post-processual approaches to meanings and uses of

PAUL A. SHACKEL BARBARA J. LITTLE

Post-Processual Approaches to Meanings and Uses of Material Culture in Historical Archaeology

ABSTRACT

Discussions of post-processual archaeology are summarized in order to suggest that historical archaeology is in a particularly good position to answer the post-processual critiques of the “new” archaeology and to create a contextual archaeology that is both historically and anthropologically informed and relevant. The work of four scholars is noted as particularly influential in the development of post-processual approaches.

Current debates within archaeology as a whole, and within historical archaeology in particular, question what is and is not possible and desirable for the disciplines. The Society for Historical Archae- ology marked its 20-year anniversary with soul- searching. The 1987 plenary session, meant to explore the discipline’s potential, proposed with tentative optimism the hope that historical archaeology could indeed address “questions that count” and matter to anyone outside the discipline. In a wider sense, “new” or processual archaeology is being challenged from several viewpoints, gener- ally lumped together as “post processual” archae-

The point of this introductory essay is to place the articles that follow within the context of these debates. The common concern of these papers with qualitative interpretation-rather than prima- rily quantitative explication, with meaning, with active symbolic uses of material culture, and often with ideology, labels them as post-processual. They therefore have contributions to make both to current epistemological negotiations within archaeology as a whole and to the definitions of questions that count within historical archaeology.

There are various summaries and descriptions of

ology.

the challenges to processual archaeology, illustrat- ing the archaeological truism that there are as many possible typologies as there are archaeologists. Hodder 1985, 1986, 1987a, 1991), Miller and Tilley (1984), Leone (1986), Shennan (1986), Shanks and Tilley (1987), Earle and Preucel (1987), Watson and Fotiadis (1990), Patterson (1990a, 1990b), and Preucel(1991c) are represen- tative of those who seek to explain post-processual archaeology. Yet they do not represent all compelling critiques of processual archaeology. Feminist archaeology in particular, which is often omitted in post-processual critiques, provides an increasingly influential perspective that must be acknowledged. A discussion is beyond the scope of this summary though, and is provided elsewhere in the literature (e.g., Gero 1983; Conkey and Spector 1984; Spec- tor and Whelan 1989; Little 1990, 1993; Gero and Conkey 1991).

In the 1980s, post-processus1 archaeology arose out of dissatisfaction with the new archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s. Miller and Tilley (1984:2) list the following complaints against the New Archae- ology: uncritical acceptance of positivism, stress on functionalism and environmental adaptation, be- haviorist emphasis on biological directives, disdain for emphasis on social relations or cognition or ideology, lack of concern for the present social production of knowledge, overemphasis on stabil- ity rather than conflict, reduction of social change to effects of external factors, and belief in quanti- fication as the goal of archaeology. The charge made by post-processual archaeologists, summed up, is that “archaeology has become so rational it is dehumanized. Much of the best of archaeology has become not only mechanical but almost devoid of cultural context” (Leone 1986:432). There is a reaction against explanations that are mechanical, whether they are materially or mentally biased. Neither ecological determinism nor structuralism adequately addresses the concerns of post-processualism. It is frustrating that to a large extent “Ar- chaeologists have yet to realize the power of the understanding that the essence of human-and, hence, cultural-life is that it is both material and symbolic simultaneously” (Conkey and Spector 1984:24).

6

This simultaneity provides the basis for one of the most compelling aspects of post-processualism that has come from the intellectual influence of post-structuralism. That goal is breaking apart dichotomies that have served as givens for structuralist interpretation. All dichotomies are subject to splitting and reintegration, but it is breaking the idealist-materialist explanatory distinction that is one of the major goals of Hodder’s (1986) program in Reading the Past. Hodder also identifies other major characteristics of an approach that seeks to answer the critiques made against processualism. Contextual post-processual) archaeology pays attention to historical context and change and to social and physical environments; acknowledges the active participant, active material culture, and the active archaeologist in the present; focuses on meaning; and conceives of the archaeological record as text or discourse.

In a commentary on what they see as a unidi- mensional post-processual approach, Earle and Preucel (1987:501) comment that the radical critique “rejects the scientific method and general laws and, as alternatives to positivism, explores the utility of symbolic, structural, and structural Marxist perspectives. And yet post-processual archaeology, at least in its initial, basic conceptu- alization, does not reject general laws (Hodder 1987a), but instead recognizes general theories of structuration, symbolic meaning, ideology, and power. More recent discussions also emphasize the importance of grounded data (Hodder 1991) and the strong empiricist thread (Preucel 1991a:12) in many post-processual approaches.

