,241author136,141,163,164,166,176,229,233,235Bacon,F.234Bahn,P.seeRenfrew,C.Balfet,H.61Bapty,I.142,145Baringo25,59Barkaer62Barnhouse17Barrett,J.11,14,17,142;andBradley,R.andGreen,M.172Barstow,A.222Barth,F.95Barthes,R.162,181Bell,J.136Bender,B.211,222Betti,E.165Binford,L.13,22,77,82–,90,103,108,111,131,132,140,165;andSabloff,J.148,160Bintliff,J.13,129blacks119–22,162Bloch,M.36,178,180,182,183Bolivia79 Index242boundary24,29,91Bourdieu,P.92,93,179,182,183Bradley,R.186;seealsoBarrett,J.bricolage154Britain35,40,47,49–51,57,62,64,76,77,95,163,168–70,186,207,208Brittany45,47,62,65,95BronzeAge133,206,228BrzescKujawski47,49Bulgaria57burials14,29,35,100,202,206,213,215,217,225Burl,A.48,63Cambridge,2,75,113,138,162,170CatalHuyuk152,165,210,213–5,222,225categories23,24,91,154,178Cauvin,J.andCauvin,M.-C.210,219caveart65,66,90chaineoperatoires177,178ChannelIslands17,54Chapman,R.40,41,43Childe,V.21,26,29,31,45,57,85,98–101,108Chippendale,C.10Clark,G.54,64,83,98,99,100,101,108,162,234Clarke,D.xiii,29,30,83,86,89,91,111,162Cleere,H.234Collingwood,R.108,160,165Conkey,M.66,91,163;seealsoGero,J.andConkey,M.contextuality11,12,25,75,77,115,94,101,140,141,142,160,161,230CouncilforBritishArchaeology(CBA)228Crawford,O.51criticaltheory78,142,145Daniel,G.44,54,98–9,101,108Danube16,45,50,54,57,215dataandtheory,relationshipbetween78,109–10,115,131,150–1,153,155,160,185,191deconstruction145delayedreturns211,219Denmark47,58,62Derrida,J.141,143,162diffusion42Dilthey,W.164diversity76,148domesticationandthedomestic57–60,63,66,110,152,182,210–3,217–23domus151,152,210,212–3,215–9Donley,L.59Douglas,M.24,138 Index243Draper,P.222Duby,G.151Durkheim,E.82,86Eagleton,T.238,240Earle,T.13,128EasternBlock120,121,122,123Egypt115empiricism13,74,78,84,148England65,113,120,124,168,170,186EnglishHeritage169ethnoarchaeology37,58,88,102,112,131,177Evans,C.209exchange109,131,217,221Fabian,J.1feminism74,76,78,144–5,149,153,163,226,241Flannery,K.1,21,23,82,83,85,88,111,128,129,136;andMarcus,J.105,145,146Fleming,A.42,45Fletcher,R.87,91Foucault,M.2,4,77,143,152,162,234France40,50,53,58,62,65,168Friedman,J.andRowlands,M.J.36,77‘fringe’archaeology128,162,163Fritz,J.91,93functionalism82–6,89–90,92–4,97,99,100,128,149Fussell’sLodge47,49Gadamer,H.165Gailey,C.225gender2,78,143,221,224,226,241Germany40,46,47,51,100Gero,J.andConkey,M.2,4,78,145Giddens,A.75,90,92,93,178Gifford,D.178Goldstein,L.41Gould,R.41Green,M.seeBarrett,J.’green’issues169,238,241Griffith,G.228,230–1groovedware28Habermas,J.165,167Hacilar213,217Haddenham185,186,188,190,207Hastorf,C.150Hawaii128 