The Razor's Edge: Symbolic‐Structuralist Archeology and the Expansion of Archeological Inference

Abstract

In this two-part article, Watson summarizes and discusses a number ofnew themes in the literature on archeological theory with critical emphasis on symbolic-structural approaches. Fotiadis comments by applying a structuralist analysis to Watson's argument.N 1973, THE BRITISH THEORISTDAVIDCLARKEcharacterized archeologyas "an undis-I ciplined empirical discipline." The undisciplined part of his description is as apt now as it was then, but the characterization of archeology as empirical is currently subject to qualification.The strong central tendencies of 19th and early 20th century archeology (chronology, art history or history of architecture, and narrative cultural history) have given way in the past 20 years to discussion and debate-oral and in print-concerning every aspect of archeological method and theory. The very existence of the archeological record has been questioned (Patrik 1985), and some archeologists no longer seek to know the past, whereas others seem to believe that, in any case, the past is ultimately inaccessible.By now, there are numerous archeological schools, scholarly bands, or working groups intently pursuing a variety of approaches, a few of which are mutually exclusive and a few others of which are not even primarily focused on the human past. I provide a brief overview of this rather bewildering array before taking a more detailed look at one portion of it: symbolic-structuralist archeology. PATTY JO WATSON is Professor, Department of Anthropology, Washington Uniuersity, St. Louis, M O 63130. MICHAEL FO-TIADIS is Assistant Professor-Postdoctoral Scholar, Michigan Society of Fellows, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, M I 48109. 613 614 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [92, 1990of these and related new research foci called their kind of archeology "new archeology" or "processual archeology."By 1980, a variety of critical reactions to new archeology arose on both sides of the Atlantic: (1) Inadequate attention was paid to site-formational processes; that is, how a living community becomes an archeological site, and what cultural and noncultural forces affect it before an archeologist gets there. (2) The philosophy of science and the scientific method were oversimplified, or misinterpreted. (3) No attention was paid to the cultural meanings of material objects, and to the interplay between the symbol systems and the artifacts created by past human groups. New archeology dehumanized the study of the human past, and completely ignored ideology. (4) All causes for change or development through time were sought (and found) in the category of eco-utilitarian or environmental mechanisms (e.g., population increase or climatic change). (5) The research and results of new archeology were biased by the sociopolitical contexts of its practitioners.Ian Hodder ( 1985) uses the phrase "postprocessualist archaeology" to include the approaches grounded by the most radical of those criticisms.

Re-visiting the field: Collaborative archaeology as paradigm shift

“…During the 1980s, this vulnerability was fully exploited by British archaeologists who claimed that the study of symbols and meaning fell within the purview of archaeology (Hodder 1982) while others rallied under a banner protesting the tyranny of positivism in archaeological logic and interpretation (Wobst 1978;Wylie 2002, among others). Viewed by some processualists as flirting with nihilism (Watson and Fotiadis 1990), the postprocessual turn ushered in the first hints of greater inclusiveness in the production of archaeological knowledge.…”

Scale in archaeology, geosciences, and geoarchaeology

“…Philosophers of science, especially Thomas Kuhn (1962), argue that early work in each discipline gives rise to disciplinary paradigms. The notion of a disciplinary paradigm has provoked a great deal of controversy (e.g., in archaeology see Carrithers, 1990;Pinsky and Wylie, 1989;Watson et al, 1971Watson et al, , 1984Watson and Fotiadis, 1990, in geology see Albritton, 1963;Engelhardt and Zimmermann, 1988;Schumm, 1991;Watson, 1966Watson, , 1969, but a paradigm is generally thought of as indicating both the methods and techniques used to solve problems and the kinds of problems deemed appropriate for study in a given discipline. Researchers operating within a discipline agree about which problems are to be examined and about the nature of the variables to be used.…”

Ozymandias, King of Kings: Postprocessual Radical Archaeology as Critique

“…55, No. 4, 1990 responses to postprocessualism in archaeology, see Binford (1986,1987,1989), Chippendale (1988), Earle and Preucel (1987), Shanks and Tilley (1989), Watson (1990aWatson ( , 1990b, Wylie (1989,1990), and Schiffer (1988).…”