In the same general positivist vein as Earle and Preucel, Shennan (1986:327-356) critiques what he sees as a single new approach. He interprets the core of the post-processual approach as a synthesis between neo-Marxism and symbolic-structuralism, in which neo-Marxism contributes to ideas of ideology and culture change, and the symbolic-structural approach lends ideas of ways to approach material culture. The approaches complement each other with their common denominators of rejecting the systems approach and using ideology to understand material culture and society. Patterson (1990b), however, prefers to distinguish Marxist

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26

approaches as separate and argues that Marxist analyses have long been used and are not necessarily post-processual .

There are also several typologies that recognize a variety of different strains within post-processual archaeology. The work of Watson and Fotiadis (1990) contrasts cognitive, structural, and symbolic approaches with critical and Marxist approaches. The latter, which are materialistic and concerned with ideology, do not deny either real cultural pro- cess or the scientific method but do deny scientific neutrality. The first set views material culture as text and is focused on the interpretation (rather than testing) of structure, symbols, and, most impor- tantly, intracultural meaning.

Watson understands cognitive, structural, and symbolic archaeology as “post-processual’ but in a much less radical way than does Patterson (1990a), who similarly contrasts critical approaches born of the Frankfort school with post- structural approaches. Critical theory argues that interpretations and uses of the past are not value- free but are influenced by contemporary political agendas (Wylie 1985; Leone et al. 1987). Patter- son identifies two sorts of post-structural approaches. The first views the archaeological record as text to be decoded, reifying the individual and privileging the archaeologist as interpreter. This approach stresses the importance of the individual. Collingwood’s historical approach is often cited as the ancestor to this development (Hodder 1985). Scholars such as Barthes, Bourdieu, Geertz, Giddens, and Ricoeur are incorporated in post-processual analyses to disclose meanings and discourses. The second approach incorporates the works of Michel Foucault to analyze group con- flicts and relations of power and domination Miller and Tilley 1984; Shanks and Tilley 1987; Tilley 1990). Patterson interprets all post-processual archaeology as necessarily rejecting structuralism and symbolic anthropology and engaging, with post-modernism, a philosophical stance that rejects meta-narratives (cf. Lyotard 1984), that is, the nonvulgar ideology that encompasses cultural givens and cultural common sense. Patterson is in direct contrast with Watson and Fotiadis (1990: 614), who see the “concern with cognitive sys-

POST-PROCESSUAL APPROACHES TO MEANINGS AND USES 7

tems” as rooted in earlier concerns and therefore not presenting a necessary break with processual paradigms and procedures.

Leone (1986) provides an earlier typology in which he contrasts symbolic, structural, and critical approaches. Although both Watson and Patter- son see his first two categories somewhat differ- ently, all three agree on distinguishing a critical approach from other approaches. Symbolic, structural, and critical approaches, Leone argues, share common issues concerning recursive culture, concern with meaning, critique of the function of positivism and science, and a critique of positivism. Preucel (1 99 1 furnishes a simpler classification, contrasting hermeneutic and critical theory against positivist approaches.

It is clear that the challenges to processual archaeology are not easily simplified and standardized into bounded categories. It is also obvious that the kinds of goals espoused by various post-processualists-particularly concerns with meanings, symbols, cognition, power, and historical context-are much more completely and convincingly achieved within historical archaeology. Hodder writes that:

It is partly for this reason [need for a great deal of contextual data] that historical archaeology is an ‘easier’ approach . . . the richer data allow more similarities and differences to he sought along more relevant dimensions of variation (Hodder 1986:141).

Watson and Fotiadas (1990:615) also write, “It has not escaped the notice of processualists, and others who are not persuaded by the symbolic- structuralist post-processualists, that virtually all of their published work so far has been within or has relied heavily upon ethnographic and historical data Leone and Potter 1988).”

From the quite cogent and telling critiques of processual archaeology and from the various post- processual approaches, historical archaeologists can compose a compelling program in contextual archaeology that is both historically and anthropologically informed and relevant. The focus of these approaches on historical and socio-cultural con- texts is particularly important as archaeologists seek to recreate and interpret human behavior and

intention. Understanding the activeness of material culture as it is used by people is essential for such interpretation. Although processual and descrip- tive approaches have dominated the field of historical archaeology since the 1960s, they are not the only viable approaches to historic sites and arti- facts. Post-processualism works in historical archaeology because its demands are for an historically-situated social science that recognizes the contingencies of history and knowledge. The ‘‘questions that count” in historical archaeology will be questions that begin to address these demands.