Index244Hawkes,C.13,99,108,151Heidegger,M.164Hempel,C.84heritage168,169,170,238,240–1hermeneutics9,131,132,133,140,150,152,155,160,163–7,185,186–8,190–2,196,199,204–8,218,225Hill,J.D.208Hill,J.N.85Hodder,I.xii,11,85,90,128,136,137,141,142,149,160,161,163,165,166,175,222;TheDomesticationofEurope19,20,22,173–5,190,244,250,251,254,258,259,260;andLane,P.124;andOrton,C157;andShand,P.223‘SequencesofstructuralchangeintheDutchNeolithic’48,98,105,107,111,112,130;‘Theoreticalarchaeology’2,24,26,27,30,41,42,72,104,108,109;Hoedic42,53,65Hungary51,217hypotheses9,110,185,191–3,207,231Iberia40,65ideology9,25,43,77,96–7,108,119–23,150,161,165–7,180–2Iglesias,J.239India123individual86,89,92,94,100,129Ingold,T.64intention10,14Inuit241Iraq213Ireland65IronAge91,186,191,208,239Isbell,W.91Israel123Italy40,58Jameson,F.238,240Karanovo51,57Kenya59Kinnes,I.17,40,41KnapofHowar26,28,32,54knowledge178,179,180,183Koros57Kristeva,J.162Kujavia16,45,54Lane,P.seeHodder,I.language9,15,175,177,178,183LeGoff,J.151,224 Index245Leach,E.83,92,94,111leapsoffaith108,112Lengyel44,45,47,50,57Leone,M.89,108,167LepenskiVir41,54,215,217Leroi-Gourhan,A.91Levant213,217Lévi-Strauss,C.62,91,92,93Linearbandkeramik(LBK)44,45,47,48,50,53,57logic100Longacre,W.111Lowenthal,D.238Lyotard,J.238Madagascar25Madsen,T.47,64MaesHowe31,33,35Malinowski,B.82Malta62Marcus,J.seeFlanney,K.Marshak,A.91Marxism75,77,129,144,165,167,222;structural42,87Mascia-Lees,F.163materialculture9,43,97,101,148,149,175,183;asactive15,67,85,110,147,155;asmeaningful12,24,83,109,110,147,161,163,204,205,206;asstructured104,191;astext83,84;asutilitarian98meanings9,14,95,97,140,141,175,183,221;unrecognisedorunintended13megaliths40–3,64,66,98–9,224Mellaart,J.213,215men115,121,221–4Merriman,N.10,170,238,240Mesoamerica128Mesolithic65metaphor176,177,180,181,212,213,217,218Michelsberg57,61middle-rangetheory3,89,112,130,131Midgley,M.16Miller,D.92,94,113;andTilley,C.87mind,past12,13,108,128,132,167Mithen,S.129Montesquieu82Moore,H.183,224 Index246Muller,J.91,93multivocality115,142,144,149,178,186,187,195Natufian213NearEast210,212,217,218Neolithic26,30,35,94–5,100,152,domestication241–52;gender254–60;Haddenham214,215,217,219,220,237–40;tombs45–76Netherlands40,46,58NewArchaeologyxiii,9,42,82,85,86,89,91,96,97,100,102,108,111,114,136NewGrange230NewMexico91Nietzsche,F.162norms,normativeviewofculture22,74,85,86,92,95,98,99,100,128,136NorthAmericaxiii,3,78,79,86,96,116,160,165,167,168,170,241,121,122,123,171Nuba11,21,23,24,25,92,138Nunamiut86Olsen,B.141,162OneWorldArchaeology168Orkney16–7,26–31,35,50,54,55,57,64,95Orton,C.seeHodder,I.‘other’130,155,163,164,165,166,170,239Palaeolithic66,210;Upper74,257Parker-Pearson,M.113,116Passy17Patrik,L.141,167patterning15,78,90,198,206Pelegrin,J.178Pettit,P.93Piaget,J.93Piggott,S.40,48,51,98,99,101,232–3Pitt-Rivers,A.150,178,232,234Poland16,47,51positivismxiii,14,74,75,77,78,129,130,132,133,148,152,166,224post-modernism136,162,163,238,241Postoloprty47,50,56,57post-processualismxiii,74,75,76,77,78,114,128–30,134,136–7,140,142,148,150,161post-structuralism161,77,141–4,156,162,163,183pottery57,60,94power4,59,77,97,143,144,149,155,161,217,221,222,224–5,233power-knowledge-truth143,152Pownall,T.230 