Many historical archaeologists have already taken up the challenge; there are some studies that explore the active and symbolic nature of material culture. Those that include more than abstract theory and seek to ground explanation in solid historical and archaeological data are still rare. Many of the historical archaeologists who have taken on the challenge practice the sort of cognitive-structural- symbolic archaeology described by Watson and do not necessarily break with time-honored models. For instance, Deetz’s (1977) adaptation of Glass-

(1975) structural approach to describe changes in world view seen in architecture, gravestones, ceramics, and other items in 17th- and 18th-century New England is still quite influential. Work in this general cognitive-structural-symbolic tradition also includes, for example, that of Leone (1977, 1984, 1988), Hodder (1987b, 1987c), Ingersoll and Bronitsky (1987), Leone and Potter (1988), Beaudry (1988, 1989), Little and Shackel (1989), Praetzellis and Praetzellis (1989), and Burley (1989).

Compelling aspects of post-processual approaches can be seen in most of the typologies cited earlier. However, none of those typologies exactly fits either the articles in this collection or studies in historical archaeology as a whole. For example, Patterson (1990a) distinguishes approaches that focus on the individual from those that focus on power, but quite often-as seen in many of the papers here Driscoll’s use of Barrett [1981], this volume)-individual agency and power, or the desire for power, are closely intertwined.

8

Four scholars whose works have been most influential in the development of a post-processual historical archaeology are the English sociologist Anthony Giddens (1976, 1979, 1981), French anthropologist-turned-sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1977, 1984), English anthropologist Mary Doug- las (1966; Douglas and Isherwood 1979), and French philosopher Michel Foucault (1979). Their work has been successfully incorporated into interpretation by several archaeologists Barrett 1981; Tilley 1982; Davis 1984; Miller 1987; Wall 1991; and the authors in this volume).

Giddens’ (1976) and Douglas’ , 1966; Doug- las and Isherwood 1979) work points up the active quality of social life. Douglas’ symbolic anthropology is drawn upon by several authors in this collection. The actions of the individual and of the group are interrelated and dynamic and are therefore always reproducing and changing society. Ac- cording to Giddens, structures are in a continual state of structuration, of being created, with meaning established as it is needed. Such meaning is neither haphazard nor ever truly fixed. Because material culture is endowed with symbolic meaning, it can be actively used to create and reproduce society. As one of its many functions material culture plays an essential and effective role in provid- ing a medium of social domination to legitimate the social order in structuring society Tilley 1982).

Useful to much recent work is Bourdieu’s (1977) explanation of habitus and its applicability to material culture studies. Habitus, as the inter- action between the unconscious and the physical world, is learned and reinforced through interac- tion. Symbolic meaning plays an important role in creating a strategy for the structuring of relations in society. The creation of hierarchies with classification systems is incorporated into ideologies of power. The ability to read the meanings of objects, combined with past experience, makes an object culturally accepted or rejected by individuals or by groups. Although Bourdieu’s work is not concerned mainly with the role of material goods in society, Bourdieu

constantly affirms the effectiveness of order embodied in details such as dress, body movement and manners, and

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26 argues that it is a function of the mundane artifact almost always to be regarded as an example of mere “trivia” un- worthy of systematic academic study (Miller 1987:105).

Michel Foucault’s work becomes particularly useful in the historical archaeology of modern life. Foucault argues that with the Enlightenment came new institutional structures such as schools, fami- lies, and insane asylums that maintained class he- gemony. A new surveillance technology enabled superordinates to monitor and guide the move- ments and actions of subordinates. According to Foucault, power is intricately linked to social relations. Social relations are based on power and therefore shape and create forms of social interac- tion (Tilley 1990:287-288).

Continued discussion of issues addressed within post-processual archaeology has resulted in an almost overwhelming expansion of the number of authorities invoked in the development of theoretical stances. A perusal of the references cited by the contributors to Preucel’s (1991~) recent work reveals many names heretofore far removed from archaeological concerns. As Hodder (1991:8) re- marks, however, it is necessary to move beyond theoretical posturing. It is time to concentrate on issues such as power relations, social negotiation, symbolic manipulation, reification, and contemporary social context. A focus on the meanings and uses of material culture supplies a concrete way to examine these issues. It is important to note that theoretical and methodological approaches to such issues vary. Hodder (1991: 15) writes that “interpretive approaches at least try to understand the other in its own terms in that they look for internal rather than external criteria of plausibility.”

In contrast to some critiques, post-processual approaches do not eschew general law; nor do they avoid the constraints of data. It is impossible to disallow all general laws in explanations or de- scription of societies outside the researchers’ direct experience. Expectations that humans experience the world through their cultural constructions have led to seemingly widely acceptable, if not yet widely used, theories of structuration and the meaningful roles of material culture. It is important to realize, however, that goods are not equally meaningful in all times and places.


Ideology. Fields of Discourse. Structure. Mean- ing. Commodity. Symbol. Recursivity . Negotia- tion. New conceptual constructs require new vo- cabularies and rethinking of old. In spite of new key words, the reader should note that the vocab- ulary of post-processual archaeology is not fixed. It is not final. The dialogue is still fresh, still vol- atile, still experimental. While competition en- courages standardization, it should be understood by those doing post-processual archaeology that the approach is not ready to be standardized and formalized. Perhaps the debate and seeming disor- der are marks of a mature discipline. Has archaeology truly lost its innocence as it “gains maturity by being fully integrated into wider contemporary debates” (Hodder 1986:ix)? Has the discipline re- ally gained the maturity “to allow diversity, con- troversy, and uncertainty” (Hodder 1986:x)?

REFERENCES BARRETT, JOHN C.

1981 Aspects of the Iron Age in Atlantic Scotland: A Case Study in the Problems of Archaeological Interpreta- tion. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 111:205-219.

BEAUDRY, MARY C. 1989 The Lowell Boott Mills Complex and Its Housing:

Material Expressions of Corporate Ideology. Histor- ical Archaeology 23(1):19-32.

BEAUDRY, MARY C. (EDITOR) 1988 Documentary Archaeology in the New World. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

BOURDIEU , PIERRE 1977

1984

Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, England. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, translated by Richard Nice. Harvard Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

BURLEY, DAVID V. 1989 Function, Meaning, and Context: Ambiguities in Ce-

ramic Use by the Hivernant Metis of the Northwest Plains. Historical Archaeology 23( 1):97-106.

CONKEY, MARGARET W. , AND JANET D. SPECTOR 1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances

in Archaeological Methods and Theory, Vol. 7, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, 1-38. Academic Press, New York.

DAVIS, WHITNEY 1984 Representation and Knowledge in the Prehistoric

Rock Art of Africa. African Archaeological Review

DEETZ, JAMES 1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of

Early American Life. Anchor Press/Doubleday , New York.

DOUGLAS, MARY 1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pol-

lution and Taboo. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Lon- don.

DOUGLAS, MARY, AND BARON ISHERWOOD 1979 The World of Goods. Basic Books, New York.

EARLE, TIMOTHY, AND ROBERT PREUCEL 1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique.

Current Anthropology 28(4):501-527.

FOUCAULT, MICHEL

GERO, JOAN

1979 Discipline and Punish. Vintage Books, New York.

1983 Gender Bias in Archaeology: A Cross Cultural Per- spective. In The Socio-Politics of Archaeology, edited by J. Gero, D. Lacy, and M. L. Blakey. De- partment of Anthropology Research Report No. 23: 5 1-57. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mas- sachusetts.

GERO, JOAN, AND MARGARET CONKEY (EDITORS) 199 1 Women and Prehistory: Engendering Archaeology.

Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

GIDDENS, ANTONY 1976 New Rules of Sociological Method. Hutchinson,

London. 1979 Central Problems in Social Theory. Macmillan,

London. 1981 A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism.

Macmillan, London.

GLASSIE, HENRY 1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. University of Ten-

nessee Press, Knoxville.

HODDER, IAN 1985 Postporcessual Archaeology. In Advances in Archae-

ological Methods and Theory, Vol. 8 , edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 1-26. Academic Press, New York.

1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

1987a Comment on Timothy Earle and Robert Preucel, Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology 28(4):501-527. Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American An- tiquity 56(1):7-18.

1991

10

HODDER, IAN (EDITOR) 1987b The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 1987c Archaeology as Long-term History. Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, Cambridge, England.

INGERSOLL, DANIEL., J R . , AND GORDON BRONITSKY (EDITORS)

1987 Mirror and Metaphor: Material and Social Con- structions of Reality. University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland.