Index247praxis,2–4,148prediction88prestigeobjects10,14,90,109,201,217processualism22,26,41,42,248,74,75,76,84,86,92,95,97,108,110,128,129,130,131,132,133,136,137,140,148,150,160,161,167public113,116Quanterness17,26–33,54Quoyness28,31,33Radcliffe-Brown,A.82,85,101relativism75,78,148,152,155,156,163Renfrew,C.14,26,35,40–1,83,108,109,128,133–,136,162,168,186;andBahn,P.147Richards,C.17;andThomas,J.172Ricoeur,P.149,155,166,176Rinyo26,28,30Ritchie,J.26ritual35,186,188,193,197,202,203,205,207Romans228,230,231Rossen43,46,49,56,57Rousay32Rowlands,M.J.1,63,142;seealsoFriedman,J.andRowlands,M.J.Russia,210Sabloff,J.seeBinford,L.Said,E.1Saussure,F.92Saxe,A.41,43Scandinavia40,49–51,62,65,77,115,121Schiffer,M.1,3,87,128,131Schleiermacher,F.164science9,12,119,128,156,163,171,229ScillyIsles65Scotland48Scruton,R.186Seine-Oise-Marneculture52,58,225separationoftheoryandpractice2,3,115Severn-Cotswoldgroup47,49,233Shand,P.seeHodder,I.Shanks,M.162;andTilley,C.86,87,108,112,145,160,164,165,166,187,189,196Shennan,S.64,66,99Sherratt,A.17,60,217SkaraBrae26–31,36,50,54,57socialtheory57 Index248SocietyofAmericanArchaeologyxiii,119,121,122SocietyofAntiquaries229,230Soudsky,47,56,57,61SouthAfrica3,79,119–23,144,171SouthAmerica91,122SouthLodge232Southampton120,121,122Spain51,136specificity2Sperber,D.2statistics88,90Stenness17,26,28,33Stichbandkeramik44,46,56Stonehenge11stories154,156,229,235,240,241strawpersonsxii,136structuralism9,23,75,77,92,93,94,95,100,128,175structure36,89,90,91,97,161,197,200,212Switzerland57symbolism57,23,55,74,94–6,128–5,136,149,150,151,168,175–6,210,212,213,215,216,221,222,224,225symbols180systemstheory21–2,28,82–5,89,110taken-for-grantedsxiii,3,4,119,142,166,241Tarlow,S.176Teviec42,54,65text140,141,145,149,155,160,162,165,166,183,229,230,233Thevenot,J.-P.17‘thickdescription’12,18,151thirdworld120,121,122,123Thomas,J.144,208;seealsoRichards,C.Tilley,C.94,142,143,162,175;seealsoMiller,D.,Shanks,M.tombs16,17,29,31,42,62,95,218;ashouses20,49,50–9,62,69,73,171Torrence,R.180tradition100,165,167traditionalarchaeology98,101Trichterrandbecherkultur(TRB)57,58,62,63treasurehunters113Trigger,B.1,101,128Turkey213,217,222Turner,V.35,36values76,78,143,144,169vandeVelde,P.91 Index249variability86,154,200Varna217verification14,16–7,97,110,112,129–31,132,140Washburn,D.23,91,93Watson,P.128,130,131,133,140,152,161WestKennet232westernisation169White,H.xiii,235whites115,120,121,144,160,251wholeness21,36,151women58–63,67,116,120–1,160,165,169,170,182,210,212,215,216,219,221–5Woodburn,J.211WorldArchaeologicalCongress2,79,119,120,122writing143Wylie,A.74,94,130,131,148Yates,T.141,145Yorvikcentre,York168,238,239,241Zambia25Zimbabwe241