LEONE, MARK P. 1977

1984

1986

1988

The New Mormon Temple in Washington, D.C. In Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Mate- rial Things, edited by Leland Ferguson. Special Pub- lication Series No. 2:43-61. Society for Historical Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania. Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Us- ing the Rules of Perspective in the William Paca Garden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited by Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, pp. 25-35. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, England. Symbolic, Structural and Critical Archaeology. In American Archaeology Past and Future, edited by D. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, pp. 415-438. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washing- ton, D.C. The Relationship between Archaeological Data and the Documentary Record: 18th-Century Gardens in Annapolis, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 22( 1): 29-35.

LEONE, MARK P. , AND PARKER B. POTTER, JR. (EDITORS)

1988 The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

LEONE, MARK P., PARKER POTTER, JR. , AND

PAUL A. SHACKEL 1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropol-

ogy 28(3):823-302.

LITTLE, BARBARA J . 1990 Post-Processual Archaeology and the Hermaphro-

ditic Mind. Paper presented at the 89th Annual Meet- ing of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans, Louisiana. “She was an example to her Sex” Possibilities for Feminist Historical Archaeology. In The Historic Chesapeake: Archaeological Contributions, edited by Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little. Smithso- nian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., in press.

1993

LITTLE, BARBARA J . , AND PAUL A. SHACKEL

1989 Scales of Historical Anthropology: An Archaeology

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26

LYOTARD, JEAN-FRANCOIS 1984 The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge,

translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

MILLER, DANIEL 1987 Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Basil

Blackwell, Oxford.

MILLER, DANIEL, AND CHRISTOPHER TILLEY 1984 Ideology, Power, and Prehistory: An Introduction.

In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited by Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, pp. 1-15. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

PATTERSON, THOMAS C. 1990a History and the Post-Processual Archaeologies. Man

1990b Some Theoretical Tensions within and between the Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies. Jour- nal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 189-200.

241555-566.

PRAETZELLIS, ADRIAN, AND MARY PRAETZELLIS 1989 ‘‘Utility and Beauty Should Be One”: The Land-

scape of Jack London’s Ranch of Good Intentions. Historical Archaeology 23( 1):33 -44.

PREUCEL, ROBERT W. 1991a

1991b

Introduction. In Processual and Postprocessual Ar- chaeologies, Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by Robert W. Preucel. Center for Archaeologi- cal Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 101-14. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. The Philosophy of Archaeology. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies, Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by Robert W. Preucel. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occa- sional Paper No. 1017-29. Southern Illinois Uni- versity, Carbondale.

PREUCEL, ROBERT W. (EDITOR) 1991c Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies, Mul-

tiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Center for Archae- ological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 10. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

SHANKS, MICHAEL, AND CHRISTOPHER TILLEY 1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology. Theory and Practice.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

SHENNAN, STEPHEN 1986 Toward a Critical Archaeology? Proceedings of the

Prehistoric Society 52:327-356. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, England.

SPECTOR, JANET D., AND MARY K. WHELAN

1989 Incorporating Gender into Archaeology Courses. In Gender and Anthropology, Critical Reviews for Re- search and Teaching, edited by Sandra Morgen, pp. 65-94. American Anthropological Association,

of Colonial Anglo-America. Antiquity 63:495 -509. Washington, D . C .


TILLEY, CHRISTOPHER WYLIE, ALISON 1982 Social Formation, Social Structures and Social 1985 Putting Shakertown Back Together: Critical Theory

in Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archae- Change. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology,

versity Press, Cambridge, England. Michel Foucault: Towards an Archaeology of Ar- chaeology. In Reading Material Culture: Structural- ism, Hermeneutics and Post-Structuralism, edited by Christopher Tilley, pp. 28 1-347. Basil Blackwell,

edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 26-38. Cambridge Uni- ology 4:133-147.

1990

London.

WALL, DIANA DIZEREGA 1991 Sacred Dinners and Secular Teas: Constructing Do-

mesticity in Mid-19th-Century New York. Historical Archaeology 25(4):69-8 1.

The Razor’s Edge: Symbolic-Structuralist Archaeol- ogy and the Expansion of Archaeological Inference. American Anthropologist 92(3):613 -629.

WATSON, PATTY Jo, AND MICHAEL FOTIADIS 1990

BARBARA J. LITTLE

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20142

DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

PAUL A. SHACKEL DIVISION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

P.O. Box 65 HARPERS FERRY. WEST VIRGINIA 24524

HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

post-processual approaches to meanings and uses of

Documents